Old 14th September 2005, 22:33   #121
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Extremist tendancies such as lack of safe sex can come from lack of education (as, particularly in the past, the topic of safe gay sex just wasn't discussed). Making more sense?
Quote:
Failing to accept homosexuality makes the problem worse, not better.
Ok, was going to be quiet till I read this.

Please tell me you're joking here. Please. Otherwise this is constitutes grasping blindly for straws.

There is no excuse for a lack of safe sex other than ones own choice not to practice it. AIDS has been around for over 20 years now. The other STD's around way longer than that. It should be common knowledge that unsafe sex can lead to contracting a disease. It's pretty clear that the most common way to contract AIDS is through unsafe sex. This isn's something that can be seperated because someone is gay. It's common knowledge for EVERYONE - gay or not - that unsafe sex is dangerous and can lead to disease.

And to say faling to accept homosexuality makes the problem worse is just plain insane. Me or anyone else accepting it should have no bearing on someones ability to practice safe sex. There simply is no excuse for not being safe irregardless of if you're gay or straight.

To accept homosexuality is to accept these facts and to accept the fact that the largest amount of people who have AIDS and spread AIDS are homosexuals. Accepting it means we are OK with this and sorry - I'm not OK with it.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2005, 23:42   #122
mrthchemp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Holy Blackburn Lancashire!
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
If mrthchemp has such an issue with what I am discussing maybe he/she/it should use the ignore button and stop replying to my posts.
maybe i should draw the mods attention to the above, "edited in" after i posted my apology. bit of the old pot and kettle there wouldn't you say.

re the "dinosaurs" reference - note the use of the plural. i was referring to anyone with an antiquated and woolly-minded attitude to the sexuality of others. i trust it was this that prompted you to place me on ignore (which you didn't seem to do too successfully). if YOU can call groups of people "sickos" for whatever reason, then i think I should easily be able to get away with "dinosaurs", dontcha think?

as for the initial "bingo" reference, it's not my problem if you have a severe sense of humour deficit.
mrthchemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2005, 23:53   #123
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
Ok, was going to be quiet till I read this.

Please tell me you're joking here. Please. Otherwise this is constitutes grasping blindly for straws.
Funny, I was actually basing it on a fairly accepted principle of psychology. But I'm not posting another Wikipedia link-fest, your lame arguments simply aren't worth it.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
There is no excuse for a lack of safe sex other than ones own choice not to practice it. AIDS has been around for over 20 years now. The other STD's around way longer than that. It should be common knowledge that unsafe sex can lead to contracting a disease. It's pretty clear that the most common way to contract AIDS is through unsafe sex. This isn's something that can be seperated because someone is gay. It's common knowledge for EVERYONE - gay or not - that unsafe sex is dangerous and can lead to disease.
And yet people still push for abstinence-based sexual education. Improperly-used condoms can spread disease, lack of education leads to this. It is not the only factor. But there was a large lack of information, and a general extra taboo factor to prophylactics, in the past. This encouraged less safety. Additionally, AIDS was originally named in 1982, and did not become a large focus in "safe sex" literature/zeitgeist until some time after. These things take a while to filter into society -- the incidence of people practicing safer sex is way up these days. Acceptance of homosexuality helps them (failing to provide information relevant to gay men due to some lack of acceptance, for example, clearly exacerbates the problem - I fail to see your problem with this viewpoint.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
And to say faling to accept homosexuality makes the problem worse is just plain insane. Me or anyone else accepting it should have no bearing on someones ability to practice safe sex. There simply is no excuse for not being safe irregardless of if you're gay or straight.
See above for a simple example. More complex ones exist.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
To accept homosexuality is to accept these facts and to accept the fact that the largest amount of people who have AIDS and spread AIDS are homosexuals. Accepting it means we are OK with this and sorry - I'm not OK with it.
That's the same as saying that to accept black people into American society is to accept crime, since their ethnic group is more likely to commit a crime. Smells like shit, sir.

