Conservatives: Do You Give

[RDD_1210]

If all the cons on this thread dun give a flying **** about GLBT people, why are you so agitated at the thought they'd have the same rights and dignity that you have?

They already have the same rights, exactly the same, as the rest of us. WHat they want are special rights. And that agitates me. And it should any other person.

What can possibly bother you about two consenting adults wanting to marry each other, regardless of what their sex is? How does THAT agitate you?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Do you give a flying **** about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.

Two consenting adults can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

I just wish more people, homo and hetero, would keep it to themselves.

 

[The Rabbi]

If all the cons on this thread dun give a flying **** about GLBT people, why are you so agitated at the thought they'd have the same rights and dignity that you have?

They already have the same rights, exactly the same, as the rest of us. WHat they want are special rights. And that agitates me. And it should any other person.

What can possibly bother you about two consenting adults wanting to marry each other, regardless of what their sex is? How does THAT agitate you?

It doesn't. WHo said it did?

 

[Madeline]

OK..."POS", I will just take as an insult. That's a dead end. "Ignorant" implies that there is something that I don't know. Would you care to enlighten me?

Loved ones? None of my "loved ones" have AIDS. What is your point?

Unless you only know nine people on all of Planet Earth, odds are you know and perhaps even love someone who is GLBT, but you are unaware of their orientation. Doubtless, this is because due to your ignorance and hate, they fear telling you. Hating on the GLBT community is a bit like hating on all left-handed people; sooner or later, that shit will come back on you.

What no one ever discusses is that the lowest transmission rates for HIV are among lesbian women -- unless they are IV drug users, their risk of contracting HIV is very, very low. Gay men are next and the highest rate of transmission (new infections) is among heterosexuals. HIV is an any-bodily-fluid to blood virus; any tearing, no matter how minute, is sufficient for infection to take place.

This myth that "only gays get AIDS" is busy infecting an astounding number of heterosexuals, especially older adults. With less willingness to practice safe sex, less reliable information about STIs, longer sexual histories and more compromised general health, heterosexual Baby Boomers are at high, possibly the highest, risk.

And not for nothing, but there are now several deadly STIs and have been for some time in the US. A few more, like chlamdia, merely have the capacity to stunt lives. Believing that heterosexuality is some sort of magic bullet against infection is helping kill many Americans.....I suspect if we lost you, as disreputable as you seem to be, at least someone would be devastated.

So enough with the "nobody needs sexual health care but gays" already.

the 10% of humanity being gay is a falsehood myth (I'm not calling you a liar, you just beleived what you were told)

What Percentage of People are Homosexuals?

The truth is that this ten percent statistic comes from a report published more than 40 years ago — the famous 1948 study led by William Kinsey.6 The only problem with this report is that its findings were terribly flawed by the methodology used to collect the supposedly representative sample of the U.S. population.7

Why were his findings flawed? For several reasons, first and foremost being that approximately 25 percent of the 5,300 individuals Kinsey studied were prison inmates, "who by the nature of their confinement, couldn't have heterosexual intercourse." In addition, 44 percent of these inmates had had homosexual experiences while in prison.8 This was hardly a representative sample of the American population.

But there were other major flaws in the group selected for the research. Kinsey admitted that "several hundred male prostitutes" were used in his sample. This alone would make a major difference in his findings.9

What are the real figures as far as we can tell today? One recent study of men conducted between 1984 and 1987 by David Forman, the senior staff scientist at the Radcliffe Infirmary (Oxford, England), found that only 1.7 percent of the sample study had ever had homosexual intercourse.12 An even more recent study, conducted at the University of Chicago in 1989 and reported at the 1990 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, resulted in a figure "less than 1% exclusively homosexual."13


Homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of people who identify as gay or lesbian—and the proportion of people who have same-sex sexual experiences—are difficult for researchers to estimate reliably for a variety of reasons.[4] In the modern West, major studies indicate a prevalence of 2% to 13% of the population.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]


http://www.gendermatters.org.au/Pap... Percentages of Homosexuals and bisexuals.doc

In their book “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Hatred and Fear of Homosexuals in the 90’s”, authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Plume, New York, 1990, pages 177-178) stated that the 10% homosexual and lesbian claim was a figure which the homosexual and lesbian lobby propagandists have been continually pumping into heterosexuals’ heads for many years. Kirk and Madsen wrote: “Based on their personal experience, most straights probably would put the gay population at 1% or 2% of the general population. Yet…when straights are asked by pollsters for a formal estimate, the figure played back most often is the ‘10% gay’ statistic which our propagandists have been drilling into their heads for years.”

On a personal level. If I quadruplad the number of known gay or "I think he/she's gay, I would come well short of 10%

I think the data on the incidence of homosexuality is fun stuff to discuss, if statistics are fun for you. It matters little whether the incidence if 1% or 10% IMO -- the point I had hoped to make is that no matter how permissive or repressed the society might be, the level remains approximately the same. Clearly, this is evidence that homosexuality is not a nuture-only based event.

Your figures are too low if we are judging off RL experience. Mine would be around 33%. I suspect we are both wrong.

 

[RDD_1210]

They already have the same rights, exactly the same, as the rest of us. WHat they want are special rights. And that agitates me. And it should any other person.

What can possibly bother you about two consenting adults wanting to marry each other, regardless of what their sex is? How does THAT agitate you?

It doesn't. WHo said it did?

Ummm, YOU did. See bolded. Why don't you tell us what "special rights" they want that bother you so much.

 

[The Rabbi]

So your point is that even though you're wrong, you're still right? Hello?

 

[Madeline]

Don't give a ****...

You'll find most conservatives agree with that...

Then explain these whack jobs to me......

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtsovQiPE24"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtsovQiPE24[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJR7EQRFTS0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJR7EQRFTS0[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_OnP4JKi08"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_OnP4JKi08[/ame]

 

[uptownlivin90]

Do you give a flying **** about homosexuals and how they live their lives?

This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.

Do you support full legal equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals in all spheres of the law?

I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex along with every other person living in the U.S., including a gay person. So, while I support civil unions, I don't see how 'gay rights' are any different than my rights? They can marry someone of the opposite sex the same as I can, no different rights there. So, the equal rights argument is a bit of a fallacy.

So why then give them the right to partake in "civil unions" with someone of the opposite sex. Isn't that give them "special rights"?

Come on, you know that reasoning is flawed.

Keep the state out of marriage between consenting adults and allow the church and various religions to sanction marriages. The only thing the state should do is recognize what the churches have done as legitimate as long as it involved consenting adults. Yes that includes polygamy.

And no marriage is not historically between a man and a woman. It is between a man and however many women he can afford to take care of. Historically.

 

[del]

Don't give a ****...

You'll find most conservatives agree with that...

Then explain these whack jobs to me......

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtsovQiPE24"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtsovQiPE24[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJR7EQRFTS0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJR7EQRFTS0[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_OnP4JKi08"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_OnP4JKi08[/ame]

um, they're whackjobs. hope that helps

 

[Madeline]

Oh boy, the Constitution! What does it have to say about gays getting married?

What about people who are into bestiality? Can a man marry a sheep?

Note that I am ignoring a certain user's strawman argument about hating homosexuals. I don't hate homosexuals or care what they do. I just don't believe that a union between them can be a marriage, and I don't want to pay the bill for their AIDS.

Look up the 14th amendment in the Constitution

Bestiality is against the law, homosexuality is not

People who are married and loyal to their partner are less likely to get AIDS than those who are not

And people who don't engage in sodomy are even less likely. Maybe we should outlaw sodomy?

You're too late, genius.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

You wanna live where homosexuality is illegal? Move to Iran.

 

[Madeline]

Most state governments.

Please post any link supporting that. There is no state government that forbids two homosexuals getting married.

I'm not going to bother posting link after link on this. Since it's in the news so often.

There are around 3 states that have made it legal for gays to marry. Cali actually banned gay weddings for a while.

For me, it's perfectly fine for a state to have these laws. It's States rights. Majority rules, if you don't like the rules in a state, move. If it's a Fed law you don't like. Where can you go?

It is no state's right to legislate against the basic civil rights of any citizen.

 

[Cuyo]

Do you support full legal equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals in all spheres of the law?

I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex along with every other person living in the U.S., including a gay person. So, while I support civil unions, I don't see how 'gay rights' are any different than my rights? They can marry someone of the opposite sex the same as I can, no different rights there. So, the equal rights argument is a bit of a fallacy.

So why then give them the right to partake in "civil unions" with someone of the opposite sex. Isn't that give them "special rights"?

Come on, you know that reasoning is flawed.

Keep the state out of marriage between consenting adults and allow the church and various religions to sanction marriages. The only thing the state should do is recognize what the churches have done as legitimate as long as it involved consenting adults. Yes that includes polygamy.

And no marriage is not historically between a man and a woman. it is between a man and however many woman he can afford to take care of. Historically.

The Con strawman that "They have the same right to engage in a straight wedding, ergo they have equal rights and are asking for special rights" is self-defeating, in addition to being ridiculous. By that logic, they're not asking for special privileges at all, because if homosexual marriage was legalized, the privilege would extend to heterosexuals as well.

Unadulterated silliness.

 

[rightwinger]

Look up the 14th amendment in the Constitution

I've been all over the 14th amendment, ever since the argument about Barry's citizenship started, and I have not seen anything about homosexuals. What is your point?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Bestiality is against the law, homosexuality is not

In what state? The last time I checked the revised statutes in Arizona and Texas, homosexuality was still illegal.

Can I have a link showing homosexuality is illegal in Texas or Arizona?

 

[Madeline]

What?

Do you honestly think you can only get it from sodomy?

Yeah, don't forget IV drug use. Whoring around with bisexual men will do it too.

So will m-2-f intercourse and a few other sex acts. Sometimes...but then, that's the trouble.

 

[Madeline]

They already have the same rights, exactly the same, as the rest of us. WHat they want are special rights. And that agitates me. And it should any other person.

What can possibly bother you about two consenting adults wanting to marry each other, regardless of what their sex is? How does THAT agitate you?

It doesn't. WHo said it did?

So you have been bitching about gays marrying just for shits and giggles?

 

[RDD_1210]

Rabbi - simple question

Are you in favor of a man being able to legally marry another man?

 

[rightwinger]

Please post any link supporting that. There is no state government that forbids two homosexuals getting married.

I'm not going to bother posting link after link on this. Since it's in the news so often.

There are around 3 states that have made it legal for gays to marry. Cali actually banned gay weddings for a while.

For me, it's perfectly fine for a state to have these laws. It's States rights. Majority rules, if you don't like the rules in a state, move. If it's a Fed law you don't like. Where can you go?

It is no state's right to legislate against the basic civil rights of any citizen.

And thats the key point...you don't get to vote on what rights others are allowed to have.

States wanted the right to have Jim Crow laws also. If you didn't like it you could move to another state

 

[RDD_1210]

What can possibly bother you about two consenting adults wanting to marry each other, regardless of what their sex is? How does THAT agitate you?

It doesn't. WHo said it did?

So you have been bitching about gays marrying just for shits and giggles?

He's playing a game of semantics. He is totally in favor of gays getting married...as long as it's to people of the opposite sex. He's not in favor of legal unions between members of the same sex.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi - simple question

Are you in favor of a man being able to legally marry another man?

Please show me where a man is not able to marry another man.
What I am opposed to is the state sanctioning such "marriages" and giving the partners benefits. This confers extra benefits on some people, favoring them at the expense of other solely based on their sexual preference of the moment. This would appear to fail the constitutional provisions of the 14th Amerndment.

Simple question: Are you in favor of giving tax breaks to people because of whom they like to ****?

 

[RDD_1210]

Rabbi - simple question

Are you in favor of a man being able to legally marry another man?

Please show me where a man is not able to marry another man.
What I am opposed to is the state sanctioning such "marriages" and giving the partners benefits. This confers extra benefits on some people, favoring them at the expense of other solely based on their sexual preference of the moment. This would appear to fail the constitutional provisions of the 14th Amerndment.

And there it is. Rabbi is much like many conservatives, anti-homosexual. Thanks for your fake attempt at supporting gay rights.