|
I love it when people imply intent to evolution. It's hillarious. Evolution is a random process. Organisms don't evolve to a higher state and nothing more. Some actually become simpler if it beter suits their environments. As if the lie of "nature's intent" is a reason not to be against something.
|
United States4471 Posts
On November 07 2008 09:02 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Homosexual behavior is damaging.. this is supported in overwhelming numbers. Homosexual sex is physically unnatural and damaging. It creates a tremendously greater aptitude for contracting HIV and the lifestyle affiliated with homosexual sex/relationships has overwhelmingly been sporadic and fast leading to greater STD transfers. The book I got these arguments/figures from is in my car.. please don't ask me to fact check cause I am lazy as shit but if someone presses me on it I can go outside and get the book.
Point is these are viable reasons for why homosexual marriage should not be condoned on a state level. Nevermind the astronomically higher levels of depression, drug use and alcoholism. Which can be partly associated with (and are) social pressures/prejudices. This argument can get turned on its head as people would say "well allowing gay marriage would move away from the public prejudice which creates alcoholism, drug use etc.." but the other end of that angle has already been nominated as the "official" approach and that is to discourage homosexuallity in its entirety.
I can understand if people start to get confused with my posts.. I support gay marriage but I am playing devil's advocate here since most people argue symphonically against anything that might be religiously related.
I feel like simply replying to this post might be a bad idea because I'm not too clear on the context, i.e. the discussion you're having with sp1ral, but I'll take a shot anyway with the admission that I might not taking some of your points out of their intended context.
I think you already realize the danger of arguing that homosexual marriage should not be condoned by the government because of the higher levels of depression, drug use and alcoholism since you've already acknowledged that the argument can be quite easily countered by the fact that those risks are a result of how homosexual persons are perceived of and treated as lesser human beings by a majority of society. While it's not a perfect analogy, such an argument would be similar to the old stereotype (which still lingers today sadly) that black people are inferior to white people because they tend to be less educated, more violent, have higher rates of alcoholism/drug use, etc. Just like how black people in the US are not generally less educated, more violent, etc. because of their race, but because of their treatment by US society throughout history, homosexual males do not generally suffer from higher levels of depression, drug use, etc. because they're homosexual, but because of how society has treated and continues to treat them. I'm sure you can appreciate how wrong it is to perpetuate an injustice because of the harms it causes.
|
On November 07 2008 10:05 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Oh you are nitpicking an aspect of a larger argument. Cute but incredibly weak. I will try and guide you through the entire logic of the argument at hand.
unhealthy sex -> unhealthy lifestyle -> state won't support = no marriage.
That is about the breakdown of it. Sure there is a lot of stuff to fill in but you could do that by starting to actually read the thread and the arguments that occurred.. not hopping in at the tail end and starting to nit pick because you couldn't bother to read the qualifying posts made previously.
Boxing -> unhealthy lifestyle -> state won't support
You can make that kind of argument with a lot of the activities people participate in everyday. Homosexual sex isn't necessarily less healthy than any of these other activities and you also have to consider lesbian couples. As far as the sex life of homosexuals is concerned that's a different topic than the idea of gay marriage. If you're going to argue against gay marriage using the idea that homosexual sex is too dangerous for the law to allow, then you're looking at banned anal sex for everyone, heterosexuals included. There are also a lot of other sexual activities that would need to be looked into. This is just a completely different topic at hand. If anything is going to be done in regards to sexual lifestyles, I would except the government to attack it through pornography as opposed to attacking the issue regarding homosexuals.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 10:11 oneofthem wrote:i see no logic or argument from your outline. but since i've seen this argument repeated ad nauseum, i'll just pretend that you've made an argument. here's the copypaste response. there are risky ways of doing all sorts of activities, yet the normal response is calling for better safety measures, and if the activity is harmful in itself, then it is discouraged. only when the activity is harmful to others, or considered a general moral hazard, and thus affect others' entrenched rights, does it warrant a ban. however, gay sex does not satisfy these standards.
Not true. If by "harming others" you think that means that suddenly the state condones harmful actions to oneself you are ignorant. And don't cite "smoking" or "alcohol" I have all the evidence I need that you are running into a thread without having read it.
Stop being a jackass btw "I see no logic" my fucking outline was obviously short (as I indicated) because I don't care to repeat several thousand words of argument already had cause some horrible poster wanders in and wants to be a part of something they don't care enough about to read up on (within the thread).
|
On November 07 2008 10:07 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:01 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 09:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
Homosexual sex between man might have an increased chance of STDs etc...
BUT, thats only in the case of the involved ones being all around fucking each other, and common, not all gays are in it for the party, i know some very conservative gays that just felt inlove with each other and they never had sex with anyone else, they just want to get married anf adopt a baby, now i ask you, they didnt had sex with many woman before they came out of the closet.
What harm are they doing to society ? they are productive members of it like anyone else, and want to be acknowledged as such. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex. Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time. Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed. I dont see how people can argue about this. Poopers are meant to poop not to engage in any kind of penetration. Evolution clearly meant for man to fuck woman and not in the pooper. Last time i checked evolution clearly wasn't meant for people to swallow swords but you can do it.
And the last time I check I could shoot myself in the face. You clearly didnt read anything previous to my post since what I was saying is this:
Evolution did not mean for things go in the but. Therefore it is unnatural and there is no point in arguing whether or not it is.
edit:On November 07 2008 10:13 aRod wrote:
I love it when people imply intent to evolution. It's hillarious. Evolution is a random process. Organisms don't evolve to a higher state and nothing more. Some actually become simpler if it beter suits their environments. As if the lie of "nature's intent" is a reason not to be against something.
Your missing my point here. The way the human body evolved was not meant for things to go in your pooper. Of course evolution has no intent since it isnt even a conscious being, but the way things turned out is no to butt sex.
|
To whoever made the post basically saying that an incestuous relationship means an unwilling child, realize that there are family relationships which are completely mutual and still considered incest by nature.
Oh and on a note more relevant to the topic, I lol'd when I saw the status update's on my facebook from people wanting to protest it(I live in San Francisco) I can't say I have a wholly defined opinion on the matter, but I certainly don't feel bad if they can't marry.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 10:13 XaI)CyRiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 09:02 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Homosexual behavior is damaging.. this is supported in overwhelming numbers. Homosexual sex is physically unnatural and damaging. It creates a tremendously greater aptitude for contracting HIV and the lifestyle affiliated with homosexual sex/relationships has overwhelmingly been sporadic and fast leading to greater STD transfers. The book I got these arguments/figures from is in my car.. please don't ask me to fact check cause I am lazy as shit but if someone presses me on it I can go outside and get the book.
Point is these are viable reasons for why homosexual marriage should not be condoned on a state level. Nevermind the astronomically higher levels of depression, drug use and alcoholism. Which can be partly associated with (and are) social pressures/prejudices. This argument can get turned on its head as people would say "well allowing gay marriage would move away from the public prejudice which creates alcoholism, drug use etc.." but the other end of that angle has already been nominated as the "official" approach and that is to discourage homosexuallity in its entirety.
I can understand if people start to get confused with my posts.. I support gay marriage but I am playing devil's advocate here since most people argue symphonically against anything that might be religiously related. I feel like simply replying to this post might be a bad idea because I'm not too clear on the context, i.e. the discussion you're having with sp1ral, but I'll take a shot anyway with the admission that I might not taking some of your points out of their intended context. I think you already realize the danger of arguing that homosexual marriage should not be condoned by the government because of the higher levels of depression, drug use and alcoholism since you've already acknowledged that the argument can be quite easily countered by the fact that those risks are a result of how homosexual persons are perceived of and treated as lesser human beings by a majority of society. While it's not a perfect analogy, such an argument would be similar to the old stereotype (which still lingers today sadly) that black people are inferior to white people because they tend to be less educated, more violent, have higher rates of alcoholism/drug use, etc. Just like how black people in the US are not generally less educated, more violent, etc. because of their race, but because of their treatment by US society throughout history, homosexual males do not generally suffer from higher levels of depression, drug use, etc. because they're homosexual, but because of how society has treated and continues to treat them. I'm sure you can appreciate how wrong it is to perpetuate an injustice because of the harms it causes.
I 100% agree. Again my posts can be confusing given my stance and what I am actually doing here. The post you quoted was actually a concession that the social approach to this issue is the wrong one.. but nonetheless the declared approach all the same. It'd be better to absorb homosexuals socially and make them our own and go from there but that is not the case. Society has decided to outcast them and hopefully bury them.
|
On November 07 2008 10:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:07 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 10:01 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 09:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
Homosexual sex between man might have an increased chance of STDs etc...
BUT, thats only in the case of the involved ones being all around fucking each other, and common, not all gays are in it for the party, i know some very conservative gays that just felt inlove with each other and they never had sex with anyone else, they just want to get married anf adopt a baby, now i ask you, they didnt had sex with many woman before they came out of the closet.
What harm are they doing to society ? they are productive members of it like anyone else, and want to be acknowledged as such. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex. Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time. Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed. I dont see how people can argue about this. Poopers are meant to poop not to engage in any kind of penetration. Evolution clearly meant for man to fuck woman and not in the pooper. Last time i checked evolution clearly wasn't meant for people to swallow swords but you can do it. hahahah you just shot yourself in the foot so bad here. Yeah, and 99.999999999999% of people SHOULD NEVER SWALLLOW A FUCKING SWORD.
But when trained and know what your doing you can do it. Infact just about anyone can do it. The point was you can do it safely not that most people do.
On November 07 2008 10:15 SpiralArchitect wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:07 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 10:01 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 09:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
Homosexual sex between man might have an increased chance of STDs etc...
BUT, thats only in the case of the involved ones being all around fucking each other, and common, not all gays are in it for the party, i know some very conservative gays that just felt inlove with each other and they never had sex with anyone else, they just want to get married anf adopt a baby, now i ask you, they didnt had sex with many woman before they came out of the closet.
What harm are they doing to society ? they are productive members of it like anyone else, and want to be acknowledged as such. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex. Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time. Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed. I dont see how people can argue about this. Poopers are meant to poop not to engage in any kind of penetration. Evolution clearly meant for man to fuck woman and not in the pooper. Last time i checked evolution clearly wasn't meant for people to swallow swords but you can do it. And the last time I check I could shoot myself in the face. You clearly didnt read anything previous to my post since what I was saying is this: Evolution did not mean for things go in the but. Therefore it is unnatural and there is no point in arguing whether or not it os.
First off there are safe ways to swallow a sword there is no harmless way of shooting yourself in the face as far as i know.
Also the act of swallow a sword is not to actully digest it T_T just shove it down your throat all the way.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 10:13 vsrooks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:05 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Oh you are nitpicking an aspect of a larger argument. Cute but incredibly weak. I will try and guide you through the entire logic of the argument at hand.
unhealthy sex -> unhealthy lifestyle -> state won't support = no marriage.
That is about the breakdown of it. Sure there is a lot of stuff to fill in but you could do that by starting to actually read the thread and the arguments that occurred.. not hopping in at the tail end and starting to nit pick because you couldn't bother to read the qualifying posts made previously. Boxing -> unhealthy lifestyle -> state won't support You can make that kind of argument with a lot of the activities people participate in everyday. Homosexual sex isn't necessarily less healthy than any of these other activities and you also have to consider lesbian couples. As far as the sex life of homosexuals is concerned that's a different topic than the idea of gay marriage. If you're going to argue against gay marriage using the idea that homosexual sex is too dangerous for the law to allow, then you're looking at banned anal sex for everyone, heterosexuals included. There are also a lot of other sexual activities that would need to be looked into. This is just a completely different topic at hand. If anything is going to be done in regards to sexual lifestyles, I would except the government to attack it through pornography as opposed to attacking the issue regarding homosexuals.
A police officer can watch 5 speeding cars go by. He pulls over one of them. "Why did you get me? I was just 1 of 5."
Do I need to finish the skit for you?
I don't care if there are other things that are bad. That doesn't mean that this issue cannot be dealt with.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 10:17 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 10:07 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 10:01 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 09:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
Homosexual sex between man might have an increased chance of STDs etc...
BUT, thats only in the case of the involved ones being all around fucking each other, and common, not all gays are in it for the party, i know some very conservative gays that just felt inlove with each other and they never had sex with anyone else, they just want to get married anf adopt a baby, now i ask you, they didnt had sex with many woman before they came out of the closet.
What harm are they doing to society ? they are productive members of it like anyone else, and want to be acknowledged as such. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex. Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time. Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed. I dont see how people can argue about this. Poopers are meant to poop not to engage in any kind of penetration. Evolution clearly meant for man to fuck woman and not in the pooper. Last time i checked evolution clearly wasn't meant for people to swallow swords but you can do it. hahahah you just shot yourself in the foot so bad here. Yeah, and 99.999999999999% of people SHOULD NEVER SWALLLOW A FUCKING SWORD. But when trained and know what your doing you can do it. Infact just about anyone can do it. The point was you can do it safely not that most people do. Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:15 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 10:07 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 10:01 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 09:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
Homosexual sex between man might have an increased chance of STDs etc...
BUT, thats only in the case of the involved ones being all around fucking each other, and common, not all gays are in it for the party, i know some very conservative gays that just felt inlove with each other and they never had sex with anyone else, they just want to get married anf adopt a baby, now i ask you, they didnt had sex with many woman before they came out of the closet.
What harm are they doing to society ? they are productive members of it like anyone else, and want to be acknowledged as such. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex. Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time. Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed. I dont see how people can argue about this. Poopers are meant to poop not to engage in any kind of penetration. Evolution clearly meant for man to fuck woman and not in the pooper. Last time i checked evolution clearly wasn't meant for people to swallow swords but you can do it. And the last time I check I could shoot myself in the face. You clearly didnt read anything previous to my post since what I was saying is this: Evolution did not mean for things go in the but. Therefore it is unnatural and there is no point in arguing whether or not it os. First off there are safe ways to swallow a sword there is no harmless way of shooting yourself in the face as far as i know.
Yep and after all that training, after all that practice.. you are still doing something infinitely more dangous than not doing said activity. Just like homosexual sex. Sure it can be done. Is it safer not to? Yes.
|
On November 07 2008 10:15 SpiralArchitect wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:07 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 10:01 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 09:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
Homosexual sex between man might have an increased chance of STDs etc...
BUT, thats only in the case of the involved ones being all around fucking each other, and common, not all gays are in it for the party, i know some very conservative gays that just felt inlove with each other and they never had sex with anyone else, they just want to get married anf adopt a baby, now i ask you, they didnt had sex with many woman before they came out of the closet.
What harm are they doing to society ? they are productive members of it like anyone else, and want to be acknowledged as such. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex. Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time. Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed. I dont see how people can argue about this. Poopers are meant to poop not to engage in any kind of penetration. Evolution clearly meant for man to fuck woman and not in the pooper. Last time i checked evolution clearly wasn't meant for people to swallow swords but you can do it. And the last time I check I could shoot myself in the face. You clearly didnt read anything previous to my post since what I was saying is this: Evolution did not mean for things go in the but. Therefore it is unnatural and there is no point in arguing whether or not it os.
Anal sex being natural or unnatural isn't an issue that should regard gay marriage. It's a very broad issue as all types of people engage in anal sex. If you're going to argue that anal sex is damaging it's something that is going to come up with pornography or something a lot easier to attack than homosexuality. If you're going to bring in anal sex as something that is morally wrong and should be outlawed because of the damage it causes, then you're bringing up an entirely different issue that doesn't even need to touch homosexuals. I'm not saying you're wrong, you're just bringing up an issue that's a lot bigger than homosexuals.
|
It is however completely natural to drive around in cars and to wear clothing of bright colors, to spend most of your life in front of a computer, to eat processed food and drink soda. Everything in today's society is very natural.
|
Let me give a similar example. Somewhat closely related, actually.
Gender identity.
Many people experience gender identity discrepancy, and some even get surgery to match their outsides to their insides.
If you woke up today and realized that inside, you are actually a woman trapped in a man's body, should people be forced to refer to you as a female? As "she"?
How about a bill to enforce gender-specific language to refer to gender identity rather than physical sex? I would say no for the same reason I say no to gay marriage: it illogically introduces semantic equivocation, in the name of "feel-good rights" (political correctness in disguise). Not to commit a slippery slope here, but left unchecked, politically-pandering alterations to Lexemes, Grammars, and Semantics (LANGUAGE) our fundamental measure of culture and communication, could lead to "doublespeak" a'la 1984.
Adding a dedicated Lexeme ("shemale" or somethg) will preserve existing Semantics and Grammar, while adding the appropriate new expression. "Garriage" achieves that, too.
|
On November 07 2008 10:18 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:13 vsrooks wrote:On November 07 2008 10:05 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Oh you are nitpicking an aspect of a larger argument. Cute but incredibly weak. I will try and guide you through the entire logic of the argument at hand.
unhealthy sex -> unhealthy lifestyle -> state won't support = no marriage.
That is about the breakdown of it. Sure there is a lot of stuff to fill in but you could do that by starting to actually read the thread and the arguments that occurred.. not hopping in at the tail end and starting to nit pick because you couldn't bother to read the qualifying posts made previously. Boxing -> unhealthy lifestyle -> state won't support You can make that kind of argument with a lot of the activities people participate in everyday. Homosexual sex isn't necessarily less healthy than any of these other activities and you also have to consider lesbian couples. As far as the sex life of homosexuals is concerned that's a different topic than the idea of gay marriage. If you're going to argue against gay marriage using the idea that homosexual sex is too dangerous for the law to allow, then you're looking at banned anal sex for everyone, heterosexuals included. There are also a lot of other sexual activities that would need to be looked into. This is just a completely different topic at hand. If anything is going to be done in regards to sexual lifestyles, I would except the government to attack it through pornography as opposed to attacking the issue regarding homosexuals. A police officer can watch 5 speeding cars go by. He pulls over one of them. "Why did you get me? I was just 1 of 5." Do I need to finish the skit for you? I don't care if there are other things that are bad. That doesn't mean that this issue cannot be dealt with.
I wanted to avoid bringing in the issues of other harmful activities to the argument as I agree with you on this point. The issue is that anal sex being something dangerous is an issue that's a lot larger than homosexuals as you can see in some of my other posts. Before the law bans gay marriage because of the dangers of anal sex, it would need to take a general stance on anal sex in general, until the government does that, I don't think it's right to bring that into an argument exclusively regarding homosexuals. I hope that makes sense.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 10:19 vsrooks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:15 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 10:07 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 10:01 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 09:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
Homosexual sex between man might have an increased chance of STDs etc...
BUT, thats only in the case of the involved ones being all around fucking each other, and common, not all gays are in it for the party, i know some very conservative gays that just felt inlove with each other and they never had sex with anyone else, they just want to get married anf adopt a baby, now i ask you, they didnt had sex with many woman before they came out of the closet.
What harm are they doing to society ? they are productive members of it like anyone else, and want to be acknowledged as such. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex. Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time. Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed. I dont see how people can argue about this. Poopers are meant to poop not to engage in any kind of penetration. Evolution clearly meant for man to fuck woman and not in the pooper. Last time i checked evolution clearly wasn't meant for people to swallow swords but you can do it. And the last time I check I could shoot myself in the face. You clearly didnt read anything previous to my post since what I was saying is this: Evolution did not mean for things go in the but. Therefore it is unnatural and there is no point in arguing whether or not it os. Anal sex being natural or unnatural isn't an issue that should regard gay marriage. It's a very broad issue as all types of people engage in anal sex. If you're going to argue that anal sex is damaging it's something that is going to come up with pornography or something a lot easier to attack than homosexuality. If you're going to bring in anal sex as something that is morally wrong and should be outlawed because of the damage it causes, then you're bringing up an entirely different issue that doesn't even need to touch homosexuals. I'm not saying you're wrong, you're just bringing up an issue that's a lot bigger than homosexuals.
No he isn't bringing up the issue.. the issue is inherent in the discussion. You cannot talk about homosexual sex without discussing anal sex. The fact that other industries or couples choose to have a more dangerous form of sex is completely irrelevent. Homosexuals in general don't have that choice and when they have penetrative sex it is 99.9999999999999999% of the time in the poopoo. Quite the opposite given heterosexual couples etc.
I don't like even having to explain this stuff.. it seems so basic.
|
On November 07 2008 10:19 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:17 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 10:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 10:07 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 10:01 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 09:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
Homosexual sex between man might have an increased chance of STDs etc...
BUT, thats only in the case of the involved ones being all around fucking each other, and common, not all gays are in it for the party, i know some very conservative gays that just felt inlove with each other and they never had sex with anyone else, they just want to get married anf adopt a baby, now i ask you, they didnt had sex with many woman before they came out of the closet.
What harm are they doing to society ? they are productive members of it like anyone else, and want to be acknowledged as such. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex. Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time. Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed. I dont see how people can argue about this. Poopers are meant to poop not to engage in any kind of penetration. Evolution clearly meant for man to fuck woman and not in the pooper. Last time i checked evolution clearly wasn't meant for people to swallow swords but you can do it. hahahah you just shot yourself in the foot so bad here. Yeah, and 99.999999999999% of people SHOULD NEVER SWALLLOW A FUCKING SWORD. But when trained and know what your doing you can do it. Infact just about anyone can do it. The point was you can do it safely not that most people do. On November 07 2008 10:15 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 10:07 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 10:01 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 09:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
Homosexual sex between man might have an increased chance of STDs etc...
BUT, thats only in the case of the involved ones being all around fucking each other, and common, not all gays are in it for the party, i know some very conservative gays that just felt inlove with each other and they never had sex with anyone else, they just want to get married anf adopt a baby, now i ask you, they didnt had sex with many woman before they came out of the closet.
What harm are they doing to society ? they are productive members of it like anyone else, and want to be acknowledged as such. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex. Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time. Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed. I dont see how people can argue about this. Poopers are meant to poop not to engage in any kind of penetration. Evolution clearly meant for man to fuck woman and not in the pooper. Last time i checked evolution clearly wasn't meant for people to swallow swords but you can do it. And the last time I check I could shoot myself in the face. You clearly didnt read anything previous to my post since what I was saying is this: Evolution did not mean for things go in the but. Therefore it is unnatural and there is no point in arguing whether or not it os. First off there are safe ways to swallow a sword there is no harmless way of shooting yourself in the face as far as i know. Yep and after all that training, after all that practice.. you are still doing something infinitely more dangous than not doing said activity. Just like homosexual sex. Sure it can be done. Is it safer not to? Yes.
But nearly the act of it being done without harm means you are allowed to do it out of choice. Something with the state can't discriminate against.
Frankly when your arguing to not allow gay marriage you hit a wall. The wall is called discrimination and how it's highly not allowed esp in more liberal states.
You can't label the sex habits of someone as unhealthy because just about all sex can do done safely it's why you can go get yourself a dominatrix. In what's bad about having sex is having it too much or not enough. Esp for men bad for your liver if you have too much.
Frankly i find it odd how you can ban same sex marriage but not bad someone who gets a sex change infact how can you not ban a sex change. Or how you can have cosmetic surgery or orthodontic(Braces aren't always ortho it's only ortho work if it's mean for cosmetic purposes meaning you can write off braces as a medical reason if your teeth cause you issues) work.
ionno if i made one point or was just jumping around watching tv is so distracting
Also about homosexuals only have anal sex i know quite a 2 couples that don't do it they just have all types of foreplay. I live in the bay it's hard not to know gay people hell i had about 3 gay teachers for my high school, and no they didn't make it their priority to tell such things but people talk and off work talk makes his way into such a social environment as a school.
|
On November 07 2008 10:10 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 09:53 vsrooks wrote:On November 07 2008 09:47 HeadBangaa wrote:
Homosexuality is an anomoly. Let's establish that
When someone is born homosexual (let's assume that's how it is, for simplicity) they are "selected out" from the breeding process. They won't reproduce.
This makes homosexuals fundamentally different from heterosexuals.
I mean this in no way to offend homos, but its important to acknowledge that truth. They are different. They will never embody as a spousal unit, regardless of semantics, the complete expression of mankind, man and woman. Yin and Yin. Or yang and yang. Very different. I respect homos, but as a unique type of people, who don't necessarily fall under the same institutions as heteros. That's an archaic way of looking at things. We don't necessarily fall under the rules of survival of the fittest anymore, so the idea of them being different because they're unable to reproduce is wrong. There are plenty of straight couples that abstain from having children as well. Humanity has grown past the point in time where the survival of our species isn't a concern in the sense of having to reproduce. It's not archaic. It's truth. Gay people can never be yin-yang. They can't. That's why I'm anti "gay marriage" and pro "garraige". That way, a gay person could say, "I'm garried" without having to qualify, as is the case with, "I am married to someone of the same sex." That's grammatically clumsy; a dedicated word could embody the semantics. Otherwise, we are muddying the grammar and introducing semantic ambiguity. Those are objective negatives. And for what? So gay people can use the word "marry" and be "equal"? They aren't "equal"! The word "equal" in that context means "same". They are different as I've substantiated, but equal in the sense that they are humans and have fundamental rights as we all do. The gay marriage initiative seeks semantic equivocation, and that is objectively incorrect.
So you're not against gay marriage, you're just concerned about the semantics? The government could use the term civil unions then to apply for both couples. If you want a term to distinguish a gay couple from a straight couple in casual conversation, then use whatever you want. It's not really an issue the law needs to deal with though :/.
Sorry if I misunderstood you're meaning.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i have no reason to assume that this thread is different from any other gay marriage debate threads, especially because your haven't made interesting points.
an outline of your argument.
1. gay sex can be risky
2. having gay sex is an unsafe lifestyle. meaning gay sex itself is categorically unsafe
3. there is an interest of some form for state regulation of gay sex the practice itself
4. restrictions on gay marriage is the preferred response
evaluated on its own merits.
1 is ok.
going from 1 to 2 is false. gay sex is entirely safe in well safeguarded ways.
going from 2 to 3 is contingent on the categorical hazard of gay sex itself, as opposed to ways of doing gay sex. since 2 does not hold, 3 does not
4 is so bad it is a joke
relatively speaking, this approach is among the worst. the strength of your position should be the community moral standard, and not that gay sex is dangerous. the latter point relies on a facetious concern for the wellbeing of people having gay sex. despite the expansion of state authority in pursuit of welfare schemes, banning gay marriage is not such a scheme. if you are interested in promoting safe sex and healthy living, there are better ways of doing it.
i mean, it could be a clever little bite against the doctrine of public welfare, but when it comes to something as fundamental to people's lives as their closest relationships, it is no longer a joke.
|
On November 07 2008 10:24 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:19 vsrooks wrote:On November 07 2008 10:15 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 10:07 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 10:01 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 09:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
Homosexual sex between man might have an increased chance of STDs etc...
BUT, thats only in the case of the involved ones being all around fucking each other, and common, not all gays are in it for the party, i know some very conservative gays that just felt inlove with each other and they never had sex with anyone else, they just want to get married anf adopt a baby, now i ask you, they didnt had sex with many woman before they came out of the closet.
What harm are they doing to society ? they are productive members of it like anyone else, and want to be acknowledged as such. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex. Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time. Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed. I dont see how people can argue about this. Poopers are meant to poop not to engage in any kind of penetration. Evolution clearly meant for man to fuck woman and not in the pooper. Last time i checked evolution clearly wasn't meant for people to swallow swords but you can do it. And the last time I check I could shoot myself in the face. You clearly didnt read anything previous to my post since what I was saying is this: Evolution did not mean for things go in the but. Therefore it is unnatural and there is no point in arguing whether or not it os. Anal sex being natural or unnatural isn't an issue that should regard gay marriage. It's a very broad issue as all types of people engage in anal sex. If you're going to argue that anal sex is damaging it's something that is going to come up with pornography or something a lot easier to attack than homosexuality. If you're going to bring in anal sex as something that is morally wrong and should be outlawed because of the damage it causes, then you're bringing up an entirely different issue that doesn't even need to touch homosexuals. I'm not saying you're wrong, you're just bringing up an issue that's a lot bigger than homosexuals. No he isn't bringing up the issue.. the issue is inherent in the discussion. You cannot talk about homosexual sex without discussing anal sex. The fact that other industries or couples choose to have a more dangerous form of sex is completely irrelevent. Homosexuals in general don't have that choice and when they have penetrative sex it is 99.9999999999999999% of the time in the poopoo. Quite the opposite given heterosexual couples etc. I don't like even having to explain this stuff.. it seems so basic.
OKAY, it's in the discussion. The government would need to make a general stance of being AGAINST anal sex for all parties before they can use that as a reason to prevent gay marriage. I don't see what you're not understanding here...
At this moment in time the government's stance on anal sex is that it's perfectly fine, so it doesn't need to enter into the picture of gay marriage until the government changes that stance.
I hope that makes sense. I'm not saying anal sex is irrelevant, I'm saying that the government already has a stance on anal sex and using the danger of anal sex as a reason to prevent gay marriage isn't right when the government doesn't consider anal sex to be an issue.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 07 2008 10:22 HeadBangaa wrote:
Let me give a similar example. Somewhat closely related, actually.
Gender identity.
Many people experience gender identity discrepancy, and some even get surgery to match their outsides to their insides.
If you woke up today and realized that inside, you are actually a woman trapped in a man's body, should people be forced to refer to you as a female? As "she"?
How about a bill to enforce gender-specific language to refer to gender identity rather than physical sex? I would say no for the same reason I say no to gay marriage: it illogically introduces semantic equivocation, in the name of "feel-good rights" (political correctness in disguise). Not to commit a slippery slope here, but left unchecked, politically-pandering alterations to Lexemes, Grammars, and Semantics (LANGUAGE) our fundamental measure of culture and communication, could lead to "doublespeak" a'la 1984.
Adding a dedicated Lexeme ("shemale" or somethg) will preserve existing Semantics and Grammar, while adding the appropriate new expression. "Garriage" achieves that, too.
this would be a good sarcastic post if it wasn't serious. it's like the complete opposite of the correct argument from identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
