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

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Bottom line: any contract between two consenting adults should be legal, and recognized by the government as such.
[/quote]

Lawl…So, if we have a contract that you pay me my money or I shot you in your knees until you do, the government should recognize it?[/quote]

Not too clear on the difference between ‘consent’ and ‘coerce’?[/quote]

If someone gets a loan from a loan shark, they know the consequences, yet they still do it. And, I am sure no one coerced them into taking the loan.[/quote]

And the loanshark can kneecap him as long as he’s willing to go jail.Civil vs. criminal…we really are all free to do what we want as long as we can stomach the consequences.[/quote]

The above poster clearly stated the government should recognize ANY contract.[/quote]

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

The courts will not assist a man who has founded his actions upon an immoral (read to mean those actions going against public policy but not explicitly against the law) or illegal action.

There are contract defenses, illegality is one of them as is inability to give consent and contributory negligence.

So, the government should recognize any contract. The above examples are not legal contracts.

82

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
First that is not the reason they are being denied those rights. And sorry those are not rights. Marriage is not a right.

Second, if that was the reason. How would something a person does that is not intrinsic to marriage, like sky diving, be equal to something like unprotected sex that is intrinsic to the gay relationship? It’s not therefore, your argument is fallacious as you are arguing against a straw-man argument. Your metaphor is skewed and untrue and the fact is that because these groups are immersed into dangerous behavior do they not have the privilege to get married.[/quote]

Equal Protection under the law is a right as is due process.

Dangerous sexual practices are no more intrinsic to gay couples than they are hetero couples. I would argue that lesbian couples are perhaps the safest, both from a simple mechanical standpoint as well as the notorious “bed death”.

Again, the state has no compelling reason to deny recognition of a civil union to a group just because members of that group may partake in less than healthy behaviors.

83

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Bottom line: any contract between two consenting adults should be legal, and recognized by the government as such.
[/quote]

Lawl…So, if we have a contract that you pay me my money or I shot you in your knees until you do, the government should recognize it?[/quote]

Not too clear on the difference between ‘consent’ and ‘coerce’?[/quote]

If someone gets a loan from a loan shark, they know the consequences, yet they still do it. And, I am sure no one coerced them into taking the loan.[/quote]

And the loanshark can kneecap him as long as he’s willing to go jail.Civil vs. criminal…we really are all free to do what we want as long as we can stomach the consequences.[/quote]

The above poster clearly stated the government should recognize ANY contract.[/quote]

You’re being disingenuous…but you know that,you’re a bright guy.Let me know how criminal contracts work.

84

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Zeb, I think it is entirely heartless to deny those poor wretched creatures whop are afflicted by the gay to deny them the little amount of happiness they hope to squeeze out of their short, disease ridden life.

Why must you stomp on people who are already burdened with a terrible problem and are headed for eternal damnation?
[/quote]

Good sarcasm orion, I would expect nothing less. Unfortunately that doesn’t solve the problem, nor does it accurately depict what I have been posting, or my true feelings. People can do things out of love which seem harsh. My Dad used to take things away from me when I was a boy, it seemed harsh, but many years later I realize that he had my best interests at heart, and it made me a better man.

Enabling doesn’t help anyone. Would you continue to buy an alcoholic beer, because they wanted it so very badly? [/quote]

No, but I would let him buy beer with his money because it is really none of my business.

85

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Zeb, I think it is entirely heartless to deny those poor wretched creatures whop are afflicted by the gay to deny them the little amount of happiness they hope to squeeze out of their short, disease ridden life.

Why must you stomp on people who are already burdened with a terrible problem and are headed for eternal damnation?
[/quote]

Good sarcasm orion, I would expect nothing less. Unfortunately that doesn’t solve the problem, nor does it accurately depict what I have been posting, or my true feelings. People can do things out of love which seem harsh. My Dad used to take things away from me when I was a boy, it seemed harsh, but many years later I realize that he had my best interests at heart, and it made me a better man.

Enabling doesn’t help anyone. Would you continue to buy an alcoholic beer, because they wanted it so very badly? [/quote]

No, but I would let him buy beer with his money because it is really none of my business.
[/quote]

Which is where Orion and I differ. I wouldn’t buy the beer and also not let anyone drive drunk. I very strongly believe in setting and enforcing limits for those whom I care and am responsible for. I just happen to be convinced that a) setting limits with regards to sexual orientation tends to be pretty pointless (and immoral), b) that this specific orientation is not in any form wrong and c) that the proclaimed dangers caused by it (not simply correlated to - see above) are blown out of proportion - mostly due to non-adherence to points a) and b). :wink:

Makkun

86

[quote]makkun wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Zeb, I think it is entirely heartless to deny those poor wretched creatures whop are afflicted by the gay to deny them the little amount of happiness they hope to squeeze out of their short, disease ridden life.

Why must you stomp on people who are already burdened with a terrible problem and are headed for eternal damnation?
[/quote]

Good sarcasm orion, I would expect nothing less. Unfortunately that doesn’t solve the problem, nor does it accurately depict what I have been posting, or my true feelings. People can do things out of love which seem harsh. My Dad used to take things away from me when I was a boy, it seemed harsh, but many years later I realize that he had my best interests at heart, and it made me a better man.

Enabling doesn’t help anyone. Would you continue to buy an alcoholic beer, because they wanted it so very badly? [/quote]

No, but I would let him buy beer with his money because it is really none of my business.
[/quote]

Which is where Orion and I differ. I wouldn’t buy the beer and also not let anyone drive drunk. I very strongly believe in setting and enforcing limits for those whom I care and am responsible for. I just happen to be convinced that a) setting limits with regards to sexual orientation tends to be pretty pointless (and immoral), b) that this specific orientation is not in any form wrong and c) that the proclaimed dangers caused by it (not simply correlated to - see above) are blown out of proportion - mostly due to non-adherence to points a) and b). :wink:

Makkun[/quote]

I reserve the right to harm myself without your interference in any way I deem to be appropriate and unless you are 5,2 and have a tongue like a sword you are most definitely not my mother.

87

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Zeb, I think it is entirely heartless to deny those poor wretched creatures whop are afflicted by the gay to deny them the little amount of happiness they hope to squeeze out of their short, disease ridden life.

Why must you stomp on people who are already burdened with a terrible problem and are headed for eternal damnation?
[/quote]

Good sarcasm orion, I would expect nothing less. Unfortunately that doesn’t solve the problem, nor does it accurately depict what I have been posting, or my true feelings. People can do things out of love which seem harsh. My Dad used to take things away from me when I was a boy, it seemed harsh, but many years later I realize that he had my best interests at heart, and it made me a better man.

Enabling doesn’t help anyone. Would you continue to buy an alcoholic beer, because they wanted it so very badly? [/quote]

No, but I would let him buy beer with his money because it is really none of my business.
[/quote]

I agree, and homosexuals can have all the gay sex that they want in the privacy of their own home. However, changing a 5000 year old tradition in order to cater to less than 1% of the population is tantamount to changing the DWI laws to suit the alcoholic. (alcoholism is really not their fault it’s genetic right?)

Glad we can agree on this one.

88

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]makkun wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Zeb, I think it is entirely heartless to deny those poor wretched creatures whop are afflicted by the gay to deny them the little amount of happiness they hope to squeeze out of their short, disease ridden life.

Why must you stomp on people who are already burdened with a terrible problem and are headed for eternal damnation?
[/quote]

Good sarcasm orion, I would expect nothing less. Unfortunately that doesn’t solve the problem, nor does it accurately depict what I have been posting, or my true feelings. People can do things out of love which seem harsh. My Dad used to take things away from me when I was a boy, it seemed harsh, but many years later I realize that he had my best interests at heart, and it made me a better man.

Enabling doesn’t help anyone. Would you continue to buy an alcoholic beer, because they wanted it so very badly? [/quote]

No, but I would let him buy beer with his money because it is really none of my business.
[/quote]

Which is where Orion and I differ. I wouldn’t buy the beer and also not let anyone drive drunk. I very strongly believe in setting and enforcing limits for those whom I care and am responsible for. I just happen to be convinced that a) setting limits with regards to sexual orientation tends to be pretty pointless (and immoral), b) that this specific orientation is not in any form wrong and c) that the proclaimed dangers caused by it (not simply correlated to - see above) are blown out of proportion - mostly due to non-adherence to points a) and b). :wink:

Makkun[/quote]

I reserve the right to harm myself without your interference in any way I deem to be appropriate and unless you are 5,2 and have a tongue like a sword you are most definitely not my mother.

[/quote]

What a grand and glorious idea. People who lived recklessly only harming themselves. Wow, if only it could be, what a much better world we would have.

89

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Bottom line: any contract between two consenting adults should be legal, and recognized by the government as such.
[/quote]

Lawl…So, if we have a contract that you pay me my money or I shot you in your knees until you do, the government should recognize it?[/quote]

Not too clear on the difference between ‘consent’ and ‘coerce’?[/quote]

If someone gets a loan from a loan shark, they know the consequences, yet they still do it. And, I am sure no one coerced them into taking the loan.[/quote]

And the loanshark can kneecap him as long as he’s willing to go jail.Civil vs. criminal…we really are all free to do what we want as long as we can stomach the consequences.[/quote]

The above poster clearly stated the government should recognize ANY contract.[/quote]

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

The courts will not assist a man who has founded his actions upon an immoral (read to mean those actions going against public policy but not explicitly against the law) or illegal action.

There are contract defenses, illegality is one of them as is inability to give consent and contributory negligence.

So, the government should recognize any contract. The above examples are not legal contracts.[/quote]

I understand this, however the Spart said ANY contract, and to me that means all that follow under those restrictions consenting adults…Just trying to point out that if the government recognized any contract between consenting adults as legal, then it would a tough world out there for the gullible.

90

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
First that is not the reason they are being denied those rights. And sorry those are not rights. Marriage is not a right.

Second, if that was the reason. How would something a person does that is not intrinsic to marriage, like sky diving, be equal to something like unprotected sex that is intrinsic to the gay relationship? It’s not therefore, your argument is fallacious as you are arguing against a straw-man argument. Your metaphor is skewed and untrue and the fact is that because these groups are immersed into dangerous behavior do they not have the privilege to get married.[/quote]

Equal Protection under the law is a right as is due process.

Dangerous sexual practices are no more intrinsic to gay couples than they are hetero couples. I would argue that lesbian couples are perhaps the safest, both from a simple mechanical standpoint as well as the notorious “bed death”.

Again, the state has no compelling reason to deny recognition of a civil union to a group just because members of that group may partake in less than healthy behaviors.
[/quote]

Equal Protection, marriage is not a protection. If it was a right then explain how come my cousin was stopped at the altar when he was about to marry his fiance because she was from Spain? Not everyone has the right to marry.

Obviously from statistics they are intrinsic to gay couples.

The reason the state opposes, which I find a good reason to oppose this is because of the fact that with these unions comes forced benefits to the workers that they did not agree to when they were first hired. This is a big reason why I oppose it when it comes to economics, on the religious side I oppose it because I think homosexuality is immoral.

91

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Bottom line: any contract between two consenting adults should be legal, and recognized by the government as such.
[/quote]

Lawl…So, if we have a contract that you pay me my money or I shot you in your knees until you do, the government should recognize it?[/quote]

Not too clear on the difference between ‘consent’ and ‘coerce’?[/quote]

If someone gets a loan from a loan shark, they know the consequences, yet they still do it. And, I am sure no one coerced them into taking the loan.[/quote]

And the loanshark can kneecap him as long as he’s willing to go jail.Civil vs. criminal…we really are all free to do what we want as long as we can stomach the consequences.[/quote]

The above poster clearly stated the government should recognize ANY contract.[/quote]

You’re being disingenuous…but you know that,you’re a bright guy.Let me know how criminal contracts work.[/quote]

I know, I just merely pointed out the fact that he said any. Which is never the case. I do not know much about criminal contracts, however even real estate contracts are not always accepted even though between two consenting adults.

Story, when I bought my first piece of property, I did the handshake contract (I had the title and everything, but no contract). I found out five months later that I needed a contract, so I write out a contract stating everything we agreed on had it signed, to find out the next week when I talked to my lawyer that it actually had to be typed out (why he didn’t tell me this the first time I talked to him at 250 an hour, I don’t know, but never the less I had to go back with a typed copy and get it signed.

92

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Zeb, I think it is entirely heartless to deny those poor wretched creatures whop are afflicted by the gay to deny them the little amount of happiness they hope to squeeze out of their short, disease ridden life.

Why must you stomp on people who are already burdened with a terrible problem and are headed for eternal damnation?
[/quote]

Good sarcasm orion, I would expect nothing less. Unfortunately that doesn’t solve the problem, nor does it accurately depict what I have been posting, or my true feelings. People can do things out of love which seem harsh. My Dad used to take things away from me when I was a boy, it seemed harsh, but many years later I realize that he had my best interests at heart, and it made me a better man.

Enabling doesn’t help anyone. Would you continue to buy an alcoholic beer, because they wanted it so very badly? [/quote]

No, but I would let him buy beer with his money because it is really none of my business.
[/quote]

This is where I stop, yes I do not advocate and even condemn that the Government (which ever form, private or state gov’t) intervention in such situations. However, my religious convictions would not allow me to buy an alcoholic a case of beer. I would even have an intervention.

93

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Equal Protection, marriage is not a protection. If it was a right then explain how come my cousin was stopped at the altar when he was about to marry his fiance because she was from Spain? Not everyone has the right to marry.

Obviously from statistics they are intrinsic to gay couples.

The reason the state opposes, which I find a good reason to oppose this is because of the fact that with these unions comes forced benefits to the workers that they did not agree to when they were first hired. This is a big reason why I oppose it when it comes to economics, on the religious side I oppose it because I think homosexuality is immoral.[/quote]

No, marriage is not a protection, but that’s not what I was saying. The fourteenth amendment states: No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, the right of the gay individual to marry - given that a hetero person can marry - shall not be abridged.

I don’t think it’s obvious that dangerous sexual practices are intrinsic to gay relationships, nor do I believe that you do. I think your choice of the word “Obviously” belies that. Again, there is no fitness test to marriage, even regarding the unsafe sexual practices of members within a group.

If I understand you correctly, a major concern of yours is that employers would be burdened with providing benefits for gay partners (should gay marriage pass), which would be an economic burden on the employer. This is a very real concern, however, it’s one that employers face every day. One of my employees got married last week. I now provide (some) benefits to his spouse. When I hired him he was single. This is analogous to what employers would be facing with the passage of gay civil unions. Again, it’s not a compelling reason to deny civil unions equal protection under the law.

94

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
No, marriage is not a protection, but that’s not what I was saying. The fourteenth amendment states: No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, the right of the gay individual to marry - given that a hetero person can marry - shall not be abridged.
[/quote]

That doesn’t make much sense.

Gay marriage is outside the scope of marriage. In the same way that being 25 years old puts you outside the scope of the old age pension.

So is a 25 year old being ineligible for the old age pension a violation of equal protection under law? No. For the same reason that being ineligible for two men to marry each other isn’t a violation.

Look I admit you can make a much better argument for Gay Marriage than you can for giving a 25 year old the old age pension; You just can’t use the 14th amendment to make your case.

In order for it to be a violation of the 14th amendment it would have to stop gay people from marrying under the current accepted definition of marriage. Now that is not the case; a gay man can marry a gay woman if he wants to.

95

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Equal Protection, marriage is not a protection. If it was a right then explain how come my cousin was stopped at the altar when he was about to marry his fiance because she was from Spain? Not everyone has the right to marry.

Obviously from statistics they are intrinsic to gay couples.

The reason the state opposes, which I find a good reason to oppose this is because of the fact that with these unions comes forced benefits to the workers that they did not agree to when they were first hired. This is a big reason why I oppose it when it comes to economics, on the religious side I oppose it because I think homosexuality is immoral.[/quote]

No, marriage is not a protection, but that’s not what I was saying. The fourteenth amendment states: No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, the right of the gay individual to marry - given that a hetero person can marry - shall not be abridged.
[/quote]

That is perversion of the law, gays do not have a right to marry. Marriage is a social institute and if society does not want to recognize it (just like the Judge or Priest asks if anyone objects to this marriage, and if they don’t for ever hold their peace), it is not recognized.

It’s not obvious, the facts are obvious. Over half of those with HIV/AIDS are homosexuals, over half of new cases of HIV/AIDS are homosexuals. The only group that has increasing percentage of HIV/AIDS cases are homosexuals.

Actually, there is a fitness test when you get married. In order for me to get married, I would have to go to marriage counseling for 9 months. This is common practice in my community.

Yes, and I do not agree with the forced benefits of an employee’s spouse.

96

[quote]phaethon wrote:

That doesn’t make much sense.

Gay marriage is outside the scope of marriage. In the same way that being 25 years old puts you outside the scope of the old age pension.

So is a 25 year old being ineligible for the old age pension a violation of equal protection under law? No. For the same reason that being ineligible for two men to marry each other isn’t a violation.

Look I admit you can make a much better argument for Gay Marriage than you can for giving a 25 year old the old age pension; You just can’t use the 14th amendment to make your case.

In order for it to be a violation of the 14th amendment it would have to stop gay people from marrying under the current accepted definition of marriage. Now that is not the case; a gay man can marry a gay woman if he wants to.[/quote]

I think by rewording your question, we can more accurately get to the heart of the matter. Does the government have a compelling reason to allow age discrimination as it relates to pensions? I think it does.

Does the government have a compelling reason to deny a portion of it’s citizens the rights and obligations afforded to another portion of it’s citizens? I don’t think it does.

Now, our debate has been fairly academic: Should gay marriage be legalized? It’s an interesting enough question, but I think what’s a much more interesting debate is whether or not a state’s population can define marriage for itself, which is what CA did with Prop 8. In my mind, while I think gay marriage should be recognized, I do believe the People, through the State, have a right to determine these things. And, if the State’s Supreme Court finds it Constitutional, and the US Supreme Court finds it Constitutional, then so be it.

97

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
If we never hear back from you again, T Nation if far better off.[/quote]

Cut this shit out right now. You know what happened last time you started down this road.[/quote]

I wasn’t addressing you. But if you’d like to take the advice, I have no problem with that.[/quote]

Well I notice your “time off” from the forums hasn’t changed you a bit. I wasn’t expecting your beliefs to change, but I had thought since the last ‘incident’ we had started by your big fucking mouth you might have fixed up the attitude.

98

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yea, who cares about the fabric of society, and a 5000 year old institution? And who cares how messed up the kids will be after witnessing who knows what for 18 years? And what’s the difference if we promote a lifestyle that has the single highest death, disease and suicide rate in the world?

Honestly, these are minor details. What we really need to look at is how one gay partnership could possibly effect you. Ha, it can’t. Right?

It’s all really very simple, especially when your a 20 something.

[/quote]

Actually this is a pretty good point. For many it’s not the existence of gheys that’s the problem. It’s gay culture.

99

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]makkun wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Zeb, I think it is entirely heartless to deny those poor wretched creatures whop are afflicted by the gay to deny them the little amount of happiness they hope to squeeze out of their short, disease ridden life.

Why must you stomp on people who are already burdened with a terrible problem and are headed for eternal damnation?
[/quote]

Good sarcasm orion, I would expect nothing less. Unfortunately that doesn’t solve the problem, nor does it accurately depict what I have been posting, or my true feelings. People can do things out of love which seem harsh. My Dad used to take things away from me when I was a boy, it seemed harsh, but many years later I realize that he had my best interests at heart, and it made me a better man.

Enabling doesn’t help anyone. Would you continue to buy an alcoholic beer, because they wanted it so very badly? [/quote]

No, but I would let him buy beer with his money because it is really none of my business.
[/quote]

Which is where Orion and I differ. I wouldn’t buy the beer and also not let anyone drive drunk. I very strongly believe in setting and enforcing limits for those whom I care and am responsible for. I just happen to be convinced that a) setting limits with regards to sexual orientation tends to be pretty pointless (and immoral), b) that this specific orientation is not in any form wrong and c) that the proclaimed dangers caused by it (not simply correlated to - see above) are blown out of proportion - mostly due to non-adherence to points a) and b). :wink:

Makkun[/quote]

I reserve the right to harm myself without your interference in any way I deem to be appropriate and unless you are 5,2 and have a tongue like a sword you are most definitely not my mother.[/quote]

Drink driving endangers not only you - but others as well. Whether I’m your mother or not, this entitles me to intervene. And now off to bed without pudding! :wink:

Makkun

100

[quote]Mr. Frost wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yea, who cares about the fabric of society, and a 5000 year old institution? And who cares how messed up the kids will be after witnessing who knows what for 18 years? And what’s the difference if we promote a lifestyle that has the single highest death, disease and suicide rate in the world?

Honestly, these are minor details. What we really need to look at is how one gay partnership could possibly effect you. Ha, it can’t. Right?

It’s all really very simple, especially when your a 20 something.

[/quote]

Actually this is a pretty good point. For many it’s not the existence of gheys that’s the problem. It’s gay culture.[/quote]

And how much do you think ‘gay culture’ is a result of generations of societies trying to eradicate their ‘gheyness’ using all sorts of punishment, persecution and ‘treatments’? It’s interesting that the older generation of gay men often tut tut at the younger generation which tends to not engage in ‘the scence’ - but just tend to live normal lives. Why? Because ‘gheyness’ has been accepted more broadly and the need to differenciate is decreasing. So - don’t like ‘gay culture’? Let people be and they will naturally strive to adapt to the mainstream - why do you think people are pushing for marriage of all things? As Thunderbolt said in the other thread, it’s about recognition - but imho not as a sign of radicalism, rather as a sign of attempts to join the establishment.

Makkun