'That's So Gay!'

Gambit_Lost · July 7, 2009, 4:34pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
forlife wrote:

One day you will grow up and learn that ad hominem attacks on a person’s motivations or character do not contribute to the validity of your claims.

It isn’t an ad hominem - more than any person in this forum, you are guilty of being selective with facts to suit your agenda. Not my problem to fix, but it certainly is a problem. Highlighting that flaw is not an ad hominem[/quote]

lol. Was this was supposed to be ironic? Perhaps you are just a cleaver troll?

“I’m not using an ad hominem! I’m just attacking YOU!”

Headhunter · July 7, 2009, 6:18pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
And here I thought that disparate treatment of anyone was bigotry.

Disparate treatment of criminals isn’t bigotry. Disparate treatment of people based on personal characteristics like race, age, gender, or sexual orientation is bigotry.

Since gay rights are not inalienable, they are determined BY VOTING.

You are stating your opinion as fact. The Supreme Court disagrees with you, and has noted that sexual orientation is not a valid characteristic for denying people equal rights under the Constitution.

As of now, the majority of people refuse to grant you the right to marry.

You do realize that as recently as this year, the legislature (not the courts) has passed laws allowing gays to marry, right? And public opinions favoring equal rights for gays have steadily increased over the past couple of decades. You see that as social decline, and I see it as social progress. Regardless, it is happening and you can’t stop it.

Soon, your ‘friend’ will leave you for a pony.

Tell that to my friends Ian and Ambrose, who have been together for over 50 years.[/quote]

"Whatever else the institution of marriage ever was, it was a system for forcing males to act like responsible adults.

With the rise of the independent, wage-earning female, the simultaneous destruction of the family unit at the poverty end of the scale, the putting off of having kids or decision to have none, the spread of alternative relationships, and the general de-emphasizing of the male’s lifetime commitment to marriage and to being the sole financial support of a family, he has found himself under less and less pressure to pretend to be a mature, responsible adult. He has more playtime. He can, with an ease unknown in his grandfather’s day, indulge his inner adolescent in perpetuity. He can surround himself with games and toys, fantasy sports and fantasy adventures and fantasy friendsters. Freed from having to pretend he’s a responsible adult, he can pretend he’s whatever his boyish heart desires. A gangsta, a pimp, a zombie-hunting space commando. It doesn’t much matter if we play these roles at home, on the screen or in the street. We’re all Gameboy.

It’s no wonder, then, that the Average American Male has become so confused about his masculinity and the role of masculinity in the Sissy world. He feels thoroughly pussy-whipped, not just by his own woman, but by women generally. He is treated like a lazy idiot, useful only for heavy lifting and procreation. No wonder he has retreated into a state of perpetual adolescence. No wonder so many young black males try to live like hypermasculine cartoons (hypermasculinity is Sissiness with a severe complex), and so many young white males try to dress, act and think like girls."

http://thetruthbarrier.com/essays/46-john-strausbaugh/125-the-useless-american-male

ZEB · July 7, 2009, 6:41pm

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:

Personally I wouldn’t care if it could be changed. Even if gays really secretly loved women and were having sex to be “evil” it still wouldn’t bother me. It just has no effect on me, and it’s not an issue I really have to worry over.[/quote]

I’ll answer this relative to gay marriage:

The gay marriage debate is one that effects us as a society. One can wonder about in their own little world and not care exactly what is happening outside of it. Many live their lives that way. Others like to examine why things are the way they are.

In short, when YOU don’t get involved then THEY (whoever “they” happen to be) who are organized, focused and well funded, get to push THEIR agenda (whatever that may be) onto the social/political scene. And then YOU have no say in it because YOU buried YOUR head in the sand.

Two such organizations that work 24/7 to push the gay agenda, there are many others:

http://www.glrl.org.au/

Let me ask you some questions:

How is one man marrying his sister going to effect you?

Do you want to see this take place since it does not yet immediately DIRECTLY effect you?

