|
On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Why do you think that homosexuals who have steady sexual relationships are in the vast minority? I assume that you're talking about gay relationships that function in the way we image "healthy" relationships in general, that is, with a single person over a long period of time and involving reciprocal affection, etc. I'm no expert, but I think the idea that gay men [who it seems you're talking about primarily] sexually function primarily in gay orgy 'bath houses' is an outdated and wrong view. I'm a gay man who is 22 and I've only ever had one sexual partner, who I've been with for over 5 years (and who I'm still with and am very much in love with). I have both gay and straight friends, and I would say they split pretty evenly among those who are looking for more 'fling' relationships and those who are looking for someone to settle down with. In other words, in my somewhat extensive (but anecdotal) firsthand experience, I haven't seen any real divide between homo- and heterosexuals when it comes to the level of commitment they are looking for in a relationship. Sure, there are lots of gay men looking for sexual flings, but there are tons of straight men looking for that too. Before making claims about the demographics of homosexuals you need to find some data; there is too much stereotyping that gets thrown around to take claims like that at face value.
And this numbers game you brought up is dangerous. I once read an essay (written by a racist philosopher) arguing that one should be able to turn down African Americans from renting apartments based solely on their race, because there are studies showing a strong correlation between one's race and the probability that one has committed a felony or would commit one in the future. The problem with his reasoning is that the felony has nothing to do with the correlating characteristic - in other words, correlation does not imply causation. Additionally, the important thing to consider was not whether the potential renter was in a group that increased the probability of causing or having caused a crime - the question is whether the individual himself committed a felony. In the same way, just because I'm gay doesn't mean that I'm unfit to raise children or that I'm more likely to get an STD. When looking at raw data from studies it can be very difficult to make conclusions about how the data should be interpreted or what the data really shows.
|
iNcontroL: You are making it sound like only gay men fuck each other up the ass. It's rather common that heterosexual couples do that too to some extent. There are probably many gay men who prefer not to take it up the ass too. Also lesbians don't do it at all so overall I don't think the amount of assfucking is THAT much higher among homosexuals.
|
On November 07 2008 10:28 vsrooks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:10 HeadBangaa wrote: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?
Semantics are a huge deal. When you alter semantics, you alter how we communicate, and it permeates into culture in myriad way, many too subtle to directly appreciate. Recently, language experts have discovered many couplings between language, culture, and even an individual's personality.
If "garriage" came to be (legally, and adopted by our culture), it would become grammatically incorrect to say "I am married to another man" and the distinction between hetero and homo couples would be thusly enforced overtly and subliminally.
This is well-known, and is a main reason why the gay agenda aggressively seeks linguistic equivocation; they want to blur the distinction. It's a culture war with long-term scope...
The government could use the term civil unions then to apply for both couples.
This is wrong because it is also semantic equivocation (introduces the same unneeded ambiguity), just in the opposite direction.
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 :/.
On the contrary, it is. By protecting the language, you are protecting the culture.
You should investigate why the word "e-mail" was rejected from the French lexeme. By their government.
Sorry if I misunderstood you're meaning.
I think you understood what I said, but not the reasoning. Hopefully I have clarified my position.
|
On November 07 2008 10:32 oneofthem wrote:
this would be a good sarcastic post if it wasn't serious. it's like the complete opposite of the correct argument from identity.
oneofthem, you have a knack for trying to counter my beautiful arguments with one-liners. "Must be trolling lol" "He can't be serious lol"
I assume you still resent me for translating your goobly-gock mumbo jumbo into English so we can all laugh at it.
|
On November 07 2008 10:41 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:28 vsrooks wrote:On November 07 2008 10:10 HeadBangaa wrote: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? Semantics are a huge deal. When you alter semantics, you alter how we communicate, and it permeates into culture in myriad way, many too subtle to directly appreciate. Recently, language experts have discovered many couplings between language, culture, and even an individual's personality. If "garriage" came to be (legally, and adopted by our culture), it would become grammatically incorrect to say "I am married to another man" and the distinction between hetero and homo couples would be thusly enforced overtly and subliminally. This is well-known, and is a main reason why the gay agenda aggressively seeks linguistic equivocation; they want to blur the distinction. It's a culture war with long-term scope... Show nested quote +
The government could use the term civil unions then to apply for both couples.
This is wrong because it is also semantic equivocation (introduces the same unneeded ambiguity), just in the opposite direction. Show nested quote +
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 :/.
On the contrary, it is. By protecting the language, you are protecting the culture. You should investigate why the word "e-mail" was rejected from the French lexeme. By their government. I think you understood what I said, but not the reasoning. Hopefully I have clarified my position.
I understand what you're trying to say now. I don't agree or disagree with you, but you do make a good point. If you're trying to distinguish between marriage and gay marriage semantically, I think a better word than garriage should be used at the very least. Garriage just has a very negative connotation.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
LOL your beautiful arguments. in all seriousness, you are doing it wrong on an epic level.
you basically turned the idea that identities force individuals to conform onto its head. that, if someone refuses to follow a certain standard of marriage or sexuality, she is the one forcing the definitions onto you, the guy who is so offended that he can't wait to strike down the offender.
note that gay marriage being an issue is contingent on you not accepting these other people's ideas of marriage, so you are not being forced to adopt different languages, if you did, you would not object in the first place. you are exercising your anger and aggressively trying to hold onto old standards. you are not the oppressed.
the reason why i make one liner responses to your posts is because they are such fantastic works of self parody that i must pay proper respect by muted appreciation. being loud in the gallery is rude.
|
United States4471 Posts
On November 07 2008 10:16 {88}iNcontroL wrote: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.
Okay, moving on then...
First, I think you're arguing that:
Anal sex (not homosexual sex, because anal is only a part of it, even for gay males) is unnatural because of the way our bodies are designed -> causes harm to the body -> homosexual people tend to engage in it more often than heterosexual people -> the government has an interest in preventing the spread of homosexuality -> the government has an interest in denying homosexual people the right to marry each other since it will tend to spread homosexuality. There are a lot of logical leaps there, but I think that covers the general logical progression of your position as I understand it.
First, with regards to anal sex being unnatural because of how our bodies are designed, while the argument has some merit, there's room for argument. There are quite a few things that human beings do that would seem "unnatural" when considering how our bodies are designed, but that the government does not feel compelled to step in and disallow legally. Bungee jumping, drinking animal milk, monogamy (arguable, but a fun one to toss in  ), being vegetarian, walking on fire, etc. There are much better examples out there, but I think you get the point. I'm simply pointing out that looking at our anatomy/biology and declaring that it appears that the body was never designed for a particular purpose as a reason for the government not to condone something isn't necessarily a strong argument either. The argument gets even weaker if you believe in evolution, as our bodies have changed a great deal throughout the history of man and trying to figure out what our bodies were originally designed to do becomes a moot point, particularly when trying to determine what they're "supposed" to do in the present. There's also the fact that plenty of heterosexual people engage in anal sex as well but are not prevented from doing so by the government in any way.
Second, when it comes to the harm that anal sex does to the human body, as others have said, there are also many things that people do to their bodies which expose them to additional health risks that the government condones, or at least doesn't disallow. Tattooing, base jumping, skateboarding, anal sex amongst heterosexuals, smoking, drinking, etc. are all condoned by the government, and all of them are "unnatural" and expose people to additional health risks.
Third, how does denying homosexual people the right to marriage prevent or reduce the instances of anal sex? Unless you happen to believe that being homosexual is a choice, having homosexual people be a larger, more visible part of our society won't contribute to any "spread" of homosexuality. The homosexual people who want to get married who have anal sex will do so whether they're married or not, so I'm not sure where the reduction in anal sex is supposed to come from. I don't think homosexual people tend to "hold off on" anal sex until marriage (I'm almost certain they don't), so there seems to be no connection whatsoever between homosexual marriages and anal sex in our society. If you do believe it's a choice, then there's a whole other debate that has to take place
Lastly, since we're talking about the issue legally, the Constitution recognizes a fundamental right of marriage for all of its citizens. This is not a minor right, or one that is easily disregarded, it's one of the "fundamentals" (oooOoOoO!!). I only mention this because the government usually requires a lot to deny any person any of their fundamental rights, particularly if it's based on something that has been recognized to be protected under the law like a person's sexuality. It makes no sense that a person cannot be discriminated against in any other forum on the basis of their sexuality, whether it's in the workplace, at a restaurant, at the voting booth, etc., but they can be when it comes to marriage.
|
I just want to give my request:
Can you all stop saying 99.99999999% of people do "x"? Unless you want to back it up with statistics of some sort, it's simply not true and your exaggeration of this point weakens your position tremendously in my eyes. It's like saying 99.999999% of poor people are lazy when that's not only not true, it couldn't further from the opposite of the truth.
Otherwise, carry on.
|
United States4471 Posts
HeadBangaa:
What are the dangers/harms in a person not specifying whether they are in a homosexual marriage or a heterosexual marriage? I can't really think of any. If there is no harm in just viewing a marriage as a marriage, whether it is between people of different genders or the same, then why do we need to differentiate the two by coming up with different terms for them? Is there any harm in homosexual couples wanting to be seen as just "couples" and not "gay/homosexual couples"? Are we going to start distinguishing between other kinds of non-typical couples too? Interracial couples? Couples where one person was previously married to another?
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 10:56 XaI)CyRiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:16 {88}iNcontroL wrote: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. Okay, moving on then... First, I think you're arguing that: Anal sex (not homosexual sex, because anal is only a part of it, even for gay males) is unnatural because of the way our bodies are designed -> causes harm to the body -> homosexual people tend to engage in it more often than heterosexual people -> the government has an interest in preventing the spread of homosexuality -> the government has an interest in denying homosexual people the right to marry each other since it will tend to spread homosexuality. There are a lot of logical leaps there, but I think that covers the general logical progression of your position as I understand it. First, with regards to anal sex being unnatural because of how our bodies are designed, while the argument has some merit, there's room for argument. There are quite a few things that human beings do that would seem "unnatural" when considering how our bodies are designed, but that the government does not feel compelled to step in and disallow legally. Bungee jumping, drinking animal milk, monogamy (arguable, but a fun one to toss in ), being vegetarian, walking on fire, etc. There are much better examples out there, but I think you get the point. I'm simply pointing out that looking at our anatomy/biology and declaring that it appears that the body was never designed for a particular purpose as a reason for the government not to condone something isn't necessarily a strong argument either. The argument gets even weaker if you believe in evolution, as our bodies have changed a great deal throughout the history of man and trying to figure out what our bodies were originally designed to do becomes a moot point, particularly when trying to determine what they're "supposed" to do in the present. There's also the fact that plenty of heterosexual people engage in anal sex as well but are not prevented from doing so by the government in any way.
If people started to go to work via a series of bungee jumps I am sure the government would step in as well. The fact that you can do other things that aren't necessarily good for you or natural doesn't mean that suddenly all forms are "ok." Homosexual sex is not really something they can do.. it is something they use as an alternate form of the natural, more healthy activity of sex. Heterosexual's have sex sure.. but if they only had heterosexual sex I promise you the government would step in. And I don't mean "jim and sally" I mean if every heterosexual person stopped having vaginal sex and started to only have anal sex there would be a governmental reaction.
Second, when it comes to the harm that anal sex does to the human body, as others have said, there are also many things that people do to their bodies which expose them to additional health risks that the government condones, or at least doesn't disallow. Tattooing, base jumping, skateboarding, anal sex amongst heterosexuals, smoking, drinking, etc. are all condoned by the government, and all of them are "unnatural" and expose people to additional health risks.
Again same answer really.. just because you can do other things that are bad doesn't mean that this is ok. And truthfully.. tattooing doesn't compare to having an average of 10-30 partners a year and engaging in sexual activity with most of them.. like the average homosexual man does (these numbers are really rough, I read the book this summer. Someone can wiki me and correct me if they like.. it is close to that though at least). So on the macro level I think the anal sex argument overwhelms your propsed questions in that it occurs more, doesn't go away cause other things are bad and is on a fundamentally different level (ie tattoos do not = alternate form of sex).
Third, how does denying homosexual people the right to marriage prevent or reduce the instances of anal sex? Unless you happen to believe that being homosexual is a choice, having homosexual people be a larger, more visible part of our society won't contribute to any "spread" of homosexuality. The homosexual people who want to get married who have anal sex will do so whether they're married or not, so I'm not sure where the reduction in anal sex is supposed to come from. I don't think homosexual people tend to "hold off on" anal sex until marriage (I'm almost certain they don't), so there seems to be no connection whatsoever between homosexual marriages and anal sex in our society. If you do believe it's a choice, then there's a whole other debate that has to take place
By not condoning it society on a whole is hoping (and it is working, "closet homosexual" phenomenon) to dissuage that lifestyle. It is a fact that with more acceptance of homosexuallity comes greater numbers of homosexuals. This was studied in relation to societal turns like the ratings of "Will and Grace" or other like media outlets. I am only gracing the study but it is worth a gander.
Lastly, since we're talking about the issue legally, the Constitution recognizes a fundamental right of marriage for all of its citizens. This is not a minor right, or one that is easily disregarded, it's one of the "fundamentals" (oooOoOoO!!). I only mention this because the government usually requires a lot to deny any person any of their fundamental rights, particularly if it's based on something that has been recognized to be protected under the law like a person's sexuality. It makes no sense that a person cannot be discriminated against in any other forum on the basis of their sexuality, whether it's in the workplace, at a restaurant, at the voting booth, etc., but they can be when it comes to marriage.
Yup I agree. It is backwards and wrong. Would anyone argue against the idea that the government has some crappy precedents and laws? Look legally the banning of gay marriage makes no sense.. socially it is understandable (and by understandable I mean I can see why the masses are afraid of such change.. I don't agree but I know why they sheep that way).
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Cyric can you clean up my post? I don't know how to fucking make it look concise but I'd like it to be followed...
I fucked up the quotation.. post to response shit.
please fix it 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
so you favor making gay people feel so bad about themselves that they'll become psychos and therefore be less offensive? that's certainly doable
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 11:12 oneofthem wrote:
so you favor making gay people feel so bad about themselves that they'll become psychos and therefore be less offensive? that's certainly doable
Nah and if you read what was actually posted you'd see me say it is wrong several times. I said this is what society on a whole has accepted as policy.
You are fucking terrible at this. Start reading the god damn posts before responding.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
so how do you construe this using nonterrible reading skills
"By not condoning it society on a whole is hoping (and it is working, "closet homosexual" phenomenon) to dissuage that lifestyle. It is a fact that with more acceptance of homosexuallity comes greater numbers of homosexuals."
or are you just not familiar with the customary symptoms of such social stigmatization.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 11:15 oneofthem wrote:
so how do you construe this using nonterrible reading skills
"By not condoning it society on a whole is hoping (and it is working, "closet homosexual" phenomenon) to dissuage that lifestyle. It is a fact that with more acceptance of homosexuallity comes greater numbers of homosexuals."
UHHHH
DO YOU SEE THE WORD "SOCIETY" IN THERE?
Did you fucking see it either of the two times you ran your beedy lil troll eyes over it?
|
church approving gay marriage? i dont think so. if thats the case, it wouldnt be called a "church" because churches are affiliated with christianity and christians dont encourage homosexuality. or they shouldnt. i see many religious groups accepting everyone just because ppl think christians are too "strict." they become hypocritical trying to appeal to the general population instead of standing their ground. i wouldve voted for prop 8 too if i had voted.
yes, marriage is being forgotten as a sacred partnership between and man and woman because of all the legal things it comes with.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 11:05 gymni wrote:
I just want to give my request:
Can you all stop saying 99.99999999% of people do "x"? Unless you want to back it up with statistics of some sort, it's simply not true and your exaggeration of this point weakens your position tremendously in my eyes. It's like saying 99.999999% of poor people are lazy when that's not only not true, it couldn't further from the opposite of the truth.
Otherwise, carry on.
"99.9999999%" isn't used as a statistic it is used as a cliche way of conveying "THE VAST MAJORITY."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 07 2008 11:16 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 11:15 oneofthem wrote:
so how do you construe this using nonterrible reading skills
"By not condoning it society on a whole is hoping (and it is working, "closet homosexual" phenomenon) to dissuage that lifestyle. It is a fact that with more acceptance of homosexuallity comes greater numbers of homosexuals." UHHHH DO YOU SEE THE WORD "SOCIETY" IN THERE? Did you fucking see it either of the two times you ran your beedy lil troll eyes over it?
yes i see society. what now? banning gay marriage is one of the social repressions favored, and i have been working off of that correct assumption.
unless you give up defending this social practice, i see no reason to change the form of address.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 11:12 oneofthem wrote:
so you favor making gay people feel so bad about themselves that they'll become psychos and therefore be less offensive? that's certainly doable
Hey look.. its a reminder of what you posted a few minutes ago. Do you see "society" in here? No you see the words (literally rofl) "so you favor making..."
HEY LOOK, YOU SHOULD GET IT NOW.
|
On November 07 2008 11:18 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 11:05 gymni wrote:
I just want to give my request:
Can you all stop saying 99.99999999% of people do "x"? Unless you want to back it up with statistics of some sort, it's simply not true and your exaggeration of this point weakens your position tremendously in my eyes. It's like saying 99.999999% of poor people are lazy when that's not only not true, it couldn't further from the opposite of the truth.
Otherwise, carry on. "99.9999999%" isn't used as a statistic it is used as a cliche way of conveying "THE VAST MAJORITY."
Then say the majority (not even vast majority, just majority). 99.99999% not only makes your claim sound exaggerated, it makes me wonder what else you're exaggerating in your post too when clearly 99.999999% is not even close to the truth. It reduces your credibility. Just tell it how it is, no need to sugarcoat anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
