Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

[Jimmy_Tango]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
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!

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

ZEB, according to you, there are no valid reasons for gay marriage. Which is fine. Which also why I gave up trying to argue this so long ago. It’s not like such a logical debate can be decided in a forum here. Or in a stupid opinion poll like you so often (and pointlessly) quote.

Well, guess what? According to me, you don’t have any valid reasons for not making same sex marriages legal! So there!

We both have different criteria for determining what is “valid” and what is not. I think the cases I stated are reasonably valid assumptions as to why it should be legalized. I see the benefits outweighing the possible detriments in legalization. You don’t. Optimist. Pessimist. Whatever.

Both sides are trying to put the owness on the other to “prove” their case. But it’s not going to happen when . Sounds like a deadlock to me.

I just can’t stand it when people use logical fallacies to back up their argument. In the beginning, that was what seemed to dominate the thread. I still have many problems with the logical jumps that people make, but if you haven’t figured it out by now why exactly, then I’m not going to provide another primer like I did before.

ZEB, you and your cohorts are lazy debaters. You rarely verify your stats (or your arithmetic) and the exact meaning of those statistics. It wasn’t until after I showed up that you actually started citing a few sources, which is great, but now you lord over them as if they are the final say.

Many of the numbers you use don’t really mean anything. The FACT that however many percent of gay people have AIDS or are violent or whatever, doesn’t really mean anything, not if we as a society are giving marriage rights to serial killers, drug users, terminally ill persons, etc. You could tell me 100% of gay people had AIDS and physically abused their partners, and I’d still say that the law should be extended to them as well because if you really want to protect society, then you’d have to take marriage away from all harmful demographics… (good luck)… but it would otherwise be a discriminatory practice.

Being gay is not harmful in itself–the presence of many healthy and well-adjusted homosexuals proves that. However, many behaviours associated with being gay (anal sex, increased drug use, etc.) are harmful, but they are harmful in ways that are experienced by people irregardless of their sexual orientation. AIDS affects everyone. Drug addiction is detrimental to everyone. Physical abuse is no less horrible whether you’re straight or gay.

If you want to quibble over the percentage points, fine, but they don’t prove anything. Most people find an argument that relies on a list of “tendencies” with associated percentages (all comparable to norms or comprising of an exceedingly small minority of the total gay population) for most of its weight to be exasperatingly bereft of any logical proof.

Your arbitrary definition of behaviour versus genetics as being the benchmark for granting rights is also short-sided and overly simplistic. I keep saying that religion is a behaviour and it has many rights protected by law extended to those who PRACTICE it, and you never once could explain why religion, AS A BEHAVIOR, is exempt from your own definition. So, what’s the deal?

Unless you can do better, I see no point in continuing, just like I saw that there was no point in continuing before.

[Lorisco]

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB wrote:
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!

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

After reading your post I might join you.

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

ZEB, according to you, there are no valid reasons for gay marriage. Which is fine. Which also why I gave up trying to argue this so long ago. It’s not like such a logical debate can be decided in a forum here. Or in a stupid opinion poll like you so often (and pointlessly) quote.

Well, guess what? According to me, you don’t have any valid reasons for not making same sex marriages legal! So there!

We both have different criteria for determining what is “valid” and what is not. I think the cases I stated are reasonably valid assumptions as to why it should be legalized. I see the benefits outweighing the possible detriments in legalization. You don’t. Optimist. Pessimist. Whatever.

Both sides are trying to put the owness on the other to “prove” their case. But it’s not going to happen when . Sounds like a deadlock to me.

I just can’t stand it when people use logical fallacies to back up their argument. In the beginning, that was what seemed to dominate the thread. I still have many problems with the logical jumps that people make, but if you haven’t figured it out by now why exactly, then I’m not going to provide another primer like I did before.

ZEB, you and your cohorts are lazy debaters. You rarely verify your stats (or your arithmetic) and the exact meaning of those statistics. It wasn’t until after I showed up that you actually started citing a few sources, which is great, but now you lord over them as if they are the final say.

Many of the numbers you use don’t really mean anything. The FACT that however many percent of gay people have AIDS or are violent or whatever, doesn’t really mean anything, not if we as a society are giving marriage rights to serial killers, drug users, terminally ill persons, etc. You could tell me 100% of gay people had AIDS and physically abused their partners, and I’d still say that the law should be extended to them as well because if you really want to protect society, then you’d have to take marriage away from all harmful demographics… (good luck)… but it would otherwise be a discriminatory practice.

Being gay is not harmful in itself–the presence of many healthy and well-adjusted homosexuals proves that. However, many behaviours associated with being gay (anal sex, increased drug use, etc.) are harmful, but they are harmful in ways that are experienced by people irregardless of their sexual orientation. AIDS affects everyone. Drug addiction is detrimental to everyone. Physical abuse is no less horrible whether you’re straight or gay.

