Teacher Suspended for Anti-Gay Marriage Post

[Christine]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

Sorry, I’m much more interested in the logic used in an argument than the argument itself. [/quote]

There IS a problem in the gay community and that problem is promiscuity. How or why they got there, while interesting to discuss, is far less important to me than the fact that there is a problem. That you don’t want to discuss it doesn’t surprise me as many on your side don’t want to acknowledge the very ugly truth. Fair enough you and I will have no more discussion on this topic.

A snide remark is not equal to a personal attack.

Definition of Snide- “Derogatory in a malicious, superior way.”

Close enough.

I responded to it accordingly. It’s over now unless you don’t want it to be.

And I know how the ‘debating’ is done here (and all over the web). Unfortunately, ad hominem attacks are used too often. It debases the debate and the debaters.

Yes there’s a whole lot of debasing going on. Please stay and enjoy the fun!

I am not anyone’s minion.

That will eventually make itself apparent, or not.[/quote]

So, I take it that you are now willing to concede that your argument was invalid then as you have abandoned it’s defense.[/quote]

What I offered up was one possibility and I think a sound one. That you doubt its validity means what? Who cares? I asked if you had a better theory and you ran away from the argument.

Promiscuity in general does not bother me. I am not convinced that humans are meant to be entirely monogamous.

Reckless promiscuity that is clearly displayed by homosexuals bothers me much more.

A snide remark isn’t even close to a personal attack, and you did not respond accordingly. I was remarking on the logic of the argument, no you personally.

I gave you the definition of snide remark and I felt it was close enough - From this point forward you can whine about it all you like - I…just…don’t care

And as far as minions go, where exactly do you obtain your marching orders from? See there, I can turn the attack back on you too. Guess that makes me cool?

Good girl you sure showed me…(eye roll).[/quote]

No, you are the one who keeps running away from your theory. Young men want to have have sex; therefore, young homosexual males are more promiscuous.

Let’s try this now. Young men want to have sex; therefore, we should never teach abstinence.

or Young men want to have sex; therefore, young married men will cheat on their wives given the opportunity.

Invalid deductions.

Re: snide remark equalling a personal attack

Let’s say, hypothetically, that I had written something such as: Zeb always claims to to have moral superiority. I choose not to lower myself to his level. This could be construed as a personal attack. I could also follow that up with something like: I’m joking, of course, since we all know there is no poster here who is higher than Zeb.

Instead, I chose to make a snide remark regarding your theory.

[Christine]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

There are doctors here with pictures of their shirts off…but this is a bodybuilding forum…so how would that reflect on their professionalism at work in a clinic?[/quote]

If pictures of shirtless men are wrong, I don’t want to be right.

[orion]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Orion,

I showed you data from the CDC which clearly demonstrates that 60% of all new HIV cases are produced by the male homosexual population.

And in return you give me a face palm.

Atta boy orion…LOOKIN GOOD![/quote]

[ZEB]

[quote]Christine wrote:

No, you are the one who keeps running away from your theory.[/quote]

Very poor choice of words. You refused to give a counter to my theory and instead of reading you saying “nuh uh” all the time I moved on. Running? LOL you’re silly.

Young men want to have have sex; therefore, young homosexual males are more promiscuous.

I said that males are promiscuous but homosexual males have more opportunity. Pay attention if there Chrissy.

Seems logical that when you have two (homosexual) men there is no one to say no. That does not MAKE them more promiscuous it just gives them the availability to act on their young male promiscuity. Did you catch that? As I said if you don’t agree put forth your own theory. Otherwise, what’s the point? You can say that I’m wrong all day long and I can say that I’m right.

Young men want to have sex; therefore, young married men will cheat on their wives given the opportunity.

Thanks for proving my point! Very nice job. You said the magic words, “given the opportunity.” There is LESS opportunity for a married heterosexual man (hey just getting out of the house can be tough on some guys) to find an available women than for one homosexual man to find an available partner. As I said prior, on occasion the woman will say no, but men rarely do so.

You just had to keep posting until you proved my point! Hey thanks for that.

[quote]Re: snide remark equalling a personal attack

Let’s say, hypothetically, that I had written something such as: Zeb always claims to to have moral superiority. I choose not to lower myself to his level. This could be construed as a personal attack. I could also follow that up with something like: I’m joking, of course, since we all know there is no poster here who is higher than Zeb.