As for your "people decide to be gay" shtick, I'd be just as justified in saying that people decide to be ill. You're directly contradicting the consensus of the medical, biological, and psychological communities the world over. I mean, if you've got any proof other than your bigoted viewpoint, I'd love to see it.

Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
But since you seem to dismiss that, what about bestiality? Why should someone go to jail for screwing sheep?
Cruelty to animals. Could also be an indication of a mental illness.

Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
How about the mortician that screws your dead grandmother? Should he go to jail?
My dead grandmother was cremated . But theoretically, desecration of corpses is wrong because they are still, on some level, treated as a human and are to be treated with respect. Also they probably legally count as someone's property, amongst a number of other things.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2005, 23:55   #124
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I think I was the person that called myself a "dino". This thread is useless. The decision has been made.... by our vote.. and upheld by governor that respected our vote.

Done, did, over.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2005, 00:44   #125
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Damn musta hit a nerve with that last post. You can always tell as soon as someone uses the word bigot.
Quote:
maybe i should draw the mods attention to the above, "edited in" after i posted my apology. bit of the old pot and kettle there wouldn't you say.
Honestly, I didn't edit it to piss ya off. I really don't know if you're a man, a woman or an 'it'. I don't know and it wasn't meant to be an attack. I apologize for that but I do have a habit of re-editing posts until I'm happy with the end result.
Quote:
You're directly contradicting the consensus of the medical, biological, and psychological communities the world over.
Actually you are. First off I have said the gay lifestyle is one of unsafe sex. The CDC agrees:
Quote:
STDs are markers for high-risk sexual practicesthat can transmit HIV, making increases in STD rates a cause for concern
I haven't contradicted that once. Accepting the gay lifestyle is accepting high risk sexual practices. Gays are infected with STD's and AIDS at a rate of nearly 70% over all other groups combined. That's a proven medical fact and this is only counting the ones who report it.
I also said and agree being gay is not a 'mental disease' nor are people born gay. All the groups you mentioned agree upon that statement as well. Enjoy this read:
Quote:
Sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime—different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
.
What have I said all along. A person decides at whatever point they do that they are gay. I also said it is a personal choice. Again your experts agree:
Quote:
Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction that a person feels toward another person.
It is not something you're born with. It is how you feel attracted to a certian person.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publicati...tthefacts.html

So let's review - the EXPERTS at the CDC confirm that gays constitute 70 % of all AIDS cases and that number is rising. They confirm that one is not 'born gay' but acts on an attraction to someone and that is what defines if they are gay or not. It is a choice a person makes.

You're the one who brought up the experts. And those experts included no other than the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists. I'd say that's the authority, wouldn't you.

In looking through the same site I also came across this:
Quote:
Children who are sexually abused can suffer lifelong psychological damage. Statistics show that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to sexually abuse children.

Thomas Schmidt notes that "several studies reveal that while no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, approximately 35% of paedophiles are homosexual... It is impossible to determine the number of male paedophiles, but they may constitute as much as 10% of male homosexuals."

Moreover, even though individual homosexual parents may not be paedophiles, their children are much more likely to mix with members of the gay community where the risk of coming into contact with paedophiles is much greater than normal.
And thus my basis to oppose gay marriage and adoption by gay couples.

BTW I edited this message to include the relevant information. The information of experts.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!

Last edited by MegaRock; 15th September 2005 at 01:35.
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2005, 00:55   #126
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
I know a few people from when I was younger, who admitted that they were gay back then. Two of them got married.......to women!
Then again, I know three different women who went lesbionic after their husbands cheated on them.
Homosexuality is NOT genetic or inherent. It's a choice, just the same as when I choose to walk into a farmer's field late at night and make sheep howl at the moon.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2005, 04:36   #127
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
Quote:
Originally posted by ElChevelle
It's a choice, just the same as when I choose to walk into a farmer's field late at night and make sheep howl at the moon.
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2005, 08:15   #128
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Quote:
Originally posted by ElChevelle
just the same as when I choose to walk into a farmer's field late at night and make sheep howl at the moon.
The normal sheep or the psychadelic ones?