If you want to quibble over the percentage points, fine, but they don’t prove anything. Most people find an argument that relies on a list of “tendencies” with associated percentages (all comparable to norms or comprising of an exceedingly small minority of the total gay population) for most of its weight to be exasperatingly bereft of any logical proof.

Your arbitrary definition of behaviour versus genetics as being the benchmark for granting rights is also short-sided and overly simplistic. I keep saying that religion is a behaviour and it has many rights protected by law extended to those who PRACTICE it, and you never once could explain why religion, AS A BEHAVIOR, is exempt from your own definition. So, what’s the deal?

Unless you can do better, I see no point in continuing, just like I saw that there was no point in continuing before. [/quote]

Come on now Jimmy, there are legitimate medical/physiological reasons for not having gay sex, and the idea that gay marriage would support and increase gay sex is valid.

But, you are correct in that there is really no direct legitimate reason for not allowing gay marriage, but by extension there are plenty. Sure this position requires assumptions that two gay people being married would have sex.

Now there is some merit to the hypothesis that being allowed to marry would settle gay people down and they would become monogamous, which would reduce the spread of HIV and other health conditions. However, having that “right” has not caused straight people to not screw around either, so that premise is unlikely to fly in reality.

So we have no reason to not allow gay marriage, but plenty to not allow gay sex. So gay marriage without gay sex is my vote!

[ZEB]

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:

ZEB, you and your cohorts are lazy debaters. You rarely verify your stats (or your arithmetic) and the exact meaning of those statistics. It wasn’t until after I showed up that you actually started citing a few sources, which is great, but now you lord over them as if they are the final say.[/quote]

Lazy? That seems odd coming from you?

I have given some very credible stats from some of the best sources on the planet. The fact that you know this makes you a bit disingenuous.

Furthermore to date those same statistics go virtually unchallenged by your side.

Many of the numbers you use don’t really mean anything. The FACT that however many percent of gay people have AIDS or are violent or whatever, doesn’t really mean anything, not if we as a society are giving marriage rights to serial killers, drug users, terminally ill persons, etc.

More illogical statements.

Since we give marriage rights to killers we should give them to homosexuals? How in the wide blue world of logic does that make any sense?

Since we give them to killers we should give them to those who practice adult incest, and polygamists too right?

Why not give them to humans and dogs?

Humans and lampshades…

We give marriage rights to killers. Therefore we should just take the gates down and allow all sorts of nonsense (thank you I needed a laugh).

You see you don’t understand your job. Here it is: Come up with valid reasons why it’s a good idea to legalize gay marriage. Anything else is simply a distraction.

You could tell me 100% of gay people had AIDS and physically abused their partners, and I’d still say that the law should be extended to them as well because if you really want to protect society, then you’d have to take marriage away from all harmful demographics… (good luck)… but it would otherwise be a discriminatory practice.

You are confused. It is legal for any man to marry any woman who will say yes. It is not legal (never has been) for two men or two women to marry.

Now please give me some valid reasons (sans the emotion) why we should legalize gay marriage.

Do you see your problem yet?

Being gay is not harmful in itself–the presence of many healthy and well-adjusted homosexuals proves that. However, many behaviours associated with being gay (anal sex, increased drug use, etc.) are harmful, but they are harmful in ways that are experienced by people irregardless of their sexual orientation.

Are you are stating that"being gay" does not necessarily mean having anal sex? Yes, I suppose that’s true. But, then define “being gay” for me please.

If being a gay male means that you are attracted to other men and want to have sex with them, how do you separate the two? And the statistics show that you really can’t, since 66% of all AIDS cases are gay men.

And gay men (and bisexuals) who have sex with women (odd that they can do that huh?) spreads AIDS to the heterosexual community.

Interesting.

AIDS affects everyone.

Yes and no. If men would stop having gay sex it would then most likely diminish by quite a lot.

Drug addiction is detrimental to everyone. Physical abuse is no less horrible whether you’re straight or gay.

True, but why are these things and much more (all negative) very much a part of the gay lifestyle?

Bad behavior begets bad results! How long would anyone stick with a training program that made them weaker or fatter?

If you want to quibble over the percentage points, fine, but they don’t prove anything.

Oh I think they prove quite a lot. They prove that, for one thing the gay lifestyle is VERY DANGEROUS. And should not under any conditions ever be promoted by our government at any level. Of course it proves much more than that as well. All negative-

Most people find an argument that relies on a list of “tendencies” with associated percentages (all comparable to norms or comprising of an exceedingly small minority of the total gay population)

Small percentage of the gay population? I think you need to go back and look at all of the stats that I posted. There are huge physical and psychological problems in the gay community and they’re not going away my friend.

As long as you have a negative behavior you will have a very bad result.

Your arbitrary definition of behaviour versus genetics as being the benchmark for granting rights is also short-sided and overly simplistic.

But you cannot prove that having a same sex attraction has anything to do with genetics. I am saying that until there is solid proof we should not sanction a negative behavior. And in case you didn’t yet realize it when a man places his penis inside of another mans rectum…THAT’S A BEHAVIOR!