How is one man marrying many women going to effect you?

Do you want to see this sanctioned as well as it does not yet immediately DIRECTLY effect you?

For that matter how is one man raping his neighbor going to effect you?

It’s only one rape and how in the world does that DIRECTLY effect you? You are not even a woman!

So who cares?

It’s all same argument, and it’s all wrong! You can plug in whatever sort of action that you want. How does someone murdering another person in New Jersey DIRECTLY effect you? How is someone marrying their german shepherd going to effect you? How is someone shooting their german shepherd going to effect you?

How does anything that does not touch you on a daily basis right now going to DIRECTLY effect you?

Hmm…I guess it’s not, so then everything that does not immediately DIRECTLY effect you is okay?

That is a WEAK argument and I hope that you realize it at this point.

There are “things” that have a direct effect upon you. And there are other things that have (or will have) an indirect effect on you or your family (future children etc.) And those are the things that effect society as a whole. And eventually end up effecting us all.

You are part of society and therefore subject to being “effected” by all sorts of things that seemingly “don’t effect” you.

Are you claiming that you don’t care what type of society that you live in as long as your little world is not DIRECTLY effected? Eventually, everything that effects the whole will effect you either directly or indirectly.

Think about it.

Gambit_Lost · July 7, 2009, 7:11pm

uh-oh, he’s watching!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:

Personally I wouldn’t care if it could be changed. Even if gays really secretly loved women and were having sex to be “evil” it still wouldn’t bother me. It just has no effect on me, and it’s not an issue I really have to worry over.

I’ll answer this relative to gay marriage:

The gay marriage debate is one that effects us as a society. One can wonder about in their own little world and not care exactly what is happening outside of it. Many live their lives that way. Others like to examine why things are the way they are.

In short, when YOU don’t get involved then THEY (whoever “they” happen to be) who are organized, focused and well funded, get to push THEIR agenda (whatever that may be) onto the social/political scene. And then YOU have no say in it because YOU buried YOUR head in the sand.

Two such organizations that work 24/7 to push the gay agenda, there are many others:

http://www.glrl.org.au/

Let me ask you some questions:

How is one man marrying his sister going to effect you?

Do you want to see this take place since it does not yet immediately DIRECTLY effect you?

How is one man marrying many women going to effect you?

Do you want to see this sanctioned as well as it does not yet immediately DIRECTLY effect you?

For that matter how is one man raping his neighbor going to effect you?

It’s only one rape and how in the world does that DIRECTLY effect you? You are not even a woman!

So who cares?

It’s all same argument, and it’s all wrong! You can plug in whatever sort of action that you want. How does someone murdering another person in New Jersey DIRECTLY effect you? How is someone marrying their german shepherd going to effect you? How is someone shooting their german shepherd going to effect you?

How does anything that does not touch you on a daily basis right now going to DIRECTLY effect you?

Hmm…I guess it’s not, so then everything that does not immediately DIRECTLY effect you is okay?

That is a WEAK argument and I hope that you realize it at this point.

There are “things” that have a direct effect upon you. And there are other things that have (or will have) an indirect effect on you or your family (future children etc.) And those are the things that effect society as a whole. And eventually end up effecting us all.

You are part of society and therefore subject to being “effected” by all sorts of things that seemingly “don’t effect” you.

Are you claiming that you don’t care what type of society that you live in as long as your little world is not DIRECTLY effected? Eventually, everything that effects the whole will effect you either directly or indirectly.

Think about it.

[/quote]

forlife · July 7, 2009, 7:22pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Whatever else the institution of marriage ever was, it was a system for forcing males to act like responsible adults.[/quote]

Sounds like a pretty good reason to make marriage available to gay men.

forlife · July 7, 2009, 7:32pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
There are “things” that have a direct effect upon you. And there are other things that have (or will have) an indirect effect on you or your family (future children etc.) And those are the things that effect society as a whole. And eventually end up effecting us all.
[/quote]

Showing that some things with no direct effects eventually produce indirect effects is not the same as showing that all things with no direct effects eventually produce indirect effects.

The Butterfly effect posits that “small variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system”, which is very different from stating that “small variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system will produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system”.

ZEB · July 7, 2009, 8:59pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are “things” that have a direct effect upon you. And there are other things that have (or will have) an indirect effect on you or your family (future children etc.) And those are the things that effect society as a whole. And eventually end up effecting us all.

Showing that some things with no direct effects eventually produce indirect effects is not the same as showing that all things with no direct effects eventually produce indirect effects.[/quote]

I agree, but in reality the behavior has already had a massively negative effect on at least one part of society. If encouraged through something like gay marriage we have no idea the effect it will have on society, but make no mistake it WILL be negative.

My point, which may have escaped you, is that legitimizing such a behavior into a society can have detrimental effects which go far beyond what we can even imagine at this time.

We already know the staggering statistics regarding homosexual behavior. That is, a higher rate of STD’s, a higher rate of HIV (67% of all new cases in the US are homosexual men as per the CDC). Higher anxiety and depression rates and higher suicide rates.

Would you encourage everyone to drink too much alcohol simply because only about 10% of those who do this become alcoholics? By the way alcoholics live longer and healthier lives than homosexual men.

It’s a destructive behavior and those who are involved in it should seek help if they are not happy. As the APA states, seeking reparative therapy will do you no harm and may very well work.
Sanctioning such behavior is certainly a bad idea.

ZEB · July 7, 2009, 9:06pm

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Mishima wrote:

there is no value for society for two gay men gettng married.

Judging by statistics there’s almost no such thing as two gay monogamous men anyway…so your statement has more truth to it than you know.[/quote]

You are correct and here’s the truth:

"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.

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.

Unhealthy Aspects of “Monogamous” Homosexual Relationships. Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed “monogamous” do not necessarily result in healthier behavior.

The journal AIDS reported that (gay) men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than those without a steady partner.[15] Anal intercourse has been linked to a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred, finding that most “unsafe” sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships."

The statistics reflect a serious problem which transcends age as well:

“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 one hundred to five hundred lifetime sex partners.”

And this is the type of behavior that leads to runaway disease which I’ve been posting about for umpteen pages.

Instead of pacifying the homosexual community why not actually try to help them?

Who cares more about their health, some who perpetuates the gay myth, or those of us who want the facts to surface?

By the way you will never see these or any similar facts on the main stream media outlets. We are in full fledged denial and living a politically correct lie!

[/quote]

Makavali · July 7, 2009, 9:12pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
I think all gay people (except the hot lesbians) should be burnt at the stake and/or crucified.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to burn all the hetero males, so you have less competition for the women?[/quote]

And all the bisexual males too. All the women are belong to me.

forlife · July 7, 2009, 9:30pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I agree, but in reality the behavior has already had a massively negative effect on at least one part of society.[/quote]

How has homosexuality affected you and your marriage?

Because you say so? How about the statistics showing that gay marriage REDUCES sexually transmitted diseases and is beneficial to the children of gay couples?

As I just said, STD’s are LOWER among married gay couples than in the general gay population. Furthermore, I have provided evidence that anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts are DOUBLED as the result of gays going through reparative therapy. If you really cared about these statistics, you would stop telling gays to try changing who they are.

That is a blatant misrepresentation, and is hypocritical to boot since you have constantly demonized the APA as lacking credibility in the past. Here’s what the APA actually says for those that are interested:

[b]The most important fact about “reparative therapy,” also sometimes known as “conversion” therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a “cure.”

…health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people’s sexual orientation through “reparative therapy” and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm.[/b]

[/quote]

forlife · July 7, 2009, 9:29pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way you will never see these or any similar facts on the main stream media outlets.[/quote]

Nor will you see these “facts” in the scientific conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization. Hmmm, almost makes you wonder about the scientific rigor that informed these so-called “facts”.

eigieinhamr · July 7, 2009, 10:12pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:

Personally I wouldn’t care if it could be changed. Even if gays really secretly loved women and were having sex to be “evil” it still wouldn’t bother me. It just has no effect on me, and it’s not an issue I really have to worry over.

