Yeah, I'm Gay...and I Love a Muscle Guy!

[ZEB]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

I hold no stock with these absurdist slippery slope agruments. [/quote]

Right, because things never move in the direction of the momentum in which they are caught up in, right?

This entire country is in a gigantic mess because of the slippery slope.

1. Certainly 50 years ago years ago was it looked down on for a man and woman who were not married to cohabitate? Fast forward, not only do they cohabitate, they now have children with that illicit union.

Why it’s bad: There is no comittment and a man, or woman are more apt to end the illicit relationship. This not only tears at the fabric of society, by leaving children without one, or both parents. This also costs the state big bucks to support these children.

What was the obesity rate 50 years ago?

How did people dress and speak 50 years ago?

To not notice a degradation of society by the slippery slope you would either have to be an idiot, or a person in their 20’s who has not fully grasped where we were and how far we’ve fallen. It can be called a slippery slope, it happens in gradual in steps. Before you know it you are in a place that you don’t want to be.

To think that gay marriage would not lead to polygamous marriage, or some other form of perverted unions including incest is certainly naive, and oh so foolish. As if gay marriage on its own wouldn’t be bad enough.

Ha ha, I love you kids. Live a little and then get back to me.

[ZEB]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:ZEB wrote:

Actually my idea is not at all like the war on drugs. We are looking at a specific crime which is committed against a specific person. Also, it matters not if there is a homicide. Anyone who knowingly spreads HIV should have an automatic sentence doled out to them if there is a death while the person is serving his long sentence then that sentence automatically becomes life.

This would be the beginning of the end of the selfish bastards spreading this horriffc disease.

Who disagrees with you? What is your point? How often does this happen? Probably almost never.[/quote]

Then you are suggesting that all homosexual men with HIV inform their partners prior to having unprotected sex.

I have some property in Florida that I’d like you sell you junior.

[orion]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Finally, how naive to think that eventually you will not in some way pay for the stupidity of others. Better to at least attempt to prevent it, or at least curtail the most negative costly activities.

[/quote]

However, if you pursue that goal with any kind of zeal it requires a state that has a massive surveillance and coercion apparatus.

Surely there must be a point where the cure does more damage than the disease?

Id say the US are far, far beyond this point.

[ZEB]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Finally, how naive to think that eventually you will not in some way pay for the stupidity of others. Better to at least attempt to prevent it, or at least curtail the most negative costly activities.

[/quote]

However, if you pursue that goal with any kind of zeal it requires a state that has a massive surveillance and coercion apparatus.[/quote]

Naw, just a few laws on the books that prevent a brother and sister from marrying. Hold the line on gay marriage. You know the basics.

[quote]Surely there must be a point where the cure does more damage than the disease?
[/quote]

I agree with you my Austrian friend. There is a point where it would be better to have no laws than to have so many that most of your freedoms are curtailed. But in between is a place where there is a nice balance. We are not too far from that right now. While we might be headed in the wrong direction on some things, as in too many laws. We are headed in the opposite direction in other areas. I think that this sick politically correct turn that the country has taken will eventually drive us into the ground unless reversed rather quickly.

By the way are you going to train on Sunday?

[jsbrook]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:ZEB wrote:

Actually my idea is not at all like the war on drugs. We are looking at a specific crime which is committed against a specific person. Also, it matters not if there is a homicide. Anyone who knowingly spreads HIV should have an automatic sentence doled out to them if there is a death while the person is serving his long sentence then that sentence automatically becomes life.

This would be the beginning of the end of the selfish bastards spreading this horriffc disease.

Who disagrees with you? What is your point? How often does this happen? Probably almost never.[/quote]

Then you are suggesting that all homosexual men with HIV inform their partners prior to having unprotected sex.

I have some property in Florida that I’d like you sell you junior.

[/quote]

Neither do all heterosexual men inform the women they sleep with. Intentionally trying to infect someone with HIV is a crime. If what you are saying is that a statute should be enacted to require all those with HIV to inform their partners, fine. It should apply universally, irrespective of sexual orientation.

[jsbrook]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

I hold no stock with these absurdist slippery slope agruments. [/quote]

Right, because things never move in the direction of the momentum in which they are caught up in, right?

This entire country is in a gigantic mess because of the slippery slope.

1. Certainly 50 years ago years ago was it looked down on for a man and woman who were not married to cohabitate? Fast forward, not only do they cohabitate, they now have children with that illicit union.

Why it’s bad: There is no comittment and a man, or woman are more apt to end the illicit relationship. This not only tears at the fabric of society, by leaving children without one, or both parents. This also costs the state big bucks to support these children.

What was the obesity rate 50 years ago?

How did people dress and speak 50 years ago?

To not notice a degradation of society by the slippery slope you would either have to be an idiot, or a person in their 20’s who has not fully grasped where we were and how far we’ve fallen. It can be called a slippery slope, it happens in gradual in steps. Before you know it you are in a place that you don’t want to be.

To think that gay marriage would not lead to polygamous marriage, or some other form of perverted unions including incest is certainly naive, and oh so foolish. As if gay marriage on its own wouldn’t be bad enough.

Ha ha, I love you kids. Live a little and then get back to me.[/quote]

You are a fool. Further, a slippery slope under which absurd results ultimately come to pass and positive progress are not the same thing.

[ZEB]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:ZEB wrote:

Actually my idea is not at all like the war on drugs. We are looking at a specific crime which is committed against a specific person. Also, it matters not if there is a homicide. Anyone who knowingly spreads HIV should have an automatic sentence doled out to them if there is a death while the person is serving his long sentence then that sentence automatically becomes life.

This would be the beginning of the end of the selfish bastards spreading this horriffc disease.

Who disagrees with you? What is your point? How often does this happen? Probably almost never

Then you are suggesting that all homosexual men with HIV inform their partners prior to having unprotected sex.

I have some property in Florida that I’d like you sell you junior.

Neither do all heterosexual men inform the women they sleep with.[/quote]

And, I never said that they did. But you see junior the problem is that 67% of all new HIV happens to be from HOMOSEXUAL men, not heterosexual men. Get it yet?

Intentionally trying to infect someone with HIV is a crime. If what you are saying is that a statute should be enacted to require all those with HIV to inform their partners, fine. It should apply universally, irrespective of sexual orientation.

I don’t have any problem with that. As long as YOU understand where the real problem is.

[ZEB]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

You are a fool. Further, a slippery slope under which absurd results ultimately come to pass and positive progress are not the same thing.[/quote]

That you would call it “positive progress” makes YOU the fool junior.

[jsbrook]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:ZEB wrote:

Actually my idea is not at all like the war on drugs. We are looking at a specific crime which is committed against a specific person. Also, it matters not if there is a homicide. Anyone who knowingly spreads HIV should have an automatic sentence doled out to them if there is a death while the person is serving his long sentence then that sentence automatically becomes life.

This would be the beginning of the end of the selfish bastards spreading this horriffc disease.

Who disagrees with you? What is your point? How often does this happen? Probably almost never

Then you are suggesting that all homosexual men with HIV inform their partners prior to having unprotected sex.

I have some property in Florida that I’d like you sell you junior.

Neither do all heterosexual men inform the women they sleep with.[/quote]

And, I never said that they did. But you see junior the problem is that 67% of all new HIV happens to be from HOMOSEXUAL men, not heterosexual men. Get it yet?

Intentionally trying to infect someone with HIV is a crime. If what you are saying is that a statute should be enacted to require all those with HIV to inform their partners, fine. It should apply universally, irrespective of sexual orientation.

I don’t have any problem with that. As long as YOU understand where the real problem is.
[/quote]

Yawn. Unclear what you are up in arms about. You are irate about things that are common knowledge and that no one is denying. Anal sex promotes STDs. Gay men have a lot of anal sex. Consequently more STDs and HIV among gays (at least gay men). Everyone gets it.

[ZEB]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Unclear what you are up in arms about. You are irate about things that are common knowledge and that no one is denying. Anal sex promotes STDs. Gay men have a lot of anal sex. Consequently more STDs and HIV among gays (at least gay men). Everyone gets it. [/quote]

Not everyone gets it. However, that you get it is a good thing. Now the question becomes what do we do about it. The compassionate thing to do is to propose stricter laws which curtail dangerous behavior. As a side note it would be more productive if Hollywood would stop glamorizing homosexuality, but I guess that’s part II of this debate.

[jsbrook]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Unclear what you are up in arms about. You are irate about things that are common knowledge and that no one is denying. Anal sex promotes STDs. Gay men have a lot of anal sex. Consequently more STDs and HIV among gays (at least gay men). Everyone gets it. [/quote]

Not everyone gets it. However, that you get it is a good thing. Now the question becomes what do we do about it. The compassionate thing to do is to propose stricter laws which curtail dangerous behavior. As a side note it would be more productive if Hollywood would stop glamorizing homosexuality, but I guess that’s part II of this debate.
[/quote]

We should do nothing beyond what we are doing. Intentionally infecting someone with an STD is and should be a crime. Reckless sexual behavior isn’t and shouldn’t be. We don’t need some fascist, big brother governmeng legislating sexual practices among two consenting adults. It’s called condoms. While anal sex with condoms is inherently more likely to lead to STDs than vaginal sex with condoms (and condoms are not foolproof in any case), that a choice that everyone should be free to make. Do you also support criminalizing tobacco? Kills far more people. If everything’s out in the open, it’s not the government’s place to get involved.

However, I am not opposed to requiring those with STDs to inform sexual partners. And criminal/civil penalties and fines for failure to do so. If someone KNOWINGLY chooses to have protected (and even unprotected) sex with someone with an STD that’s their business.

[ZEB]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Unclear what you are up in arms about. You are irate about things that are common knowledge and that no one is denying. Anal sex promotes STDs. Gay men have a lot of anal sex. Consequently more STDs and HIV among gays (at least gay men). Everyone gets it.

Not everyone gets it. However, that you get it is a good thing. Now the question becomes what do we do about it. The compassionate thing to do is to propose stricter laws which curtail dangerous behavior. As a side note it would be more productive if Hollywood would stop glamorizing homosexuality, but I guess that’s part II of this debate.

We should do nothing beyond what we are doing. Intentionally infecting someone with an STD is and should be a crime.[/quote]

Yea, J-walking is a violation of the law too, but I don’t think there are many tickets written. There are whole host of laws that are not enforced. It’s not only time to enforce them, but actually dish out some serious jail time as a penalty to these scum bags.

Reckless sexual behavior isn’t and shouldn’t be.

Can you explain to me what reckless driving is a crime? Obviously, it’s because you can injure, or even kill someone by that type of behavior. When you are HIV and act recklessly you could be giving someone a death sentence.

We don’t need some fascist, big brother governmeng legislating sexual practices among two consenting adults. It’s called condoms.

Condoms that historically are disregarded by homosexual men. We’ve spent 10’s of millions of dollars on education and still we have HIV. Any other ideas, or are you fresh out and just leaning on the liberal lines now? There must always be responsibility which goes with freedom. If a person acts responsibly then they don’t have to worry about getting arrested for infecting another.

While anal sex with condoms is inherently more likely to lead to STDs than vaginal sex with condoms (and condoms are not foolproof in any case), that a choice that everyone should be free to make.

By far the biggest spread of HIV is through anal sex. I would hazard a guess that 95%+ is spread in this way. As far as giving everyone the choice, yea obviously, but they do not have a choice to kill someone, so how to you prevent that? Do you have any new ideas?

Do you also support criminalizing tobacco? Kills far more people.

I don’t want to criminalize (practically) anything that someone wants to do as long as they are not taking another down with them. One reason I strongly support the no smoking in public area laws. If someone wants to sit in their house and chain smoke, fine with me. But if they want to smoke in a car where their children are sitting they should be fined. At what point does freedom mean that you have the opportunity to take an innocent persons life?

However, I am not opposed to requiring those with STDs to inform sexual partners. And criminal/civil penalties and fines for failure to do so.

I’m glad you agree with me.

If someone KNOWINGLY chooses to have protected (and even unprotected) sex with someone with an STD that’s their business.

Obviously.

[sardines12]

God damn Zeb you just went full retard.

[jsbrook]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Unclear what you are up in arms about. You are irate about things that are common knowledge and that no one is denying. Anal sex promotes STDs. Gay men have a lot of anal sex. Consequently more STDs and HIV among gays (at least gay men). Everyone gets it.

Not everyone gets it. However, that you get it is a good thing. Now the question becomes what do we do about it. The compassionate thing to do is to propose stricter laws which curtail dangerous behavior. As a side note it would be more productive if Hollywood would stop glamorizing homosexuality, but I guess that’s part II of this debate.

We should do nothing beyond what we are doing. Intentionally infecting someone with an STD is and should be a crime.[/quote]

Yea, J-walking is a violation of the law too, but I don’t think there are many tickets written. There are whole host of laws that are not enforced. It’s not only time to enforce them, but actually dish out some serious jail time as a penalty to these scum bags.

Reckless sexual behavior isn’t and shouldn’t be.

Can you explain to me what reckless driving is a crime? Obviously, it’s because you can injure, or even kill someone by that type of behavior. When you are HIV and act recklessly you could be giving someone a death sentence.

We don’t need some fascist, big brother governmeng legislating sexual practices among two consenting adults. It’s called condoms.

Condoms that historically are disregarded by homosexual men. We’ve spent 10’s of millions of dollars on education and still we have HIV. Any other ideas, or are you fresh out and just leaning on the liberal lines now? There must always be responsibility which goes with freedom. If a person acts responsibly then they don’t have to worry about getting arrested for infecting another.

While anal sex with condoms is inherently more likely to lead to STDs than vaginal sex with condoms (and condoms are not foolproof in any case), that a choice that everyone should be free to make.

By far the biggest spread of HIV is through anal sex. I would hazard a guess that 95%+ is spread in this way. As far as giving everyone the choice, yea obviously, but they do not have a choice to kill someone, so how to you prevent that? Do you have any new ideas?

Do you also support criminalizing tobacco? Kills far more people.

I don’t want to criminalize (practically) anything that someone wants to do as long as they are not taking another down with them. One reason I strongly support the no smoking in public area laws. If someone wants to sit in their house and chain smoke, fine with me. But if they want to smoke in a car where their children are sitting they should be fined. At what point does freedom mean that you have the opportunity to take an innocent persons life?

However, I am not opposed to requiring those with STDs to inform sexual partners. And criminal/civil penalties and fines for failure to do so.

I’m glad you agree with me.

If someone KNOWINGLY chooses to have protected (and even unprotected) sex with someone with an STD that’s their business.

Obviously.
[/quote]

A point-by-point response. However I’m still not sure what specific initiative or iniatives you are advocating. What measures do YOU think should be enacted?

Why are you in favor of allowing someone to smoke themselves to death but seeimingly want to legislate away the ability to engage in OBVIOUSLY risky sexual behaviors that increase the likelihood of contracting an STD? Possibly a deadly one. Pretty sure we spent “10’s of millions of dollars on education” (to use your words) and anti-tobacco initiatives. We still have millions who hasten their own death through this stupid habit. Yet, you are fine with it (so long as it’s not done around the childen). Can’t wait to hear the distinction you draw.

Those who have anal sex choose to do so. The risks are well known. You act like people are being kidnapped and forcibly ass raped while tied up in a dungeon somewhere. It’s obviously different when someone in a supposedly monogamous relationship, say, knowingly infects their partner with HIV or another STD. That should not be allowed. It takes the element of consent and assumption of risk out of the picture in a very real way. We’ve covered this already.

[ZEB]

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
God damn Zeb you just went full retard. [/quote]

And this coming from someone who can’t even understand mixed martial arts. LOL, go back downstairs where you at least have a ghost of a chance of understanding rudimentary concepts when someone takes a great deal of time to explain them to you. Leave this stuff to those who can actually comprehend the written word.

You are a funny little man, run along now.

[ZEB]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Why are you in favor of allowing someone to smoke themselves to death but seeimingly want to legislate away the ability to engage in OBVIOUSLY risky sexual behaviors that increase the likelihood of contracting an STD? Possibly a deadly one. Pretty sure we spent “10’s of millions of dollars on education” (to use your words) and anti-tobacco initiatives. We still have millions who hasten their own death through this stupid habit. Yet, you are fine with it (so long as it’s not done around the childen). Can’t wait to hear the distinction you draw.[/quote]

I explained that perfectly in my previous post. But, so that you can fully understand it let me put it this way. While it’s sad if someone wants to kill themselves by smoking, it’s their right. However, if someone sticks a cigarette up someones ass then I’d say that they’ve gone to far as that act effects an innocent person. Point made? Second hand smoke kills not only the primary smoker, but those who are close by and inhale.

Was I clear enough for you this time around?

Those who have anal sex choose to do so.

True, except for those who are in prison. But, I guess some things are simply unavoidable huh?

The risks are well known.

That’s exactly what makes those who have HIV seem even more dastardly when they do not inform their pokey of the night.

You act like people are being kidnapped and forcibly ass raped while tied up in a dungeon somewhere.

You know where I stand. One guy is HIV and doesn’t tell the other guy. He ends up HIV and dies. The first guy should lose his freedom, or worse. Simple isn’t it?

It’s obviously different when someone in a supposedly monogamous relationship, say, knowingly infects their partner with HIV or another STD. That should not be allowed. It takes the element of consent and assumption of risk out of the picture in a very real way. We’ve covered this already.

We’ve covered everything already, many, many times, but that will not stop us from covering it again and again. I want you to swear, along with me, that as long as newbies bring this topic up for discussion that you and I will come forward and beat this dead horse until it looks like cooked hamburger. Even though we both know that whatever we say, whatever our position on the topic will not change one single mind on this site or anywhere else. Are you in? Is it a deal? Or, we could spend time actually doing things that matter in our lives, Nooooo, let’s keep this up.

Okay, It matters not whether the relationship is supposed to be monogamous or not (as if the typical homosexual male actually has a monogamous relationship LOL-And I have the stats to back that up! But just think about it logically. If they did would 67% of all new HIV cases be from homosexual men?). If one person with HIV has sex with another person and does not inform them they need to spend a long time in a jail cell somewhere.

[jsbrook]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Why are you in favor of allowing someone to smoke themselves to death but seeimingly want to legislate away the ability to engage in OBVIOUSLY risky sexual behaviors that increase the likelihood of contracting an STD? Possibly a deadly one. Pretty sure we spent “10’s of millions of dollars on education” (to use your words) and anti-tobacco initiatives. We still have millions who hasten their own death through this stupid habit. Yet, you are fine with it (so long as it’s not done around the childen). Can’t wait to hear the distinction you draw.[/quote]

I explained that perfectly in my previous post. But, so that you can fully understand it let me put it this way. While it’s sad if someone wants to kill themselves by smoking, it’s their right. However, if someone sticks a cigarette up someones ass then I’d say that they’ve gone to far as that act effects an innocent person. Point made? Second hand smoke kills not only the primary smoker, but those who are close by and inhale.

Was I clear enough for you this time around?

Those who have anal sex choose to do so.

True, except for those who are in prison. But, I guess some things are simply unavoidable huh?

The risks are well known.

That’s exactly what makes those who have HIV seem even more dastardly when they do not inform their pokey of the night.

You act like people are being kidnapped and forcibly ass raped while tied up in a dungeon somewhere.

You know where I stand. One guy is HIV and doesn’t tell the other guy. He ends up HIV and dies. The first guy should lose his freedom, or worse. Simple isn’t it?

It’s obviously different when someone in a supposedly monogamous relationship, say, knowingly infects their partner with HIV or another STD. That should not be allowed. It takes the element of consent and assumption of risk out of the picture in a very real way. We’ve covered this already.

We’ve covered everything already, many, many times, but that will not stop us from covering it again and again. I want you to swear, along with me, that as long as newbies bring this topic up for discussion that you and I will come forward and beat this dead horse until it looks like cooked hamburger. Even though we both know that whatever we say, whatever our position on the topic will not change one single mind on this site or anywhere else. Are you in? Is it a deal? Or, we could spend time actually doing things that matter in our lives, Nooooo, let’s keep this up.

Okay, It matters not whether the relationship is supposed to be monogamous or not (as if the typical homosexual male actually has a monogamous relationship LOL-And I have the stats to back that up! But just think about it logically. If they did would 67% of all new HIV cases be from homosexual men?). If one person with HIV has sex with another person and does not inform them they need to spend a long time in a jail cell somewhere.

[/quote]

I think we are arguing about nothing. I was not talking about those who KNOW they have HIV (or another STD) and fail to inform their hook-up. That’s not right. Male or female. Gay or straight. I was talking about people who have no knowledge they have STDs and who choose to engage in unprotected anal sex or other risky sexual behaviors.

[ZEB]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I think we are arguing about nothing.[/quote]

I know, that’s what we usually do here on T Nation. (Looks around)

I was not talking about those who KNOW they have HIV (or another STD) and fail to inform their hook-up. That’s not right. Male or female. Gay or straight. I was talking about people who have no knowledge they have STDs and who choose to engage in unprotected anal sex or other risky sexual behaviors.

Actually, if you go back to my earliest point on the topic I made that distinction. However, I can fully understand you not getting it. There are many posts to read and we have all said various things on the topic. From gay marriage, to HIV.

Glad we agree jsbrook. I have usually found you to be a bright young guy. Granted you’re a liberal and are blind to some issues, but no one is perfect

[jsbrook]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I think we are arguing about nothing.[/quote]

I know, that’s what we usually do here on T Nation. (Looks around)

I was not talking about those who KNOW they have HIV (or another STD) and fail to inform their hook-up. That’s not right. Male or female. Gay or straight. I was talking about people who have no knowledge they have STDs and who choose to engage in unprotected anal sex or other risky sexual behaviors.

Actually, if you go back to my earliest point on the topic I made that distinction. However, I can fully understand you not getting it. There are many posts to read and we have all said various things on the topic. From gay marriage, to HIV.

Glad we agree jsbrook. I have usually found you to be a bright young guy. Granted you’re a liberal and are blind to some issues, but no one is perfect
[/quote]

Thanks. We were definitely talking past each other. And I’m not a liberal. I consider myself a social and fiscal moderate. Fiscally I lean towards the conservative end. I am opposed to a great many of the policies of this administration. I think the way these forums define liberal, conservative, and everywhere in between is seriously out of whack.

[ZEB]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I think we are arguing about nothing.[/quote]

I know, that’s what we usually do here on T Nation. (Looks around)

I was not talking about those who KNOW they have HIV (or another STD) and fail to inform their hook-up. That’s not right. Male or female. Gay or straight. I was talking about people who have no knowledge they have STDs and who choose to engage in unprotected anal sex or other risky sexual behaviors.

Actually, if you go back to my earliest point on the topic I made that distinction. However, I can fully understand you not getting it. There are many posts to read and we have all said various things on the topic. From gay marriage, to HIV.

Glad we agree jsbrook. I have usually found you to be a bright young guy. Granted you’re a liberal and are blind to some issues, but no one is perfect
[/quote]

Thanks. We were definitely talking past each other. And I’m not a liberal. I consider myself a social and fiscal moderate. Fiscally I lean towards the conservative end. I am opposed to a great many of the policies of this administration. I think the way these forums define liberal, conservative, and everywhere in between is seriously out of whack.[/quote]

Let’s just say compared to me you’re a liberal. But, glad to hear you oppose many of the things that this administration is doing. I can honestly say that I have not agreed with even one single thing that Obama has done. I have not felt this way since Jimmy Carter. Yea, I’m that old. Ha, I even agreed with Bill Clinton on several of his initiatives.