Would you promote any other behavior which caused so much pain and claimed so many lives?

Which one do you want to champion:

Smoking?
Alcoholism?
Drug abuse?
Allowing children to play with guns?
driving while intoxicated?

All of these are on par with men having sex with other men (and the gay lifestyle) in terms of danger!

I know you are a liberal wonder boy (or girl) but THINK!

I keep saying that religion is a behaviour and it has many rights protected by law extended to those who PRACTICE it, and you never once could explain why religion, AS A BEHAVIOR, is exempt from your own definition. So, what’s the deal?

I think I told you once before that sanctioning positive behavior is not a bad thing.

Driving a car is a behavior is it bad?

Baseball is a behavior-

The right to assemble is a behavior-

Jogging down the side of the road is a behavior-

Which one do you want to outlaw because same sex marriag isn’t going to happen?

Unless you can do better, I see no point in continuing, just like I saw that there was no point in continuing before.

Do better? LOL

1. I have shown that gay marriage has been voted down repeatedly (16 or 17 states) by wide margins as high as 77% in Texas. And the polls consitently demonstrate that the general public is very wise to the “gay marriage” proposal. They are against it by about 70% across the country.

2. I have proven that gay marriage is shown to be against the word of God according to the Christian Bible (in several different sections). And this is still a country that believes in God- 90% last time I checked.

3. I have shown that tradition and social mores are strong indicators that two men (or two women) does not fit the moral code of this country. By the way, it’s not just conservatives who are against this ludicrous idea! About 35% of the populace describe themselves as “conservative.” That means that there are another 35% of moderates and probably even some liberals who are against gay marriage.

4. I have shown that statistically same sex sex is dangerous both physically and emotionally to its participants, causing a long list of dieseases some causing death. And they also spread AIDS and other STD’s into the heterosexual community.

Lest we forget that the average homosexual male never sees his 61st birthday!

It’s time that you quit the meaningless rhetoric and start giving some valid reasons why we should allow gay marriage.

Either that or actually stop posting like you have been threatening for the past three posts!

[ZEB]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So we have no reason to not allow gay marriage, but plenty to not allow gay sex. So gay marriage without gay sex is my vote!
[/quote]

LOL I like that one lorisco.

The only problem is, they are such a promiscuious bunch that one gay man is probably already having more sex than any 20 straight men!

Yea…I’m sure all that would just go away the day that gay marriage was sanctioned.

LOL

[Jimmy_Tango]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:

ZEB, you and your cohorts are lazy debaters. You rarely verify your stats (or your arithmetic) and the exact meaning of those statistics. It wasn’t until after I showed up that you actually started citing a few sources, which is great, but now you lord over them as if they are the final say.

Lazy? That seems odd coming from you?

I have given some very credible stats from some of the best sources on the planet. The fact that you know this makes you a bit disingenuous.

Furthermore to date those same statistics go virtually unchallenged by your side.

Many of the numbers you use don’t really mean anything. The FACT that however many percent of gay people have AIDS or are violent or whatever, doesn’t really mean anything, not if we as a society are giving marriage rights to serial killers, drug users, terminally ill persons, etc.

More illogical statements.

Since we give marriage rights to killers we should give them to homosexuals? How in the wide blue world of logic does that make any sense?

Since we give them to killers we should give them to those who practice adult incest, and polygamists too right?

Why not give them to humans and dogs?

Humans and lampshades…

We give marriage rights to killers. Therefore we should just take the gates down and allow all sorts of nonsense (thank you I needed a laugh).

You see you don’t understand your job. Here it is: Come up with valid reasons why it’s a good idea to legalize gay marriage. Anything else is simply a distraction.

You could tell me 100% of gay people had AIDS and physically abused their partners, and I’d still say that the law should be extended to them as well because if you really want to protect society, then you’d have to take marriage away from all harmful demographics… (good luck)… but it would otherwise be a discriminatory practice.

You are confused. It is legal for any man to marry any woman who will say yes. It is not legal (never has been) for two men or two women to marry.

Now please give me some valid reasons (sans the emotion) why we should legalize gay marriage.

Do you see your problem yet?

Being gay is not harmful in itself–the presence of many healthy and well-adjusted homosexuals proves that. However, many behaviours associated with being gay (anal sex, increased drug use, etc.) are harmful, but they are harmful in ways that are experienced by people irregardless of their sexual orientation.

Are you are stating that"being gay" does not necessarily mean having anal sex? Yes, I suppose that’s true. But, then define “being gay” for me please.

If being a gay male means that you are attracted to other men and want to have sex with them, how do you separate the two? And the statistics show that you really can’t, since 66% of all AIDS cases are gay men.

And gay men (and bisexuals) who have sex with women (odd that they can do that huh?) spreads AIDS to the heterosexual community.

Interesting.

AIDS affects everyone.

Yes and no. If men would stop having gay sex it would then most likely diminish by quite a lot.

