Board Libs Concerning Homosexuality

[PsuedoGhost]

The stats on gays and STDs, promiscuity, and increased domestic violence are readily available and have been posted on this board many times. If I were more awake, I'd post them again.

That's the second time I've heard that today... Still waiting to see something that is credible. I've seen the statistics on AIDS prevalence in the Gay and Straight Community, and there seems to be more unprotected sex in the gay community. However if we're gonna start posting stats that state that 70% of gays have had over 1000 partners... Then I'm going to heavily ask for cites. If they are having more unprotected sex then it stands to reason that their incidences of STDs are higher. Interesing I found that the vast majority of AIDS cases are amongst Gay black men... (from the CDC). Or rather the vast majority of new diagnoses.

As for the first part, we could debate welfare for weeks, but let's not. One thing you failed to grasp in the first part of the post is that having gay marriage is not the legalization of an action, except the action of issuing a liscence. The illegal actions are not of the gay people, but of the government officials issuing documents. Right now, gays are free to engage in all acts unique to homosexuality...period. Allowing marriage liscences to be issued to gays is a government endorsement of their lifestyle. It's already allowed. A marriage liscence legalizes no behavior. What it does is grant benefits to the two parties by sheer virture that they are married. The fact that the state recognizes hetero marriage and grants married couples a few concessions is an endorsement of that lifestyle and is intended to promote that lifestyle in America's citizens. The state has several good reasons to endorse that lifestyle, as it benefits society. However, there is no such benefit from endorsing the gay lifestyle. While it would be pretty invasive to outlaw the gay lifestyle, it would also be a tad bit foolish to endorse it.

I realize that it is not the legalization of an act per se. But many such as yourself might view it that way, since you consider it to be immoral (forgive me if I'm overstepping what I'm reading into your words). Many times morality is viewed as legality (for better and worse) so that could lead to the connotation that now that gays are legally allowed to marry, that it is now morally acceptable or something along those lines.

Again, I'd like to remind you that we are discussing gay marriages in respect to the state based unions only. I could care less if the church wants to start recognizing same sex unions etc.

What exactly are the benefits of heterosexual marriage for society?

 

[manu1959]

1 - Natural and biologically correct, scientific evidence and evidence of homosexuality in other animals. If a so called "gay" gene exists then it would be concrete evidence of biological nature of homosexuality. Oh man, that would be the day... The end of this whole debate as every homosexual person in the United States would be suing every possible person for discrimination...

2 - The historical precedence has no merit because other practices throughout history have been shunned in modern times due to the obvious unfair nature regarding them. Keep in mind homosexual behavior was documented well before Christ in the Roman and Greek civilizations and probably long before that as well.

3 - Your opinion.

Besides, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on me to disprove those claims. So go ahead and prove to me why those three arguments might be quasi-legitimate.

1. gay sex is biologically pointless.....
2. so prescedence is moot then
3. your opinion as well

you are making the claim that the law is unfair...burden of proof lies with you.....

your turn

 

[PsuedoGhost]

1. gay sex is biologically pointless.....
2. so prescedence is moot then
3. your opinion as well

you are making the claim that the law is unfair...burden of proof lies with you.....

your turn

1 - Why should heterosexual couples who are sterile, or who choose not to conceive be allowed to marry then?

 

[007]

Dear Pale Rider:

Please refrain from debating topics which could possibly give you an aneurysm. I'd hate to see your lively manner cease to exist on this board.

Thanks,

PseudoGhost

P.S. If you could also stop using logical fallacies in your arguments that would be nice.

P.P.S. Oh, and if you could tone the hatred down a notch or too it would be greatly appreciated.

Your condenscension is only outdone by your ignorance mr. cherry. Please note the date I joined this board. Please also note my rep. Now take a look at yours. Big difference. Kind of makes a mockery out of your little speach.

I can see you're very good at liberal psychobabble, but short on content. I think it is you who won't last long here, just like all the rest of the flash in the pan D.U. liberals that come here and try and argue their godless, liberal agenda.

 

[OCA]

If you can make a valid reason as to why they should not be allowed at least the legal benefits of marriage without resorting to the following arguments:

1 - Its unnatural.

2 - It's against historical precedence.

3 - It's wrong.

Then I might consider what you have to say.

Any civilized society must have limits and boundaries on what is deemed decent and what is deemed improper. This society has deemed and rightly so that two people of the same sex may have all the sex they want but they cannot be joined in a union. Currently at birth they enjoy every inalienable right that you and I enjoy but they make a choice to be gay and with that choice comes consequences one of which is they cannot marry another person of the same sex since society deems it to be wrong. Of course all it takes is one judge to change it all because homos know they cannot win a vote anywhere at any time in history.

No discussion of this can be had without including the topics which you say are off limits since they speak to the heart of the matter so your argument is a moot point.

Better luck next time around.

 

[Hobbit]

That's the second time I've heard that today... Still waiting to see something that is credible. I've seen the statistics on AIDS prevalence in the Gay and Straight Community, and there seems to be more unprotected sex in the gay community. However if we're gonna start posting stats that state that 70% of gays have had over 1000 partners... Then I'm going to heavily ask for cites. If they are having more unprotected sex then it stands to reason that their incidences of STDs are higher. Interesing I found that the vast majority of AIDS cases are amongst Gay black men... (from the CDC). Or rather the vast majority of new diagnoses.



I realize that it is not the legalization of an act per se. But many such as yourself might view it that way, since you consider it to be immoral (forgive me if I'm overstepping what I'm reading into your words). Many times morality is viewed as legality (for better and worse) so that could lead to the connotation that now that gays are legally allowed to marry, that it is now morally acceptable or something along those lines.

Again, I'd like to remind you that we are discussing gay marriages in respect to the state based unions only. I could care less if the church wants to start recognizing same sex unions etc.

What exactly are the benefits of heterosexual marriage for society?

I listed the benefits before. Marriage is a stabilizing force. Children from traditional, heterosexual, married families are less likely to have mental disorders and are more likely to become successful. Those who are in stable marriages also tend to be more stable than people who are single, as they have a family, not just themselves, to think about. Married heterosexuals also tend to live longer thant hose who are single or divorced.

This is not a morality issue. It's a common sense issue. The gay lifestyle is statistically harmful while the institution of traditional marriage is statistically beneficial.

As for some statistics. I'm working on it, and I'm about to go to work, but here's a quick bit on HIV.

http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/STDs/aidshivstats.html

Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)

Now, while this may not be politically correct, look at the stats. Even if you go with the grossly high 10% of all people being gay (it's actually 1-3%), it's pretty telling that 60% of all male AIDS cases are from homosexual sex.

I'd link to the article on the CDC web site, but apparently, there's not an online form for it.

 

[jasendorf]

This thread is specifically addressed to the board libs who know who they are and I politely ask all others to hang back from replying until the libs have had a chance to answer.

The task is thusly: if it is your intention that gays( whom shall forward be referred to by me as HLCP:homosexual lifestyle choice perversionist) should be allowed to marry then you must consider what they do to be normal and not a perversion, please attempt to explain, factually based of course, as to just how what they involve theirselves in is as normal as heterosexuality is and always has been considered to be natural and normal. Also please explain since you consider it to be normal and not a choice as to where the gene is that HLCP groups have been pouring billions of dollars and many decades into finding without any success.

Thanks for your cooperation.

1) you make too many assumptions about the subject hence your question is moot... oh yeah, and stupid too.

2) I support gay marriage for one reason. It pisses off republicans. No other reason is necessary.

 

[5stringJeff]

2) I support gay marriage for one reason. It pisses off republicans. No other reason is necessary.

Wow. What incredible debating power you have. We tremble before your mighty intellect and argumentative abilities.

:rotflmao:

 

[OCA]

1) you make too many assumptions about the subject hence your question is moot... oh yeah, and stupid too.

2) I support gay marriage for one reason. It pisses off republicans. No other reason is necessary.

Lol a typical lib argument, wait you have none. My points are solid and stand on merit, you are simply out of your league here.

 

[Bonnie]

Allowing the special priviledges to the homosexual lifestyle is essentially an endorsement of that lifestyle. When the government endorses or subsidizes something, there seems to be more of it. Just look at poverty since welfare ramped up. Now, even in the marriages issued in Massachussetts, gay relationships are unstable and promiscuous. According to many studies, few gays are monogamous, and domestic violence is higher among gay couples. Domestic violence creates very unproductive citizens and is a drain on the legal system. Promiscuous relationships spread disease, even if they're incapable of producing children, and since gays, even in permanent or semi-permanent relationships, tend to be far more promiscuous than straights, they spread STDs quite fast, driving up the cost of health care.

Given the above reasons, I believe it would be to the detriment of society for the government to issue an official endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle via 'marriage.'

Natural has nothing to do with it. Carrots and opium are both natural. One is good for you and one isn't.

Historical precedance may not be able to stand on its own at times, but there's usually a reason for doing the same thing for thousands of reasons. It's definitely worth the effort to investigate such reasons. For many years, nobody understood why the kosher rules were so important until science discovered that until the days of modern food safety technology, going kosher prevented dozens of horrible diseases.

"It's wrong" is never a good excuse. There's always a why. Even God has reasons for all of his rules. We just haven't yet discovered them all.

Great post Hobbit!! Can't rep you yet

 

[CockySOB]

1) you make too many assumptions about the subject hence your question is moot... oh yeah, and stupid too.

2) I support gay marriage for one reason. It pisses off republicans. No other reason is necessary.

Nothing like a small-minded partisan bigot admitting he is what he is....

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Your condenscension is only outdone by your ignorance mr. cherry. Please note the date I joined this board. Please also note my rep. Now take a look at yours. Big difference. Kind of makes a mockery out of your little speach.

I can see you're very good at liberal psychobabble, but short on content. I think it is you who won't last long here, just like all the rest of the flash in the pan D.U. liberals that come here and try and argue their godless, liberal agenda.

Aww... Looks like I struck a chord with Pale Rider. I'm so Godless its unbelievable. I'll be the first to state that 1 - Age and experience has nothing to do with relative intelligence or the legitimacy of one's arguments. 2 - Reputation means nothing...

/Cry... Wah Wah Wah? Come on now, make an attack that is legitimate.

 

[OCA]

Aww... Looks like I struck a chord with Pale Rider. I'm so Godless its unbelievable. I'll be the first to state that 1 - Age and experience has nothing to do with relative intelligence or the legitimacy of one's arguments. 2 - Reputation means nothing...

/Cry... Wah Wah Wah? Come on now, make an attack that is legitimate.

Age and experience has everything to do with intelligence. Are you going to tell me that a person is just as smart or wise at 18 as they are at 40? Especially today's youth!

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Any civilized society must have limits and boundaries on what is deemed decent and what is deemed improper. This society has deemed and rightly so that two people of the same sex may have all the sex they want but they cannot be joined in a union.

Why is it then that many European countries allow many things that we consider to be indecent or obscene and still exist? How can that be? If gay marriage, drug use, etc etc, are as bad as we make them out to be then how come countries that have legalized, or legitimized these actions are not falling apart at the seams? (Let's please not turn this into a debate on Europe, I'm just making a point that decency is highly subjective).

Currently at birth they enjoy every inalienable right that you and I enjoy but they make a choice to be gay and with that choice comes consequences one of which is they cannot marry another person of the same sex since society deems it to be wrong. Of course all it takes is one judge to change it all because homos know they cannot win a vote anywhere at any time in history.

Whether it's a choice or not is still up in the air. Why should society deem something wrong which has no visible impact on 99.9999999% of society? If they get married does that somehow change the visibility of their relationships? What about gay partners who have been living together for over 10 years? Will that somehow change the vast majority of their relationships? I fail to see why society has deemed it to be wrong?

No discussion of this can be had without including the topics which you say are off limits since they speak to the heart of the matter so your argument is a moot point.

Better luck next time around.

You know as well as I do, that the arguments that I banned from this debate hold no water under careful examination. Come on man, give me a good reason why they should not be allowed to marry.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Age and experience has everything to do with intelligence. Are you going to tell me that a person is just as smart or wise at 18 as they are at 40? Especially today's youth!

Negative. A 12 year old with an open mind can be smarter than a 40 year old who has hatred and bigotry infused into his brain.

 

[MissileMan]

Age and experience has everything to do with intelligence. Are you going to tell me that a person is just as smart or wise at 18 as they are at 40? Especially today's youth!

Age and experience has everything to do with wisdom. Intelligence and wisdom are two separate things. Most wise people are intelligent...the opposite isn't as often true.

 

[OCA]

Negative. A 12 year old with an open mind can be smarter than a 40 year old who has hatred and bigotry infused into his brain.

We are not talking hatred and bigotry or for that matter any type f schooing. Would an average 40 year old be more smarter and make better decisions than an average 18 year old based purely on age and experience? Yes.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

I listed the benefits before. Marriage is a stabilizing force. Children from traditional, heterosexual, married families are less likely to have mental disorders and are more likely to become successful. Those who are in stable marriages also tend to be more stable than people who are single, as they have a family, not just themselves, to think about. Married heterosexuals also tend to live longer thant hose who are single or divorced.

I agree that marriage is a stabilizing force for married couples that stay together. Otherwise if it winds up in divorce it is a very traumatizing disaster and can adversely impact children, etc. What would you say to those children who have abusive parents? Marriage was a real stabilizer there wasn't it?

This is not a morality issue. It's a common sense issue. The gay lifestyle is statistically harmful while the institution of traditional marriage is statistically beneficial.

Then doesn't it stand to reason, that if marriage is a stabilizing force, that by allowing gays to marry we would be allowing them to stabilize some of the turbulance that they currently experience?

As for some statistics. I'm working on it, and I'm about to go to work, but here's a quick bit on HIV.

http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/STDs/aidshivstats.html



Now, while this may not be politically correct, look at the stats. Even if you go with the grossly high 10% of all people being gay (it's actually 1-3%), it's pretty telling that 60% of all male AIDS cases are from homosexual sex.

I'd link to the article on the CDC web site, but apparently, there's not an online form for it.

I acknowledge that this to be true, however there are a vast majority of female cases are caused by heterosexual contact. To state that only homosexuals get AIDS is a vast misduty to this debate. Look, I'm not denying that homosexuals may have more cases of AIDS and STDs than heterosexuals do. There is a large misconception in the gay community that the sexual practices that they conduct carry no risk of contracting such things. Obviously, it's a false assumption but its an assumption none the less.

The AIDS epidemic is a tragedy regardless of whether or not you are for or against gays. No one should have to suffer a slow painful death.

 

[MissileMan]

This thread is specifically addressed to the board libs who know who they are and I politely ask all others to hang back from replying until the libs have had a chance to answer.

The task is thusly: if it is your intention that gays( whom shall forward be referred to by me as HLCP:homosexual lifestyle choice perversionist) should be allowed to marry then you must consider what they do to be normal and not a perversion, please attempt to explain, factually based of course, as to just how what they involve theirselves in is as normal as heterosexuality is and always has been considered to be natural and normal. Also please explain since you consider it to be normal and not a choice as to where the gene is that HLCP groups have been pouring billions of dollars and many decades into finding without any success.

Thanks for your cooperation.

If your basis for arguing homosexuality is a choice is the non-discovery of the mechanism that causes it, then I guess you're prepared to argue that since they haven't isolated the gene that causes cancer, that people are choosing to get a brain tumor. Ask yourself how many billions have been spent on that research.

 

[jasendorf]

Nothing like a small-minded partisan bigot admitting he is what he is....

No. Really. I like watching you cry like babies over the whole thing. It's truly a source of pleasure for me.

Let's face it... the original question might as well have been, "Liberals, do you all still beat your wives?"

Why should anyone desire to play this troll's game?