Instead, I chose to make a snide remark regarding your theory.[/quote]

You’ve just wasted more time describing the difference between a personal attack and an attack on one’s argument. I already posted the definition of a snide remark which is obviously different than a personal attack. Remember? Do you? You do seem to have a penchant for moving sideways with the obvious. And as I said before–Who cares?

This entire post was um…Look I know you are smarter than this (that is a positive affirmation toward a fellow poster, not a snide comment or a personal attack- Although in all fairness I can see how you would take it as one of the two. But keep in mind before you post back that-- I…just don’t care.

Your Friend,

Zeb

[ZEB]

Got it orion, more religious bigotry.

[lanchefan1]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
If I were a teacher I’d keep my personal and political views off a social network where people can see them. What if this person had posted racist or sexist views. Or pictures of themselves drunk and/or stoned? Nothing to do with ideology, just professionalism. I would have no problem with teachers who do not believe in gay marriage, and I doubt many people would, but they do not have to broadcast that fact where other people know it

inb4 overly ‘liberal’ media.[/quote]

Does this work the same for all professionals?

There are doctors here with pictures of their shirts off…but this is a bodybuilding forum…so how would that reflect on their professionalism at work in a clinic?[/quote]

We had to sit through a four hour class on what not to post online and how other police and firefighters had been both disciplined and terminated for it.

[Professor_X]

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
If I were a teacher I’d keep my personal and political views off a social network where people can see them. What if this person had posted racist or sexist views. Or pictures of themselves drunk and/or stoned? Nothing to do with ideology, just professionalism. I would have no problem with teachers who do not believe in gay marriage, and I doubt many people would, but they do not have to broadcast that fact where other people know it

inb4 overly ‘liberal’ media.[/quote]

Does this work the same for all professionals?

There are doctors here with pictures of their shirts off…but this is a bodybuilding forum…so how would that reflect on their professionalism at work in a clinic?[/quote]

We had to sit through a four hour class on what not to post online and how other police and firefighters had been both disciplined and terminated for it.[/quote]

I don’t doubt it. It is just that this topic came up recently in other forums and many of the younger posters here seemed to think they had nothing to worry about as far as what they post here…in spite of some of them having appeared in news casts and other media.

I don’t think it is right to fire this teacher or even reprimand him past telling him not to post shit on his facebook page…but I also realize the world is changing and it is inevitable that you will eventually be held liable for things written here just as if you said it out loud. Anonymity and the internet can not continue much longer with the world changing the way it is.

Privacy has been destroyed in all other social settings save one.

[orion]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
If I were a teacher I’d keep my personal and political views off a social network where people can see them. What if this person had posted racist or sexist views. Or pictures of themselves drunk and/or stoned? Nothing to do with ideology, just professionalism. I would have no problem with teachers who do not believe in gay marriage, and I doubt many people would, but they do not have to broadcast that fact where other people know it

inb4 overly ‘liberal’ media.[/quote]

Does this work the same for all professionals?

There are doctors here with pictures of their shirts off…but this is a bodybuilding forum…so how would that reflect on their professionalism at work in a clinic?[/quote]

We had to sit through a four hour class on what not to post online and how other police and firefighters had been both disciplined and terminated for it.[/quote]

I don’t doubt it. It is just that this topic came up recently in other forums and many of the younger posters here seemed to think they had nothing to worry about as far as what they post here…in spite of some of them having appeared in news casts and other media.

I don’t think it is right to fire this teacher or even reprimand him past telling him not to post shit on his facebook page…but I also realize the world is changing and it is inevitable that you will eventually be held liable for things written here just as if you said it out loud. Anonymity and the internet can not continue much longer with the world changing the way it is.

Privacy has been destroyed in all other social settings save one.[/quote]

Do I have pics of me uploaded?

Is this an American forum?

They can blow me.

Anyhow, I doubt that anonymity on the internetz will fall as easily as you seem to believe.

We will fight them on the streets, we will fight them on the beaches, hell, we will shit in their skillets if we must.

[Christine]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

No, you are the one who keeps running away from your theory.[/quote]

Very poor choice of words. You refused to give a counter to my theory and instead of reading you saying “nuh uh” all the time I moved on. Running? LOL you’re silly.

Young men want to have have sex; therefore, young homosexual males are more promiscuous.

I said that males are promiscuous but homosexual males have more opportunity. Pay attention if there Chrissy.

Seems logical that when you have two (homosexual) men there is no one to say no. That does not MAKE them more promiscuous it just gives them the availability to act on their young male promiscuity. Did you catch that? As I said if you don’t agree put forth your own theory. Otherwise, what’s the point? You can say that I’m wrong all day long and I can say that I’m right.

Young men want to have sex; therefore, young married men will cheat on their wives given the opportunity.

Thanks for proving my point! Very nice job. You said the magic words, “given the opportunity.” There is LESS opportunity for a married heterosexual man (hey just getting out of the house can be tough on some guys) to find an available women than for one homosexual man to find an available partner. As I said prior, on occasion the woman will say no, but men rarely do so.

You just had to keep posting until you proved my point! Hey thanks for that.

[quote]Re: snide remark equalling a personal attack

Let’s say, hypothetically, that I had written something such as: Zeb always claims to to have moral superiority. I choose not to lower myself to his level. This could be construed as a personal attack. I could also follow that up with something like: I’m joking, of course, since we all know there is no poster here who is higher than Zeb.

Instead, I chose to make a snide remark regarding your theory.[/quote]

You’ve just wasted more time describing the difference between a personal attack and an attack on one’s argument. I already posted the definition of a snide remark which is obviously different than a personal attack. Remember? Do you? You do seem to have a penchant for moving sideways with the obvious. And as I said before–Who cares?

This entire post was um…Look I know you are smarter than this (that is a positive affirmation toward a fellow poster, not a snide comment or a personal attack- Although in all fairness I can see how you would take it as one of the two. But keep in mind before you post back that-- I…just don’t care.

Your Friend,

Zeb

:)[/quote]

Great, you finally got back to the point. You are saying that young men, given the opportunity to have sex, will seldom say no? You mentioned earlier that women can say no. Am I to conclude that men can’t say no?

And you forget that while women can say no, they want sex just as much as young men. Perhaps you were often told no fucking way in your younger years so you assume that women will often say no. Even if I were to assume that the percentage of promiscuous women was lower than the percentage of promiscuous men, there are plenty of young women out there willing and able.

And I keep bringing up the snide remark because you keep defending your response to it.

[Professor_X]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
If I were a teacher I’d keep my personal and political views off a social network where people can see them. What if this person had posted racist or sexist views. Or pictures of themselves drunk and/or stoned? Nothing to do with ideology, just professionalism. I would have no problem with teachers who do not believe in gay marriage, and I doubt many people would, but they do not have to broadcast that fact where other people know it

inb4 overly ‘liberal’ media.[/quote]

Does this work the same for all professionals?

There are doctors here with pictures of their shirts off…but this is a bodybuilding forum…so how would that reflect on their professionalism at work in a clinic?[/quote]

We had to sit through a four hour class on what not to post online and how other police and firefighters had been both disciplined and terminated for it.[/quote]

I don’t doubt it. It is just that this topic came up recently in other forums and many of the younger posters here seemed to think they had nothing to worry about as far as what they post here…in spite of some of them having appeared in news casts and other media.

I don’t think it is right to fire this teacher or even reprimand him past telling him not to post shit on his facebook page…but I also realize the world is changing and it is inevitable that you will eventually be held liable for things written here just as if you said it out loud. Anonymity and the internet can not continue much longer with the world changing the way it is.

Privacy has been destroyed in all other social settings save one.[/quote]

Do I have pics of me uploaded?

Is this an American forum?

They can blow me.

Anyhow, I doubt that anonymity on the internetz will fall as easily as you seem to believe.

We will fight them on the streets, we will fight them on the beaches, hell, we will shit in their skillets if we must. [/quote]

I’m betting Google alone has enough info saved up about you to rival the IRS and your mom’s family photo album combined.

[orion]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
If I were a teacher I’d keep my personal and political views off a social network where people can see them. What if this person had posted racist or sexist views. Or pictures of themselves drunk and/or stoned? Nothing to do with ideology, just professionalism. I would have no problem with teachers who do not believe in gay marriage, and I doubt many people would, but they do not have to broadcast that fact where other people know it

inb4 overly ‘liberal’ media.[/quote]

Does this work the same for all professionals?

There are doctors here with pictures of their shirts off…but this is a bodybuilding forum…so how would that reflect on their professionalism at work in a clinic?[/quote]

We had to sit through a four hour class on what not to post online and how other police and firefighters had been both disciplined and terminated for it.[/quote]

I don’t doubt it. It is just that this topic came up recently in other forums and many of the younger posters here seemed to think they had nothing to worry about as far as what they post here…in spite of some of them having appeared in news casts and other media.

I don’t think it is right to fire this teacher or even reprimand him past telling him not to post shit on his facebook page…but I also realize the world is changing and it is inevitable that you will eventually be held liable for things written here just as if you said it out loud. Anonymity and the internet can not continue much longer with the world changing the way it is.

Privacy has been destroyed in all other social settings save one.[/quote]

Do I have pics of me uploaded?

Is this an American forum?

They can blow me.

Anyhow, I doubt that anonymity on the internetz will fall as easily as you seem to believe.

We will fight them on the streets, we will fight them on the beaches, hell, we will shit in their skillets if we must. [/quote]

I’m betting Google alone has enough info saved up about you to rival the IRS and your mom’s family photo album combined.[/quote]

You would be wrong (I guess ?!?), but even if they have, that is still a long way to disclose it to Austrian authorities.

Also, if all else fails, I just relocate 100 km or so, and they can blow me yet again.

[ZEB]

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

No, you are the one who keeps running away from your theory.[/quote]

Very poor choice of words. You refused to give a counter to my theory and instead of reading you saying “nuh uh” all the time I moved on. Running? LOL you’re silly.

Young men want to have have sex; therefore, young homosexual males are more promiscuous.

I said that males are promiscuous but homosexual males have more opportunity. Pay attention if there Chrissy.

Seems logical that when you have two (homosexual) men there is no one to say no. That does not MAKE them more promiscuous it just gives them the availability to act on their young male promiscuity. Did you catch that? As I said if you don’t agree put forth your own theory. Otherwise, what’s the point? You can say that I’m wrong all day long and I can say that I’m right.

Young men want to have sex; therefore, young married men will cheat on their wives given the opportunity.

Thanks for proving my point! Very nice job. You said the magic words, “given the opportunity.” There is LESS opportunity for a married heterosexual man (hey just getting out of the house can be tough on some guys) to find an available women than for one homosexual man to find an available partner. As I said prior, on occasion the woman will say no, but men rarely do so.

You just had to keep posting until you proved my point! Hey thanks for that.

[quote]Re: snide remark equalling a personal attack

Let’s say, hypothetically, that I had written something such as: Zeb always claims to to have moral superiority. I choose not to lower myself to his level. This could be construed as a personal attack. I could also follow that up with something like: I’m joking, of course, since we all know there is no poster here who is higher than Zeb.

Instead, I chose to make a snide remark regarding your theory.[/quote]

You’ve just wasted more time describing the difference between a personal attack and an attack on one’s argument. I already posted the definition of a snide remark which is obviously different than a personal attack. Remember? Do you? You do seem to have a penchant for moving sideways with the obvious. And as I said before–Who cares?

This entire post was um…Look I know you are smarter than this (that is a positive affirmation toward a fellow poster, not a snide comment or a personal attack- Although in all fairness I can see how you would take it as one of the two. But keep in mind before you post back that-- I…just don’t care.

Your Friend,

Zeb

:)[/quote]

Great, you finally got back to the point. You are saying that young men, given the opportunity to have sex, will seldom say no? You mentioned earlier that women can say no. Am I to conclude that men can’t say no?

And you forget that while women can say no, they want sex just as much as young men. Perhaps you were often told no fucking way in your younger years so you assume that women will often say no. Even if I were to assume that the percentage of promiscuous women was lower than the percentage of promiscuous men, there are plenty of young women out there willing and able.
[/quote]

Yes Christine I think as I do because I was told no (eye roll) come on girl you gotta do better than that if you are going to try to disrespect me. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that the typical male pursues sex more often than the typical women, with exceptions of course. If you think that it is the reverse or even equal you can explain why there are so many female prostitutes. I’ll give you a clue there is a healthy market of men looking for sex.

Anyway Christine this is pretty much over. It was over when you said this:

Young men want to have sex; therefore, young married men will cheat on their wives [b]given the opportunity.[/b]

What’s that you said? GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY. Uh uh.

At this point I will just repeat the points I’ve already made and will do the same and yada yada yada yada…If you want to argue with me start fresh with something else. You’ve already proven my point on this one. I’m sure there’s no shortage of topics that we disagree on. Just pick one. If I like it I’ll bite, if not I will direct you to pick another one.

Anyway your argument is pretty much dead be kind enough to just put a bullet in it and put it out of its misery. Don’t let this end with me laughing at you that won’t be a good thing now would it?

Still Your Friend,

Zeb

[lucasa]

[quote]orion wrote:

You mean part of his larger point was that polygamy or polyandry are a-ok, due to the fact that those marriages are between men and women?

I doubt it.
[/quote]

I’ve in the past said that, if we’re going to change marriage, the Gov’t needs to get out of the marriage business altogether or make an umbrella definition that includes polyamorous, atypical biological, and platonic relationships (not just gay) and encourages stable cohabitation/colocalization. The only person to outwardly and resolutely oppose the idea has been forlife. The only person to offer any sort of approval is ZEB.

Matter of fact, if you propose the ‘legalization’ of polygamy or ‘egalitarian polyamory’ marriages to forlife, he will be sure to point out to you that those people aren’t currently waging a large enough political battle and that Nazis didn’t persecute them enough so they don’t deserve their right to a federally recognized marriage.

That, to me, reads as it’s okay to deny people a fundamental right as long as they’re enough of a minority and don’t (continue to) protest in large enough numbers. If ZEB is an oppressive religious zealot, I haven’t heard him advance any oppressive zealotry in a manner as scary as forlife.

[lucasa]

[quote]orion wrote:

So, it turns out that increased rates of HIV infection are not caused by rampant gay sluttiness but by a virus preferring some entry points to others.[/quote]

Not news, the riskiest sexual behaviors are male and insertion oriented the least being female and non-insertive. Guess who practices the riskiest sexual behaviors most often? It has recently been found that women tend to have unprotected insertive anal sex at a higher relative rate than homosexual men. The media (esp. homosexual media) will distort this fact to ‘prove’ that homosexual men are as or more responsible than straight women. Totally ignored is the fact that anal sex is actually a small fraction of the average woman’s repertoire, that their anal acts may not have been more inherently risky, and that the majority of anal sex is practiced by MSM.

http://cltampa.com/dailyloaf/archives/2010/04/22/women-have-unprotected-anal-sex-at-higher-rates-than-gay-men#.TlpQ8m_aGAg

Now unless we seriously argue that Jehova has decided to smite homosexuals with the AIDS virus, I think we can attribute that to bad luck.

Here in the States, even relatively adamantly atheist lawyers and doctors would call that ‘an act of God’.

[Christine]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

No, you are the one who keeps running away from your theory.[/quote]

Very poor choice of words. You refused to give a counter to my theory and instead of reading you saying “nuh uh” all the time I moved on. Running? LOL you’re silly.

Young men want to have have sex; therefore, young homosexual males are more promiscuous.

I said that males are promiscuous but homosexual males have more opportunity. Pay attention if there Chrissy.

Seems logical that when you have two (homosexual) men there is no one to say no. That does not MAKE them more promiscuous it just gives them the availability to act on their young male promiscuity. Did you catch that? As I said if you don’t agree put forth your own theory. Otherwise, what’s the point? You can say that I’m wrong all day long and I can say that I’m right.

Young men want to have sex; therefore, young married men will cheat on their wives given the opportunity.

Thanks for proving my point! Very nice job. You said the magic words, “given the opportunity.” There is LESS opportunity for a married heterosexual man (hey just getting out of the house can be tough on some guys) to find an available women than for one homosexual man to find an available partner. As I said prior, on occasion the woman will say no, but men rarely do so.

You just had to keep posting until you proved my point! Hey thanks for that.

[quote]Re: snide remark equalling a personal attack

Let’s say, hypothetically, that I had written something such as: Zeb always claims to to have moral superiority. I choose not to lower myself to his level. This could be construed as a personal attack. I could also follow that up with something like: I’m joking, of course, since we all know there is no poster here who is higher than Zeb.

Instead, I chose to make a snide remark regarding your theory.[/quote]

You’ve just wasted more time describing the difference between a personal attack and an attack on one’s argument. I already posted the definition of a snide remark which is obviously different than a personal attack. Remember? Do you? You do seem to have a penchant for moving sideways with the obvious. And as I said before–Who cares?

This entire post was um…Look I know you are smarter than this (that is a positive affirmation toward a fellow poster, not a snide comment or a personal attack- Although in all fairness I can see how you would take it as one of the two. But keep in mind before you post back that-- I…just don’t care.

Your Friend,

Zeb

:)[/quote]

Great, you finally got back to the point. You are saying that young men, given the opportunity to have sex, will seldom say no? You mentioned earlier that women can say no. Am I to conclude that men can’t say no?

And you forget that while women can say no, they want sex just as much as young men. Perhaps you were often told no fucking way in your younger years so you assume that women will often say no. Even if I were to assume that the percentage of promiscuous women was lower than the percentage of promiscuous men, there are plenty of young women out there willing and able.
[/quote]

Yes Christine I think as I do because I was told no (eye roll) come on girl you gotta do better than that if you are going to try to disrespect me. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that the typical male pursues sex more often than the typical women, with exceptions of course. If you think that it is the reverse or even equal you can explain why there are so many female prostitutes. I’ll give you a clue there is a healthy market of men looking for sex.

Anyway Christine this is pretty much over. It was over when you said this:

Young men want to have sex; therefore, young married men will cheat on their wives [b]given the opportunity.[/b]

What’s that you said? GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY. Uh uh.

At this point I will just repeat the points I’ve already made and will do the same and yada yada yada yada…If you want to argue with me start fresh with something else. You’ve already proven my point on this one. I’m sure there’s no shortage of topics that we disagree on. Just pick one. If I like it I’ll bite, if not I will direct you to pick another one.

Anyway your argument is pretty much dead be kind enough to just put a bullet in it and put it out of its misery. Don’t let this end with me laughing at you that won’t be a good thing now would it?

Still Your Friend,

Zeb[/quote]

My argument is not dead, nor was it ever. Your brush is just way too broad. The examples I used where those of invalid deductions. You are attempting to use one invalid deduction to prove another invalid deduction.

The conclusions are not supported by the statements. And you are unable to give any support.

You are dismissed now. I am officially bored with trying to insert logic into an obviously emotional subject.

[ZEB]

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

No, you are the one who keeps running away from your theory.[/quote]

Very poor choice of words. You refused to give a counter to my theory and instead of reading you saying “nuh uh” all the time I moved on. Running? LOL you’re silly.

Young men want to have have sex; therefore, young homosexual males are more promiscuous.

I said that males are promiscuous but homosexual males have more opportunity. Pay attention if there Chrissy.

Seems logical that when you have two (homosexual) men there is no one to say no. That does not MAKE them more promiscuous it just gives them the availability to act on their young male promiscuity. Did you catch that? As I said if you don’t agree put forth your own theory. Otherwise, what’s the point? You can say that I’m wrong all day long and I can say that I’m right.

Young men want to have sex; therefore, young married men will cheat on their wives given the opportunity.

Thanks for proving my point! Very nice job. You said the magic words, “given the opportunity.” There is LESS opportunity for a married heterosexual man (hey just getting out of the house can be tough on some guys) to find an available women than for one homosexual man to find an available partner. As I said prior, on occasion the woman will say no, but men rarely do so.

You just had to keep posting until you proved my point! Hey thanks for that.

[quote]Re: snide remark equalling a personal attack

Let’s say, hypothetically, that I had written something such as: Zeb always claims to to have moral superiority. I choose not to lower myself to his level. This could be construed as a personal attack. I could also follow that up with something like: I’m joking, of course, since we all know there is no poster here who is higher than Zeb.

Instead, I chose to make a snide remark regarding your theory.[/quote]

You’ve just wasted more time describing the difference between a personal attack and an attack on one’s argument. I already posted the definition of a snide remark which is obviously different than a personal attack. Remember? Do you? You do seem to have a penchant for moving sideways with the obvious. And as I said before–Who cares?

This entire post was um…Look I know you are smarter than this (that is a positive affirmation toward a fellow poster, not a snide comment or a personal attack- Although in all fairness I can see how you would take it as one of the two. But keep in mind before you post back that-- I…just don’t care.

Your Friend,

Zeb

:)[/quote]

Great, you finally got back to the point. You are saying that young men, given the opportunity to have sex, will seldom say no? You mentioned earlier that women can say no. Am I to conclude that men can’t say no?

And you forget that while women can say no, they want sex just as much as young men. Perhaps you were often told no fucking way in your younger years so you assume that women will often say no. Even if I were to assume that the percentage of promiscuous women was lower than the percentage of promiscuous men, there are plenty of young women out there willing and able.
[/quote]

Yes Christine I think as I do because I was told no (eye roll) come on girl you gotta do better than that if you are going to try to disrespect me. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that the typical male pursues sex more often than the typical women, with exceptions of course. If you think that it is the reverse or even equal you can explain why there are so many female prostitutes. I’ll give you a clue there is a healthy market of men looking for sex.

Anyway Christine this is pretty much over. It was over when you said this:

Young men want to have sex; therefore, young married men will cheat on their wives [b]given the opportunity.[/b]

What’s that you said? GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY. Uh uh.

At this point I will just repeat the points I’ve already made and will do the same and yada yada yada yada…If you want to argue with me start fresh with something else. You’ve already proven my point on this one. I’m sure there’s no shortage of topics that we disagree on. Just pick one. If I like it I’ll bite, if not I will direct you to pick another one.

Anyway your argument is pretty much dead be kind enough to just put a bullet in it and put it out of its misery. Don’t let this end with me laughing at you that won’t be a good thing now would it?

Still Your Friend,

Zeb[/quote]

My argument is not dead, nor was it ever. Your brush is just way too broad. The examples I used where those of invalid deductions. You are attempting to use one invalid deduction to prove another invalid deduction.

The conclusions are not supported by the statements. And you are unable to give any support.

You are dismissed now. I am officially bored with trying to insert logic into an obviously emotional subject.[/quote]

I warned you about entertaining me, now it’s happened –

Here’s the funny part not only didn’t you post anything to support your point, or refute my own, you actually proved my point in one of your statements by admitting that married (heterosexual) men don’t have as much opportunity. That was really the end of your nonsensical argument. But to make matters worse, and giving me a second laugh, you tried to bolster your argument (after it had sunk) by claiming that women actually wanted sex more times than men (with exceptions that’s just not the case). Not wanting to feel defeated you now continue to post, “you’re dismissed—you’re not logical…bla bla bla”.

As a forum regular I would expected more from you. Anyone can be wrong, but after you blindly charged ahead after proving my point, that’s when this became a certifiable joke.

Thanks for the laughs Chrissy!

And let’s do this again sometime we just don’t talk enough.

Zeb

[forlife]

[quote]lucasa wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

You mean part of his larger point was that polygamy or polyandry are a-ok, due to the fact that those marriages are between men and women?

I doubt it.
[/quote]

I’ve in the past said that, if we’re going to change marriage, the Gov’t needs to get out of the marriage business altogether or make an umbrella definition that includes polyamorous, atypical biological, and platonic relationships (not just gay) and encourages stable cohabitation/colocalization. The only person to outwardly and resolutely oppose the idea has been forlife. The only person to offer any sort of approval is ZEB.

Matter of fact, if you propose the ‘legalization’ of polygamy or ‘egalitarian polyamory’ marriages to forlife, he will be sure to point out to you that those people aren’t currently waging a large enough political battle and that Nazis didn’t persecute them enough so they don’t deserve their right to a federally recognized marriage.

That, to me, reads as it’s okay to deny people a fundamental right as long as they’re enough of a minority and don’t (continue to) protest in large enough numbers. If ZEB is an oppressive religious zealot, I haven’t heard him advance any oppressive zealotry in a manner as scary as forlife.[/quote]

You misrepresented my position on several counts:

1. I have never opposed legalization of polygamous unions, and have consistently said that unless there is reliable evidence that polygamy is inherently harmful, it would be unjustly discriminatory to deny them the right to marry.

2. I have never minimized the suffering of concentration camp victims, irrespective of the reason they were persecuted by the Nazis. Pointing out that gays were exterminated by the Nazis does not in any way imply that others didn’t suffer horribly as well. I am part Jewish myself, and I have personally known a Jewish concentration camp survivor who described her experience there. It was an atrocity, period.

3. Protesting doesn’t give one minority group any more of a right to equal treatment than another minority group. People have the right to love and happiness, and to equal treatment under the law, regardless of how large or how loud their minority group may be.

If you want to debate my points, feel free. All I ask is that you actually debate my points, rather than strawmen.

[forlife]

[quote]lucasa wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

So, it turns out that increased rates of HIV infection are not caused by rampant gay sluttiness but by a virus preferring some entry points to others.[/quote]

Not news, the riskiest sexual behaviors are male and insertion oriented the least being female and non-insertive. Guess who practices the riskiest sexual behaviors most often? It has recently been found that women tend to have unprotected insertive anal sex at a higher relative rate than homosexual men. The media (esp. homosexual media) will distort this fact to ‘prove’ that homosexual men are as or more responsible than straight women. Totally ignored is the fact that anal sex is actually a small fraction of the average woman’s repertoire, that their anal acts may not have been more inherently risky, and that the majority of anal sex is practiced by MSM.

http://cltampa.com/dailyloaf/archives/2010/04/22/women-have-unprotected-anal-sex-at-higher-rates-than-gay-men#.TlpQ8m_aGAg

Now unless we seriously argue that Jehova has decided to smite homosexuals with the AIDS virus, I think we can attribute that to bad luck.

Here in the States, even relatively adamantly atheist lawyers and doctors would call that ‘an act of God’.[/quote]

Given the much higher risk of catching HIV due to anal sex, all the more reason we should encourage people who practice anal sex to be in committed, monogamous relationships, irrespective of their gender.

[orion]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]lucasa wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

So, it turns out that increased rates of HIV infection are not caused by rampant gay sluttiness but by a virus preferring some entry points to others.[/quote]

Not news, the riskiest sexual behaviors are male and insertion oriented the least being female and non-insertive. Guess who practices the riskiest sexual behaviors most often? It has recently been found that women tend to have unprotected insertive anal sex at a higher relative rate than homosexual men. The media (esp. homosexual media) will distort this fact to ‘prove’ that homosexual men are as or more responsible than straight women. Totally ignored is the fact that anal sex is actually a small fraction of the average woman’s repertoire, that their anal acts may not have been more inherently risky, and that the majority of anal sex is practiced by MSM.

http://cltampa.com/dailyloaf/archives/2010/04/22/women-have-unprotected-anal-sex-at-higher-rates-than-gay-men#.TlpQ8m_aGAg

Now unless we seriously argue that Jehova has decided to smite homosexuals with the AIDS virus, I think we can attribute that to bad luck.

Here in the States, even relatively adamantly atheist lawyers and doctors would call that ‘an act of God’.[/quote]

Given the much higher risk of catching HIV due to anal sex, all the more reason we should encourage people who practice anal sex to be in committed, monogamous relationships, irrespective of their gender. [/quote]

Personally, I would go for condoms.

Much more likely to happen .

[forlife]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]lucasa wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

So, it turns out that increased rates of HIV infection are not caused by rampant gay sluttiness but by a virus preferring some entry points to others.[/quote]

Not news, the riskiest sexual behaviors are male and insertion oriented the least being female and non-insertive. Guess who practices the riskiest sexual behaviors most often? It has recently been found that women tend to have unprotected insertive anal sex at a higher relative rate than homosexual men. The media (esp. homosexual media) will distort this fact to ‘prove’ that homosexual men are as or more responsible than straight women. Totally ignored is the fact that anal sex is actually a small fraction of the average woman’s repertoire, that their anal acts may not have been more inherently risky, and that the majority of anal sex is practiced by MSM.

http://cltampa.com/dailyloaf/archives/2010/04/22/women-have-unprotected-anal-sex-at-higher-rates-than-gay-men#.TlpQ8m_aGAg

Now unless we seriously argue that Jehova has decided to smite homosexuals with the AIDS virus, I think we can attribute that to bad luck.

Here in the States, even relatively adamantly atheist lawyers and doctors would call that ‘an act of God’.[/quote]

Given the much higher risk of catching HIV due to anal sex, all the more reason we should encourage people who practice anal sex to be in committed, monogamous relationships, irrespective of their gender. [/quote]

Personally, I would go for condoms.

Much more likely to happen .

[/quote]

Tis true…fortunately one solution doesn’t preclude the other.