Drug addiction is detrimental to everyone. Physical abuse is no less horrible whether you’re straight or gay.

True, but why are these things and much more (all negative) very much a part of the gay lifestyle?

Bad behavior begets bad results! How long would anyone stick with a training program that made them weaker or fatter?

If you want to quibble over the percentage points, fine, but they don’t prove anything.

Oh I think they prove quite a lot. They prove that, for one thing the gay lifestyle is VERY DANGEROUS. And should not under any conditions ever be promoted by our government at any level. Of course it proves much more than that as well. All negative-

Most people find an argument that relies on a list of “tendencies” with associated percentages (all comparable to norms or comprising of an exceedingly small minority of the total gay population)

Small percentage of the gay population? I think you need to go back and look at all of the stats that I posted. There are huge physical and psychological problems in the gay community and they’re not going away my friend.

As long as you have a negative behavior you will have a very bad result.

Your arbitrary definition of behaviour versus genetics as being the benchmark for granting rights is also short-sided and overly simplistic.

But you cannot prove that having a same sex attraction has anything to do with genetics. I am saying that until there is solid proof we should not sanction a negative behavior. And in case you didn’t yet realize it when a man places his penis inside of another mans rectum…THAT’S A BEHAVIOR!

Would you promote any other behavior which caused so much pain and claimed so many lives?

Which one do you want to champion:

Smoking?
Alcoholism?
Drug abuse?
Allowing children to play with guns?
driving while intoxicated?

All of these are on par with men having sex with other men (and the gay lifestyle) in terms of danger!

I know you are a liberal wonder boy (or girl) but THINK!

I keep saying that religion is a behaviour and it has many rights protected by law extended to those who PRACTICE it, and you never once could explain why religion, AS A BEHAVIOR, is exempt from your own definition. So, what’s the deal?

I think I told you once before that sanctioning positive behavior is not a bad thing.

Driving a car is a behavior is it bad?

Baseball is a behavior-

The right to assemble is a behavior-

Jogging down the side of the road is a behavior-

Which one do you want to outlaw because same sex marriag isn’t going to happen?

Unless you can do better, I see no point in continuing, just like I saw that there was no point in continuing before.

Do better? LOL

1. I have shown that gay marriage has been voted down repeatedly (16 or 17 states) by wide margins as high as 77% in Texas. And the polls consitently demonstrate that the general public is very wise to the “gay marriage” proposal. They are against it by about 70% across the country.

2. I have proven that gay marriage is shown to be against the word of God according to the Christian Bible (in several different sections). And this is still a country that believes in God- 90% last time I checked.

3. I have shown that tradition and social mores are strong indicators that two men (or two women) does not fit the moral code of this country. By the way, it’s not just conservatives who are against this ludicrous idea! About 35% of the populace describe themselves as “conservative.” That means that there are another 35% of moderates and probably even some liberals who are against gay marriage.

4. I have shown that statistically same sex sex is dangerous both physically and emotionally to its participants, causing a long list of dieseases some causing death. And they also spread AIDS and other STD’s into the heterosexual community.

Lest we forget that the average homosexual male never sees his 61st birthday!

It’s time that you quit the meaningless rhetoric and start giving some valid reasons why we should allow gay marriage.

Either that or actually stop posting like you have been threatening for the past three posts![/quote]

Yeah, you showed those things, ZEB, and I destroyed any applicability they might have held to the contrary of my position, ages ago.

Let’s get back to reality here for a minute or two. No, I’ll be doing the honours:

Your little list of positive behaviours–what does that prove? That some things are positive? Wow. You’re smart. And so quaint.

So why do people who exhibit cases of horrendously bad behaviour, such as in the case of serial killers, get the right to marry? Doesn’t it seem kind of stupid to let someone marry… someone who has been shown that they will kill again and again if given any chance? What kind of influence do you think having a serial killer as a father might have on the children? Not a very good one, I imagine.

Yet they can still marry… and you apparently have no problems with that. No one has any problems with that. Apparently God thinks it’s okay too? Serial killers: it was God’s plan for “Night Stalker” Ramirez to get shacked up. Yeah. I like that.

But same sex marriage? Huh. Well, maybe it is negative behaviour. So, this is inexcusable? Because there’s a pretty good chance they’ll have anal sex?

What? Isn’t anal sex legal in the good ol’ U.S.A.? Didn’t the Supreme Court say something to Texas about that?

So, if you’re straight, and you like to binge on cocaine and heroine while anally-raping your victims before slitting their throats and watching them bleed to death while you smoke the obligatory apres-anal-sex cigarette, you can still get married?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/ramirez/terror_1.html

But the soft-spoken, disease-free, God-fearing (yeah, I know what the Bible says, and so does this guy, but he belongs to some other sect that’s more tolerant, so sue me) guy in the glasses standing next to you in the aisle of your grocery store who’s never gotten a speeding ticket before in his life is somehow unable to, all because your super amazing statistics show that gay people indulge in “negative behaviours”?

Wow. Your little combo of statistical and behaviourial research really works well, ZEB! I mean, they describe reality so well…

Get your head out of your ass, ZEB–everything you say stinks.

Statistics are merely odds, and, like Einstein said, “God does not play dice with the universe.” Reality is what is important. The statistics are a pale imitation of that reality, nothing more.

Your belief allows for the morally-abhorrent scenario I just described to exist. At least if same sex marriages were made legal, there isn’t the ludicrous implication that serial killers have more rights and protections than homosexuals.

And if you pull some more crap about the traditional definition of marriage, I don’t give a damn about that–I’m looking for the same rights in the form of a legalized civil union. The Churches can go fuck themselves any way they see fit as far as I care. They don’t have a say in law, not when marriages can be carried out for atheists and considered legally equivalent to their religious counterparts. Sanctity, my ass! (man, I’m loving the puns) The worst sin is in not believing in God–yes, the Bible pretty much says so on every bloody page, what with God getting pissed off at golden cows and exhibiting “insane amounts of jealousy” towards false gods all the time–but atheists are married all the time because they “fit” the traditional definition? Fuck off. The worst sin is to deny God… and yet the fundies are more concerned about homosexuals because of a line or two? (Yes, bloody Romans–we don’t need to hear it again because it doesn’t prove anything.)

This is interesting:
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bmar.htm

The above link doesn’t prove anything, either. But perhaps it describes a biblically acceptable difference between gay love and “gay” sex. And hints at possible acceptance. Whatever. It’s not my book.

Also, ZEB, you’re plaintive little cry of “You still haven’t given me one good reason” is just annoying now after I just spent several paragraphs in my previous post (which you conveniently dropped in the quote) explaining why I don’t care about giving you one good reason. If you understood that most basic point, you wouldn’t have wasted all of your time just now, sounding like a little prick who needs to be shown how shut-up the hard way.

Talk about meaningless rhetoric! Ha ha! LOL.

[Jimmy_Tango]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So we have no reason to not allow gay marriage, but plenty to not allow gay sex. So gay marriage without gay sex is my vote!

LOL I like that one lorisco.

The only problem is, they are such a promiscuious bunch that one gay man is probably already having more sex than any 20 straight men!

Yea…I’m sure all that would just go away the day that gay marriage was sanctioned.

LOL
[/quote]

LOL I like that one ZEB.

Well, ZEB, I’m guessing you’re basing that on personal experience? My personal experience is, I have a lot more sex than my gay friends do, and with more partners too… probably because it’s easy for me, being straight and all, to go out and find action. Single white males are such a promiscuous bunch. But that’s just my opinion.

LOL

[AJL_1240]

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
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.

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

Yea, exactly. Same with kids with single fathers.
Hmmm. Sarcasm. No merit here.

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.

Nothing of value yet.

If the mom dies, or doesn’t get custody of the kid(s) with the divorce, the kids should just be put down.

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.

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.

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

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.
MOre sarcasm, but still nothing that shows this person has any tangible facts on this issue. Yes, there is definitely a pattern.

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.

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

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

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]

Wow, I guess maybe you should look at the post that I quoted when I posted that.

I was being sarcastic because I believe that the argument that gay marriage is okay, but not gay parents, because of the possibility/probability that the kid would get picked on was as ridiculous as all of my other sarcastic comments.

Get it now?

I didn’t agree with the statement made about gay couples not being allowed to have children, based on the premise that they kid would get picked on.

Obviously I also don’t agree with my sarcastic comments. The comments were made to prove a point, but apparently that point went completely over your head.

Hopefully this cleared it up a bit for you.

[ZEB]

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So we have no reason to not allow gay marriage, but plenty to not allow gay sex. So gay marriage without gay sex is my vote!

LOL I like that one lorisco.

The only problem is, they are such a promiscuious bunch that one gay man is probably already having more sex than any 20 straight men!

Yea…I’m sure all that would just go away the day that gay marriage was sanctioned.

LOL

LOL I like that one ZEB.

Well, ZEB, I’m guessing you’re basing that on personal experience? My personal experience is, I have a lot more sex than my gay friends do, and with more partners too… probably because it’s easy for me, being straight and all, to go out and find action. Single white males are such a promiscuous bunch. But that’s just my opinion.

LOL[/quote]

Oh darn the stats are against you AGAIN:

"Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different from marriage.

? In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years,

Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[13]

? In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[14]

(They are clueless as to what monogamy is)

Homosexual Promiscuity

Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime: A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.9 In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.10 A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.11 In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."12

Now make sure to post some statistics which demonstrate that homosexuals are LESS promiscuious than the average.

Oh wait…you can’t do that huh?

Next…

[terribleivan]

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

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

Yea, exactly. Same with kids with single fathers.
Hmmm. Sarcasm. No merit here.

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.

Nothing of value yet.

If the mom dies, or doesn’t get custody of the kid(s) with the divorce, the kids should just be put down.

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.

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.

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

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.
MOre sarcasm, but still nothing that shows this person has any tangible facts on this issue. Yes, there is definitely a pattern.

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.

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

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

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.”

Wow, I guess maybe you should look at the post that I quoted when I posted that.

I was being sarcastic because I believe that the argument that gay marriage is okay, but not gay parents, because of the possibility/probability that the kid would get picked on was as ridiculous as all of my other sarcastic comments.

Get it now?

I didn’t agree with the statement made about gay couples not being allowed to have children, based on the premise that they kid would get picked on.

Obviously I also don’t agree with my sarcastic comments. The comments were made to prove a point, but apparently that point went completely over your head.

Hopefully this cleared it up a bit for you. ;)[/quote]

This guy just keeps posting, but he never has provided any logical reasons for his belief.

[ZEB]

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:

Yeah, you showed those things, ZEB, and I destroyed any applicability they might have held to the contrary of my position, ages ago.[/quote]

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy you remind me of a child who is clamors about repeating the words: “I could beat you up…I could, I mean it…”

You come in after the fact with ficticious claims of grandeur. Let me remind you (and all who care at this point) YOU HAVE DISPROVED NOTHING! And in fact, you have to date not given one valid reason why we should sanction gay marriage.

Let’s get back to reality here for a minute or two.

You have not had even one reality based statement regarding why we need gay marriage. Are you going to do that now?

Your little list of positive behaviours–what does that prove? That some things are positive? Wow. You’re smart. And so quaint.

It simply proves that some behavior is positive while some (like two men having sex) seems to be negative. This is something that we learn at a very early age in life…you know before the politically correct get a hold of us and twist our minds, or at least the minds of the social liberals.

Keep this in mind: A negative behavior will beget a negative result!

No amount of political correctness will ever change that.

So why do people who exhibit cases of horrendously bad behaviour, such as in the case of serial killers, get the right to marry? Doesn’t it seem kind of stupid to let someone marry… someone who has been shown that they will kill again and again if given any chance? What kind of influence do you think having a serial killer as a father might have on the children? Not a very good one, I imagine.

Jimmy, first of all a convicted serial killer is doing some hard time or on death row (as if this has anything to do with the gay marriage debate-eye roll).

Secondly, (I hate to keep repeating myself, but you need to learn) one has ZERO to do with the other.

You have THE most illogical argument yet given why homosexuals should marry.

“Serieal killers can marry therefore homosexuals should be able to.”

LMAO…that is funny stuff Jimmy. Do you understand yet why your side is losing this debate here on T-Nation and nationally as well?

[quote]But same sex marriage? Huh. Well, maybe it is negative behaviour. So, this is inexcusable? Because there’s a pretty good chance they’ll have anal sex?

What? Isn’t anal sex legal in the good ol’ U.S.A.? Didn’t the Supreme Court say something to Texas about that?[/quote]

I am not attempting to take away any right that homosexuals have. They can continue to have all the anal sex that they want. They just can’t get together and call it a marriage.

So, if you’re straight, and you like to binge on cocaine and heroine while anally-raping your victims before slitting their throats and watching them bleed to death while you smoke the obligatory apres-anal-sex cigarette, you can still get married?

That has nothing to do with the gay marriage debate.

Are you now ready to give just ONE valid reason why we need to sanction gay marrige?

You can list 10,000 negative behaviors but that does not get you any closer to giving positive reasons why gay marriage should be sanctioned.

Tell us why it is a good thing. It is a good thing right?

If it is a good thing then you should not be having all the difficulty that you are telling us why it’s a good thing-but you are having a heck of time …

But the soft-spoken, disease-free, God-fearing (yeah, I know what the Bible says, and so does this guy, but he belongs to some other sect that’s more tolerant, so sue me) guy in the glasses standing next to you in the aisle of your grocery store who’s never gotten a speeding ticket before in his life is somehow unable to, all because your super amazing statistics show that gay people indulge in “negative behaviours”?

That’s only one reason. There are several others.

And don’t forget that to date your side has not given even ONE valid reason why there should be gay marriage.

Will you get through yet another thread and still not give that one valid reason?

Get your head out of your ass, ZEB–everything you say stinks.

Yet, you can’t refute even one statistic! One Bible verse! One Poll! One referendum! One logical point!

But you can name call…

More emotion and more name calling by the social liberals.

But, still no valid reason to allow gay marriage. There are a nasty illogical bunch huh?

Statistics are merely odds, and, like Einstein said, “God does not play dice with the universe.” Reality is what is important. The statistics are a pale imitation of that reality, nothing more.

Really? Then why don’t you just take everything you have sell it go to Vegas and throw it all down on number 32?

statiscs will mean a great deal more to you after you lose all of your money my friend!

And since YOU brought up God why don’t you open up his book and see what the Bible has to say about people of the same gender having sex:

Romans 1: 26, 27, 28:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

And now you want the USA to sanction this act by allowing two people of the same sex to marry?

Oh my…

Your belief allows for the morally-abhorrent scenario I just described to exist. At least if same sex marriages were made legal, there isn’t the ludicrous implication that serial killers have more rights and protections than homosexuals.

Your illgoic knows no bounds!

Two dogs are also allowed to hump on the sidewalk-

But what does that have to do with gay marriage?

Nothing.

And if you pull some more crap about the traditional definition of marriage, I don’t give a damn about that–I’m looking for the same rights in the form of a legalized civil union.

None are deserved-None will be granted.

The Churches can go fuck themselves any way they see fit as far as I care.

I wonder if all social liberals have this sort of disregard for the church?

It seems if someone wants their rights respected they should do a bit more to respect the standards that about 90% of the country live by.

I told everyone earilier: those social liberals are nasty!

The worst sin is in not believing in God–yes, the Bible pretty much says so on every bloody page, what with God getting pissed off at golden cows and exhibiting “insane amounts of jealousy” towards false gods all the time–but atheists are married all the time because they “fit” the traditional definition? Fuck off.

More profane emotion packed meaningles rhetoric. But still not even one valid reason to allow two people of the same sex to marry (shaking head).

The worst sin is to deny God… and yet the fundies are more concerned about homosexuals because of a line or two?

Because that is the worst sin (in your opinion) does that mean then that there is no other sin? Does it mean that we can disregard all the other sins?

More illogic from the King (or queen) of emotion packed fact free arguments.

[quote]Yes, bloody Romans–we don’t need to hear it again because it doesn’t prove anything.
[/quote]

It “proves” that the Bible states that sex between two people of the same sex is a sin.

And my poor misguided friend, that’s all it has to prove!

[quote]This is interesting:
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bmar.htm

The above link doesn’t prove anything, either. [/quote]

No, and in fact it’s a joke!

No where in the Bible does it ever state that the characters mentioned had sex.

This is one more attempt by the homosexuals to try to change the Bible to suit their own needs.

It’s pathetic and weak.

Now why don’t you try to point out exactly where the Bible states that it’s good for two men to have sex with each other? Or two women to have sex?

Post all of the passages please…

Also, ZEB, you’re plaintive little cry of “You still haven’t given me one good reason” is just annoying now after I just spent several paragraphs in my previous post (which you conveniently dropped in the quote) explaining why I don’t care about giving you one good reason. If you understood that most basic point, you wouldn’t have wasted all of your time just now, sounding like a little prick who needs to be shown how shut-up the hard way.

Let’s get this straight (no pun intended) you are going to lean on “killers can get married so then homosexuals should have the right too” as a reason to allow gay marriage?

WOW!

Congratulations.

Not only did you finish your post without giving even one valid reason to allow gay marriage, but you ended your meaningless emotional rant with more insults!

You guys never disapoint me. You rant and rave but just can’t come up with a valid reason to allow gay marriage.

Okay, I’ll help you out:

First of all if you are going to try to argue gay marriage based upon the Bible, you need to come up with one or two good verses which promote homosexual sex…

Then, you need to refute, with facts no meaningless emotional rants, the thousands of negative physical and emotional disease which plagues the gay community…

Then you need to point out how gay people are actually no more promiscuous than the heterosexual population…

Then you need to demonstrate exactly how allowing two homosexuals to marry will be a good thing (instead of the negative which I have demonstrated) for our society. Afterall it is society you want to change…

Then you need to point out how the majority of the peoples beliefs, social mores and institutions are actually not at all important…

Then you need to…oh never mind. You won’t be able to do any of the above. But that won’t stop you from posting back with irrelevant things like “killers have the right to be married so gays should too.”

I really enjoyed that one LOL

[Lorisco]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So we have no reason to not allow gay marriage, but plenty to not allow gay sex. So gay marriage without gay sex is my vote!

LOL I like that one lorisco.

The only problem is, they are such a promiscuious bunch that one gay man is probably already having more sex than any 20 straight men!

Yea…I’m sure all that would just go away the day that gay marriage was sanctioned.

LOL
[/quote]

No, then they would just turn into swingers! You are right, nothing would change for most gays if they could marry, it would just increase the divorce rate after the novelty of being a gay married person was over.

[Lorisco]

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So we have no reason to not allow gay marriage, but plenty to not allow gay sex. So gay marriage without gay sex is my vote!

LOL I like that one lorisco.

The only problem is, they are such a promiscuious bunch that one gay man is probably already having more sex than any 20 straight men!

Yea…I’m sure all that would just go away the day that gay marriage was sanctioned.

LOL

LOL I like that one ZEB.

Well, ZEB, I’m guessing you’re basing that on personal experience? My personal experience is, I have a lot more sex than my gay friends do, and with more partners too… probably because it’s easy for me, being straight and all, to go out and find action. Single white males are such a promiscuous bunch. But that’s just my opinion.

LOL[/quote]

I guess that means you have never been to San Francisco! You would have plenty of sex there as well, but it wouldn’t be the kind you are used to. After that you would not be able to sit for week.

