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

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Since this is a motherfucking democracy. Until they change that, you gotta deal with my opinions.[/quote]

How anti-libertarian of you.
[/quote]

My Libertarian opinion is that since if we legalize gay marriage, companies would be forced to pay benefits to employees spouses in a gay marriage, when they did not agree to this, I vote NO on forcing companies to pay for people they did not agree to pay for.

See, even my sans-moral/economist utilitarian point of view says no on gay marriage.[/quote]

This would be a rational reason to limit marriage, although I think the economic impact would be small. My company already extends benefits to “domestic partners,” although I don’t know how they define “domestic partners.” My guess is that it applies to homosexual unions as well as heterosexual couples who are not legally married.

142

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Marriage laws developed in the Medieval Ages (so around the 15th century) precisely for the reasons I mentioned.
[/quote]

Perhaps “Marriage laws” did. However the concept of marriage as a loving union between one man and one woman has existed both within society and certainly within the Christian faith for over 500 years.

[/quote]

This whole discussion has been about marriage “laws” and not religious definitions of marriage. If a religion chooses not to recognize same sex marriages that is fine and within a religious organization’s rights. I’ve always considered the legal definition marriage separate from “other” definitions of marriage, including religious ones. I would even argue that if a couple, any couple whether we’re talking a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, wanted to tell people that they were “married” even though they never went to the clerk’s office and got the right license, they would have every right to do so. As a libertarian candidate for president once commented regarding this issue, “If you go down and get a marriage license, what does that allow you to do that you already couldn’t do?”

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the only thing that the government can grant to any type of couple is a “civil union.” It’s the couple that makes the marriage. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

143

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
The idea that people marry for love is a modern notion and, in essence, “redefined” the original purpose of the marriage laws.[/quote]

It is not a modern notion. The current notion of marriage has been around since the 15th century, if not earlier.

Basically the modern notion has grown out of Chrisitian marriages that have existed in a similar form for over 500 years.[/quote]

Wrong. Marriage laws developed in the Medieval Ages (so around the 15th century) precisely for the reasons I mentioned. In a feudal economy, which was the norm in Europe in the 15th century and several hundred years before and after, those who owned land held the power. The landowners arranged marriages among their children to maximize land holdings and hence power. The problem with arranged marriages where the couple may not have even liked, much less loved, each other, was that divorce was more likely. So the wealthy got the Church to declare divorce a sin in order to keep arranged marriages together. The wealthy also got judges to classify children born outside of the marriage as “illegitimate” and not entitled to inherit anything. Modern law, since around the 1950s or so, no longer makes the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children.

Go read up on history.[/quote]

Read a Hebrew Bible, and even Christ explains the formalities of marriage. Illegitimacy and all that stuff go back to the Hebrew Bible. [/quote]

Was there any type of property involved? Goats or other animals perhaps? The Hebrews had an extensive system of laws to protect, among other things, property rights. The only reason to legally recognize marriage is for economic purposes. Note the emphasis on legally.

144

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I’ve always considered the legal definition marriage separate from “other” definitions of marriage, including religious ones.
[/quote]

I’ve always considered the current notion of marriage to come straight from Christian values. Hence why the concept of gay marriage upsets many Christians.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the only thing that the government can grant to any type of couple is a “civil union.” It’s the couple that makes the marriage. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?[/quote]

Because the government does currently control marriage. They shouldn’t, but they do.

145

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Since this is a motherfucking democracy. Until they change that, you gotta deal with my opinions.[/quote]

How anti-libertarian of you.
[/quote]

My Libertarian opinion is that since if we legalize gay marriage, companies would be forced to pay benefits to employees spouses in a gay marriage, when they did not agree to this, I vote NO on forcing companies to pay for people they did not agree to pay for.

See, even my sans-moral/economist utilitarian point of view says no on gay marriage.[/quote]

This would be a rational reason to limit marriage, although I think the economic impact would be small. My company already extends benefits to “domestic partners,” although I don’t know how they define “domestic partners.” My guess is that it applies to homosexual unions as well as heterosexual couples who are not legally married.
[/quote]

Yes, it is their choice to do so. However, if the company chooses not to they should have the option of not paying for it.

146

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
The idea that people marry for love is a modern notion and, in essence, “redefined” the original purpose of the marriage laws.[/quote]

It is not a modern notion. The current notion of marriage has been around since the 15th century, if not earlier.

Basically the modern notion has grown out of Chrisitian marriages that have existed in a similar form for over 500 years.[/quote]

Wrong. Marriage laws developed in the Medieval Ages (so around the 15th century) precisely for the reasons I mentioned. In a feudal economy, which was the norm in Europe in the 15th century and several hundred years before and after, those who owned land held the power. The landowners arranged marriages among their children to maximize land holdings and hence power. The problem with arranged marriages where the couple may not have even liked, much less loved, each other, was that divorce was more likely. So the wealthy got the Church to declare divorce a sin in order to keep arranged marriages together. The wealthy also got judges to classify children born outside of the marriage as “illegitimate” and not entitled to inherit anything. Modern law, since around the 1950s or so, no longer makes the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children.

Go read up on history.[/quote]

Read a Hebrew Bible, and even Christ explains the formalities of marriage. Illegitimacy and all that stuff go back to the Hebrew Bible. [/quote]

Was there any type of property involved? Goats or other animals perhaps? The Hebrews had an extensive system of laws to protect, among other things, property rights. The only reason to legally recognize marriage is for economic purposes. Note the emphasis on legally.[/quote]

Yes, that is the reason why women’s marriageability went out the window if they were found to be with another guy because they couldn’t risk the tainting of the blood line and the heir not being the son of the man. Although they had other reasons behind their idea of marriage, and Jewbacca can talk more on that as I have not much studied Jewish culture.

147

There are some things you can get past the Christian voters, and there is some things you can get past the Business voters. However when you bring something like gay marriage & forced benefits. It’ll never get through. You have two of the biggest votes in America separately and combined going against these bills.

148

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I’ve always considered the legal definition marriage separate from “other” definitions of marriage, including religious ones.
[/quote]

I’ve always considered the current notion of marriage to come straight from Christian values. Hence why the concept of gay marriage upsets many Christians.[/quote]

And I can certainly understand that position to some extent. However, I think that the legal institution of marriage, like many of our laws, comes from English law. This is not necessarily based on Christian values. For instance, consider the law prohibiting rape. Most would say that this is a “Christian value” and that it is wrong to force sex on a woman without her consent. But rape law, as it was originally enacted in Medieval times, was considered a crime against the girl’s father, because the father had a property right in his daughter’s virginity. The reason for the property right was that it was customary, almost a requirement, that a girl give her future husband and perhaps his or her family a dowry. Essentially, dad had to pay off the groom to marry off his daughter. If the girl was not a virgin, the amount of the pay off increased. It is only in modern times that rape is considered a crime against the woman herself. Unfortunately, I don’t have specific cites for this information. It’s just stuff I learned studying law and history.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the only thing that the government can grant to any type of couple is a “civil union.” It’s the couple that makes the marriage. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?[/quote]

Because the government does currently control marriage. They shouldn’t, but they do.[/quote]

Well, then we can agree on something - government should probably stay out of marriage.

149

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Wow that was negative, I’m not feeling the love man. Did I say something to offend you? I wasn’t addressing you originally.

150

[quote]makkun wrote:

[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[/quote]

Bravo!

151

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Yea, we straights pretty much force gay men to have unsafe sex with multiple partners. To be on the prowl for sex regularly

[/quote]

Straight men have unsafe sex with multiple partners as well. Sometimes they even have unsafe sex with multiple partners in the “naughty” hole.

That certainly doesn’t sound very safe does it?[/quote]

That’s actually funny, comparing what heterosexual do with what homosexuals do. Yea, that was a good one.

I think in this case statistics speak volumes of how much of the wrong thing that homosexual do. Here is soem information from that wacky right wing health site “Medline.” Oh that’s right they have very unbiased statistics don’t they:

“Using the 5-year recall period rate of 4%, Dr. Purcell and colleagues estimated that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM was more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.”

Wow homosexuals contract HIV at 44 times the rate that straight men do!

Hmm, now I wonder what activity that homosexual’s be doing which would cause such a gigantic difference between them and heterosexuals in getting the HIV virus?

And in case you forgot below is the CDC site. Another very credible source for information on all matters related to health. I’m just as sorry as anyone that homosexual men spread the HIV virus, but it is about time that we stop pretending, drop the politically correct crap and actually try to help these people instead of enabling them.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

152

[quote]ZEB wrote:
[…]

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[/quote]

Bravo!
[/quote]

I’m here all week. :wink:

Makkun

153

[quote]ZEB wrote:

but it is about time that we stop pretending, drop the politically correct crap and actually try to help these people instead of enabling them. [/quote]

So, let me get this straight.

  1. Gay people need help because there is something wrong with them.

  2. Believing in liberty and people living their lives however they want is politically correct crap.

  3. I’m enabling them.

Have I nailed the pertinent facts down?

154

Since being gay is some small percent of any given population, and obviously produces no new taxpayers, should gay people get medical care? I mean…Obama wants to save money by simply giving old people pain pills because they don’t pay much taxes anymore. So for similar reasons (gays producing no new taxpayers), shouldn’t we simply eliminate medical care for gays?

Why pay to keep people alive who don’t make taxpayers? Just give 'em pain pills!

How simple was that???

155

[quote]makkun wrote:
ZEB wrote:
[…]

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

Bravo!
[/quote]

I’m here all week. :wink:

Makkun[/quote]

LOL

156

[quote]Dustin wrote:
ZEB wrote:

but it is about time that we stop pretending, drop the politically correct crap and actually try to help these people instead of enabling them.

So, let me get this straight.[/quote]

“Straight?” Am I seeing a pun here?

Homosexual men spread the HIV virus like Dr. Seuss spreads nursery rhymes. YEA, they need help!! YES! You Bet! They need to fully understand the ramifications of their actions, because right now I really don’t think they get it. At least I hope they don’t get it, because if they are doing this and are fully cognizant of the impact of their very poor decisions then that is one very, very mean spirited group of people - Which is it?

Wrongamondo! Believing in liberty and people living their lives is not politically correct crap. However, when someone takes an action which places someone else in danger they should be made to give up that liberty. You know the old story about freedom of speech? You have freedom of speech, just don’t holler “Fire” in a crowed movie theater. You’ll find out very quickly how fast your liberty can be taken away.

One more for you as I know you like to read my posts:

(another oldie) You have the right to swing your arm as long as it does not strike my chin.

Um…those are the two best. Can you think of any more simile’s which could make the point that if someone sticks their penis into another persons rectum (or anywhere else) they’d better not be carrying the HIV virus?

I wonder is jail to good for these despicable bastards?

At last, you’ve admitted it. No, that’s probably not what you meant, but I’ll take it that way anyway. I don’t think that you will ever fully understand that I’m the one who is trying to protect and help people. You obviously don’t care about gay’s, or their plight. Do you care about the person in my example? the one who was penetrated by the person who was HIV positive? No, not really, you just want to make sure that he has the right to contract HIV. You don’t seem to think beyond that.

Just more politically correct thinking. I only wish that our Universities, and the media had not done this to your generation.

Pleaese think about it.

No, but I have, now please think about them. You can post back anything that you’d like, but when you’re getting ready to go to sleep tonight and you’re just laying there give a thought to what I’ve said. It really is about helping, not hurting these folks - What is your remedy? Just leave them alone and allow them to harm and kill each other, and many beyond that?

THINK

157

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:
ZEB wrote:

but it is about time that we stop pretending, drop the politically correct crap and actually try to help these people instead of enabling them.

So, let me get this straight.[/quote]

“Straight?” Am I seeing a pun here?

Homosexual men spread the HIV virus like Dr. Seuss spreads nursery rhymes. YEA, they need help!! YES! You Bet! They need to fully understand the ramifications of their actions, because right now I really don’t think they get it. At least I hope they don’t get it, because if they are doing this and are fully cognizant of the impact of their very poor decisions then that is one very, very mean spirited group of people - Which is it?

Wrongamondo! Believing in liberty and people living their lives is not politically correct crap. However, when someone takes an action which places someone else in danger they should be made to give up that liberty. You know the old story about freedom of speech? You have freedom of speech, just don’t holler “Fire” in a crowed movie theater. You’ll find out very quickly how fast your liberty can be taken away.

One more for you as I know you like to read my posts:

(another oldie) You have the right to swing your arm as long as it does not strike my chin.

Um…those are the two best. Can you think of any more simile’s which could make the point that if someone sticks their penis into another persons rectum (or anywhere else) they’d better not be carrying the HIV virus?

I wonder is jail to good for these despicable bastards?

At last, you’ve admitted it. No, that’s probably not what you meant, but I’ll take it that way anyway. I don’t think that you will ever fully understand that I’m the one who is trying to protect and help people. You obviously don’t care about gay’s, or their plight. Do you care about the person in my example? the one who was penetrated by the person who was HIV positive? No, not really, you just want to make sure that he has the right to contract HIV. You don’t seem to think beyond that.

Just more politically correct thinking. I only wish that our Universities, and the media had not done this to your generation.

Pleaese think about it.

No, but I have, now please think about them. You can post back anything that you’d like, but when you’re getting ready to go to sleep tonight and you’re just laying there give a thought to what I’ve said. It really is about helping, not hurting these folks - What is your remedy? Just leave them alone and allow them to harm and kill each other, and many beyond that?