I’ll answer this relative to gay marriage:

The gay marriage debate is one that effects us as a society. One can wonder about in their own little world and not care exactly what is happening outside of it. Many live their lives that way. Others like to examine why things are the way they are.

In short, when YOU don’t get involved then THEY (whoever “they” happen to be) who are organized, focused and well funded, get to push THEIR agenda (whatever that may be) onto the social/political scene. And then YOU have no say in it because YOU buried YOUR head in the sand.

Two such organizations that work 24/7 to push the gay agenda, there are many others:

http://www.glrl.org.au/

Let me ask you some questions:

How is one man marrying his sister going to effect you?

Do you want to see this take place since it does not yet immediately DIRECTLY effect you?

How is one man marrying many women going to effect you?

Do you want to see this sanctioned as well as it does not yet immediately DIRECTLY effect you?

For that matter how is one man raping his neighbor going to effect you?

It’s only one rape and how in the world does that DIRECTLY effect you? You are not even a woman!

So who cares?

It’s all same argument, and it’s all wrong! You can plug in whatever sort of action that you want. How does someone murdering another person in New Jersey DIRECTLY effect you? How is someone marrying their german shepherd going to effect you? How is someone shooting their german shepherd going to effect you?

How does anything that does not touch you on a daily basis right now going to DIRECTLY effect you?

Hmm…I guess it’s not, so then everything that does not immediately DIRECTLY effect you is okay?

That is a WEAK argument and I hope that you realize it at this point.

There are “things” that have a direct effect upon you. And there are other things that have (or will have) an indirect effect on you or your family (future children etc.) And those are the things that effect society as a whole. And eventually end up effecting us all.

You are part of society and therefore subject to being “effected” by all sorts of things that seemingly “don’t effect” you.

Are you claiming that you don’t care what type of society that you live in as long as your little world is not DIRECTLY effected? Eventually, everything that effects the whole will effect you either directly or indirectly.

Think about it.

[/quote]

It’s a weak argument for things that directly harm other people. But if it’s two willing adults then it doesn’t bother me. If it was one gay guy using force to make another gay guy marry him then I would see it the same as forced marriage then I would see that as the same as forced hetero marriage.
I don’t think it harms anyone, therefore I don’t care about it.

ZEB · July 8, 2009, 12:04am

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I agree, but in reality the behavior has already had a massively negative effect on at least one part of society.

How has homosexuality affected you and your marriage?[/quote]

It causes me to spend more time at my computer when I could be with my wife.

[quote]
Because you say so? How about the statistics showing that gay marriage REDUCES sexually transmitted diseases?[/quote]

Oh but it doesn’t. There has certainly not been enough time to see if this is true in the US. As far as the Netherlands gays still have incredible high rates of disease and mental illness.

I wish this were not the case, but it seems that homosexual men regardless of what you want to think have lots and lots of indiscriminate sex, and of course the pain that goes along with it.

It’s a fact.

[quote]
As the APA states, seeking reparative therapy will do you no harm and may very well work.

That is a blatant misrepresentation, and is hypocritical to boot since you have constantly demonized the APA as lacking credibility in the past. [/quote]

Oh please don’t get all uppity on me forlife. We’ve had this conversations several pages back. You got all upset because the APA DOES NOT condemn reparative therapy. They feel that reparative therapy can DO NO HARM, in fact it may be quite helpful.

ZEB · July 8, 2009, 12:07am

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
By the way you will never see these or any similar facts on the main stream media outlets.

Nor will you see these “facts” in the scientific conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization. Hmmm, almost makes you wonder about the scientific rigor that informed these so-called “facts”.[/quote]

That’s the best you have?

I think I’ll repost these facts and if you can actually rebut them please do, otherwise just ignore the post as you are not helping your cause: