Teacher Suspended for Anti-Gay Marriage Post

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Nice way to pick and choose.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

Well any clown (except you I) can see that I have posted information from the 1970’s to 2008 which is the latest CDC data. But you as you can see your fellow atheist wonder boy decided to comment ONLY on the data from 1970.

(I feel like I’m explaining something to a child - But based on the cartoons and your world view you could be one)

[/quote]

Implying results skewed by past practices is a reliable indicator of the present.[/quote]

Lol…did you notice that the two recent studies posted by Orion, showing that sexual promiscuity is as high among heterosexuals as among homosexuals, were completely ignored? Shocking, I know.[/quote]

I’ll spell it out for you moron. Young males want a lot of sex. Young heterosexual males and homosexual males as well. However homosexual males do not have a woman telling them NO. Therefore, they are more promiscuous.

You know if you’re going to twist the facts you have to do it with something less obvious—Remember the way you used to twist and turn the facts in our many debates?

I think you’re slipping forliar.[/quote]

What you are doing is the same as putting the numbers of prostitutes into the same categories as normal woman and then claim that all women are sluts.

Blatant nonsense.

122

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
You’re claiming straight couples are superior because they can produce children.

This requires assuming that producing children is always a good thing.

That assumption is a value judgment, and has nothing to do with facts. So stop pretending that your bias against gays is somehow factual. It’s not. It comes down to your value system.[/quote]

So, it is not a fact that homosexual unions can’t create babies?

Um…but homosexual unions can’t have biological children without going outside the marriage.

[quote]Your claim that straight couples do a better job raising children is also informed by your religious values, and in fact is contradicted by science. The facts show that children of gay couples are equally healthy on all measures of psychological, emotional, and physical health compared to children of straight couples.

Of course, you don’t like those facts because they fly in the face of your religious beliefs.[/quote]

Really, informed by my religious values? I didn’t know my religious values did studies on the relationship of homosexual unions. I’ll have to talk with my religious values about doing scientific studies behind my back and not letting me know about it. ;)[/quote]

You’re missing the point.

Fact: Gay couples can’t have biological children without involving a 3rd person.
(Note: This excludes the possibility of genetic reproduction but we’ll ignore that possibility for the moment)

Value: The ability to have biological children makes one couple superior to another couple

Value: Having biological children is better than not having biological children

Value: Biological children are preferable to adopted children

Value: Straight couples are meant to raise children, not gay couples

You are using a fact to draw an unsubstantiated conclusion, based on a bunch of unproven and unprovable values.

123

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ll spell it out for you moron. Young males want a lot of sex. Young heterosexual males and homosexual males as well. However homosexual males do not have a woman telling them NO. Therefore, they are more promiscuous.[/quote]

This is possibly the most illogical argument I have read in a long time. Young men want sex; therefore, young homosexual men are more promiscuous. That is what you are going with? Really? Fallacies.

[quote]You know if you’re going to twist the facts you have to do it with something less obvious—Remember the way you used to twist and turn the facts in our many debates?

I think you’re slipping forliar.[/quote]

And then you immediately attack another for twisting facts.

No need for a response.

124

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Whether the APA classifies anything as anything has very little bearing on how it is viewed by the society at large.[/quote]

The point has flown over your head. As I stated, this is the SAME organization which declassified homosexuality as a mental disease. AND…they are now working on pedophilia.

Grasp it![/quote]

Yeah, its also the same organization that classified them as mental disorders in the first place.

Cant have it both ways. [/quote]

Obviously, but now they are heading in the same direction as they did with homosexuality. It’s a simple point, and nothing you have to dodge. It’s not as if YOU are personally responsible for this organization.

125

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Nice way to pick and choose.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

Well any clown (except you I) can see that I have posted information from the 1970’s to 2008 which is the latest CDC data. But you as you can see your fellow atheist wonder boy decided to comment ONLY on the data from 1970.

(I feel like I’m explaining something to a child - But based on the cartoons and your world view you could be one)

[/quote]

Implying results skewed by past practices is a reliable indicator of the present.[/quote]

Lol…did you notice that the two recent studies posted by Orion, showing that sexual promiscuity is as high among heterosexuals as among homosexuals, were completely ignored? Shocking, I know.[/quote]

I’ll spell it out for you moron. Young males want a lot of sex. Young heterosexual males and homosexual males as well. However homosexual males do not have a woman telling them NO. Therefore, they are more promiscuous.

You know if you’re going to twist the facts you have to do it with something less obvious—Remember the way you used to twist and turn the facts in our many debates?

I think you’re slipping forliar.[/quote]

What you are doing is the same as putting the numbers of prostitutes into the same categories as normal woman and then claim that all women are sluts.

Blatant nonsense.[/quote]

Oh really now, do 60% of all new HIV cases come from homosexual men or straight men?

126

[quote]Christine wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I’ll spell it out for you moron. Young males want a lot of sex. Young heterosexual males and homosexual males as well. However homosexual males do not have a woman telling them NO. Therefore, they are more promiscuous.

This is possibly the most illogical argument I have read in a long time. Young men want sex; therefore, young homosexual men are more promiscuous. That is what you are going with? Really? Fallacies. [/quote]

YOU really need to spend more time in threads that talk about how much protein one should consume. Because this stuff just ZIPS right past you!

If it takes two people to have sex and both are male in the case of homosexuals then OBVIOUSLY (to most people but not you) neither man will decline. Whereas in a heterosexual relationship we can count on the woman saying no at least occasionally. Hence, there is more promiscuity with homosexuals than heterosexuals because there is more opportunity. Hopefull you now understand this simple point.

No, there is no need for you, or anyone with your limited intelligence to respond. Yet…for some reason you always do.

127

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Nice way to pick and choose.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

Well any clown (except you I) can see that I have posted information from the 1970’s to 2008 which is the latest CDC data. But you as you can see your fellow atheist wonder boy decided to comment ONLY on the data from 1970.

(I feel like I’m explaining something to a child - But based on the cartoons and your world view you could be one)

[/quote]

Implying results skewed by past practices is a reliable indicator of the present.[/quote]

Lol…did you notice that the two recent studies posted by Orion, showing that sexual promiscuity is as high among heterosexuals as among homosexuals, were completely ignored? Shocking, I know.[/quote]

I’ll spell it out for you moron. Young males want a lot of sex. Young heterosexual males and homosexual males as well. However homosexual males do not have a woman telling them NO. Therefore, they are more promiscuous.

You know if you’re going to twist the facts you have to do it with something less obvious—Remember the way you used to twist and turn the facts in our many debates?

I think you’re slipping forliar.[/quote]

What you are doing is the same as putting the numbers of prostitutes into the same categories as normal woman and then claim that all women are sluts.

Blatant nonsense.[/quote]

Oh really now, do 60% of all new HIV cases come from homosexual men or straight men?

[/quote]

You should probably work through my posts.

128

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Whether the APA classifies anything as anything has very little bearing on how it is viewed by the society at large.[/quote]

The point has flown over your head. As I stated, this is the SAME organization which declassified homosexuality as a mental disease. AND…they are now working on pedophilia.

Grasp it![/quote]

Yeah, its also the same organization that classified them as mental disorders in the first place.

Cant have it both ways. [/quote]

Obviously, but now they are heading in the same direction as they did with homosexuality. It’s a simple point, and nothing you have to dodge. It’s not as if YOU are personally responsible for this organization.[/quote]

I have posted their proposed revision .

129

[quote]forlife wrote:

I also like how they omit that the APA clearly states that pedophilic behavior is criminal and immoral, and that the organization itself is NOT considering declassifying pedophilia as a mental disorder. In the article, Spitzer said declassification would never happen in a million years. Oops.
[/quote]

That irks me somewhat.

“Criminal” and “immoral” are hardly categories to use when it comes to what constitutes mental health.

130

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Christine wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I’ll spell it out for you moron. Young males want a lot of sex. Young heterosexual males and homosexual males as well. However homosexual males do not have a woman telling them NO. Therefore, they are more promiscuous.

This is possibly the most illogical argument I have read in a long time. Young men want sex; therefore, young homosexual men are more promiscuous. That is what you are going with? Really? Fallacies.

YOU really need to spend more time in threads that talk about how much protein one should consume. Because this stuff just ZIPS right past you!

If it takes two people to have sex and both are male in the case of homosexuals then OBVIOUSLY (to most people but not you) neither man will decline. Whereas in a heterosexual relationship we can count on the woman saying no at least occasionally. Hence, there is more promiscuity with homosexuals than heterosexuals because there is more opportunity. Hopefull you now understand this simple point.

And then you immediately attack another for twisting facts.

No need for a response.

No, there is no need for you, or anyone with your limited intelligence to respond. Yet…for some reason you always do.[/quote]

The conclusion that neither man will decline the opportunity for homosexual sex is not supported by the assumption that young men want sex. I understood what you were attempting to argue, I just noted that it is illogical.

And the reason why I said there was no reason for a response was that I assumed that any response would simply be an attack on my character or intelligence.

131

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Nice way to pick and choose.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

Well any clown (except you I) can see that I have posted information from the 1970’s to 2008 which is the latest CDC data. But you as you can see your fellow atheist wonder boy decided to comment ONLY on the data from 1970.

(I feel like I’m explaining something to a child - But based on the cartoons and your world view you could be one)

[/quote]

Implying results skewed by past practices is a reliable indicator of the present.[/quote]

This is data which has been culled directly from practicing homosexuals for over 30 years. And you want to disregard it because it doesn’t suit your politically correct (and quite naive) view of the world.

Idiot.[/quote]

Activities from 30+ years ago =/= Now

Idiot.