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2005, 08:22   #129
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
I haven't contradicted that once. Accepting the gay lifestyle is accepting high risk sexual practices.
This statement is one of flawed logic. This is extremely basic reasoning.
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
Quote:
Sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime—different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
What have I said all along. A person decides at whatever point they do that they are gay. I also said it is a personal choice.
This a fantastic piece of twisting words. You take a perfectly reasonable piece and draw fabulously false conclusions. For the record though, since you seem to have never heard the word "realize" before:
Realize: to understand a situation

And here's "decide":
Decide: to choose something

One does not choose when one realises something. Your source contradicts you.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
It is not something you're born with. It is how you feel attracted to a certian person.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publicat...stthefacts.html

So let's review - the EXPERTS at the CDC confirm that gays constitute 70 % of all AIDS cases and that number is rising. They confirm that one is not 'born gay' but acts on an attraction to someone and that is what defines if they are gay or not. It is a choice a person makes.
I love this part. You link to a site which states that sexuality is a natural part of someone's personality, and that it is something which falls upon "continuum", that is, some people are gay, some people are straight, some people have various degrees of attractiveness to both sexes, and mentions that homo/bisexual people go through a different "develop-mental" process through life as a consequence of being that way... Then use it to "prove" it's a choice?

You sir, are incapable of reading.
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
BTW I edited this message to include the relevant information. The information of experts.
BTW I just showed - with no effort whatsoever - that it contradicts your viewpoint.

Quote:
Originally posted by ElChevelle
Homosexuality is NOT genetic or inherent. It's a choice, just the same as when I choose to walk into a farmer's field late at night and make sheep howl at the moon.
This is simply not true. Some people become "confused" about their sexuality, and try other sexualities, then come back. This does not mean they were gay. And it does not mean there are people who are not naturally gay. Additionally it seems likely that the people to who you refer are bisexual.

Anecdotal "evidence" like this is just silly, and yet it's still more convincing than MegaRock's puerile twisting (or possibly just complete misunderstanding!) of facts.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2005, 11:54   #130
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Some people become "confused" about their sexuality, and try other sexualities, then come back.
Any guy who decides it might be a good idea to stick his sword in another guy's hairy butt HAS to be confused

ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2005, 13:45   #131
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
I'm tempted to agree, but the fact is that not everyone feels sexual attraction the same way as me, or you.

You have a choice of which sexuality to act, and to refer to yourself as, but not which to be, is the point here, though. People who are gay can act as though they are heterosexual, and go out with girls, if they want, that's the choice here. The vice versa can also happen (particularly if people have a tendancy towards liking the same sex as-is, as the link that MegaRock so kindly provided asserts is both possible and common). This is the case where someone "heterosexual" "turns gay" after a bad relationship. They're exploring another tendancy of their personality. Nobody loses from this.

If they decide that their attraction towards the same same sex isn't as great as that for the opposite, they'll "turn back". The sexuality they act has changed, the sexuality they are has not, if that makes sense.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2005, 17:40   #132
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Quote:
If they decide that their attraction towards the same same sex isn't as great as that for the opposite, they'll "turn back".
Quote:
People who are gay can act as though they are heterosexual, and go out with girls, if they want, that's the choice here.
You just clearly said they DECIDE and they TURN and they CHOOSE.

I think we've pretty clearly shown that being gay is not a mental condition. It is not a physical condition. There is no biological condition. There is nothing different between their bodies an ours. There is no test you can give someone to figure out if they are gay or not.

Therefore saying people are born gay is impossible. Saying people who are gay were gay all along is also impossible. There is no proof at all. None.

That leaves one thing - what I've said all along - it's a choice someone makes. They decide or choose that they are gay or want to be gay.

"decide": to make up one's mind, determine
"choose": choose, take, select, pick out
"become": enter or assume a certain state or condition

They all say what I've said all along. It is a choice. It is something someone decides. The only difference between heteros and homos is whether their sexual partner is the same or opposite sex. They have to choose which they enjoy being around. If having sex with a hetero doesn't turn you on but sex with a homo does then you decide that you're gay. That's the only way one knows. If being gay is something that just is explain bisexuals. It all boils down to choice - you choose who you feel comfortable with.

Quote:
One does not choose when one realises something. Your source contradicts you.
In order to realize if you are gay or not you have to CHOOSE which sexual partner you enjoy being with. If you don't there is no way of really knowing if you're gay or not.

So to accept gay marriage is to accept a choice or decision one has made. Until you or anyone else can prove that gay people are just gay and there is nothing they can do about it most of the proponents arguments are nothing more than opinions. It is proven that the largest majority of pedophiles are gay (not the same as all gays are pedophiles). It is all but proven that being gay is a 'decision' or 'choice' of attraction to a sexual partner. These things are pretty clear. 70% of AIDS cases are gays (and that number is rising) so the gay lifestyle is not as a norm a healthy lifestle. There is no medical, physical, biological or psychological reason for a person to be gay.

Therefore the only thing left is to decide or choose to be gay or not to be based solely on sexual attraction. This is the basis of normal relationships and is the basis for gay relationships.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2005, 18:02   #133
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Cruelty to animals. Could also be an indication of a mental illness.


My dead grandmother was cremated . But theoretically, desecration of corpses is wrong because they are still, on some level, treated as a human and are to be treated with respect. Also they probably legally count as someone's property, amongst a number of other things.
I feel it is wrong to expose children to two men groping each others' asses in public. I also feel it is wrong to expose children to two women sucking face in public. Both of which my kids have seen in Atlanta.

So you value animal rights and respect for the dead more than you respect the right of me to raise my children in what I feel is a wholesome environment?

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2005, 19:01   #134
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
You just clearly said they DECIDE and they TURN and they CHOOSE.
Yep. I didn't say people decided to be gay, turned gay, or chose to be gay though. Try reading my posts

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
I think we've pretty clearly shown that being gay is not a mental condition. It is not a physical condition. There is no biological condition. There is nothing different between their bodies an ours. There is no test you can give someone to figure out if they are gay or not.
I posted links earlier to reports on studies whose conclusions were that the brain chemistry of people is dependent on their "natural" sexuality. Likewise studies which show that sexual preference is likely to be genetically-influenced. Your argument for the next four argument falls apart at this point.

I don't see why I continue to read your posts, since you're clearly not reading mine.

My point is similar to this one:

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
If having sex with a hetero doesn't turn you on but sex with a homo does then you decide that you're gay. That's the only way one knows. If being gay is something that just is explain bisexuals. It all boils down to choice - you choose who you feel comfortable with.
Did I say being gay is something that "just is"? It's a sliding scale, not black and white. It's a preference, based on your brain.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
In order to realize if you are gay or not you have to CHOOSE which sexual partner you enjoy being with. If you don't there is no way of really knowing if you're gay or not.
You're agreeing with me. That paragraph assumes that you either gay or not (or somewhere in between although it is not specifically mentioned) before you go looking. This is my argument. This argument also assumes that one's sexual preference (which is, and let's recall, a sliding scale) is not chosen. You how to refer to yourself. You decide which makes you more comfortable.

Referring to yourself as something doesn't make you that thing. Feeling more comfortable in one situation than another is a natural reaction.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
So to accept gay marriage is to accept a choice or decision one has made. Until you or anyone else can prove that gay people are just gay and there is nothing they can do about it most of the proponents arguments are nothing more than opinions.
Like the opponents' arguments? My opinion is that it is unfair to discriminate against gays.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
It is proven that the largest majority of pedophiles are gay (not the same as all gays are pedophiles).
The second part of that proves that it is not fair to discriminate against gays because of this phenomenon.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
It is all but proven that being gay is a 'decision' or 'choice' of attraction to a sexual partner.
Your label and behaviour are your choice, your nature is not. This is generally true of all things. Forcing people to "decide" to be straight will not stop them being attracted to the same sex, it will just drive their behaviour underground.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
These things are pretty clear. 70% of AIDS cases are gays (and that number is rising) so the gay lifestyle is not as a norm a healthy lifestle.
This statement assumes there is a "gay lifestyle". This is logically identical to assuming that the black lifestyle is not one which involves obeying the law.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
There is no medical, physical, biological or psychological reason for a person to be gay.
...which directly flies in the face of the scientists you purport to be backed by! In particular, the act of being more comfortable with one sex or the other - which, and let me remind you of this, you yourself said was the "reason" for deciding to act or refer to oneself as gay - is, by definition, a psychological phenomenon.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
Therefore the only thing left is to decide or choose to be gay or not to be based solely on sexual attraction.
To choose to act or refer to oneself as gay based on sexual attraction, yes. Sexual attraction, which (interestingly, considering you just said there was no psychological reason for people to be gay) is a psychological phenomenon.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
This is the basis of normal relationships and is the basis for gay relationships.
Therefore they should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
So you value animal rights and respect for the dead more than you respect the right of me to raise my children in what I feel is a wholesome environment?
If you feel that the real world is not a wholesome environment, I suggest you shut your children in a room with no windows.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2005, 19:45   #135
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
I feel it is wrong to expose children to two men groping each others' asses in public. I also feel it is wrong to expose children to two women sucking face in public. Both of which my kids have seen in Atlanta.

So you value animal rights and respect for the dead more than you respect the right of me to raise my children in what I feel is a wholesome environment?
Dude, I don't even want to see a hetero couple sucking face and groping ass in public. No matter who does this stuff it's highly disrespectful to other people around you.

Instead of keeping your kids behind a closed door, maybe the horny bastards could have a little decency and get themselves behind some closed doors.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2005, 20:58   #136
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
I feel it is wrong to expose children to two men groping each others' asses in public. I also feel it is wrong to expose children to two women sucking face in public. Both of which my kids have seen in Atlanta.

So you value animal rights and respect for the dead more than you respect the right of me to raise my children in what I feel is a wholesome environment?
I feel that its wrong to expose your children to ANY type of sexual activity because it only leads to early sexual activity. As seen with early child births--Babies having Babies, children shouldn't have to worry about anything sexual until after they reach puberty when those tendencies start to show.
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2005, 21:24   #137
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
Dude, I don't even want to see a hetero couple sucking face and groping ass in public. No matter who does this stuff it's highly disrespectful to other people around you.

Instead of keeping your kids behind a closed door, maybe the horny bastards could have a little decency and get themselves behind some closed doors.
Locally at Six Flags - St. Louis they have a 'Gay Day'. It's not something they give publicity to but it happens. One day a year all these gay guys show up at the park and it takes only a few seconds to figure this out.

Men with their balls nearly hanging out of Daisy Duke shorts. Sucking face. Ass grabbing. Dry humping. The whole nine yards. ANd no, I'm not joking here. I wish I was.

All done as publicly as possible and all in what is supposed to be a family establishment. I know the first remark would be - don't straight people do it too? Honestly not that often and not with such blatand disregard for everyone around them. It's like they want to make damn sure everyone within a five mile radius know they're gay. They don't show up with kids. They aren't there as families. They don't even get on the rides. They show up just to be gay and show that to everyone else.

Needless to say the day I was there and this happened the park emptied out quicker than anything I've ever witnessed in my life. Within an hour there were barely any kids in the park at all. They were covering their kids eyes and rushing them out of the park as quick as they could. I was right behind them.

I'll agree with the previous posts - don't matter if you're straight or gay - keep your sexual desires at home. Most straight people do it there but the gays didn;t give a shit about anyone else there and looked to be doing it intentionally - probably to empty the park out so it was all gays.

They got their wish.

Quote:
The second part of that proves that it is not fair to discriminate against gays because of this phenomenon.
Ok, let me approach this from the other side then.

Gays want us to acknowedge their unions as being the same as a marriage.

A marriage (at least currently and since the beginning of time) has been the union of a man and a woman. Married people can, if they choose, create a family of offspring. It takes a father and a mother to create a child.

A gay couple is the union of two people of the same sex. Unions are already recognized in many states. They are offered protection against discrimination. Their unions can and are recognized by many states. They cannot however, if they choose, to create a family of offspring. You cannot do this with two mothers or two fathers. Therefore without intervention from the opposite sex they cannot ever be a family. It's just not possible.

Therefore with a 100% medical certianty the union of a man and a woman is not the same thing as a union of two men and two women. They cannot have offspring. They cannot have families. There is nothing discriminatory about that - it's the way nature indended it to be and the way it is.

So when I say a hetero union and a gay union are not the same thing it's with reason. When I say it's against the laws of nature it's pretty logical why. If you're a religious person then it's the will of God that it's this way.

Two gays in a relationship will never be the same thing as a hetero couple. Period.

Secondly a family with two gay parents and a child - well children grow up emulating what they experience as they grow. If they grow up seeing and believing that having two mothers is normal or two fathers is normal it would seem quite logical that the kid will turn into an adult beleving this is the way it is supposed to be. Those abused as children have been known to grow up to be abusers themselves. Children who grow up in an alcoholic family have tended to grow up to become alcoholics. Can you say that someone who grows up in a gay family wouldn't have a higher likelyhood of becoming gay themselves believing it is just the way the world is?

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!

Last edited by MegaRock; 15th September 2005 at 21:45.
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2005, 01:06   #138
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
Dude, I don't even want to see a hetero couple sucking face and groping ass in public. No matter who does this stuff it's highly disrespectful to other people around you.

Instead of keeping your kids behind a closed door, maybe the horny bastards could have a little decency and get themselves behind some closed doors.
Barring this sort of behaviour in public is impossible though - I do see where you're coming from here though. The fact is, though, that an assumption appears to be put down that homosexual behaviour is somehow more harmful than other behaviour, which is not true (or more abundant, which is also not true).

Since MegaRock is now agreeing with me that homosexual partnerships are a great, unavoidable, and natural thing now, this leave me with only this to deal with:
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
Secondly a family with two gay parents and a child - well children grow up emulating what they experience as they grow. If they grow up seeing and believing that having two mothers is normal or two fathers is normal it would seem quite logical that the kid will turn into an adult beleving this is the way it is supposed to be. Those abused as children have been known to grow up to be abusers themselves. Children who grow up in an alcoholic family have tended to grow up to become alcoholics. Can you say that someone who grows up in a gay family wouldn't have a higher likelyhood of becoming gay themselves believing it is just the way the world is?
Your assumption is that turning gay (or being straight, by the fantastic rule of corollary) is something we do to people. I agree that environment may be part of one's sexual orientation later, but since I don't have a particular bias towards one being better than the other, this does not seem like a bad thing. Also, we weren't discussing children brought up by (homo|bi|hetero)sexuals.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2005, 02:38   #139
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
Dude, I don't even want to see a hetero couple sucking face and groping ass in public. No matter who does this stuff it's highly disrespectful to other people around you.

Instead of keeping your kids behind a closed door, maybe the horny bastards could have a little decency and get themselves behind some closed doors.
I quite agree, but gays are a little more 'in your face' with it than straight couples.

I will tolerate gays and lesbians as long as they don't infringe on my rights and they don't ask me to condone what they do.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2005, 05:45   #140
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Also, we weren't discussing children brought up by (homo|bi|hetero)sexuals.
Actually we are. What end result do you really think they plan on getting by classifying gay marriage as legal and will not settle for calling it a 'union'? It is one of the few things that are still legally withheld from gay couples is the right of adoption and invitero (probably spelt wrong) fertilization.

Quote:
Barring this sort of behaviour in public is impossible though - I do see where you're coming from here though.
Sad but true. Sadly once they figure out it's what makes most people not want to accept their lifestyle and quit it they may actually make some headway. Being 'in your face' like they are gets no one nowhere.

Quote:
Since MegaRock is now agreeing with me that homosexual partnerships are a great, unavoidable, and natural thing now, this leave me with only this to deal with:
Sorry, hell hasn't frozen over just yet.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2005, 08:02   #141
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Well, your statements implied agreement.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
Sad but true. Sadly once they figure out it's what makes most people not want to accept their lifestyle and quit it they may actually make some headway. Being 'in your face' like they are gets no one nowhere.
Like "they" are? I've seen a great deal more heterosexual couples who are "in your face" (there's just more of them). If you find homosexual behaviour somehow "more offensive", you'd probably regard the same behaviour in a same-sex couple more "in your face", though, but I've seen nothing to make me think that they're rubbing it in people's faces any more than heterosexual couples. Some people are just in your face with this sort of thing.

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
Actually we are. What end result do you really think they plan on getting by classifying gay marriage as legal and will not settle for calling it a 'union'? It is one of the few things that are still legally withheld from gay couples is the right of adoption and invitero (probably spelt wrong) fertilization.
It's another discussion, on another issue, for another time. This is an example of the "slippery slope" fallacy.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2005, 11:17   #142
mrthchemp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Holy Blackburn Lancashire!
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Your label and behaviour are your choice, your nature is not. This is generally true of all things. Forcing people to "decide" to be straight will not stop them being attracted to the same sex, it will just drive their behaviour underground.
this pretty much encompasses it for me
mrthchemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2005, 12:08   #143
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
/welcomes more gays onto the planet as us straight guys have more vagina to choose from.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2005, 13:45   #144
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
Sad but true. Sadly once they figure out it's what makes most people not want to accept their lifestyle and quit it they may actually make some headway. Being 'in your face' like they are gets no one nowhere.
heh, that reminds me of this.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2005, 15:37   #145
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375


Yeah, that's pretty insightful in a lot of ways. The original gay rights parades were justified, though.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2005, 17:09   #146
mrthchemp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Holy Blackburn Lancashire!
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
heh, that reminds me of this.
yeah well i'll admit there's gay pride and then there's just being plain lewd (be it's roots ironic or otherwise)

OTOH im sure there were a good percentage of folks on that parade who weren't semi-nude or jiggling their privates in peoples faces (so to speak )
mrthchemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2005, 18:33   #147
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
Dude, I don't even want to see a hetero couple sucking face and groping ass in public. No matter who does this stuff it's highly disrespectful to other people around you.

Instead of keeping your kids behind a closed door, maybe the horny bastards could have a little decency and get themselves behind some closed doors.
A piece of advice then, if you ever visit Europe, you should stick to the Vatican! otherwise you may very well loose your temper
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2005, 19:22   #148
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
It sounds very... European.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2005, 19:39   #149
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Only place I would visit in Europe would be Amsterdam and that's only because I would be so fucked up I wouldn't give a shit what was going on around me.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2005, 00:58   #150
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
I've really gotten a need to visit Great Britain because alot of the members here who are British really interest me.
/hugs
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2005, 06:07   #151
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I remember a restaurant job I had once in a 5 star restaurant. I was about 16. I had this gay guy "goose" me while I was scraping dishes. I was a steward. Not just a pinch or pat on the butt, but really got a finger where it shouldn't have been. It startled me, and I reacted. A very nasty right jab that picked him up off the ground and knocked him and his bow tie through a rack of dirty dishes. He got hurt. I didn't even really mean it, just a reaction to having a 40 year old guy sticking his finger up my ass.

I was sleeping with one of the girls that worked in the coffee shop. It was a resort hotel. We never made our sexuality anyones business at work. I doubt any of our co-workers even knew we were involved.

Even as teenagers, we knew that showing our sexuality in our work environment was in poor taste. I'm sure that if we had run around sticking our hands down each others pants, we would have been reprimanded or fired.

Not so with these 40 year old gay men. For some reason, this was acceptable, and I don't understand it to this day.

There were a lot of heterosexual relationships and some married people among the crew. All of them had the decorum to keep their sexuality private and that's called plain classiness. Maybe you might see a wife peck her husband on the cheek or vice versa, but no ass grabbing and french kissing. Unlike these guys, who continuously made a spectacle out of themselves.

Funny though, nothing much was ever said about me knocking this guy through a dish rack.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2005, 21:08   #152
baafie
feminazi
(Major Dude)
 
baafie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,767
Re: Schwarznegger to veto Gay Marriage Bill

Quote:
Originally posted by Triton4
The governor has until Oct. 9 to issue the veto. A veto override in California requires a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and Senate. The Assembly approved the bill 41-35, while the Senate voted 21-15.
So.. in other words, the Governator has to have the people who just approved the bill change their minds and support his veto?

If so, how does he intend to do this?
baafie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2005, 21:33   #153
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
I think the point was that he was interpreting a public opinion poll to mean that the public didn't support the bill, and is overruling the politicians who voted for it.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2005, 21:55   #154
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Don't forget that he is also a politician who was voted into office by the people.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2005, 03:56   #155
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Re: Re: Schwarznegger to veto Gay Marriage Bill

Quote:
Originally posted by baafie
So.. in other words, the Governator has to have the people who just approved the bill change their minds and support his veto?

If so, how does he intend to do this?
Sounds like a bird in the hand to me...

Assembly:
41+35=76, 76/3*2=50.67, 41 is not greater than 50.

Senate:
21+15=36, 36/3*2=24, 21 is not greater than 24.

How do you figure he needs more votes?

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2005, 05:50   #156
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
California citizens passed Proposition 22 (which says only marriages that involve one man and one woman are valid in California), but of course the California Legislature thinks it knows better and is trying to undo the will of the people.

I think the California voters should take careful notice and start firing some politicians. Like ANY of them that tried to oppose the will of the people. When WE THE PEOPLE say NO. It means NO. What else are they gonna decide that they know better about?.

I like a Governor that does what the people tell him.

Quote:
I think the point was that he was interpreting a public opinion poll to mean that the public didn't support the bill, and is overruling the politicians who voted for it.
It wasn't an opinion poll, it was a voted on AND PASSED LAW called Proposition 22.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 22nd September 2005 at 06:05.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2005, 06:41   #157
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
It wasn't an opinion poll, it was a voted on AND PASSED LAW called Proposition 22.
All it takes is a few lesbians eating at the Y to change opinion.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2005, 12:00   #158
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
It wasn't an opinion poll, it was a voted on AND PASSED LAW called Proposition 22.
Opinion poll sounds accurate for the voting process there, but if it's also law, it's also law. I wasn't sure so I went for the less extreme assertion.

Before all this nastiness though, I did post something where I explained why the government in a "republic" would possibly want to override the "will of the people" (that is, the majority opinion of the people) to protect the rights of a minority. I'm not claiming that it is or isn't the case here, I'm claiming that there's a perfectly good reason that government is allowed to overturn decisions like this.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2005, 14:24   #159
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Marriage is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege afforded to one man and one woman that is granted by law to encourage families.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6383353/

Even if the California governor didn't veto the bill, the rest of us would stop it. In Oregon, this is even part of the state constitution now.... gays will never be married in Oregon ... even if California allowed it... not valid here ...

Game over.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2005, 14:48   #160
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
The phrase "never say never" comes to mind. There was a time when women would "never" be allowed to get the vote.

Marriage probably shouldn't be enshrined in law at all, to be honest, or at the very least it should be replaced with something representative.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump