|
yada yada yada argue argue argue
>_<
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 12:06 gymni wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 12:00 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Oh you thought I was being literal when I said 99.99999%? Cause I added a percentage? Sorry.. I see the problem: you are retarded.
1 in a million is a fraction which is her opinion and that is fine but when I do percentages it suddenly becomes me passing off things as fact and it hurts my argument blah blah. Nevermind the radical number probably indicating a representation.. yeah better go with what you said. rofl No man, I don't think you're being literal. I think you're exaggerating on false claims. Insulting me makes you cool. Her opinion is he has 1 in a million chance of being with her. That is an opinion and can't be disputed. 99.999999% of gay couples marry for the anal sex and not for the love/financial aspect is a sample of one of the facts you're trying to pass off and isn't even close to the truth.
I cant help you if you took that as me trying to be factual. here is me, the author of the supposed statement you got all uppity about (didn't actually happen as you said) telling you I wasn't being literal. But you are clawing at the use of "99.9999%" as indicating as much.. there is a reason it was only you who thought that.
Stop pointing the finger. Get on the short bus and go learn something cause what you did thus far hasn't worked.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well ok so you are not defending the thing as personal stance but still defend its "viability." this makes no difference to the form of address. so the question remains, do you think banning gay marriage as a matter of social suppression is a viable argument.
not that i care to continue this when you have been forced into a corner.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 12:11 oneofthem wrote:
well ok so you are not defending the thing as personal stance but still defend its "viability." this makes no difference to the form of address. so the question remains, do you think banning gay marriage as a matter of social suppression is a viable argument.
not that i care to continue this when you have been forced into a corner.
I think gay marriage is being put down on a social level as a way of deterring homosexual acceptance sure. That is my "viable" argument.
Do I personally think that is right, good or anything decent? No. LIke I said earlier: I am playing devil's advocate. You missed that cause you don't read.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i didn't read that particular post, but you have used words like "should" etc that give prescriptive tones.
in any case, i don't see why you make a big deal out of an informal use of 'you' when the thrust of the rhetorical question bears on the arguments you were describing.
|
On November 07 2008 12:09 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 12:06 gymni wrote:On November 07 2008 12:00 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Oh you thought I was being literal when I said 99.99999%? Cause I added a percentage? Sorry.. I see the problem: you are retarded.
1 in a million is a fraction which is her opinion and that is fine but when I do percentages it suddenly becomes me passing off things as fact and it hurts my argument blah blah. Nevermind the radical number probably indicating a representation.. yeah better go with what you said. rofl No man, I don't think you're being literal. I think you're exaggerating on false claims. Insulting me makes you cool. Her opinion is he has 1 in a million chance of being with her. That is an opinion and can't be disputed. 99.999999% of gay couples marry for the anal sex and not for the love/financial aspect is a sample of one of the facts you're trying to pass off and isn't even close to the truth. I cant help you if you took that as me trying to be factual. here is me, the author of the supposed statement you got all uppity about (didn't actually happen as you said) telling you I wasn't being literal. But you are clawing at the use of "99.9999%" as indicating as much.. there is a reason it was only you who thought that. Stop pointing the finger. Get on the short bus and go learn something cause what you did thus far hasn't worked.
You aren't the one being factual. It's that you're using a fact and not being literal about it. The event in question is undeniably a fact. But the way you twist that fact is what is exaggerating the fact into something it's not. The woman in "Dumb and Dumber" uses her own opinion and can add any number to it and it would still be correct.
Listen, I wasn't even specifically mentioning you, my original claim was to everyone. But you took it as something exclusive to yourself, which is ironically self incriminating. All I'm saying is you don't have to exaggerate anything for people to agree with you and somehow you're disagreeing with this. It doesn't help you in anyway.
Carry on with the discussion I'm enjoying both sides thus far.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 12:19 gymni wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 12:09 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 12:06 gymni wrote:On November 07 2008 12:00 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Oh you thought I was being literal when I said 99.99999%? Cause I added a percentage? Sorry.. I see the problem: you are retarded.
1 in a million is a fraction which is her opinion and that is fine but when I do percentages it suddenly becomes me passing off things as fact and it hurts my argument blah blah. Nevermind the radical number probably indicating a representation.. yeah better go with what you said. rofl No man, I don't think you're being literal. I think you're exaggerating on false claims. Insulting me makes you cool. Her opinion is he has 1 in a million chance of being with her. That is an opinion and can't be disputed. 99.999999% of gay couples marry for the anal sex and not for the love/financial aspect is a sample of one of the facts you're trying to pass off and isn't even close to the truth. I cant help you if you took that as me trying to be factual. here is me, the author of the supposed statement you got all uppity about (didn't actually happen as you said) telling you I wasn't being literal. But you are clawing at the use of "99.9999%" as indicating as much.. there is a reason it was only you who thought that. Stop pointing the finger. Get on the short bus and go learn something cause what you did thus far hasn't worked. You aren't the one being factual. It's that you're using a fact and not being literal about it. The event in question is undeniably a fact. But the way you twist that fact is what is exaggerating the fact into something it's not. The woman in "Dumb and Dumber" uses her own opinion and can add any number to it and it would still be correct. Listen, I wasn't even specifically mentioning you, my original claim was to everyone. But you took it as something exclusive to yourself, which is ironically self incriminating. All I'm saying is you don't have to exaggerate anything for people to agree with you and somehow you're disagreeing with this. It doesn't help you in anyway. Carry on with the discussion I'm enjoying both sides thus far.
Self incriminating? Duh.. I was the only one to use the "figure" "99.99999%"
I wasn't exagegerating anything.. I was conveying an idea. I'm sorry I used dem dere confuzin numbahs instead of lettahs like pa taught yous. Spec you wahntin me tah go back n change em? Well aint gunna happen pawtna.
But truthfully? You are absolutely right.. I don't have the factual numbers on how many gay men have anal sex, the number of times they have it per partner etc. But since nobody has those numbers, or anything like them.. I feel safe using socially acceptable cliches to convey ideas of "vast majority." If my repurcussion is confusing and upsetting one 25 post noobie on a forum I will take that.
|
On November 07 2008 12:24 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 12:19 gymni wrote:On November 07 2008 12:09 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 12:06 gymni wrote:On November 07 2008 12:00 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Oh you thought I was being literal when I said 99.99999%? Cause I added a percentage? Sorry.. I see the problem: you are retarded.
1 in a million is a fraction which is her opinion and that is fine but when I do percentages it suddenly becomes me passing off things as fact and it hurts my argument blah blah. Nevermind the radical number probably indicating a representation.. yeah better go with what you said. rofl No man, I don't think you're being literal. I think you're exaggerating on false claims. Insulting me makes you cool. Her opinion is he has 1 in a million chance of being with her. That is an opinion and can't be disputed. 99.999999% of gay couples marry for the anal sex and not for the love/financial aspect is a sample of one of the facts you're trying to pass off and isn't even close to the truth. I cant help you if you took that as me trying to be factual. here is me, the author of the supposed statement you got all uppity about (didn't actually happen as you said) telling you I wasn't being literal. But you are clawing at the use of "99.9999%" as indicating as much.. there is a reason it was only you who thought that. Stop pointing the finger. Get on the short bus and go learn something cause what you did thus far hasn't worked. You aren't the one being factual. It's that you're using a fact and not being literal about it. The event in question is undeniably a fact. But the way you twist that fact is what is exaggerating the fact into something it's not. The woman in "Dumb and Dumber" uses her own opinion and can add any number to it and it would still be correct. Listen, I wasn't even specifically mentioning you, my original claim was to everyone. But you took it as something exclusive to yourself, which is ironically self incriminating. All I'm saying is you don't have to exaggerate anything for people to agree with you and somehow you're disagreeing with this. It doesn't help you in anyway. Carry on with the discussion I'm enjoying both sides thus far. I wasn't exagegerating anything.. I was conveying an idea. I'm sorry I used dem dere confuzin numbahs instead of lettahs like pa taught yous. Spec you wahntin me tah go back n change em? Well aint gunna happen pawtna.
LOL
|
On November 07 2008 12:24 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 12:19 gymni wrote:On November 07 2008 12:09 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 12:06 gymni wrote:On November 07 2008 12:00 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Oh you thought I was being literal when I said 99.99999%? Cause I added a percentage? Sorry.. I see the problem: you are retarded.
1 in a million is a fraction which is her opinion and that is fine but when I do percentages it suddenly becomes me passing off things as fact and it hurts my argument blah blah. Nevermind the radical number probably indicating a representation.. yeah better go with what you said. rofl No man, I don't think you're being literal. I think you're exaggerating on false claims. Insulting me makes you cool. Her opinion is he has 1 in a million chance of being with her. That is an opinion and can't be disputed. 99.999999% of gay couples marry for the anal sex and not for the love/financial aspect is a sample of one of the facts you're trying to pass off and isn't even close to the truth. I cant help you if you took that as me trying to be factual. here is me, the author of the supposed statement you got all uppity about (didn't actually happen as you said) telling you I wasn't being literal. But you are clawing at the use of "99.9999%" as indicating as much.. there is a reason it was only you who thought that. Stop pointing the finger. Get on the short bus and go learn something cause what you did thus far hasn't worked. You aren't the one being factual. It's that you're using a fact and not being literal about it. The event in question is undeniably a fact. But the way you twist that fact is what is exaggerating the fact into something it's not. The woman in "Dumb and Dumber" uses her own opinion and can add any number to it and it would still be correct. Listen, I wasn't even specifically mentioning you, my original claim was to everyone. But you took it as something exclusive to yourself, which is ironically self incriminating. All I'm saying is you don't have to exaggerate anything for people to agree with you and somehow you're disagreeing with this. It doesn't help you in anyway. Carry on with the discussion I'm enjoying both sides thus far. Self incriminating? Duh.. I was the only one to use the "figure" "99.99999%" I wasn't exagegerating anything.. I was conveying an idea. I'm sorry I used dem dere confuzin numbahs instead of lettahs like pa taught yous. Spec you wahntin me tah go back n change em? Well aint gunna happen pawtna. But truthfully? You are absolutely right.. I don't have the factual numbers on how many gay men have anal sex, the number of times they have it per partner etc. But since nobody has those numbers, or anything like them.. I feel safe using socially acceptable cliches to convey ideas of "vast majority." If my repurcussion is confusing and upsetting one 25 post noobie on a forum I will take that.
You are using "exagegerating" your claims.
There most likely are factual numbers out there, at the very least statistics. And if you don't know them, using "most" would not only be accurate, it wouldn't exaggerate your position. Keep insulting me though when you know absolutely nothing about me.
|
While I'm here though, I think rooks made a good point which no one has responded to yet. Anal sex isn't exclusive to gays and to amplify that, the government doesn't condemn anal sex. By this logic, it isn't one of the deterrents for gay marriage.
|
Eh ima take a page out of southpark's book for second time on tl tonight. Marriage is a tradition between man and women, man and man should have some alternative with the same legal bindings imo such as butt buddies as sp suggested.
