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

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[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?[/quote]

That is the other problem. Even if you made these laws neutral and crafted them to pass constitutional muster such that pounding girls in the ass was also prohibited, it would be near impossible to enforce.

162

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[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?[/quote]

That is the other problem. Even if you made these laws neutral and crafted them to pass constitutional muster such that pounding girls in the ass was also prohibited, it would be near impossible to enforce. [/quote]

Good point - the law would need to be neutral in the sense that “pounding ass” (I believe the phrase comes from old English common law, yes?) would be illegal whether the poundee was pounding a male or female. I suppose you could make it like rape law - only punish the pounder and not the poundee. If the poundee had a grudge against the pounder, he or she could report him.

But what if the pounder was a female wearing a strap on? The jurisprudence here gives me a pounding headache.

163

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[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?[/quote]

I’m not suggesting that. On the same token if someone knows that they’re infected with HIV and willingly passes the virus on to another through some sort of sexual intercourse that person should be handed a jail sentence.

164

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[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. [/quote]

You are assuming that one partner is aware that the other is infected. That’s at least one, of the many, problems. One more problem is that something like 85% of homosexual men have had, or continue to have, sex with women. This is whole other debate. But for our purposes this means that a homosexual man who is HIV positive, and knows it can infect a woman he is having sex with who may not even know that the man is homosexual to begin with.

Now, as I’ve previously stated, I’m not necessarily for any laws banning any of this. Democracy is about freedom to live your life as you see fit. But, when someone passes on HIV to a sexual partner that person needs to do some serious jail time. They may have just passed on a death sentence to their partner, should there be no responsibility with this freedom?

As a conservative I think guns should be legal as well, but when you use that gun in a commission of a crime you not only forfit the right to have a gun, but you also do serious jail time. As a productive and moral society you cannot have freedom without responsibility. This is where the liberals get all fuzzy in their logic. Many say “you must hate gay men and want to curtail their freedom.” On the contrary, I love people and want them to have all the freedom that they desire, provided that the freedom in question carries with it responsibility, as all freedoms should.

This would be one large step toward protecting people, and reversing this horrible epidemic. While it’s not politically correct, it’s morally sound and does not infringe on peoples right to have sex with whomever they want. It simply places responsibility where is should be.

165

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

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.[/quote]

What are you talking about?

You have no idea about what I’ve read, so quit jumping to conclusions.

If gay dudes want to sodomize each other who gives a fuck? If straight people want to have anal sex who gives a fuck? It comes down to personal responsibility of the individual to take care of themselves.

It wasn’t that long ago where, in a similar thread, you talked about your attempts to “convert” gays to straight. No offense, but you and Zeb have some odd, if not disturbing opinions on homosexuals.

166

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I’m not suggesting that. On the same token if someone knows that they’re infected with HIV and willingly passes the virus on to another through some sort of sexual intercourse that person should be handed a jail sentence.[/quote]

I don’t necessarily disagree with that in principle. However, enforcement would still be difficult as the prosecution would need to prove knowledge because medical records would be protected by doctor-patient privilege. Laws that sound good in theory can be difficult to put into practice. This is one of the reasons, and possibly the main reason, why I’m a libertarian. At what point do we tell people that the government is not your nanny and you need to take responsibility for your actions? I don’t know that I want my tax dollars going to fund prosecutions of persons who spread HIV. To be brutally honest, people who engage in risky sexual behavior are assuming the risk of that behavior. It’s not my problem.

167

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:

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

What are you talking about?

You have no idea about what I’ve read, so quit jumping to conclusions.

If gay dudes want to sodomize each other who gives a fuck?[/quote]

Hmm, not a very compassionate liberal. I thought you guys were supposed to be all touchy, feely, no? Anyway, even if you don’t care about your fellow man (and you obviously don’t), you should at least consider the billions of dollars spent on this problem. Health care for AIDS victims, education that goes into trying to prevent dangerous behavior, and finally the money for research.

But when they don’t society as a whole is harmed, which makes this a public policy debate. As I’ve exlained, with freedom comes responsibility.

On the contrary I think it’s your opinion that is dangerous. Your first statement above sums that up, “who gives a fuck”? That’s your opinion. In order for their to be a positive change there has to be people who care. You also have to have a global view on what’s actually important. I can’t think of anything more important than helping people, can you?

