-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Same Sex Marriages
- Thread starter ZECH
- Start date
bio-chem said:
Hi Bio,
Certainly IT IS NOT WRONG!
YOU are the one - and like-minded people - who ARE SAYING that BiSexuality and Homosexuality are somehow wrong and not natural. NOT ME!
I AM saying THEY DO EXIST AND ARE COMPLETELY NATURAL as is Heterosexuality. I base what I say ON THE FACTS AS THEY ARE not something dreamed up by a zealot.
Take Care, John H.
joshp said:
The only decision society needs to make is to not legalize this garbage. What you do with your own life is up to you but when you begin to influence the innocent we've got a problem...
I really hate it when the gay issue is compared or lumped with race issues. They are nothing alike, especially if you believe that homosexuality is a choice.
I have always been against homosexuality, and I am not at all religious. First of all, because I believe that homosexuality is a choice or is learned. I believe this, because there are studies that show strong correlating factors between homosexuality and childhood sexual abuse. Studies have also shown common traits between homosexuals, such as poor relationship with fathers, no male role models, etc..
Secondly, I believe homosexuals generally have lower moral values. I believe this because all of my homosexual friends (several) are crazy liberals who seem to be blindly pro-everything. I also believe this because gay men have been shown to have the highest number of sexual partners (the average gay male of over 100 in a lifetime!). We owe them a large part of the credit for the spread of AIDS. If anyone knows of the history of AIDS, you will know what I am talking about (bath-houses, GRIDS, etc.).
I would also like to mention that the argument that "you should be allowed to live however you'd like" is pretty flimsy in my opinion. What if you are a Jeffrey Daumer and wish to live your life by killing innocent people? And honestly, I don't want my little brothers or my future kids to be influenced into thinking homosexuality is okay.
HOWEVER... I must say that there are some very compelling arguments FOR gay marriage, including next of kin rights, etc. in which I support. But when I say support, I would say I really support the idea of civil union rights that include next of kin rights, etc..
I have always been against homosexuality, and I am not at all religious. First of all, because I believe that homosexuality is a choice or is learned. I believe this, because there are studies that show strong correlating factors between homosexuality and childhood sexual abuse. Studies have also shown common traits between homosexuals, such as poor relationship with fathers, no male role models, etc..
Secondly, I believe homosexuals generally have lower moral values. I believe this because all of my homosexual friends (several) are crazy liberals who seem to be blindly pro-everything. I also believe this because gay men have been shown to have the highest number of sexual partners (the average gay male of over 100 in a lifetime!). We owe them a large part of the credit for the spread of AIDS. If anyone knows of the history of AIDS, you will know what I am talking about (bath-houses, GRIDS, etc.).
I would also like to mention that the argument that "you should be allowed to live however you'd like" is pretty flimsy in my opinion. What if you are a Jeffrey Daumer and wish to live your life by killing innocent people? And honestly, I don't want my little brothers or my future kids to be influenced into thinking homosexuality is okay.
HOWEVER... I must say that there are some very compelling arguments FOR gay marriage, including next of kin rights, etc. in which I support. But when I say support, I would say I really support the idea of civil union rights that include next of kin rights, etc..
Nah.. Damn, how are you up at this hour? I hope it's for a morning workout!
I also wanted to add after reading CowPimp's post on the top of the page... How about during the Roman Empire, where a vast number of the soldiers were homosexual or bisexual (engaged in homosexual activity)? Compare that with America today, or America 20 years ago. The comment that there are "gay" animals out there has no correlation with genetics. No "gay gene" has been discovered. How do you know that the animals are gay? How about the animals just like to have anal sex?
I also wanted to add after reading CowPimp's post on the top of the page... How about during the Roman Empire, where a vast number of the soldiers were homosexual or bisexual (engaged in homosexual activity)? Compare that with America today, or America 20 years ago. The comment that there are "gay" animals out there has no correlation with genetics. No "gay gene" has been discovered. How do you know that the animals are gay? How about the animals just like to have anal sex?
First of all if you understand history you will know that "Rome" stole most of it's knowledge and culture from Greece....and they were very gay..KentDog said:
Secondly who gives a shit if our pathetic scientists have discoverd a "gay gene"......hell those stupid fucks can't even cure the common cold......
Next bull shit theory please....
ForemanRules said:First of all if you understand history you will know that "Rome" stole most of it's knowledge and culture from Greece....and they were very gay..
Secondly who gives a shit if our pathetic scientists have discoverd a "gay gene"......hell those stupid fucks can't even cure the common cold......
Next bull shit theory please....
True Story.
KentDog said:
Civil union rights are already the state marriage laws in the United States. It's the religious crazies who are attempting to categorically deny those legal civil union rights to gays, even though their own religious marriages aren't recognized in any state unless entered into through a civil union contract with the state.
One does not need to be homosexual to have an opinion on homosexuality, just as one does not need to be a woman or pregnant to have an opinion on abortion or any other social issues for that matter. It is a social issue, it affects us all.I am not insinuating that liberals have lower moral values. I would consider myself more liberal than conservative. I was describing my gay friends as ???crazy liberals??? because they seem to blindly be pro-everything. And of course, I cannot judge the entire gay population by my several gay friends, you are correct there. And I did not mention Jeffrey Daumer because he was gay, but because he was a serial killer. I was only stating that you should not always have the freedom of choice to live any way you choose (Daumer = murderer = wrong). Sorry for the misunderstanding there.
About the promiscuity issue of homosexual men... I do not believe it is conjecture when I say typical homosexual men have many more sexual partners than typical heterosexual men. I hate to be vague and provide no sources again, but there have been studies to show this during the GRIDS/AIDS epidemic in the 90s; it is documented. However, this was during the time period of bath houses, so I cannot say for sure if it is still true, even so, I still believe it may likely be. Since I am not a homosexual, I cannot say for sure if this is correct, but I was under the impression that homosexual men do not use condoms/protection for sexual intercourse. Is this true? Because unprotected sex leads to higher rates of STDs.
KentDog said:
Right - we all have strongly-held beliefs about situations we have no ability to experience. These beliefs, of course, should always carry the same weight as those who are personally affected by living those experiences.
I am not insinuating that liberals have lower moral values. I would consider myself more liberal than conservative. I was describing my gay friends as ???crazy liberals??? because they seem to blindly be pro-everything. And of course, I cannot judge the entire gay population by my several gay friends, you are correct there. And I did not mention Jeffrey Daumer because he was gay, but because he was a serial killer. I was only stating that you should not always have the freedom of choice to live any way you choose (Daumer = murderer = wrong). Sorry for the misunderstanding there.
I think there is a rather distinct moral difference between choosing to engage in murder and falling in love with someone of the same gender. Of course, I wonder where you would place...oh, say a "conservative" evangelical minister who rages against gays and then is arrested for soliciting oral sex at an Oklahoma City gay resort?
About the promiscuity issue of homosexual men... I do not believe it is conjecture when I say typical homosexual men have many more sexual partners than typical heterosexual men.
It is certainly conjecture when you make a generalization about individuals who make personal decisions about their own intimate encounters.
I hate to be vague and provide no sources again, but there have been studies to show this during the GRIDS/AIDS epidemic in the 90s; it is documented.
No - it means that the people chosen, volunteered or who were screened for studies pointed to certain conclusions. How do you research a community in which there are only rough estimates about the population demographics?
However, this was during the time period of bath houses, so I cannot say for sure if it is still true, however, I still believe it may likely be. Since I am not a homosexual, I cannot say for sure if this is correct, but I was under the impression that homosexual men do not use condoms/protection for sexual intercourse. Is this true? Because unprotected sex leads to higher rates of STDs.
I believe the use of condoms among gay men in the late 1980's was probably roughly similar to the number of heterosexual men who used condoms - if there was a variation, it would be due to the pregnancy concerns, which, if we consider the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country, apparently weren't much of an incentive for condom use.
You don't believe heterosexuals are affected by same sex marriage laws? According to this stance, you are saying that if you yourself are not a minority or female, you believe you should have no opinion on affirmative action and race issues? If you are not female, you should not have a stance on abortion? If you are not a gunowner, you should have no say in gun control laws? I'm not sure this would work.
And your statement about condom use in the US is flimsy at best. Unwanted pregnancies are probably the number one incentive for condom use, next being prevention of STDs. And unwanted pregnancies are more prevalent among low income, lower educated, and certain minority groups (African-American and Hispanic I believe have the highest rate).
KentDog said:
If I'm not affected by racial or affirmative action issues, what exactly is my inherent interest in forming opinions about policies affecting the experiences of others? Especially if those opinions contend they should be denied something or that their experience is bogus because it hasn't been mine? On what "moral" basis do I have to demand my opinion be louder than a woman on the abortion issue? Or that a Congress, made up of 80+% hetero white males, is schooled enough in those experiences to make those decisions for the 52% of the population who may be directly affected?
And that ridiculous argument that heterosexuals are "affected" by same-sex marriage is just bogus. . .are heterosexual marriages "affected" when rapists aren't forced to divorce their victims? Are heterosexual marriages affected when child sexual abusers are allowed to stay in their marriages? Are adult heterosexual marriages affected when some states allow 13 year olds to marry without a parent's consent as long as one of them is pregnant? All of those are legal - and none of them are viewed as affecting the traditional concept of marriage. That means men sitting in prison cells can "marry" a woman outside, even if they never have a conjugal visit. Isn't that diametrically opposite of the traditional purpose of marriage? In Illinois, first cousins may marry as long as the woman is over 50 and cannot bear children. . .how does that fit into the traditional purpose of marriage?
If we are going to talk about changing the "traditional" framework of "marriage", then maybe the discussion needs to be about how others have suddenly decided that the STATE should interfere in the relationships of citizens and force dissolution of their marriages without the consent of the parties. This is a significant issue - after all, how can a wife not be forced to testify against a husband if the state (or "others' who have decided a-la-Terri Schiavo that the marriage should be dissolved because they don't "like" it) arbitrarily is granted the power to dissolve any marriage at the whim of outsiders? Isn't that rather a dramatic re-interpretation of marriage?
KentDog said:
There's nothing flimsy about that obvious evidence. The fact that unwanted pregnancies exist would indicate that perhaps the state policy should be arbitrary castration of males who engage in attempted impregnation outside of marriage. That would take care of the issue completely. No unwanted pregnancies, a dramatically lowered rate of STD's, and no 20 year social/financial cost for the rest of us to raise the unwanted child. It would also dramatically cut down on rapes and child sexual assaults.
Figures concerning the number of unwanted births are also not completely accurate - do you honestly think that middle and upper-income families report abortions, single parent birth certificates and give children up for adoption as openly as the poor? Back when abortion was illegal, it was rather common social knowledge that "unwanted" pregnancies for the well-off were handled by a nice "vacation" to Europe or a Latin American country. The poor got the coat hangers in the back rooms.
The boyfriends who engaged in the sexual activity still had their peepees and society continued to encourage them to find a "bad" girl to score some more experience.
joshp said:
Hi Joshp,
Actually I never said anything about marriage OTHER THAN it IS a MAN-MADE institution - a CREATION of MAN!
I feel those WHO HONESTLY CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER - AND ARE OF AGE AND ABILITY OF CONSENT AND GIVE THAT CONSENT FREELY should NEVER have their relationship interferred with BY ANYONE. AND it should be just as valid as it is with any other "accepted" relationship.
"Society" is nothing more than a group of people - Human Beings. Nothing more. Society is NOT always "right", "correct", etc.
Take Care, John H.
joshp said:
Hi Joshp,
Actually if you will read the book SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN PRE-MODERN EUROPE by John Boswell you will see Homosexual and BiSexual people were married.
Marriage IS A MAN-MADE institution. So what Man makes he can also change.
Society is nothing more than a group of Human Beings. Society IS MAN - MAN-MADE.
Take Care, John H.
kbm8795 said:
Hi KBM,
ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!!
Take Care, John H.
KentDog said:
I am not insinuating that liberals have lower moral values. I would consider myself more liberal than conservative. I was describing my gay friends as ???crazy liberals??? because they seem to blindly be pro-everything. And of course, I cannot judge the entire gay population by my several gay friends, you are correct there. And I did not mention Jeffrey Daumer because he was gay, but because he was a serial killer. I was only stating that you should not always have the freedom of choice to live any way you choose (Daumer = murderer = wrong). Sorry for the misunderstanding there.
About the promiscuity issue of homosexual men... I do not believe it is conjecture when I say typical homosexual men have many more sexual partners than typical heterosexual men. I hate to be vague and provide no sources again, but there have been studies to show this during the GRIDS/AIDS epidemic in the 90s; it is documented. However, this was during the time period of bath houses, so I cannot say for sure if it is still true, even so, I still believe it may likely be. Since I am not a homosexual, I cannot say for sure if this is correct, but I was under the impression that homosexual men do not use condoms/protection for sexual intercourse. Is this true? Because unprotected sex leads to higher rates of STDs.
Hi Kent,
"Bath houses"?
How about the HETEROSEXUAL "meeting places" where Heterosexual rampant Sex is "allowed" and not "reported"?
We are always told how there are "ONLY" a few Homosexuals compared to the "Heterosexual" population....
Truth be KNOWN and IF people would BE COMPLETELY HONEST I think MOST people would self-identify AS BISEXUAL actually.
Take Care, John H.
ANY Heterosexual Male who jacks off - that is - jacks himself off is a MAN who is having Sex with a MAN - the Man IS one and the same Man SO TECHNICALLY AND HONESTLY SPEAKING ANY MAN that jacks himself off is HAVING SEX with a MAN (and COULD be termed Homosexual or BiSexual actually) even though that Man is one and the same Man AND there IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE AND NO WRONG WHATSOEVER if ONE MAN has Sex with another Man AS LONG AS THEY EACH CARE HONESTLY ABOUT EACH OTHER.
Take Care, John H.
Take Care, John H.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2002
- Messages
- 30,626
- Reaction score
- 143
- Points
- 63
- Age
- 54
- Location
- Colorado Springs, Colorado
THAT was a reach....John H. said:
who's on first?