|
On November 07 2008 08:40 Etherone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 08:04 LG)Sabbath wrote:On November 07 2008 07:15 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 07 2008 06:00 LG)Sabbath wrote:On November 06 2008 11:44 Murk wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJMThere's my argument, and btw I'm a christian, and I believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry. The fundamental weakness of this argument is that all the "President"s laws are derived from mosaic law, of which I wrote about briefly here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=81426¤tpage=12 and you will read about their modern applications here according to official Catholic theology in Aquinas' Summa Theologica: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2103.htm#article3All of the penalties mentioned are made obsolete by the new covenant, often directly so by Jesus' own word in the gospels, but homosexuality is not, in both Romans and 1st Corinthians, Paul says with certainty that sodomy is a sin and those who commit it will not inherit the kingdom of God. Therefore from a Christian (mainstream Catholic let's say for sake of argument) point of view, it's not expressly prohibited to work on the Sabbath, stoning and burning are outright prohibited, pork may be eaten without being defiled, yet sodomy is still a sin. Ok, if you want to play cat and mouse, let's do it. My argument being that the bible cannot be taken word for word and I as a christian only use it as a second guide, my first guide being my conscience and my own judgement of situations. Anything taken word for word from the bible will eventually suffer from: 1- different versions of the bible say things differently, 2- context is based on opinion and therefore prevents proper judgement, 3- ignoring context makes one look like a retard at best. Therefore by following my own judgement I believe that, in general, people should be allowed the right to do as they please as long as they don't hurt others willfully or otherwise. Example: gay people marrying each other.So let's take this sentence from the bible, supposedly said by Jesus himself: "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away!" 1- Does this mean that I should promptly remove my eyes for having many times in my life looked at women and desired them? How about you, will you remove your own eyes? I doubt you have never looked at women with desire, any adult non-homosexual man must have done it. 2- May I desire women without looking at them? Such as in my imagination? That certainly doesn't sound consistent, but it does pass jesus' adultery rule. 3- The Bible says that I may not kill myself, yet Jesus suggests that I remove my own eyes, which will most probably cause my death in a matter of seconds. What should I do then? Before anyone says this isn't sanction by the church, this verse is in one of the NEW testament's gospels.( I believe it's Mathews but i could be wrong on that). On taking this as your stance on Christianity you forfeit the right to hide behind the bible in other matters, such as the existence of God or Jesus, and admit that either the bible is fictional or that Jesus was wrong in some regards though this may be fine for you it is not for many other Christians, and as such you are a heretic. A heretic is anyone who differs from an accepted doctrine or belief. Edit: grammatical correction
If christianity is as complex as Moltke makes it sound, please consider me a heretic.
And I would not hide behind the bible, ever, because it's a book, and it could have been written by anyone. Hell, it could have been a made up story that people started believing in, just like some people today swear by UFOs, ghosts or Obama's so-called change.
But let's not change the subject here, we're talking about the bible's validity in backing homophobia.
|
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.
You're saying that people should stop homosexuality because it raises the spreading of STD's?
So should heterosexuals in Africa stop reproducing altogether? Because HIV is everywhere there.
Should we stop breathing beause there's so much pollution too?
I'm not sure I get you right because the argument you suggest seems pretty weak.
In any case you're inherently argueing FOR homosexual marriage, because obviously homosexuals getting married would greatly reduce the chances of them having several partners and thus reduce the spreading of STD's.
|
apparently there are "3 million and possibly as many as 4 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted." so there's still a chance that prop 8 will be rejected
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 12:33 gymni wrote:
While I'm here though, I think rooks made a good point which no one has responded to yet. Anal sex isn't exclusive to gays and to amplify that, the government doesn't condemn anal sex. By this logic, it isn't one of the deterrents for gay marriage.
That actually has been addressed several times.. dare I say millions upon millions of times.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 13:46 LG)Sabbath wrote:Show nested quote +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. You're saying that people should stop homosexuality because it raises the spreading of STD's? So should heterosexuals in Africa stop reproducing altogether? Because HIV is everywhere there. Should we stop breathing beause there's so much pollution too? I'm not sure I get you right because the argument you suggest seems pretty weak. In any case you're inherently argueing FOR homosexual marriage, because obviously homosexuals getting married would greatly reduce the chances of them having several partners and thus reduce the spreading of STD's.
yep you nailed it. IF my argument was solely based on the spread of STDs you would be pwning me up and down right now. Sadly for you, I am not as simple as you are 
|
On November 07 2008 11:48 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 11:40 XaI)CyRiC wrote:On November 07 2008 11:08 {88}iNcontroL wrote: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. Why does it have to go to the degree of people going to work via bungee jumps for it to be outlawed? It's not like homosexual males are having anal sex twice a day (at least not the majority). I think there are a bunch of typos in the rest of your paragraph that I'm too lazy to fix, but I get the general idea  Anal sex is something you can do, even if it is an alternative to something that is "more natural", or else how would they be doing it? If you want to restrict sex to a part of the reproductive process, then we can change it to homosexual intercourse or something else that takes that element out. As to the possible scenario where all heterosexual people stopped having vaginal sex, that'd only really become an issue if it resulted in fewer children being born. Otherwise, anal sex would become the majority trend (and opinion), and there'd be no one left to outlaw it. If you're talking about just a select group, i.e. gay men, then the level of harm in the grand scheme of things doesn't arise to a level where society suffers significantly. 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). So tattooing isn't a good comparison because of its frequency (or lack thereof)? How about smoking, drinking, eating artery-clogging foods, etc.? They're not perfect comparisons, but they're examples that show that the fact that something is potentially harmful to a person doesn't necessarily lead to the government having a compelling interest in preventing it. 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. Did it lead to a greater number of homosexuals, or just a greater number of known homosexuals? Unless you can show me how that study somehow differentiated between people suddenly becoming homosexual and people who were merely coming out of the closet because they felt less afraid to do so, then that study doesn't mean anything. 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). I can also understand why many people find the idea of homosexuality very disturbing and want to do whatever they can to remove it from their lives, but at some point people just have to respect each other. A lot more people would have voted differently on Prop 8 if they could put themselves in other people's shoes for just a moment. 1. my point was that homosexuals who have sex do so in the anal area. They do not vary.. they have penetrating sex there generally. People who bungee jump do it once or twice in their life and the situation is almost always with professionals near by, in a controlled environment / situation. Anal sex is the unnatural, more dangerous distant cousin to vaginal sex. That was the point I was trying to make. It is 100% the more dangerous form of what we all do (for the most part). When a group of people hold on to the single more dangerous form of an otherwise normal activity they are easily identified as self damaging people who are "wrong."
Let's take someone who talks a lot of shit (but without insults and not to cops). That would obviously be self-damaging behavior, as it would eventually socially deprive the person and so on, everyone would hate/ignore him. Actually I know people like this but anyway, does it mean that him and anyone that can be put in the same bag as that person should all be prohibited from speaking at all?
Look, i don't like argueing in such a bizantine way, I rather talk about the core of the issue here, which is liberty itself. It seems like you're saying that people who damage themselves should have their freedom reduced, when in fact freedom is generally defined as the right to do anything as long as you don't damage others.
Yes, homosexual people probably have more chances of getting STDs, but it is their right to have sex all they want. Those who should have their liberties reduced are the ones that are knowingly going around carrying an STD and still having sex with people who know nothing about it. If I go to Africa, I want to keep having sex, it's not my fault that so many people have HIV there... I would do my best to pick clean partners obviously.
|
On November 07 2008 13:53 {88}iNcontroL wrote:yep you nailed it. IF my argument was solely based on the spread of STDs you would be pwning me up and down right now. Sadly for you, I am not as simple as you are
Right, your argumet must be based on trolling then, because I haven't found any sense in your posts anyway, I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm outta here, you single-handedly make this a shitty discussion forum with all this name-calling. Enjoy.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 14:08 LG)Sabbath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 11:48 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 11:40 XaI)CyRiC wrote:On November 07 2008 11:08 {88}iNcontroL wrote: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. Why does it have to go to the degree of people going to work via bungee jumps for it to be outlawed? It's not like homosexual males are having anal sex twice a day (at least not the majority). I think there are a bunch of typos in the rest of your paragraph that I'm too lazy to fix, but I get the general idea Anal sex is something you can do, even if it is an alternative to something that is "more natural", or else how would they be doing it? If you want to restrict sex to a part of the reproductive process, then we can change it to homosexual intercourse or something else that takes that element out. As to the possible scenario where all heterosexual people stopped having vaginal sex, that'd only really become an issue if it resulted in fewer children being born. Otherwise, anal sex would become the majority trend (and opinion), and there'd be no one left to outlaw it. If you're talking about just a select group, i.e. gay men, then the level of harm in the grand scheme of things doesn't arise to a level where society suffers significantly. 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). So tattooing isn't a good comparison because of its frequency (or lack thereof)? How about smoking, drinking, eating artery-clogging foods, etc.? They're not perfect comparisons, but they're examples that show that the fact that something is potentially harmful to a person doesn't necessarily lead to the government having a compelling interest in preventing it. 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. Did it lead to a greater number of homosexuals, or just a greater number of known homosexuals? Unless you can show me how that study somehow differentiated between people suddenly becoming homosexual and people who were merely coming out of the closet because they felt less afraid to do so, then that study doesn't mean anything. 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). I can also understand why many people find the idea of homosexuality very disturbing and want to do whatever they can to remove it from their lives, but at some point people just have to respect each other. A lot more people would have voted differently on Prop 8 if they could put themselves in other people's shoes for just a moment. 1. my point was that homosexuals who have sex do so in the anal area. They do not vary.. they have penetrating sex there generally. People who bungee jump do it once or twice in their life and the situation is almost always with professionals near by, in a controlled environment / situation. Anal sex is the unnatural, more dangerous distant cousin to vaginal sex. That was the point I was trying to make. It is 100% the more dangerous form of what we all do (for the most part). When a group of people hold on to the single more dangerous form of an otherwise normal activity they are easily identified as self damaging people who are "wrong." Let's take someone who talks a lot of shit (but without insults and not to cops). That would obviously be self-damaging behavior, as it would eventually socially deprive the person and so on, everyone would hate/ignore him. Actually I know people like this but anyway, does it mean that him and anyone that can be put in the same bag as that person should all be prohibited from speaking at all? Look, i don't like argueing in such a bizantine way, I rather talk about the core of the issue here, which is liberty itself. It seems like you're saying that people who damage themselves should have their freedom reduced, when in fact freedom is generally defined as the right to do anything as long as you don't damage others. Yes, homosexual people probably have more chances of getting STDs, but it is their right to have sex all they want. Those who should have their liberties reduced are the ones that are knowingly going around carrying an STD and still having sex with people who know nothing about it. If I go to Africa, I want to keep having sex, it's not my fault that so many people have HIV there... I would do my best to pick clean partners obviously.
If there was a group of people that took "normal" social talking and warped it into an unhealthy version like lets say they punched their own face after each conversation. Yes, the government would step in and regulate. Or socially they would be treated poorly.
bolded is where you fail. They DO have / get more STDs and their "right" to have sex as much as they want doesn't mean they have a right to have a relationship acknowledged by the state where said practices are the norm.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 14:10 LG)Sabbath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 13:53 {88}iNcontroL wrote:yep you nailed it. IF my argument was solely based on the spread of STDs you would be pwning me up and down right now. Sadly for you, I am not as simple as you are Right, your argumet must be based on trolling then, because I haven't found any sense in your posts anyway, I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm outta here, you single-handedly make this a shitty discussion forum with all this name-calling. Enjoy.
Yep you nailed it again. I was having 3-4 page conversations with xal)cyric and others but all of it was based on empty logic and name calling.
Thanks for giving me all the credit for the downfall of TL.net. I had no idea I was so powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