168

…

169

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I’m not suggesting that. On the same token if someone knows that they’re infected with HIV and willingly passes the virus on to another through some sort of sexual intercourse that person should be handed a jail sentence.[/quote]

I don’t necessarily disagree with that in principle. However, enforcement would still be difficult as the prosecution would need to prove knowledge because medical records would be protected by doctor-patient privilege. Laws that sound good in theory can be difficult to put into practice. This is one of the reasons, and possibly the main reason, why I’m a libertarian. At what point do we tell people that the government is not your nanny and you need to take responsibility for your actions? I don’t know that I want my tax dollars going to fund prosecutions of persons who spread HIV. To be brutally honest, people who engage in risky sexual behavior are assuming the risk of that behavior. It’s not my problem.[/quote]

But as I just told Dustin in the post above, it becomes your problem one way or the other. Do you want your tax dollars helping prosecutors track down the vile filth who knowingly spread the HIV virus and getting them off the streets, or do you want to spend your tax dollars going to health care costs for AIDS victims, research, and even more “AIDS awareness” education which has been proven not to work?

I think the most compassionate thing to discourage this behavior by stiff sentences for the scum who spread this horrible disease.

Have you ever watched anyone die of AIDS? Have any of the posters on this site? If you did then you would know that something has to be done. Something that can protect the rights of people who want to participate in homosexual acts, yet at the same time punish those who recklessly spread HIV.

If you are a homosexual and you know that you are HIV positive you will think twice before engage in in unprotected sex if you know that there will be a knock at your door with an officer of the law standing there with a warrant for your arrest. I would think that gay people around the country would applaud this law as it would save needless pain, suffering and even death.

What’s not to like?

170

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

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.[/quote]

What are you talking about?

You have no idea about what I’ve read, so quit jumping to conclusions.
[/quote]

I can tell what you do not read, as your thought process isn’t extending as far as it should be. You have tunnel vision.

I never said they couldn’t, they have the freewill to. Let them, I’m talking about HIV and them corrupting marriage.

[quote]
It wasn’t that long ago where, in a similar thread, you talked about your attempts to “convert” gays to straight. No offense, but you and Zeb have some odd, if not disturbing opinions on homosexuals. [/quote]

Oh, you mean the pretext of religion? As in, stop sinning? There is a difference between praxeology and Catholicism. Do I think people have the freedom to have gay sex? Yes. Do I think people can be straight? Yes. Do I think people with gay tendencies and live a heterosexual lifestyle? Yes. Do I think being gay is morally wrong? Yes.

This is what I am talking about what you have read. You are not seeing the bigger picture. You have tunnel vision, you have this idea of freedom, but you do not have the side of responsibility and allowing others to live how see fit. Some societies hold a moral position that is higher than the others, they do not just accept every behavior. You have no right to make us live our lives how you want, and you have no right to make us accept every behavior.

Acting out homosexual tendencies is not okay. And, it definitely is not okay to know you have HIV or AIDS and then give it to anyone.

171

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I can tell what you do not read, as your thought process isn’t extending as far as it should be. You have tunnel vision.
[/quote]

Translation: You don’t agree with my 1950’s views on gay people.

And on the contrary, I think I’m one of the few posting in this thread who aren’t tunnel visioned.

Hmmm, don’t recall my marriage being corrupted by gay marriage.

You can continue to make this nonsensical argument all you want about violating the sanctity of marriage (corrupting it), but it doesn’t make it true.

I see the big picture just fine. The responsibility, as you put it, is on the individual engaging in the behavior. The burden of the responsibility of their actions are none of your concern, the government, or society. And the only way to regulate behavior you deem “immoral” is through coercion.

I agree with what you have to say 99% of the time, so no offense intended, but I don’t give two shits about your morals. They’re your own, not mine, or the gay couple living down the street.

This is nonsense. You are the one wanting the state to arbitrarily decide what people should accept.

[quote]
Acting out homosexual tendencies is not okay. And, it definitely is not okay to know you have HIV or AIDS and then give it to anyone.[/quote]

Neither is having unprotected promiscuous sex with women. What is your solution? Hire agents of the state to spy on people and their sexual activities?

And for the record, no one is arguing that it is okay to knowingly spread STDs or AIDS.

172

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I’m not suggesting that. On the same token if someone knows that they’re infected with HIV and willingly passes the virus on to another through some sort of sexual intercourse that person should be handed a jail sentence.[/quote]

I don’t necessarily disagree with that in principle. However, enforcement would still be difficult as the prosecution would need to prove knowledge because medical records would be protected by doctor-patient privilege. Laws that sound good in theory can be difficult to put into practice. This is one of the reasons, and possibly the main reason, why I’m a libertarian. At what point do we tell people that the government is not your nanny and you need to take responsibility for your actions? I don’t know that I want my tax dollars going to fund prosecutions of persons who spread HIV. To be brutally honest, people who engage in risky sexual behavior are assuming the risk of that behavior. It’s not my problem.[/quote]

But as I just told Dustin in the post above, it becomes your problem one way or the other. Do you want your tax dollars helping prosecutors track down the vile filth who knowingly spread the HIV virus and getting them off the streets, or do you want to spend your tax dollars going to health care costs for AIDS victims, research, and even more “AIDS awareness” education which has been proven not to work?

I think the most compassionate thing to discourage this behavior by stiff sentences for the scum who spread this horrible disease.

Have you ever watched anyone die of AIDS? Have any of the posters on this site? If you did then you would know that something has to be done. Something that can protect the rights of people who want to participate in homosexual acts, yet at the same time punish those who recklessly spread HIV.

If you are a homosexual and you know that you are HIV positive you will think twice before engage in in unprotected sex if you know that there will be a knock at your door with an officer of the law standing there with a warrant for your arrest. I would think that gay people around the country would applaud this law as it would save needless pain, suffering and even death.

What’s not to like?

[/quote]

As I said, your idea sounds good in theory. And I don’t think you even need to pass special laws for this, at least not homicide laws. I would argue that current homicide statutes cover this type of behavior. At a minimum, someone who know that he has HIV and has unprotected sex is acting with reckless indifference. The problem with homicide laws is you need a death, and since it can take years for HIV to develop into full blown AIDS, you’ve got a time gap, at least in terms of prosecuting under a homicide statute. But even if you passed some type of sodomy law, in practice, I believe it will do little to deter the spread of AIDS. I’ve already mentioned the problem of proving knowledge. Another problem is that persons who engage in this type of behavior most likely have had multiple sex partners. Which one gave them HIV? Or would such persons even remember the names of all of previous sex partners? In terms of cost, I agree that if such laws could significantly reduce the number of AIDS cases then that would indeed represent a savings to taxpayers. But I doubt it will - I’m just cynical that way. Any cost savings in health care would be fairly small and would probably be offset by the costs of prosecution and subsequent costs of imprisonment. And since the Eighth Amendment requires that inmates be provided with reasonable medical care, taxpayers would still be paying for costs of treatment of these convicted HIV-spreaders.

I agree with you that HIV is a serious public health problem. I just don’t think that your solution is a workable solution. It’s kind of like the so-called war on drugs, which also hasn’t worked too well.

173

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[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?[/quote]

To my knowledge those Sodomy Laws are still on the books in Texas. Some cops raided a place for drugs, and caught two homosexuals in the act. They booked them on Sodomy Charges until the drug evidence was gathered up, and then the charges were changed to drug selling or something like that.

174

I was asked out by a gay guy once. I was in the steam room, butt-naked and so was he…For some reason, he thought this was an ideal time to ask me on date. It wouldn’t have bothered me if I was dressed when he asked me out. I knew I was naked before, after, I felt naked. No harm ,no foul though…Just an anecdote…I wonder if he spanked off to memories of my nudity??? I don’t wonder enough to find out.

175

[quote]pat wrote:
I was asked out by a gay guy once. I was in the steam room, butt-naked and so was he…For some reason, he thought this was an ideal time to ask me on date. It wouldn’t have bothered me if I was dressed when he asked me out. I knew I was naked before, after, I felt naked. No harm ,no foul though…Just an anecdote…I wonder if he spanked off to memories of my nudity??? I don’t wonder enough to find out.[/quote]

Pics or GTFO!

176

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I can tell what you do not read, as your thought process isn’t extending as far as it should be. You have tunnel vision.
[/quote]

Translation: You don’t agree with my 1950’s views on gay people.

And on the contrary, I think I’m one of the few posting in this thread who aren’t tunnel visioned.

[/quote]

My view of marriage is much older than, about 2000 to 5000 years old. And, I would have to disagree, irrationality comes with tunnel vision. What you are saying is we should let the gays do whatever they want (that is fine), but on top of letting them corrupt marriage, they should be able to give anyone they want HIV as long as the other person consents to having sex, even if they don’t know the person has HIV? I maybe wrong on the last part, if I am sorry.