[firemedichcfr14]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

I guess that means you have never been to San Francisco! You would have plenty of sex there as well, but it wouldn’t be the kind you are used to. After that you would not be able to sit for week.
[/quote]

And no one would be able to hear you fart ever again.

[Lorisco]

[quote]firemedichcfr14 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

I guess that means you have never been to San Francisco! You would have plenty of sex there as well, but it wouldn’t be the kind you are used to. After that you would not be able to sit for week.

And no one would be able to hear you fart ever again.
[/quote]

The rule in California is that if you drop a quarter in San Francisco you should kick it to Sacramento before bending over to pick it up!

[dcb]

Hey everybody, I’m back. Happy New Year!

One of the main beliefs of the anti gay marriage crowd here seems to be that allowing gay marriage will equal more gay sex and therefore more HIV/AIDS.

I guess I just don’t understand that belief. There are a finite number of gay people anyway who may or may not be out having sex right now. Is there a concern that allowing gay marriage will create more gay people and therefore more gay sex?

I would assume that by allowing gay marriage you give that community a better standard of relationship to aspire to and it would ultimately lead to more monogamous relationships among gay people. That to me just seems to make sense.

If hetersexuals couldn’t get married I think the the average number of sex partners a person has would probably go up. Certainly there would be many couples who would remain monogamous without marriage, but I think my main point makes sense.

So wouldn’t the same logic apply to the gay population?

[dcb]

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Is it me, or do the liberals keep jumping through the door like stormtroopers on this thread. They keep dying, but they just keep coming. It’s like they’ve been cloned.[/quote]

I don’t post too much here so this isn’t a big deal, but I’m not a liberal. I have voted Repuplican the vast majority of the time and will continue to do so. On just about every other social issue you and I would probably agree.

[miniross]

I havent been on here for about a year.

Some things never change… I find it fascinating the sectariansim that is drawn in America between liberals (so called) and conservtives (so called).

The UK has had “civil partnerships” which gives gay couples the legal rights to property etc that married couples have. This must be a great way of packaging the concept, as it does not contain the “M” word, therefore dodging some of the difficulties attached to it wrt “conservative” outcry.

[dcb]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
If he is a reformed homosexual I have no problem with that. Naturally, I would want this to be longer than a few weeks.

Would I have rather had her marry a man that was not a “reformed” anything? Sure, because not unlike alcoholism there is always a chance of slippage. But overall, the rate of reform is pretty good.
[/quote]

I condone your courage and that to me shows that your beliefs are solid. If it was me, with what we know now, there’s no way I would endorse a marriage between my daughter and any self loathing person who’s that confused.

I know you are joking because I see that smilely face. But, it is odd that in this day and age one cannot “try” to be a good Christian without getting it thrown up in his face that he is “God’s paladin.”

There was a time in this country (not long ago) that attempting to live a spiritual life was considered admirable by others. Naturally that spiritual life has rules. How can there be “right” if there is no “wrong?” Think about it.

Take care dcb.

See you next time around

I do admire you ZEB even if I disagree with you about this one issue. I like your posts about weight training (The biggest reason we’re here after all!) and most of your political posts. I was joking with you but it really was a compliment so please don’t think that I threw anything in your face. I try to live a spiritual life as well. I may not do it the same way as you, but that doesn’t make it any worse or better, just different.

[miniross]

I was reading one of the posts and had an insight… maybe this is the ultimate test of a believers faith, to post on T-Nation and attemt to defend against the slings and arrows of seclar thinking?

[ZEB]

[quote]dcb wrote:
Hey everybody, I’m back. Happy New Year![/quote]

First things first, Happy New Year dcb!

[quote]One of the main beliefs of the anti gay marriage crowd here seems to be that allowing gay marriage will equal more gay sex and therefore more HIV/AIDS.

I guess I just don’t understand that belief. There are a finite number of gay people anyway who may or may not be out having sex right now. Is there a concern that allowing gay marriage will create more gay people and therefore more gay sex?[/quote]

One (and only one) of the concerns is that if same gender sex went mainstream that more individuals would indeed try it out. Keep in mind that there is no proof that one is born that way. Therefore, I think that this is a legitimate concern.

And more gay sex means more disease, pain and death!

I would assume that by allowing gay marriage you give that community a better standard of relationship to aspire to and it would ultimately lead to more monogamous relationships among gay people. That to me just seems to make sense.

I’m sorry but that makes about as much sense as expecting your wife to change “after” you marry her. That never happens and neither will people who seek sex with those of the same gender be “less” promiscuious if they are allowed to marry. The facts just don’t bear it out.

If hetersexuals couldn’t get married I think the the average number of sex partners a person has would probably go up.

Why are people “gay” to begin with?

Why don’t we first answer that question before we rush off to legitimize a very dangerous practice!

If they are gay because of some childhood experience(s) then perhaps they are promiscuous for the same reason. Why do many men who call themselves “gay” still occasionally have sex with a woman?

There are just too many unanswered questions for anyone to draw such a conclusion.