132

[quote]Christine wrote:
And the reason why I said there was no reason for a response was that I assumed that any response would simply be an attack on my character or intelligence.[/quote]

Impressive how he manages it anyway.

133

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
And the reason why I said there was no reason for a response was that I assumed that any response would simply be an attack on my character or intelligence.[/quote]

Impressive how he manages it anyway.[/quote]

I was attempting to give him the benefit of the doubt. Just because he usually resorts to personal attacks doesn’t mean he will always do so.

I may some day be surprised.

134

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Whether the APA classifies anything as anything has very little bearing on how it is viewed by the society at large.[/quote]

The point has flown over your head. As I stated, this is the SAME organization which declassified homosexuality as a mental disease. AND…they are now working on pedophilia.

Grasp it![/quote]

Yeah, its also the same organization that classified them as mental disorders in the first place.

Cant have it both ways. [/quote]

Obviously, but now they are heading in the same direction as they did with homosexuality. It’s a simple point, and nothing you have to dodge. It’s not as if YOU are personally responsible for this organization.[/quote]

I have posted their proposed revision .

[/quote]

Change happens one step at a time. If you don’t know that…well…

135

[quote]Christine wrote:

The conclusion that neither man will decline the opportunity for homosexual sex is not supported by the assumption that young men want sex. I understood what you were attempting to argue, I just noted that it is illogical.

And the reason why I said there was no reason for a response was that I assumed that any response would simply be an attack on my character or intelligence.[/quote]

If you are saying that we really don’t know why homosexual men are so promiscuous I agree. But that theory has been mentioned many times in debate when the topic arises.

There must be a reason why so many gay men have so much reckless sex which culminates in their group leading the way in HIV, STD’s a host of other sexual diseases, and also poor mental health.

If you have a theory I’d love to hear it.

Thanks,

Zeb

136

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Nice way to pick and choose.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

Well any clown (except you I) can see that I have posted information from the 1970’s to 2008 which is the latest CDC data. But you as you can see your fellow atheist wonder boy decided to comment ONLY on the data from 1970.

(I feel like I’m explaining something to a child - But based on the cartoons and your world view you could be one)

[/quote]

Implying results skewed by past practices is a reliable indicator of the present.[/quote]

This is data which has been culled directly from practicing homosexuals for over 30 years. And you want to disregard it because it doesn’t suit your politically correct (and quite naive) view of the world.

Idiot.[/quote]

Activities from 30+ years ago =/= Now

Idiot.[/quote]

Even you should understand the difference between FROM 30 years ago and OVER the past 30 years.

Yes, you’re still an idiot.

137

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
And the reason why I said there was no reason for a response was that I assumed that any response would simply be an attack on my character or intelligence.[/quote]

Impressive how he manages it anyway.[/quote]

You’re one to talk.

138

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
And the reason why I said there was no reason for a response was that I assumed that any response would simply be an attack on my character or intelligence.[/quote]

Impressive how he manages it anyway.[/quote]

I was attempting to give him the benefit of the doubt. Just because he usually resorts to personal attacks doesn’t mean he will always do so.

I may some day be surprised.[/quote]

Tell me something do you ever count the personal attacks pointed in my direction by those who hold opposing views? No, I guess you don’t because you AGREE with those people.

139

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
And the reason why I said there was no reason for a response was that I assumed that any response would simply be an attack on my character or intelligence.[/quote]

Impressive how he manages it anyway.[/quote]

I was attempting to give him the benefit of the doubt. Just because he usually resorts to personal attacks doesn’t mean he will always do so.

I may some day be surprised.[/quote]

Tell me something do you ever count the personal attacks pointed in my direction by those who hold opposing views? No, I guess you don’t because you AGREE with those people.

[/quote]

Here’s an idea, gramps - I’ll lay off the attacks on you if you can lay of on the attacks on every person you disagree with.

You start this shit, don’t bitch like a little girl when it comes back to you.

140

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

The conclusion that neither man will decline the opportunity for homosexual sex is not supported by the assumption that young men want sex. I understood what you were attempting to argue, I just noted that it is illogical.

And the reason why I said there was no reason for a response was that I assumed that any response would simply be an attack on my character or intelligence.[/quote]

If you are saying that we really don’t know why homosexual men are so promiscuous I agree. But that theory has been mentioned many times in debate when the topic arises.

There must be a reason why so many gay men have so much reckless sex which culminates in their group leading the way in HIV, STD’s a host of other sexual diseases, and also poor mental health.

If you have a theory I’d love to hear it.

Thanks,

Zeb

[/quote]

First of all, I am not convinced that homosexual males are significantly more promiscuous than heterosexual males.

I was pointing out fallacy of that specific point. The argument used is invalid because it is a deductive fallacy. Just because it has been used many times over doesn’t make it any more valid.

Even if one concedes that all young men want to have sex, it is impossible to deduce that they will always have sex given the opportunity.

It is easier for men to transfer HIV to other men or to a woman than it is for a woman to transfer HIV to a male.