Okay, there is only one kind of marriage. Between a man and a woman, this is how it has been for centuries., so if you make this social and civil union, that is different than any other kind, where it was once something that produced children and made strong homes and connected a man and a woman in a civil and social bondage, and basically turned it into a union that sexual partners form, so that the other can receive benefits, that is corrupting marriage.

No you do not see the big picture just fine. Actually it is my responsibility when such an infectious disease is loose. Just like I have the right to protect myself if the black plague spread through this country to stop individuals from infecting others.

No, it is not coercion. To allow people to be free, does not mean I have to a pacifist. It’s called shunning, or having a choice of not living or dealing or even talking with people that deal in certain dangerous behavior. I think you forget the teachings of Murray and Mises both. Both advocated shunning or out casting individuals as the appropriate behavior for ill tempered members of society. As well as Lord Acton talked on it as well.

Again lack of reading, Economics is about figuring out if policy will truthfully do as it is supposed to do. And the Austrian school of thought is that Anarchy or limited Government is best. I agree. Economics goes through a utilitarian view of things. However, the Australian School also advocates that Natural Law is needed so as to understand that with freedom, comes responsibilities and consequences.

Natural Law is morals, Aquinas wrote about it. St. Aquinas, the guy in my avatar, the man that Mises, Murray, Rand, Hayek, Garret, Action, &c studied. Aristotle as well, all these men studied Aristotle, they taught about the very morals that are exemplified in Natural Law, and the Austrian School of Economics.

Where have I once said the state should do anything? That’s right, I was in fact talking about religion. Societies = groups of people. Religious groups of people = societies.

[quote]

Talking with in religion here. Not economics. I’m talking from my personal stance. Not economics. There is a difference.

Protected sex is morally wrong as well, so is having sex with promiscuous women. What is my solution, well if they are in the Catholic Church. Obey the teachings. If they aren’t and they want to do these things, then when someone willingly infects a partner, they should be reprimanded.

[quote]
And for the record, no one is arguing that it is okay to knowingly spread STDs or AIDS.[/quote]

Okay, well that is what I am talking about here, as well of course the corruption of the marriage thing.

177

[quote]pat wrote:
I was asked out by a gay guy once. I was in the steam room, butt-naked and so was he…For some reason, he thought this was an ideal time to ask me on date. It wouldn’t have bothered me if I was dressed when he asked me out. I knew I was naked before, after, I felt naked. No harm ,no foul though…Just an anecdote…I wonder if he spanked off to memories of my nudity??? I don’t wonder enough to find out.[/quote]

Dude, sorry about that. You looked kind of lonely, and at the time I wanted to, um, “try something new.”

178

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

My view of marriage is much older than, about 2000 to 5000 years old. And, I would have to disagree, irrationality comes with tunnel vision.
[/quote]

You’re view of marriage dates back to a time when men had multiple wives and/or concubines. So much for the sanctity of marriage.

I thought your view of marriage dates back a couple thousand years? Which one is it?

Well, this makes sense if one comes to the conclusion that gay people are doing anything “ill tempered”, which isn’t this case.

No one is arguing otherwise.

Cool

[quote]
Where have I once said the state should do anything? That’s right, I was in fact talking about religion[/quote]

And here is where we stop. It’s been real, but I will not discuss this any further if you are going do so from that particular perspective.

179

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I was asked out by a gay guy once. I was in the steam room, butt-naked and so was he…For some reason, he thought this was an ideal time to ask me on date. It wouldn’t have bothered me if I was dressed when he asked me out. I knew I was naked before, after, I felt naked. No harm ,no foul though…Just an anecdote…I wonder if he spanked off to memories of my nudity??? I don’t wonder enough to find out.[/quote]

Dude, sorry about that. You looked kind of lonely, and at the time I wanted to, um, “try something new.”[/quote]

Dont be sorry, he would have loved it…

180

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Not in the least, it is more like being baffled how some comservatives think that they can build a government powerful and informed enough to regulate the most intimate details of peoples lifes and yet act all surprised if it turns around to bite them.[/quote]

Marriage doesn’t regulate the most intimate details of people’s lives - it promotes certain behavior we think good in society. That’s very important - but it’s that simple.

And that, unquestionably, is part of a conservative mission. Libertarian? Probably not, but - who cares?[/quote]

You do-

Because without us you will be doing the Democrats bidding.

We can live with that, because the sooner it all collapses the sooner we have Big Brother off our backs.

I doubt that conservatives like you look forward to that the way we do.