THINK
[/quote]

I think he read some material thought it was cool and let it fly without reading all of it. It seems there are very few people that actually have libertarian principles down, and mostly see freedom and think no responsibilities. Let’s do whatever we want.

158

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It really is about helping, not hurting these folks - What is your remedy? Just leave them alone and allow them to harm and kill each other, and many beyond that?

THINK
[/quote]

Sounds like we need to pass laws making homosexuality illegal, or at least homosexual acts illegal. At one time there were sodomy laws that criminalized such behavior. The question is, how would you enforce these laws?

159

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Yea, we straights pretty much force gay men to have unsafe sex with multiple partners. To be on the prowl for sex regularly

[/quote]

Straight men have unsafe sex with multiple partners as well. Sometimes they even have unsafe sex with multiple partners in the “naughty” hole.

That certainly doesn’t sound very safe does it?[/quote]

That’s actually funny, comparing what heterosexual do with what homosexuals do. Yea, that was a good one.

I think in this case statistics speak volumes of how much of the wrong thing that homosexual do. Here is soem information from that wacky right wing health site “Medline.” Oh that’s right they have very unbiased statistics don’t they:

“Using the 5-year recall period rate of 4%, Dr. Purcell and colleagues estimated that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM was more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.”

Wow homosexuals contract HIV at 44 times the rate that straight men do!

Hmm, now I wonder what activity that homosexual’s be doing which would cause such a gigantic difference between them and heterosexuals in getting the HIV virus?

And in case you forgot below is the CDC site. Another very credible source for information on all matters related to health. I’m just as sorry as anyone that homosexual men spread the HIV virus, but it is about time that we stop pretending, drop the politically correct crap and actually try to help these people instead of enabling them.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

[/quote]

Yeah, I’m not sure what the argument here could be. It’s known that anal sex is the behavior that’s most likely to promote the spread of HIV (as well as other STDs). That’s just a fact.

Incidentally this is true with heterosexual anal sex too, which happens but a lot less often. Heterosexuals who engage in this behavior are much more likely to get and spread HIV. No news here.

160

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:
ZEB wrote:

but it is about time that we stop pretending, drop the politically correct crap and actually try to help these people instead of enabling them.

So, let me get this straight.[/quote]

“Straight?” Am I seeing a pun here?

Homosexual men spread the HIV virus like Dr. Seuss spreads nursery rhymes. YEA, they need help!! YES! You Bet! They need to fully understand the ramifications of their actions, because right now I really don’t think they get it. At least I hope they don’t get it, because if they are doing this and are fully cognizant of the impact of their very poor decisions then that is one very, very mean spirited group of people - Which is it?

Wrongamondo! Believing in liberty and people living their lives is not politically correct crap. However, when someone takes an action which places someone else in danger they should be made to give up that liberty. You know the old story about freedom of speech? You have freedom of speech, just don’t holler “Fire” in a crowed movie theater. You’ll find out very quickly how fast your liberty can be taken away.

One more for you as I know you like to read my posts:

(another oldie) You have the right to swing your arm as long as it does not strike my chin.

Um…those are the two best. Can you think of any more simile’s which could make the point that if someone sticks their penis into another persons rectum (or anywhere else) they’d better not be carrying the HIV virus?

I wonder is jail to good for these despicable bastards?

At last, you’ve admitted it. No, that’s probably not what you meant, but I’ll take it that way anyway. I don’t think that you will ever fully understand that I’m the one who is trying to protect and help people. You obviously don’t care about gay’s, or their plight. Do you care about the person in my example? the one who was penetrated by the person who was HIV positive? No, not really, you just want to make sure that he has the right to contract HIV. You don’t seem to think beyond that.

Just more politically correct thinking. I only wish that our Universities, and the media had not done this to your generation.

Pleaese think about it.

No, but I have, now please think about them. You can post back anything that you’d like, but when you’re getting ready to go to sleep tonight and you’re just laying there give a thought to what I’ve said. It really is about helping, not hurting these folks - What is your remedy? Just leave them alone and allow them to harm and kill each other, and many beyond that?

THINK
[/quote]

This is all bullshit. Everyone certainly does understand the risks of these sexual practices by now. And if they don’t, they damn well should. People assume the risk. This is not Nazi Germany where there should simply be some prohibition on anal sex (heterosexual or homosexual). What is next? Government requirement that protection always be used except in the confines of marriage or a serious monogamous relationship? How to measure? Because that’s really the behavior that everyone SHOULD be engaging in.

Unprotected, genital, heterosexual sex has is risks and they are much higher than when protection is used.