# Study Indicates HOMOSEXUAL ACTS Shorten Lifespan



## 007

*Study Indicates Homosexual Acts Shorten Lifespan*

A new study by the Family Research Institute adds strong new evidence that homosexual acts lead to morbid sicknesses and early death. 

Careful sifting of evidence from four separate databases support the conclusion that homosexual activities may shorten the persons lifespan by as much as 30 years. 

Obituaries in the homosexual press along with data from two large, random sexuality surveys and a comparison of tests on IV drug users and homosexuals were used. In each case, median age of death was less than 50 years for those involved in homosexuality. 

One of the studies was done in Colorado and indicated that homosexuals and IV drug users are 10 times as likely to die before age 65 than the rest of the state population. 

This recent study confirms evidence published by FRI in 1993. There, 6,714 obituaries from 16 U. S. homosexual journals over a 12 year span were compared to a large sampling of regular newspaper obituaries. 

Median age of death for the homosexuals was less than 45, with only 2 percent surviving past 65, while the median age for the regular population was over 70 with more than 60 percent living past 65. 

Causes of early death included murder, accidents and drug abuse, but primarily sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Homosexuals were 116 times more apt to be murdered, 24 times more likely to commit suicide, 18 times more apt to die in traffic accidents. 

Before the "sexual revolution," only a few STDs were even identified. 

Now, AIDS is only one of more that three dozen STDs commonly seen in medical centers in the larger cities. 

People addicted to both homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity now travel the world to find new thrills. They return with not only AIDS, but virulent forms of hepatitis and TB, intestinal parasites, and other diseases transmitted by the exchange of blood and other body fluids. 

Gods requirement of monogamous heterosexuality contains great protection against spread of disease. Sex was designed as an expression of love between a man and woman committed to each other for life. 

Using sex to chase an ever growing appetite for greater thrills creates frustrations often expressed in violence. Such a struggle for satisfaction leads to abuse of the body, breaking down its normal defenses against disease. 

Today there is great national concern over the effects of tobacco. Smoking only shortens life expectancy by a few years, but we discourage it by laws and high taxes. 

Yet we pass laws to protect homosexual partnerships and practices and ignore the data showing the much greater medical and social risk. 

Gods way is always best. We, who are Christians, must bear witness to this truth every way possible. 


http://www.seafox.com/lifespan.html


----------



## nakedemperor

Screen your partner and use proper protection. 

Problem solved. 

Oh, and drive safer.


----------



## Avatar4321

Freedom comes from obediences to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. It seems contrary to some people but its so true. this is a clear example. Its rather sad that so many people have to die when its so preventable. It just goes to show you how selfishness can kill people. 

On the brighter side, since we have a population dragging down the average life expectancy. I know in my subculture i have a life expectancy of about 85 years. Thats almost double the life expectancy of a homosexual....i hope i actually live that long.



> Screen your partner and use proper protection.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> Oh, and drive safer.



You just dont get it. There are natural consequences for our actions. Since there is a religious aspect to this. God doesnt tell us to do or not to do things cause he is a slave driver. He tells us to do or not do things because there are natural consequences for our actions, which He knows and He is trying to warn us and show us the way to really be happy. Im not talking about a fun time or intense pleasure or anything like that. But lasting fulfilling happiness can only come from living principles of truth. 

You think you can be careful and still do what you want. But your actions still have their natural consequences. And if you continue making poor choices you will end up regretting it down the road.


----------



## nakedemperor

Avatar4321 said:
			
		

> You just dont get it. There are natural consequences for our actions. Since there is a religious aspect to this. God doesnt tell us to do or not to do things cause he is a slave driver. He tells us to do or not do things because there are natural consequences for our actions, which He knows and He is trying to warn us and show us the way to really be happy. Im not talking about a fun time or intense pleasure or anything like that. But lasting fulfilling happiness can only come from living principles of truth.
> 
> You think you can be careful and still do what you want. But your actions still have their natural consequences. And if you continue making poor choices you will end up regretting it down the road.



I think I got ya. But the 'natural consequences' as described above can be avoided simply by using protection and having your partner tested before intercourse. After all, this is the health thread. I can't really argue against "god says its a sin" because I don't believe he exists...but that's for another time and place, and not really part of your post.


----------



## 007

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> I think I got ya. But the 'natural consequences' as described above can be avoided simply by using protection and having your partner tested before intercourse. After all, this is the health thread. I can't really argue against "god says its a sin" because I don't believe he exists...but that's for another time and place, and not really part of your post.



What you say is true. But then there's THIS issue with queers...

MARRIAGE DIGEST: New study: Homosexual men prone to promiscuity
Jan 16, 2004
By Michael Foust 
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.

The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.

The researchers interviewed 2,114 people from throughout the city and its suburbs, asking them detailed questions about their sexual behavior and beliefs.

While the research dealt with the behavior of all people -- heterosexuals included -- its findings on homosexual men are sure to raise eyebrows.

"Informants from several institutional spheres noted the common expectation among white gay men of having multiple sex partners," researchers wrote. "Ads for gay bars and clubs convey the message that being gay is about having sexual encounters, not relationships.... The majority of personal ads in city papers under the headline 'men seeking men' identify casual sex rather than long-term relationships as their goal."

The sexual partners of homosexual men are likely to be someone they previously did not know, researchers found. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said their circle of friends did not know their most recent sex partner.

The most likely meeting place was a bar or dance club, where 50 percent of homosexual men said they met their most recent partner.

Researchers said that homosexual men tended to be primarily "transactional" -- a term used for seeking short-term sexual encounters -- while homosexual women tended to be more relational by seeking "enduring sexual relationships."

Researchers concluded that a number of factors encourage homosexual male promiscuity, including the presence of popular meeting places and the "absence of cultural forces that encourage monogamy."

The research team was led by Edward O. Laumann, professor of sociology at the University of Chicago and the co-author of several other books on sexuality.

Traditionalists say that the lack of monogamy among homosexual men underscores the notion that homosexuality is not natural. They also say that such unhealthy behavior should play a larger role in the national debate over same-sex "marriage," because its legalization would radically undermine the traditional belief in monogamy.

The New York Times ran a story in August showing that homosexuals in Canada, where same-sex "marriage" is legal in two provinces, are not rushing to tie the knot. The story followed two men in their 40s, David Andrew and David Warren, who have lived together for seven years.

Although the men promise to protect one another, the story said "they stop short of monogamy, which is something Mr. Andrew also says he does not believe in."

UNIONS NOT SO BAD? -- USA Today published a poll Jan. 14 showing Americans opposed to same-sex "marriage" but warmer to Vermont-type civil unions.

The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll found 53 percent of Americans opposed to legalizing same-sex "marriage," 24 percent supportive and 23 percent with no opinion.

In recent weeks most polls have had opposition above 60 percent. The wording of the question may have influenced the outcome. For this poll Gallup asked, "Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally get married, or do you not have an opinion either way?"

In December, though, Gallup asked, "Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" To that question, 65 percent said they were against legalization. The addition of the word "traditional" may have had an influence.

In the latest poll, 41 percent of Americans said they were opposed to the legalization of civil unions while 34 percent supported them and 25 percent had no opinion.

But the poll continued to show a backlash against recent court rulings favorable to homosexuality. By a 49-46 percent margin, Americans said homosexual relationships should be illegal. Not since 1988 have so many people opposed legalizing same-sex relations. It is also the first time since 1996 that the percentage of "illegal" respondents was higher than "legal" respondents.

The poll of 1,003 adults was conducted Jan. 9-11.

MASS. VOTE DELAY - Robert E. Travaglini, president of the Massachusetts state senate, says he will delay a scheduled vote on a constitutional amendment if the state's high court has not ruled by then on the question of civil unions, according to the Associated Press.

A vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex "marriage" is scheduled for Feb. 11, but the Senate is waiting on a ruling from the court to see if civil unions would appease the justices.

Senators hope that the legalization of Vermont-type civil unions will avoid a battle over same-sex "marriage."

Meanwhile, some 90 law professors, including the law school deans from Yale and Stanford, filed a brief with the court Jan. 12 arguing that the state constitution requires the legalization of same-sex "marriage." Their brief came in response to the request by the state senate.

LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA? -- Mark Leno, an openly homosexual member of the California state assembly, announced Jan. 12 he would introduce a bill to legalize same-sex "marriage" in California.

"This bill will ensure that our state treats our loving, committed relationships with the respect they deserve," Leno, a Democrat, said in a statement.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said during his campaign that he is opposed to same-sex "marriage."

HEARING IN INDIANA -- The Indiana Court of Appeals heard arguments Jan. 12 in a case over the legalization of same-sex "marriage."

Three homosexual couples are suing for marriage licenses in the Hoosier State. They are being represented by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, the Indiana branch of the ACLU.

The homosexual couples lost the case in a lower court.

Similar cases are pending in Arizona and New Jersey.

COLEMAN ON BOARD? -- U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., says he expects to support a constitutional marriage amendment, although he opposes the one in its current language, according to the Associated Press.

He said the Federal Marriage Amendment in Congress will have unintended consequences by barring same-sex couples from receiving various benefits --- such as insurance -- that are legal in some states.

"I know that there will be other amendments offered and I expect to support the one that is narrowly tailored to protect marriage because that is what the real issue is," he said.
--30--


http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17458


----------



## nakedemperor

As to the promiscuity...sounds a lot like a present day college campus to me =)


----------



## Avatar4321

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> I think I got ya. But the 'natural consequences' as described above can be avoided simply by using protection and having your partner tested before intercourse. After all, this is the health thread. I can't really argue against "god says its a sin" because I don't believe he exists...but that's for another time and place, and not really part of your post.



You assume too much. You are assuming that the natural health consequences of the homosexual, and more specific the promiscuous sex life in general, are only STD's and pregnancy. I would be willing to argue that there may be more health factors than just STDs that you worry about. 

As for God you are right we can debate that in another thread. I only mentioned Him because the original post did. Trying to explain the spiritual and temporal blessings of chastity to you is like trying to to explain what salt tastes like to someone who has never tasted it. You wont understand it without experiencing it and i have a feeling you would be too closeminded to ever consider it. So I doubt there is much more to this conversation.


----------



## no1tovote4

What I don't understand is why I should worry about their health.  They get to choose what they do just as I do, so why should this matter to me at all?

Just as some idiot riding his motorcycle with no helmet is none of my concern, what these people do with their lives is of no concern to me either.

Just as some idiot hires prostitutes and doesn't use protection, once again not my concern.

Too often we worry about how somebody else's lifestyle effects them.  So long as they go into their choices with open eyes there is no reason for me to worry at all about how they choose to spend their life.  

If that was the sole worry of the US we need to make Extreme Sporting events illegal, no more bullriding it shortens a lifespan, no more driving it kills far more people than AIDS or Cancer in a year combined.  Alcohol is right out.  Make cigarettes illegal, etc.  There is way too many things that can kill you to constantly worry about whom some guy you don't know sleeps with.


----------



## OCA

It is just common sense to figure out that if all the sex you have involves dipping your wick into the dirt road and then walking around with shit on your wick all day or night(sometimes a shower is not readily available lol) you're going to catch some nasty critters. Queers have always had a short lifespan, goes with the territory when you make such a dangerous and wreckless lifestyle choice, sort of like choosing to shoot heroin.


----------



## NATO AIR

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> As to the promiscuity...sounds a lot like a present day college campus to me =)



how right you are. :cof:


----------



## manu1959

i am a lesbian trapped in a mans body (which works out ok for me actually) looks like this won't affect me much :scratch:


----------



## Avatar4321

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is why I should worry about their health.  They get to choose what they do just as I do, so why should this matter to me at all?



Two reasons. Compassion, and the fact that we have to pay billions for their health care and Aids research


----------



## deaddude

AIDs is no longer a Homosexual disease. Why bitch to the Gays about AIDs any more?

Also do we spend billions on Homosexual health care alone or are you referring to health care in its entirety.


----------



## nakedemperor

Avatar4321 said:
			
		

> Two reasons. Compassion, and the fact that we have to pay billions for their health care and Aids research



Compassion would encompass paying billions for "their" health care and AIDS reasearch, would it not?

Also, I agree with dead dude; AIDS isnt a gay virus, its a worldwide health epidemic, and requires proper protection awareness and responsible sex lives.


----------



## Merlin1047

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Compassion would encompass paying billions for "their" health care and AIDS reasearch, would it not?
> 
> Also, I agree with dead dude; AIDS isnt a gay virus, its a worldwide health epidemic, and requires proper protection awareness and responsible sex lives.



NE, I have little compassion for those who fail to take reasonable cautionary measures.  Part of the lifestyle of many homosexuals is unprotected sex and/or sex with multiple partners.

Sexually transmitted AIDS is a 100% preventable disease.  Those who choose to take the risk should then suffer the consequences instead of demanding that the rest of us bail them out of a predicament resulting from their own reckless conduct.


----------



## Avatar4321

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Compassion would encompass paying billions for "their" health care and AIDS reasearch, would it not?



No this is the major difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals think its compassionate to treat the symptoms. Conservatives think its compassionate to treat the causes so that the symptoms never rear its ugly head.


----------



## manu1959

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Sexually transmitted AIDS is a 100% preventable disease.



*Consensaul * Sexually transmitted AIDS is a 100% preventable disease. 

a fine point but important if you are raped


----------



## musicman

deaddude said:
			
		

> AIDs is no longer a Homosexual disease. Why bitch to the Gays about AIDs any more?
> 
> .





Um, because they brought it here in the first place. Then, they showed their concern for the general well-being by fighting, tooth and nail, all sensible efforts by the medical community to arrest the plague through quarantine. This would have portrayed homosexuality in a bad light, you see. Can't have that. Fuck the general welfare.

And now, they seek further codification - further legitimacy - for a demonstrably dangerous and destructive lifestyle through marriage or civil unions. Nice going, guys. Thanks a lot.


----------



## no1tovote4

Avatar4321 said:
			
		

> Two reasons. Compassion, and the fact that we have to pay billions for their health care and Aids research




And we pay far more billions for the healthcare of underinsured drivers.  Why have we not made a Constitutional Amendment in several states regarding the marriage of such drivers?  Should we allow underinsured drivers to marry, since they are so unhealthy and they cost us money?  If we were truly compassionate about the health of others why allow people to drive at all?

Compassion is fine, but laws built on it?  Not until there is a clear victim should a law be created or problems be invented.  Just because they have a shorter lifespan than Heteros doesn't mean that it is something we should begin changing the Constitution of even one state over.  Too much of our lives is spent making compassionate laws that have no reason to exist exept for our own feelings of what is right for others to participate in.  Regardless of whether you think it may be wrong to do this, they certainly have a right to it.


----------



## deaddude

musicman said:
			
		

> Um, because they brought it here in the first place.



They did not as a whole bring the disease here, it was one person who happened to be gay. The virus is no longer strictly homosexual, even if you think that homosexuality is wrong would you deny health care to heterosexual victims, if you make that distinction then whats to stop homosexuals from saying that they are hetero?


----------



## Merlin1047

deaddude said:
			
		

> They did not as a whole bring the disease here, it was one person who happened to be gay. The virus is no longer strictly homosexual, even if you think that homosexuality is wrong would you deny health care to heterosexual victims, if you make that distinction then whats to stop homosexuals from saying that they are hetero?



If memory serves, I believe that the first known case of AIDS was brought into the country by a bisexual male airline flight attendant.  I'm sure that subsequently many other vectors have found their way here.

To answer your question, no, I wouldn't support denial of health care to hetero or homosexuals.  But when it comes to AIDS resulting from promiscuity, unprotected sex outside marriage, homosexual conduct or drug use then I don't have a great deal of sympathy for the victims.

Plus I get a little tired of the homosexual community expecting the taxpayer to indemnify them from their reckless conduct.


----------



## musicman

deaddude said:
			
		

> They did not as a whole bring the disease here, it was one person who happened to be gay. The virus is no longer strictly homosexual, even if you think that homosexuality is wrong would you deny health care to heterosexual victims, if you make that distinction then whats to stop homosexuals from saying that they are hetero?





I don't mean to quibble over definition with you, but a virus can scarcely be homosexual or heterosexual. A virus just IS. But, the behavior of the homosexual community at large ensured that this plague would gain a foothold. They were not only promiscuous and irresponsible - they displayed a callous disregard for the well-being of the rest of society. I think that needs to be said, and I'll say it every time I hear someone trying to sweep it under the rug with a statement like, "It's not a gay issue - it's a health issue". The behavior of the homosexual community guaranteed that it would become a health issue.

Your statement reminds me of a man on trial for murdering his parents, but asking the judge for leniency on the grounds that he's an orphan.


----------



## alien21010

Funny, because the vast majority of AIDS cases are heterosexual in Africa (which by far has the largest number of cases in the world).  

One of Bush's most forthcoming tenants in his State of the Union speech was to provide aid to Africa for AIDS.  Why should we bail them out of their mess, since it is completely preventable?  Why Merlin?  Or should we just let an entire generation be wiped off the face of the Earth?

Musicman, you have a very warped reality of the situation.  It was not the gay community that swept HIV/AIDs under the rug, it was the Reagan administration, who refused to provide ANY funding towards HIV until the very end of the decade.  Most in the Reagan administration refused to recognize the disease was anything more than a homosexual plague until a famous heterosexual actor (can't remember the name) died from the disease.  

HIV/AIDS would have the same stronghold in Africa without the gay lifestyle there.


----------



## MissileMan

Hey PR!  Still gay bashing I see!



			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> *Study Indicates Homosexual Acts Shorten Lifespan*
> 
> This recent study confirms evidence published by FRI in 1993. There, 6,714 obituaries from 16 U. S. homosexual journals over a 12 year span were compared to a large sampling of regular newspaper obituaries.



This info is over 10 years old...advances in medicine have probably changed those figures.



			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Homosexuals were 116 times more apt to be murdered


Probably beaten to death by intolerant, gay bashing, heterosexuals



			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> 18 times more apt to die in traffic accidents.



What possible correlation can there be between someones sexual preference and traffic fatalities?




			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Gods requirement of monogamous heterosexuality contains great protection against spread of disease.



Tell that to the thousands of heterosexual women in Africa who are being given aids by their husbands.



			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Sex was designed as an expression of love between a man and woman committed to each other for life.



Which is it, an expression of love. or the means of procreation?



			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Today there is great national concern over the effects of tobacco. Smoking only shortens life expectancy by a few years, but we discourage it by laws and high taxes.



I think you better recheck your figures....tobacco is responsible for way more death and medical costs than aids

If all your data is correct,however, then you have nothing to worry about.  Homosexuals are on the verge of extinction...unless the study is flawed.


----------



## musicman

alien21010 said:
			
		

> Funny, because the vast majority of AIDS cases are heterosexual in Africa (which by far has the largest number of cases in the world).
> 
> One of Bush's most forthcoming tenants in his State of the Union speech was to provide aid to Africa for AIDS.  Why should we bail them out of their mess, since it is completely preventable?  Why Merlin?  Or should we just let an entire generation be wiped off the face of the Earth?
> 
> Musicman, you have a very warped reality of the situation.  It was not the gay community that swept HIV/AIDs under the rug, it was the Reagan administration, who refused to provide ANY funding towards HIV until the very end of the decade.  Most in the Reagan administration refused to recognize the disease was anything more than a homosexual plague until a famous heterosexual actor (can't remember the name) died from the disease.
> 
> HIV/AIDS would have the same stronghold in Africa without the gay lifestyle there.





Well, thanks for clearing up my warped reality of the situation. So, it was actually Ronald Reagan who, dressed as an airline steward, dropped his knickers and engaged in promiscuous homosexual relations in every city in the industrialized world. Then, it was Ronald Reagan who organized the powerful gay lobby in San Francisco in order to thwart the medical profession's perfectly sensible plan to quarantine the four thousand or so early cases of HIV. It was Ronald Reagan who  decided that leaving a communicable disease unchecked was preferable to having homosexuality perceived in a less than favorable light.

If attempts to employ common sense and simple concern for innocent human life are hamstrung from the start, it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference how much federal money is - or isn't - thrown at a problem. Every bad thing that happens to irresponsible reprobates is not Ronald Reagan's fault.


----------



## Patriot

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Screen your partner and use proper protection.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> Oh, and drive safer.




Are you gay? And how are those bath houses?


----------



## nakedemperor

Patriot said:
			
		

> Are you gay? And how are those bath houses?



What's a bath house? 

Are YOU gay?


----------



## Patriot

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> What's a bath house?
> 
> Are YOU gay?



I am shocked that there are dumb fucks among us.....





Gay bathhouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bathhouse




Gay bathhouses, also known as (gay) saunas or steam baths (and sometimes called, in gay slang in some regions, "the baths" or "the tubs"), are places where men can go to have sex with other men (note that not all men who visit gay bathhouses consider themselves 'gay'). Bathhouses for women are much more rare, though some men's bathhouses will occasionally have "lesbian" or "women-only" nights.

Bathhouses vary considerably in size and amenities  from small establishments with ten or twenty rooms and a handful of lockers to multi-storey saunas with a variety of room styles or sizes and several steam baths, jacuzzi tubs and sometimes even swimming pools  but nearly all have at least one steam room (or wet sauna), as well as lockers and small private rooms. Unlike at brothels, customers pay only for the use of the facilities; sexual activity, if it occurs, is not provided as a service by staff of the establishment, but is between customers, and no money is exchanged. In fact, nearly all gay bathhouses prohibit or discourage prostitution and ban known prostitutes.

Bathhouses are frequently run 24 hours. There is typically a single customer entrance and exit; the customer can either rent a room  typically consisting of a locker and a single bed (though doubles are sometimes available)  or a locker, for a fixed period, typically from one to twelve hours. After paying, the customer is buzzed through the main door. This system allows establishments to screen potential trouble-makers; many bathhouses refuse entry to those who are visibly intoxicated, or to known prostitutes. In some areas, particularly where homosexuality is illegal, considered immoral, or viewed with hostility, this is a necessary safety precaution. For similar reasons, some bathhouses require the presentation of identification, though the majority do not.

Some bathhouses require customers to purchase yearly memberships and many offer special entry rates to members or to students or other groups. In some countries, bathhouses restrict entrance to men of certain age ranges (apart from the general requirement of being an adult) or physical types, and even perceived nationality or race although in other places this would be considered illegal discrimination. Some bathhouses hold occasional "leather", "underwear" or other theme nights.


Layout and typical amenities

On being buzzed in, the customer receives a (usually white) towel and the key for his room or locker. Many bathhouses also give free condoms and lubricants. Some establishments require a piece of identification or an item of value to be left with the front desk on entry.

Bathhouses are usually dimly lit, and pipe in music via a sound system. They are usually laid out in a circular fashion, or in such a way as to allow or encourage customers to wander throughout the establishment. Rooms are usually grouped together, as are lockers. Bathhouses are frequently decorated with posters of nude or semi-nude men, and sometimes explicit depictions of sex. The heat is kept relatively high.

The customer proceeds to his room or locker where he changes out of his street clothes and wraps a towel around his waist; most bathhouses are clothing optional and some encourage total nudity, but in some bathhouses nudity is forbidden in the common areas of the establishments. While some men may wear underwear or fetish-wear, in most bathhouses it is unusual for customers to remain fully dressed in street clothes. The room or locker key is usually suspended from an elastic band which can be worn around the wrist or ankle. The customer is then free to wander throughout the public areas of the bathhouse, which may include:

group showers 
steam rooms (sometimes more than one) 
jacuzzi tubs (often located in the steam room) 
dry saunas 
mazes 
dark rooms 
"glory holes" 
theme rooms or areas 
orgy rooms 
video areas playing pornography 
relaxation areas where non-pornographic movies are shown 
café areas where food and/or drinks are served 
bars or full restaurants (these are relatively unusual) 
tanning booths 
gymnasium facilities 
dance areas 
swimming or lap pools 
According to "The History of Gay Bathhouses", in the 1970s bathhouses began to install "fantasy environments" which recreated erotic situations that were illegal or dangerous:

Orgy rooms . . . encouraged group sex, while glory holes recreated [public] toilets, and mazes took the place of bushes and undergrowth [in public parks]. Steam rooms and gyms were reminiscent of the cruisy YMCAs, while video rooms recreated the balconies and back rows of movie theaters. A popular NYC bathhouse called Man's Country provided a full-size model of an Everlast truck where visitors could have sex in the cab or in the rear, which served as an orgy room . . . Man's Country also offered a . . . fake prison cell made of rubber bars (1). 
Many bathhouses have small shops selling such items as cigarettes, pornography, sex toys, latex gloves, massage oils and lubricants, razors and shaving cream, aftershave and cologne, toothbrushes, hair products, and related items. Some also sell condoms, shower gel, shampoo and conditioner, but these are usually provided free.


----------



## no1tovote4

alien21010 said:
			
		

> Funny, because the vast majority of AIDS cases are heterosexual in Africa (which by far has the largest number of cases in the world).
> 
> One of Bush's most forthcoming tenants in his State of the Union speech was to provide aid to Africa for AIDS.  Why should we bail them out of their mess, since it is completely preventable?  Why Merlin?  Or should we just let an entire generation be wiped off the face of the Earth?
> 
> Musicman, you have a very warped reality of the situation.  It was not the gay community that swept HIV/AIDs under the rug, it was the Reagan administration, who refused to provide ANY funding towards HIV until the very end of the decade.  Most in the Reagan administration refused to recognize the disease was anything more than a homosexual plague until a famous heterosexual actor (can't remember the name) died from the disease.
> 
> HIV/AIDS would have the same stronghold in Africa without the gay lifestyle there.



The actor's name was Rock Hudson.  

http://members.tripod.com/~LMScully1/

AIDS spreads in Africa due to misinformation.  Education of the masses in Africa could go a long way towards saving many lives.  

In some places in Africa infant rape cases have become almost epidemic in numbers as they believe that having sex with virgins will cure them of STDs!  Horrific crimes committed in a desperate attempt to save their own skins.

Education is what they need in Africa and access to prophylactics.


----------



## Merlin1047

alien21010 said:
			
		

> Funny, because the vast majority of AIDS cases are heterosexual in Africa (which by far has the largest number of cases in the world).
> 
> One of Bush's most forthcoming tenants in his State of the Union speech was to provide aid to Africa for AIDS.  Why should we bail them out of their mess, since it is completely preventable?  Why Merlin?  Or should we just let an entire generation be wiped off the face of the Earth?
> 
> Musicman, you have a very warped reality of the situation.  It was not the gay community that swept HIV/AIDs under the rug, it was the Reagan administration, who refused to provide ANY funding towards HIV until the very end of the decade.  Most in the Reagan administration refused to recognize the disease was anything more than a homosexual plague until a famous heterosexual actor (can't remember the name) died from the disease.
> 
> HIV/AIDS would have the same stronghold in Africa without the gay lifestyle there.



I read somewhere that the vectors which transferred AIDS to humans were monkeys.  No, for all you dirty-minded preverts, it was probably NOT due to sex with monkeys.  Most likely from a bite.  AIDS then spread to Europe and then to the US.  Initially it was a disease MAINLY among homosexuals.  It spread to the heterosexual population through bisexuals, through contaminated blood products in hospitals and through drug abuse (sharing contaminated needles).

As far as your complaint regarding the alleged Reagan neglect of AIDS research under Reagan's administration - I suggest you try to do a little reading and less television. 
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200312030913.asp 
"As I recall, from 1984 onward  and bear in mind that the AIDS virus was not identified until 1982  every Reagan budget contained a large sum of money specifically earmarked for AIDS," says Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter and author of How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. "Now, people will argue that it wasn't enough," Robinson adds. "But, of course, that's the kind of argument that takes place over every item in the federal budget. Nevertheless, the notion that he was somehow callous or had a cruel or cynical attitude towards homosexuals or AIDS victims is just ridiculous."

In February 1986, President Reagan's blueprint for the next fiscal year stated: "[T]his budget provides funds for maintaining  and in some cases expanding  high priority programs in crucial areas of national interestincluding drug enforcement, AIDS research, the space program, nonmilitary research and national security." Reagan's budget message added that AIDS "remains the highest public health priority of the Department of Health and Human Services."

Precise budget requests are difficult to calculate, as online records from the 1980s are spotty. Nevertheless, New York University's archived, hard copies of budget documents from fiscal year 1984 through FY 1989 show that Reagan proposed at least *  $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education, and treatment.* In a Congressional Research Service study titled AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999, author Judith Johnson found that overall, * the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan.* This higher number reflects President Reagan's proposals as well as additional expenditures approved by Congress that he later signed. "

 Five BILLION, seven hundred twenty seven million dollars.   What would you consider to be a sufficient sum, Buckwheat?

And as far as the AIDS epidemic in Africa?  I say send educators and condoms.  The rest of the problem is based on sociological factors which we cannot change.  The Africans will have to find their own solution for that.


----------



## nakedemperor

Patriot said:
			
		

> I am shocked that there are dumb fucks among us.....



Thanks, now I know what a bath house is. I was really tired of being a dumb fuck.


----------



## Joz

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> I read somewhere that the vectors which transferred AIDS to humans were monkeys.  No, for all you dirty-minded preverts, it was probably NOT due to sex with monkeys.....


Yeah, I heard it _could_ have been ingested, too.
But do you _really_ think so?  I think we established in he past that one deviant behavior often opens the door to others.  You just don't want to think is was bestiality.


----------



## nakedemperor

Joz said:
			
		

> Yeah, I heard it _could_ have been ingested, too.
> But do you _really_ think so?  I think we established in he past that one deviant behavior often opens the door to others.  You just don't want to think is was bestiality.



Is there any proof one way or the other? This is conjecture, let's let it go.


----------



## Merlin1047

Joz said:
			
		

> Yeah, I heard it _could_ have been ingested, too.
> But do you _really_ think so?  I think we established in he past that one deviant behavior often opens the door to others.  You just don't want to think is was bestiality.



Stirring the pot, huh. :bat: 

I'll answer you and NE at the same time.  It HAD to be from a bite wound.  Little monkeys are waaay too small.  Chimpanzees and baboons are too fast and too strong.  And any attempt at sex with a gorilla would likely be fatal - and not by getting AIDS either.


----------



## Joz

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Stirring the pot, huh. :bat:
> 
> I'll answer you and NE at the same time.  It HAD to be from a bite wound.  Little monkeys are waaay too small.  Chimpanzees and baboons are too fast and too strong.  And any attempt at sex with a gorilla would likely be fatal - and not by getting AIDS either.



I'm not stirring anything.  Men have sex with babies so don't give me the 'size' argument.  And I didn't say it was consentual, either.  All I said is, it's NOT out of the realm  of possibility.


----------



## nakedemperor

Joz said:
			
		

> I'm not stirring anything.  Men have sex with babies so don't give me the 'size' argument.  And I didn't say it was consentual, either.  All I said is, it's NOT out of the realm  of possibility.



Why is this important, one way or the other, or relevant? I agree with Merlin that its more LIKELY that it came via a bite, but honestly, does it change anything if it was bestiality?


----------



## Merlin1047

Joz said:
			
		

> And I didn't say it was consentual, either.  All I said is, it's NOT out of the realm  of possibility.



I guess it IS possible that a gorilla leaped out of the bushes and ravaged some poor unsuspecting passer-by.

 :teeth:


----------



## Merlin1047

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Why is this important, one way or the other, or relevant? I agree with Merlin that its more LIKELY that it came via a bite, but honestly, does it change anything if it was bestiality?



Just having a little fun.


----------



## Joz

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> I guess it IS possible that a gorilla leaped out of the bushes and ravaged some poor unsuspecting passer-by.
> 
> :teeth:



You know that's not what I meant.


----------



## manu1959

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> I guess it IS possible that a gorilla leaped out of the bushes and ravaged some poor unsuspecting passer-by.
> 
> :teeth:



hey you may be onto something...what did jane goodahl die of?  she was very touchy feely with those gorillas


----------



## Joz

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Just having a little fun.



I'm sure those were the _exact_ words of Patient Zero.


----------



## manu1959

Joz said:
			
		

> I'm sure those were the _exact_ words of Patient Zero.




i heard the exact word was ... ouch


----------



## OCA

Here are the facts of the matter on AIDS, however it was manifested in humans is of no importance to the conversation, it has been well established factually that it was introduced in America through the homosexual lifestyle choice community, whom when confronted with this epidemic did not alter their lifestyle of random promiscuity one iota, therefore the disease was spread to all stratas of American society instead of in the homosexual lifestyle choice community where it could have been easily contained and possibly treated much easier.

Therefore yes the spread of AIDS in America can easily and truthfully be blamed on homosexual lifestyle choice deviants.

But you can't say this, you'll be branded a homophobe.


----------



## Joz

manu1959 said:
			
		

> .....what did jane goodahl die of?  she was very touchy feely with those gorillas



My tho'ts exactly.  I'm sure she was heard to say more than once, "Oh, you're such a beast"!!


----------



## Merlin1047

Joz said:
			
		

> You know that's not what I meant.



You didn't??  Well please accept my humblest apologies ma'am.  You have to consider the unfortunate fact that some of us poor old country boys just ain't too damn bright sometimes.


 :gross2:


----------



## Joz

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> You didn't??  Well please accept my humblest apologies ma'am.  You have to consider the unfortunate fact that some of us poor old country boys just ain't too damn bright sometimes.



Here, and I tho't you 'country boys' would _really_ understand.


----------



## 007

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Stirring the pot, huh. :bat:
> 
> I'll answer you and NE at the same time.  It HAD to be from a bite wound.  Little monkeys are waaay too small.  Chimpanzees and baboons are too fast and too strong.  And any attempt at sex with a gorilla would likely be fatal - and not by getting AIDS either.



They could have first "killed" the chimp or baboon, and then had sex with it.


----------



## Merlin1047

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> They could have first "killed" the chimp or baboon, and then had sex with it.



PR - you desperately need the services of a competent counselor.  That's disgusting.

Now, if you put some lipstick, stockings, and garters on that monkey . . . . . 

  :funnyface


----------



## Joz

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> PR - you desperately need the services of a competent counselor.  That's disgusting.
> 
> Now, if you put some lipstick, stockings, and garters on that monkey . . . . .
> 
> :funnyface


 :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:


----------



## Patriot

OCA said:
			
		

> Here are the facts of the matter on AIDS, however it was manifested in humans is of no importance to the conversation, it has been well established factually that it was introduced in America through the homosexual lifestyle choice community, whom when confronted with this epidemic did not alter their lifestyle of random promiscuity one iota, therefore the disease was spread to all stratas of American society instead of in the homosexual lifestyle choice community where it could have been easily contained and possibly treated much easier.
> 
> Therefore yes the spread of AIDS in America can easily and truthfully be blamed on homosexual lifestyle choice deviants.
> 
> But you can't say this, you'll be branded a homophobe.





They still haven't changed and are still spreading it. Bath houses once thought of as extinct are still flourishing. Drugs and orgies seem to go hand in hand. And all of this because of pure selfishness.


----------



## 007

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> PR - you desperately need the services of a competent counselor.  That's disgusting.
> 
> Now, if you put some lipstick, stockings, and garters on that monkey . . . . .
> 
> :funnyface




Lord know's I try my friend, but alas, it's obvious I'm too easily outclassed...  :


----------



## drac

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> ......Plus I get a little tired of the homosexual community expecting the taxpayer to indemnify them from their reckless conduct.


What about expectation of the heterosexual community regarding the help from the taxpayer to pay for their reckless conduct?



			
				Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> ......
> Sexually transmitted AIDS is a 100% preventable disease.  Those who choose to take the risk should then suffer the consequences instead of demanding that the rest of us bail them out of a predicament resulting from their own reckless conduct.


Some of STD are not preventable and are not "started" by gays. What should be done with/to men and women who have them? 

Why cannot it be treated as STD? why is the choice of sex partner should be an issue? And do not tell me there is not reckless conduct in the heterosexual community or any STD related or caused by it.


----------



## drac

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> ..Today there is great national concern over the effects of tobacco. Smoking only shortens life expectancy by a few years, but we discourage it by laws and high taxes.


Hm...  is there a law which states i cannot smoke in the privacy of my own home, car, street..? Am i missing something?


> Yet we pass laws to protect homosexual partnerships and practices and ignore the data showing the much greater medical and social risk.


No one is forcing you to have a homosexual experiance, no did i ever seen an ad saying something like "being gay or lesb. is cool just do it" (well i have seen "just do it" ads, but i am very sure it was related to shoes)


> Gods way is always best. We, who are Christians, must bear witness to this truth every way possible.


Again your choice, basically it means for you that you will be here, when all homosexual people you know are dead. Well i guess you can tell them "i told you so" and continue your happy living

I dunno, maybe i just missing something


----------



## nakedemperor

Patriot said:
			
		

> They still haven't changed and are still spreading it. Bath houses once thought of as extinct are still flourishing. Drugs and orgies seem to go hand in hand. And all of this because of pure selfishness.



Wouldn't allowing gays to marry or get civil unions promote monogomy and discourage promiscuity?

Also, this is an idiotic statement. Gays don't do drugs more or less than any other category. Gays go to "orgies" about as much as heteros go to hookers. I know dozens of gay men and women, and none of them have ever been to a "bath house" or an orgy; you have no idea what you're talking about. Put down the Enquirer and get to know some gay people; they're not crack-smoking sex addicts, they're regular fucking peple.


----------



## manu1959

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Wouldn't allowing gays to marry or get civil unions promote monogomy and discourage promiscuity?
> 
> Also, this is an idiotic statement. Gays don't do drugs more or less than any other category. Gays go to "orgies" about as much as heteros go to hookers. I know dozens of gay men and women, and none of them have ever been to a "bath house" or an orgy; you have no idea what you're talking about. Put down the Enquirer and get to know some gay people; they're not crack-smoking sex addicts, they're regular fucking peple.




sounds like your gay buddies are pretty boring compared to the SF crowd


----------



## Merlin1047

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> get to know some gay people . . . .they're regular fucking peple.



Hey NE - don't you think that was a rather unfortunate choice of words??? 
   :funnyface 

Now, let's get back to that monkey thing . . . .


----------



## OCA

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> they're regular fucking peple.



Except for one major malfunction! Their choice of lifestyle.


----------



## drac

OCA said:
			
		

> Except for one major malfunction! Their choice of lifestyle.


you think it is a choice?
also what makes it malfunction?


----------



## OCA

drac said:
			
		

> you think it is a choice?
> also what makes it malfunction?



It is without doubt a choice whether conscious or subconscious. The homosexual leadership has for decades now been pouring untold millions of dollars into research towards finding a genetic link towards homosexuality, as of today nothing, not even anything remotely close. One would say that this would lead even the most elementary of thinkers to say that being a cocksucker(homosexually speaking of course) is a choice, wouldn't ya agree?

It is a malfunction in the fact that to make such a wreckless and irresponsible choice for one's life given all the negative facts associated with this choice would make one a complete dumbass and not to be trusted on other matters, wouldn't ya agree?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

OCA said:
			
		

> It is without doubt a choice whether conscious or subconscious. The homosexual leadership has for decades now been pouring untold millions of dollars into research towards finding a genetic link towards homosexuality, as of today nothing, not even anything remotely close. One would say that this would lead even the most elementary of thinkers to say that being a cocksucker(homosexually speaking of course) is a choice, wouldn't ya agree?
> 
> It is a malfunction in the fact that to make such a wreckless and irresponsible choice for one's life given all the negative facts associated with this choice would make one a complete dumbass and not to be trusted on other matters, wouldn't ya agree?




I knew all the gay talk would arouse OCA!


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Hey NE - don't you think that was a rather unfortunate choice of words???
> :funnyface
> 
> Now, let's get back to that monkey thing . . . .


 :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Patriot said:
			
		

> Drugs and orgies seem to go hand in hand.



That is SOOOO true!


----------



## drac

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I knew all the gay talk would arouse OCA!


what are you saying?  :halo:


----------



## 007

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Hey NE - don't you think that was a rather unfortunate choice of words???
> :funnyface
> 
> Now, let's get back to that monkey thing . . . .



Well ya see it's like this... there's a village or two, maybe three, over there in Africa, and it's got it's young bucks that are young and dumb and full of cum, and they've hut hoped with every young female in the tribe, and even bent her over at every opportunity that arose, like other things, when the young girls were bent over down at the stream filling water jugs, or washing their, whatever. So, they have to eat, so they're out with the men of the tribe hunting monkey. He kills a nice big fat female chimp, it falls out of the tree at his feet, he's alone, gets the urge and there you have it. He nails the monkey while it's still warm.

Now what else do you want to know?


----------



## Patriot

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Wouldn't allowing gays to marry or get civil unions promote monogomy and discourage promiscuity?
> 
> Also, this is an idiotic statement. Gays don't do drugs more or less than any other category. Gays go to "orgies" about as much as heteros go to hookers. I know dozens of gay men and women, and none of them have ever been to a "bath house" or an orgy; you have no idea what you're talking about. Put down the Enquirer and get to know some gay people; they're not crack-smoking sex addicts, they're regular fucking peple.




No because gays dont want that. Actually the only gays that want marriage is so they can sanctify their devient lifestyle. 

And I DO know many gays. Hell I was raised right by San Fran and I know all about their promiscuity. I even went with them to all their gay indie films *yawn*. 

And yes it is a choice. It isnt like a guy trips on a banana peel and finds his schlong up another guys wazoo by accident.


----------



## manu1959

Patriot said:
			
		

> No because gays dont want that. Actually the only gays that want marriage is so they can sanctify their devient lifestyle.
> 
> And I DO know many gays. Hell I was raised right by San Fran and I know all about their promiscuity. I even went with them to all their gay indie films *yawn*.
> 
> And yes it is a choice. It isnt like a guy trips on a banana peel and finds his schlong up another guys wazoo by accident.




survey says..........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt :bangheads


----------



## OCA

drac said:
			
		

> what are you saying?  :halo:



Well for one thing I ain't queer so he's not saying that. I'd rather have the local karate dojo lineup to all give me a kick in the balls than to go down that road.

This topic gets me all riled up as I believe its the doorway for the downfall of our society. If homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists get their way then legally speaking the precedent will be set and all sorts of freakos will come out of the woodwork looking to assert their....ahem ahem "denied rights"


----------



## nakedemperor

Patriot said:
			
		

> And yes it is a choice.



Prove it.


----------



## Patriot

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Prove it.




What part of _It isnt like a guy trips on a banana peel and finds his schlong up another guys wazoo by accident_.DIDN"T you get? Unless you are saying that homo's are raped and THEN that would conclude it wasnt by choice. 

But something tells me you enjoy doing something WITHOUT worrying about its consequences. Kind of like saying people cant help but cheat. It is an active decision one makes to hurt another all for the sole purpose of a quick feel good high.


----------



## Mariner

to think about where the gay "lifestyle" came from. Gays left their home towns all over the country and congregated in cities where they were exposed to AIDS because their orientation was not accepted at home. AIDS would not have made the headway it did among the gay population if gay people had simply been allowed to find partners and be left in peace in their home towns. In cities, the lack of social structure encouraged promiscuity. (This idea is developed in full in the remarkable book "My Own Country" by AIDS physician and writer Abraham Verghese, M.D. There is a searing portrait in his book of the shame that a straight elderly man who acquired AIDS through a blood transfusion experiences because of prejudice against the disease.) 

Also, if being gay were a "choice," why would anyone choose it? Why subject yourself to ridicule and discrimination? 

When talking about monkeys and Africans, lets remember that the diseases measles, mumps, and rubella are diseases of livestock which white Christian Europeans "acquired" in the past few centuries and brought with them to America, killing off most of the American Indians (who had no immunity to them, since they weren't so close with livestock). 

Mariner.


----------



## Patriot

Mariner said:
			
		

> to think about where the gay "lifestyle" came from. Gays left their home towns all over the country and congregated in cities where they were exposed to AIDS because their orientation was not accepted at home. AIDS would not have made the headway it did among the gay population if gay people had simply been allowed to find partners and be left in peace in their home towns. In cities, the lack of social structure encouraged promiscuity. (This idea is developed in full in the remarkable book "My Own Country" by AIDS physician and writer Abraham Verghese, M.D. There is a searing portrait in his book of the shame that a straight elderly man who acquired AIDS through a blood transfusion experiences because of prejudice against the disease.)
> 
> Also, if being gay were a "choice," why would anyone choose it? Why subject yourself to ridicule and discrimination?
> 
> 
> 
> Mariner.




First of all let me say that I now know that you are either gay or you want to be!


Second, people make choices easily when there selfish urges to fuck anything that moves is NOT inhibited. Especially now when it is people like YOU who seem to think cum gurggling guys is de rigueur.


----------



## nakedemperor

Patriot said:
			
		

> First of all let me say that I now know that you are either gay or you want to be!
> 
> 
> Second, people make choices easily when there selfish urges to fuck anything that moves is NOT inhibited. Especially now when it is people like YOU who seem to think cum gurggling guys is de rigueur.



You are invective and vulgar. This post was entirely unnecessary.


----------



## Mariner

you seem to have spent a lot more time thinking about gay sex than I have. I'm happily married with a daughter. But if I were gay, so what? I would hope to be treated no less respectfully in a country founded on the words that "all men are created equal."

Mariner.


----------



## Patriot

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> You are invective and vulgar. This post was entirely unnecessary.





This post WAS necessary as gay BEHAVIOR which is a damn choice is EXTREMELY invective and vulgar.


----------



## Patriot

Mariner said:
			
		

> you seem to have spent a lot more time thinking about gay sex than I have. I'm happily married with a daughter. But if I were gay, so what? I would hope to be treated no less respectfully in a country founded on the words that "all men are created equal."
> 
> Mariner.




You have taken something that its original intent was for good and twisted it into something very selfish. How noble of you. I take it you tolerat rape and murder and pedophillia as well?


----------



## nakedemperor

Patriot said:
			
		

> You have taken something that its original intent was for good and twisted it into something very selfish. How noble of you. I take it you tolerat rape and murder and pedophillia as well?



Rape, murder and pedophilia harm people. Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. Except for people like Matthew Sheppard.


----------



## OCA

Matthew Sheppard is in hell.


----------



## OCA

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Rape, murder and pedophilia harm people. Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. Except for people like Matthew Sheppard.



Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! Ever hear of AIDS?
Homosexuality harms the chooser as much as heroin harms the one who chooses to use it. Should we now make heroin use legal?

You can't win this argument, to try further only makes you seem silly.


----------



## OCA

Mariner said:
			
		

> you seem to have spent a lot more time thinking about gay sex than I have. I'm happily married with a daughter. But if I were gay, so what? I would hope to be treated no less respectfully in a country founded on the words that "all men are created equal."
> 
> Mariner.



You see that is the point, people who choose to engage in homosexuality are not being denied any rights and by all accounts are treated equally like every other person under the law. They have every right to marry someone of the OPPOSITE sex like everyone else, the argument of denied rights is nothing more than a blatant attempt to legitimize their perversion of choice.


----------



## deaddude

OCA said:
			
		

> Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! Ever hear of AIDS?
> Homosexuality harms the chooser as much as heroin harms the one who chooses to use it. Should we now make heroin use legal?



Ever wonder why there is such a huge sentencing gap between drug users and drug dealers? The user's only real crime is supporting the dealer, the dealer is causing direct harm to another.



> Matthew Sheppard is in hell.



I seem to remember somthing about "judge not lest ye be judged" being in the Bible.


----------



## nakedemperor

OCA said:
			
		

> Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! Ever hear of AIDS?
> Homosexuality harms the chooser as much as heroin harms the one who chooses to use it. Should we now make heroin use legal?
> 
> You can't win this argument, to try further only makes you seem silly.



You're an idiot. Homosexuality doesn't transfer AIDS, SEX causes the transfer of AIDS, homosexual and heterosexual alike. If two homosexuals use proper protection, and screen their partner before intercourse happens, they're A-OK. Therefore, it doesn't harm anyone who isn't an idiot. Kind of like guns don't harm people unless their handlers are idiots.


----------



## Mariner

"You have taken something that its original intent was for good and twisted it into something very selfish. How noble of you. I take it you tolerat rape and murder and pedophillia as well?"

Of course I don't. Murder and pedophilia cause injury to others against their will. What two adults do in the bedroom is no concern of mine, and I have no idea why people like you and OCA get so overheated about it. The gay couples I know well, several of whom are now married, and most of whom have been together for longer than the median length of heterosexual marriage, are some of the most decent, solid citizens you could hope to meet: doctors, a tax lawyer, a social worker, a mediator, an architect. Why not just live and let live?

Perhaps both of you should look up the study which showed that the most openly homophobic people show more arousal on exposure to homosexual erotic images than the average person. The theory is that their extreme homophobia is a "counterphobic" response to unacceptable feelings they have themselves, kind of like the homophobic character in "American Beauty." And don't blame me for it--it's a properly conducted psychological study. Of course, if you are secretly gay, I have no problem with it.

Mariner.


----------



## OCA

deaddude said:
			
		

> Ever wonder why there is such a huge sentencing gap between drug users and drug dealers? The user's only real crime is supporting the dealer, the dealer is causing direct harm to another.
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember somthing about "judge not lest ye be judged" being in the Bible.



Well yeah it says that, it also says that engage in homosexuality, don't repent and you end up in hell no ifs ands or buts, Matt Sheppard is in hell.


----------



## OCA

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> You're an idiot. Homosexuality doesn't transfer AIDS, SEX causes the transfer of AIDS, homosexual and heterosexual alike. If two homosexuals use proper protection, and screen their partner before intercourse happens, they're A-OK. Therefore, it doesn't harm anyone who isn't an idiot. Kind of like guns don't harm people unless their handlers are idiots.



Homosexuals are to blame for the rapid and massive movement of AIDS in America, they were the introductory group, knew it but refused to acknowledge or alter their behavior in any way for many, many years. They are still today the leading group by far for HIV infection in America. Argue that. 

BTW what the hell do you know? Your a fucking bisexual, your even more screwed up than a regular old homosexual lifestyle choice pervert. Your opinion on all matters is tainted because of this fact.


----------



## OCA

Mariner said:
			
		

> "You have taken something that its original intent was for good and twisted it into something very selfish. How noble of you. I take it you tolerat rape and murder and pedophillia as well?"
> 
> Of course I don't. Murder and pedophilia cause injury to others against their will. What two adults do in the bedroom is no concern of mine, and I have no idea why people like you and OCA get so overheated about it. The gay couples I know well, several of whom are now married, and most of whom have been together for longer than the median length of heterosexual marriage, are some of the most decent, solid citizens you could hope to meet: doctors, a tax lawyer, a social worker, a mediator, an architect. Why not just live and let live?
> 
> Perhaps both of you should look up the study which showed that the most openly homophobic people show more arousal on exposure to homosexual erotic images than the average person. The theory is that their extreme homophobia is a "counterphobic" response to unacceptable feelings they have themselves, kind of like the homophobic character in "American Beauty." And don't blame me for it--it's a properly conducted psychological study. Of course, if you are secretly gay, I have no problem with it.
> 
> Mariner.



LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL another person who thinks if you are opposed to homosexual lifestyle perversionists politicizing their perversion of choice, then we must be gay or have tendencies. LOL this is nothing more than psychobabble gobbledlygook. 

If two guys want to fuck each other in the ass or two girls want to muff bump in the PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOME fine no problem. But their perversion will not be legitimized just as a person who wants to smoke crack in their own home is fine and dandy but in society, in public, its wrong.

The political movement of the homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize and make theirselves feel validated at doing something they know deep down is wrong.


----------



## Patriot

deaddude said:
			
		

> Ever wonder why there is such a huge sentencing gap between drug users and drug dealers? The user's only real crime is supporting the dealer, the dealer is causing direct harm to another.
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember somthing about "judge not lest ye be judged" being in the Bible.






So we shouldnt judge criminals? Or should we only follow the bible when it suits your liberal self?  It also says homosexuality is a sin.


----------



## Patriot

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Rape, murder and pedophilia harm people. Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. Except for people like Matthew Sheppard.





Yes in fact it DOES harm society...Since when did man on man sex produce a child? Yeah that is oh so loving...Scientifically men were NEVER intended to be with men. PERIOD!


----------



## Patriot

Mariner said:
			
		

> Perhaps both of you should look up the study which showed that the most openly homophobic people show more arousal on exposure to homosexual erotic images than the average person. The theory is that their extreme homophobia is a "counterphobic" response to unacceptable feelings they have themselves, kind of like the homophobic character in "American Beauty." And don't blame me for it--it's a properly conducted psychological study. Of course, if you are secretly gay, I have no problem with it.
> 
> Mariner.




Is that the debunked Kinsey report you are referring too? And NO it wasnt conducted properly. ALL scientists have their pet theories and FIND crap to support it. That means going to sometimes illegal measure to obtain such bullshit evidence.


----------



## Mariner

No, not the Kinsey report, but an experiment done within the last couple of years. Don't laugh it off until you've read it.

Kinsey's own research has held up remarkably well over the past few decades. He seems to have stretched when he said that 10% of men were exclusively gay (repeated studies show the number to be about 4%), and in his estimates of the amount of bisexuality, but most of his other figures have been confirmed by numerous researchers since. Of course his personal life was a mess, but he maintained pretty good objectivity in his research, which is still referenced widely. Most social research that old has long been superceded.

OCA, who are you to say what "shall not be allowed" in public? You have your one vote, use it as you wish, but why all the excess anger at gay people? What did they ever do to you? Why does your feeling of disgust at their behavior trump their right to be happy?

As for that study being "psychobabble," read it before you judge. It was clear, straightforward peer-reviewed research. Homophobic men were more aroused by gay materials than non-homophobic men.  You can interpret that finding however you want, and of course there's no reason to believe that it applies to you in particular--I was just tossing it out humorously.

Mariner.


----------



## JohnGalt

wow, hurray for gays. They really light this board up.

I wish I could wake up 100 years from now and see how all this plays out. But then that also brings about another question.... How can I sleep for 100 years knowing that a gay guy could come along and rape me at any moment? 

It's a joke people.


----------



## OCA

Mariner said:
			
		

> No, not the Kinsey report, but an experiment done within the last couple of years. Don't laugh it off until you've read it.
> 
> Kinsey's own research has held up remarkably well over the past few decades. He seems to have stretched when he said that 10% of men were exclusively gay (repeated studies show the number to be about 4%), and in his estimates of the amount of bisexuality, but most of his other figures have been confirmed by numerous researchers since. Of course his personal life was a mess, but he maintained pretty good objectivity in his research, which is still referenced widely. Most social research that old has long been superceded.
> 
> OCA, who are you to say what "shall not be allowed" in public? You have your one vote, use it as you wish, but why all the excess anger at gay people? What did they ever do to you? Why does your feeling of disgust at their behavior trump their right to be happy?
> 
> As for that study being "psychobabble," read it before you judge. It was clear, straightforward peer-reviewed research. Homophobic men were more aroused by gay materials than non-homophobic men.  You can interpret that finding however you want, and of course there's no reason to believe that it applies to you in particular--I was just tossing it out humorously.
> 
> Mariner.



There is no such thing as homophobia, the word is a catch phrase, a talking point if you will meant to demonize and stigmatize opponents of the political agenda of homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists. It doesn't work.

Homosexuals never did anything to me, until now, their pathetic attempts to legitimize their perversion of choice and their assault on everything good and decent about society I take as a personal asault.

Everyone should be happy, but should a persons right to be happy trump their crimes? Yes homosexuality is a wrong behavior just as stealing or murder. No attempt to legitimize can change that simple fact.


----------



## Mariner

homophobia is a catch phrase, yes, meaning "people like OCA who hate homosexuals." I do give you credit for at least being honest about your beliefs. 

But I think your beliefs ignore history and equality. The history is that there have always been gay people, and that they are found in every society on earth. Those in this society have been treated brutally, in large part because of the Christian Bible. Nevertheless, they have contributed enormously to culture--check out the lists sometime of policiticians, artists, scientists and others whose work you benefit from every day. What you consider a perversion, they consider natural, and since they do no harm to others (unlike pedophiles, for example), basic equality therefore demands that they have equal rights. Since gov't administers the right to marriage in this society, that right should be made available to them (or gov't should get out of that business, and grant any couple a civil union, gay or straight). 

I do think it will take the culture some time to get to this point, but I have no doubt we will get there eventually.

Mariner.


----------



## Patriot

Serial killers consider their killing natural too....And YES being gay destroys society. Like I said before ( which you conveniently ignored) they can not create life thus stop the evolution of humans. Government extends the right to marriage to those who perpetuate society. 

And NO...We will never get to the point where homosexuality is acceptable in our society. If the evolution of humans were to support homosexuality one sex would have never survived and it would have never taken a MAN and WOMAN to create life. 

And if you want to go down that stupid road ( and I know you do) that homos' can adopt or have a surrogate I am telling you "that dog dont hunt." Evolution will take care of THAT too.


----------



## OCA

Mariner said:
			
		

> homophobia is a catch phrase, yes, meaning "people like OCA who hate homosexuals." I do give you credit for at least being honest about your beliefs.
> 
> But I think your beliefs ignore history and equality. The history is that there have always been gay people, and that they are found in every society on earth. Those in this society have been treated brutally, in large part because of the Christian Bible. Nevertheless, they have contributed enormously to culture--check out the lists sometime of policiticians, artists, scientists and others whose work you benefit from every day. What you consider a perversion, they consider natural, and since they do no harm to others (unlike pedophiles, for example), basic equality therefore demands that they have equal rights. Since gov't administers the right to marriage in this society, that right should be made available to them (or gov't should get out of that business, and grant any couple a civil union, gay or straight).
> 
> I do think it will take the culture some time to get to this point, but I have no doubt we will get there eventually.
> 
> Mariner.



Nope, society will never accept homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists, reference the voting this past election. Yes there has been some notable queer choicists, did some good things, still queer though, throws their judgement on most matters into question.

Whether you want to admit it they have equal rights already, they will never be granted the "special" right however to marry someone of the same sex. We here in America are not in the habit usually of rewarding wrong behavior.

Try and smear me with the "OCA hates homosexuals" tactic all you like. it won't work. I'm on record here dozens of times as saying i'm against the politicization of their perversion, let them fuck each other in the as behind closed doors, but society will never condone it.


----------



## nakedemperor

OCA said:
			
		

> Whether you want to admit it they have equal rights already, they will never be granted the "special" right however to marry someone of the same sex. We here in America are not in the habit usually of rewarding wrong behavior.



Homosexuals will not have equal rights until they can engage in a civil union in every state in the union that has the same legal and financial benefits that "marriage" currently does. Asking for that is asking for "equal" rights, and this notion of "special rights" is a creation of hate-mongerers.


----------



## Patriot

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Homosexuals will not have equal rights until they can engage in a civil union in every state in the union that has the same legal and financial benefits that "marriage" currently does. Asking for that is asking for "equal" rights, and this notion of "special rights" is a creation of hate-mongerers.





The only hate mongering going on here is that of you! You, who wants to allow something that stunts societies growth thus effectually killing off the human race. How does it feel to know that you despise humans so much you want them to be fucked out of existence?


----------



## OCA

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Homosexuals will not have equal rights until they can engage in a civil union in every state in the union that has the same legal and financial benefits that "marriage" currently does. Asking for that is asking for "equal" rights, and this notion of "special rights" is a creation of hate-mongerers.



Hatemongers lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!

Don't fuck other guys in the ass and experience how much easier and sweeter life can be.


----------



## Merlin1047

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Homosexuals will not have equal rights until they can engage in a civil union in every state in the union that has the same legal and financial benefits that "marriage" currently does.



Your assertion is somewhat off the mark.  There is no Constitutional right, written or inferred, regarding marriage.  So it is not an issue of "rights", rather it is a demand by homosexuals for their unions to enjoy similar legal status as heterosexual couples.   Since marriage is not covered by the Constitution, that means that as a society, we have the collective right to determine upon whom the status of "married" is bestowed.  The same applies to "civil unions" - which are nothing more than marriage in secular guise.

So the bottom line is this - the majority of the American people have rejected the homosexual plea for equality in regard to marriage.  Our society has decreed that same sex unions are not acceptable and should not be sanctioned by the benefit of legal status.  That's the way it is, at least for now. 



			
				nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Asking for that is asking for "equal" rights, and this notion of "special rights" is a creation of hate-mongerers.



And there you go again with the typically leftist reaction.  Anyone who is not sufficiently obsequious regarding your issues is either a homophobe or a hate monger.  I wish you'd knock that shit off.  It really gets tiresome and annoying.

Apparently it never occurrs to leftists that an opposing view can be both rational as well as factual and based on ethical convictions instead of fear or hatred.


----------



## nakedemperor

Patriot said:
			
		

> The only hate mongering going on here is that of you! You, who wants to allow something that stunts societies growth thus effectually killing off the human race. How does it feel to know that you despise humans so much you want them to be fucked out of existence?



Uh-huh. The 1% of homosexuals will be the downfall of the human race for not procreating.


----------



## nakedemperor

OCA said:
			
		

> Hatemongers lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!
> 
> Don't fuck other guys in the ass and experience how much easier and sweeter life can be.



Who fucks other guys in the ass? Sounds uncomfortable. Not for me.


----------



## nakedemperor

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Your assertion is somewhat off the mark.  There is no Constitutional right, written or inferred, regarding marriage.  So it is not an issue of "rights", rather it is a demand by homosexuals for their unions to enjoy similar legal status as heterosexual couples.   Since marriage is not covered by the Constitution, that means that as a society, we have the collective right to determine upon whom the status of "married" is bestowed.  The same applies to "civil unions" - which are nothing more than marriage in secular guise.
> 
> So the bottom line is this - the majority of the American people have rejected the homosexual plea for equality in regard to marriage.  Our society has decreed that same sex unions are not acceptable and should not be sanctioned by the benefit of legal status.  That's the way it is, at least for now.



There are laws concerning marriage. Tax laws, inheritance laws, etc. These laws protect specific rights of heterosexuals; the "right" to marry whenever and whoever they want, specific "rights" on how they can be jointly taxed, etc. Homosexuals do not have the right to to civil unions, a secular establishment. Its not 'marriage' in disguise. I don't want to have anything to do with 'marriage' as the Christian Church defines it, but I want the right to have my union recognized just as heterosexual couples' marriages are recognized by the government. 

Plus, just because the majority of Americans don't want homosexual to be able to marry each other doesn't mean its not right. The majority wanted to have slavery at one point. The majority wanted to stay out of WWII. The majority wanted antimiscygenation laws. Etc. etc. etc. Sometimes the majority is wrong




			
				Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> And there you go again with the typically leftist reaction.  Anyone who is not sufficiently obsequious regarding your issues is either a homophobe or a hate monger.  I wish you'd knock that shit off.  It really gets tiresome and annoying.
> 
> Apparently it never occurrs to leftists that an opposing view can be both rational as well as factual and based on ethical convictions instead of fear or hatred.



No, people who are not sufficiently obsequious with my views are entitled to their opinions. People who think gays want "special" rights are intentionally trying to make them out to be bad people who are asking too much, and generally these people who intentionally distort the sitation hate or strongly dislike gays, and try to restrict what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes that doesn't hurt them at all. This intentionally misleading language is hateful.


----------



## OCA

Hey i've got an idea, lets leave it up to a vote on a state by state basis, the issue of gay marriage.......maybe homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists can win :clap1:  :clap1:  :clap1:


----------



## OCA

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Who fucks other guys in the ass? Sounds uncomfortable. Not for me.



So Nakey you are a pipe eater? Either way you're fucked up mentally.


----------



## OCA

To all the queer lifestyle choiceists on USMB why not just marry someone of the opposite sex and then cheat? I mean it wouldn't really be cheating, you just get married for the benes then suck all the cock or eat all the hairpie you want, since there will be no love(just like with your "partner" lollllll) your spouse will not care.

See...situation fixed, all nice and legal.


----------



## Merlin1047

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> There are laws concerning marriage. Tax laws, inheritance laws, etc. These laws protect specific rights of heterosexuals; the "right" to marry whenever and whoever they want, specific "rights" on how they can be jointly taxed, etc. Homosexuals do not have the right to to civil unions, a secular establishment. Its not 'marriage' in disguise. I don't want to have anything to do with 'marriage' as the Christian Church defines it, but I want the right to have my union recognized just as heterosexual couples' marriages are recognized by the government.



My short-term memory may not be as good as it once was, but as I recall, I was making the case that there is no Constitutional basis for your support of homosexual unions.  You are attempting to support your view by shifting the basis of the argument.  Yes, there are laws concerning marriage -but that has NOTHING to do with rights spelled out in the Constitution.  Civil law may not violate the constitution and no one has yet made a case that a ban on homosexual marriage rises to that level. 

First, let's deal with the current homosexual lie - that being that a "civil union" is somehow different than a marriage.  To support your argument, you cited a marriage based on religious beliefs.  In taking this approach, you are simply attempting to cheat your way around the issue.  Let's compare apples to apples.  You well know that there is secular marriage, licensed by the state, which has NOTHING to do with the religious ceremony.  Secular marriage and your so-called "civil unions" are in fact one and the same.  Through the establishment of civil unions, homosexuals seek to gain the same legal status and privelige currently reserved for heterosexual couples only.  The assertion that civil unions and secular marriage are somehow different is nothing but a dishonest shell game promoted by homosexuals in a transparent attempt to worm their way around the issue.  Homosexual groups seem to think that the rest of society is too stupid to see what is happening.  They apparently think that by calling marriage civil unions that we won't know what is really happening here.

Yes, homosexuals are denied the tax benefit of joint returns.  Tough.  That's a tax code issue.  Take it up with the IRS.  Exemptions are placed in the tax code to encourage certain things like home ownership and investments.  

Your claim that heterosexuals have the right "to marry whenever and whoever they want" is demonstrably false.  You can't marry your sister, you can't marry more than one spouse, you can't marry below a certain age etc etc.  I'm not sure what point you intended to make with this, but this one's a no-go.

When you seek to justify your view by citing civil law, you tread on very shaky ground.  Secular marriage or, if you prefer "civil union", is simply a license granted by the state.  Like any other license, it is regulated.  Twelve year old children are not allowed to marry or drive on the public roads.  Blind people are not allowed to have a pilot's license.  A high school dropout is not allowed to practice medicine as an MD.  There are many restrictive licensing requirements in our society and the concept that secular marriage or civil unions should be between one man and one woman is simply one of many such restrictions.



			
				nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Plus, just because the majority of Americans don't want homosexual to be able to marry each other doesn't mean its not right. The majority wanted to have slavery at one point. The majority wanted to stay out of WWII. The majority wanted antimiscygenation laws. Etc. etc. etc. Sometimes the majority is wrong.



A childish argument which typifies leftist views.  Not only does your desperation to seek support for your argument takes you all the way back to days of slavery but you seek to throw out democracy in the same sentence.  Anytime leftists don't get their way they resort to the "majority is not alway right" whine.  That may be.  But the majority is always the majority and so long as we have a representative democracy, the will of the majority should be the law of the land.  But leftists don't see it that way.  They seek instead to impose the tyranny of the minority.  They seek to use the courts as the agent of their desire.  A tiny minority of militant atheists have imposed their will on the majority through the courts.  They have perverted the intent of the Constitution and denied the will of the people.  Homosexuals are attempting to follow in atheist footsteps and do the same. 



			
				nakedemperor said:
			
		

> No, people who are not sufficiently obsequious with my views are entitled to their opinions.



Ah but you know that's not true.  Tolerance for disagreement is certainly not a hallmark of liberalism.  Matter of fact, just the opposite is true.  Liberals accuse conservatives of fascist tendencies, yet it is liberals who seek to stifle religious expression.  It is liberals who seek to impose politically correct speech.  It is liberals who go into towering rages whenever confronted with a differing view.  It is liberals who, having failed to win by referendum, now seek to impose their agenda through the courts.



			
				nakedemperor said:
			
		

> People who think gays want "special" rights are intentionally trying to make them out to be bad people who are asking too much, and generally these people who intentionally distort the sitation hate or strongly dislike gays, and try to restrict what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes that doesn't hurt them at all. This intentionally misleading language is hateful.



Finally, you shoot yourself in BOTH feet with this argument.  The fact is that homosexuals DO demand special rights.  Throughout our history, marriage - secular or otherwise - has been a union between a man and a woman.  Now homosexuals want to change that.  I don't know about you, but I consider that to be a "special" demand.

Your claim that some "distort the situation hate or strongly dislike gays" proves that you remain incapable of objective argument on this topic.  Distortion depends on one's view.  I could accuse you of distortion when you attempted to shift the argument from constitutional principle to civil law.  But that's not distortion, that is simply choosing your reference.  Furthermore, you are incapable of separating the concept of homosexual marriage from the individuals.  I can loathe a homosexual lifestyle without hating the people involved.  I can argue against homosexual marriage without promoting violence or hatred toward homosexuals.  I can separate my opposition to homosexual "civil unions" from my dealings with homosexuals as individuals.  Apparently you are incapable of doing the same or you think that I am. 



			
				nakedemperor said:
			
		

> and try to restrict what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes that doesn't hurt them at all. This intentionally misleading language is hateful.



Nothing could be further from the truth.  I am not the bedroom police, nor do I think we should have such an entity.  What homosexuals do in the privacy of their homes is no business of mine and frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a rat's ass.  But now homosexuals demand that the state legitimize their relationships by granting them the status of marriage.  Call it civil unions till you're blue in the face, it's a secular marriage until you can prove there's a difference.  By making this demand, homosexuals have placed their argument into the public domain.  By insisting that they have the same rights as heterosexual couples, homosexuals have taken their private conduct and made it public.  They have taken that which was none of my business and have forced me to take sides - and I have every right to do so.  And so long as I present a rational argument, I should have the right not to be villified and painted as a hate-monger and a bigot simply because I present an argument which homosexuals cannot successfully refute.


----------



## OCA

Merlin what Nakey is doing is typical of the left, when losing on subject matter they will go to the smear campaign against their opponent i.e. "hatemonger", "homophobe" etc. etc., they cannot justify their actions with any logical argument so they go to the nefarious tactics of the left. Quite sad actually.

And yes to all the queers I do use some terms for y'all but hey they are just descriptive adjectives, don't ya think? Kind of like "the suspect was 6 feet tall 220 lbs", nothing i've said differs from the truth on this matter.


----------



## nakedemperor

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> My short-term memory may not be as good as it once was, but as I recall, I was making the case that there is no Constitutional basis for your support of homosexual unions.  You are attempting to support your view by shifting the basis of the argument.  Yes, there are laws concerning marriage -but that has NOTHING to do with rights spelled out in the Constitution.  Civil law may not violate the constitution and no one has yet made a case that a ban on homosexual marriage rises to that level.



The constitutional right to "equal rights", ever heard of it? It implies that laws cannot be made that benefit some and exclude others from the same benefits when no harm can come from equal benefits.  



			
				Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> First, let's deal with the current homosexual lie - that being that a "civil union" is somehow different than a marriage.  To support your argument, you cited a marriage based on religious beliefs.  In taking this approach, you are simply attempting to cheat your way around the issue.  Let's compare apples to apples.  You well know that there is secular marriage, licensed by the state, which has NOTHING to do with the religious ceremony.  Secular marriage and your so-called "civil unions" are in fact one and the same.  Through the establishment of civil unions, homosexuals seek to gain the same legal status and privelige currently reserved for heterosexual couples only.  The assertion that civil unions and secular marriage are somehow different is nothing but a dishonest shell game promoted by homosexuals in a transparent attempt to worm their way around the issue.  Homosexual groups seem to think that the rest of society is too stupid to see what is happening.  They apparently think that by calling marriage civil unions that we won't know what is really happening here.



As much as you love misinterpreting my words (I dont know if this has to do with your stubborness or your reading comprehension skills), when I said a civil union is different from marriage, I meant a civil union is different from marriage. If I'd said "secular marriage" obviously I wouldn't have had to make the distinction. I said "marriage" because obviously its silly to ask the Christian Church to marry gays when being gay is a sin. By calling what gays want a "civil union" I'm implying that its NOT RELIGIOUS, which is an important distinction to make; I'm trying not to get bogged down in semantics in this argument, but if you makes you happy, here, have a cookie, I'll call it "secular marriage". 



			
				Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Yes, homosexuals are denied the tax benefit of joint returns.  Tough.  That's a tax code issue.  Take it up with the IRS.  Exemptions are placed in the tax code to encourage certain things like home ownership and investments.



The IRS follows the law not makes the law. I think I'll talk to someone else. Remember "equal rights"?



			
				Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Your claim that heterosexuals have the right "to marry whenever and whoever they want" is demonstrably false.  You can't marry your sister, you can't marry more than one spouse, you can't marry below a certain age etc etc.  I'm not sure what point you intended to make with this, but this one's a no-go.



Well shit, and here I thought "they can marry whoever they wany whenever they want" wouldn't be interpreted as including family members and dogs and stuff. Merlin <3 petty semantic debates. 



			
				Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> When you seek to justify your view by citing civil law, you tread on very shaky ground.  Secular marriage or, if you prefer "civil union", is simply a license granted by the state.  Like any other license, it is regulated.  Twelve year old children are not allowed to marry or drive on the public roads.  Blind people are not allowed to have a pilot's license.  A high school dropout is not allowed to practice medicine as an MD.  There are many restrictive licensing requirements in our society and the concept that secular marriage or civil unions should be between one man and one woman is simply one of many such restrictions.



This argument tells me that blind people can't drive and also tells me why blind people cant drive. It also tells me gays cant marry...but doesn't give me a good reason, other than unequal rights of course, WHY they can't. 




			
				Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> A childish argument which typifies leftist views.  Not only does your desperation to seek support for your argument takes you all the way back to days of slavery but you seek to throw out democracy in the same sentence.  Anytime leftists don't get their way they resort to the "majority is not alway right" whine.  That may be.  But the majority is always the majority and so long as we have a representative democracy, the will of the majority should be the law of the land.  But leftists don't see it that way.  They seek instead to impose the tyranny of the minority.  They seek to use the courts as the agent of their desire.  A tiny minority of militant atheists have imposed their will on the majority through the courts.  They have perverted the intent of the Constitution and denied the will of the people.  Homosexuals are attempting to follow in atheist footsteps and do the same.



Ok buddy. I want to impose the tyranny of the minority. Look, I'm a gay rights activist. That doesn't mean that if I could push a button that changed the law and everyone just had to deal that I would. You've got to change people's minds, of their own volition. That's democracy, not tyranny.




			
				Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Ah but you know that's not true.  Tolerance for disagreement is certainly not a hallmark of liberalism.  Matter of fact, just the opposite is true.  Liberals accuse conservatives of fascist tendencies, yet it is liberals who seek to stifle religious expression.  It is liberals who seek to impose politically correct speech.  It is liberals who go into towering rages whenever confronted with a differing view.  It is liberals who, having failed to win by referendum, now seek to impose their agenda through the courts.



You're just a FAKE tolerant person!!! Liar-head!!
You were saying something about childish arguments?




			
				Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Finally, you shoot yourself in BOTH feet with this argument.  The fact is that homosexuals DO demand special rights.  Throughout our history, marriage - secular or otherwise - has been a union between a man and a woman.  Now homosexuals want to change that.  I don't know about you, but I consider that to be a "special" demand.[/QUOT]
> 
> Throughout our history women have not had the right to vote. Now woman want to change that. I don't know about you, but I consider that to be a "special" demand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Merlin1047 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing could be further from the truth.  I am not the bedroom police, nor do I think we should have such an entity.  What homosexuals do in the privacy of their homes is no business of mine and frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a rat's ass.  But now homosexuals demand that the state legitimize their relationships by granting them the status of marriage.  Call it civil unions till you're blue in the face, it's a secular marriage until you can prove there's a difference.  By making this demand, homosexuals have placed their argument into the public domain.  By insisting that they have the same rights as heterosexual couples, homosexuals have taken their private conduct and made it public.  They have taken that which was none of my business and have forced me to take sides - and I have every right to do so.  And so long as I present a rational argument, I should have the right not to be villified and painted as a hate-monger and a bigot simply because I present an argument which homosexuals cannot successfully refute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is based on bigotry. You can say you're not a bigot until you're blue in the face but you want to deny the right to civin un--er, SECULAR MARRIAGE (have another cookie) to gays, when only good things can come from it. This is the land of the free, where all men are created equal, but you want things to be unequal for those who were created gay.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mariner

"hatemonger" and "homophobe" are simply "descriptive adjectives" that seem to fit your view of gay people perfectly. Where's the smear in calling a spade a spade? You've said numerous hateful things towards gays on this thread, and made clear that you're disgusted by them. I can honestly say you're the most hate-mongering homophobe I've ever encountered. 

I never referred to you as a hatemonger, though, only as a homophobe, and I intended it descriptively, not as a smear. Interesting that you classify it as a smear, since that suggests tacit acceptance of my viewpoint: that it's wrong.

I fully support your right to your own opinion on these subject, but as I said above, I don't think you have any right to seek to limit others' pursuit of happiness, and to deny them equality in the eyes of the law, simply because of your disgust.

Mariner.


----------



## Patriot

Mariner said:
			
		

> "hatemonger" and "homophobe" are simply "descriptive adjectives" that seem to fit your view of gay people perfectly. Where's the smear in calling a spade a spade? You've said numerous hateful things towards gays on this thread, and made clear that you're disgusted by them. I can honestly say you're the most hate-mongering homophobe I've ever encountered.
> 
> I never referred to you as a hatemonger, though, only as a homophobe, and I intended it descriptively, not as a smear. Interesting that you classify it as a smear, since that suggests tacit acceptance of my viewpoint: that it's wrong.
> 
> I fully support your right to your own opinion on these subject, but as I said above, I don't think you have any right to seek to limit others' pursuit of happiness, and to deny them equality in the eyes of the law, simply because of your disgust.
> 
> Mariner.




But he isnt a homophobe... The dictionary definition of a homophobe is someone who has an irrational fear of homosexuals...Well fuckin prove that OCA is fearful of homosexuals. 

I saw nothing of the sort. In fact all I saw was disgust for their lifestyle  choices. But I saw no hate for the homosexuals otherwise he wouldnt be even talking to Naked E!

And just because he says what YOU consider hateful things doesnt mean he is a hate monger either. In fact you must prove that fucked up allegation as well. 

So is this the liberal way of dealing with things? I mean you get all mad at others for labeling yet you do the same damn thing?


----------



## Mariner

I was writing a little tongue-in-cheek. Sorry if it came out more seriously than I intended. You're right about the word: it can be used in many ways. There's a good review of the many meanings at a religious tolerance website: 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm

They finally settle on the following for their own purposes:

"Homophobia as engaging in a behavior aimed at restricting the human rights of persons who have  a homosexual orientation and/or who engages in homosexual behavior. This behavior can take many forms: signing a plebiscite; sending an Email to one's senator or representative; participating in a demonstration; voting on a school board; voting to elect a homophobe; talking to coworkers or friends, etc. These rights  include what many believe to be the most important human right:  to be married; to have their spousal status recognized and registered; and to be assigned benefits and obligations by the government."

By that definition, OCA is a homophobe, and that is the idea I had in mind when I wrote before. As for hate-mongering, well, there is a certain amount of emotion in his posts, but if he says he doesn't actually hate gay people, I'm willing to take his word for it.

Mariner


----------



## 007

I don't "personally" know any queers... right now. I've known them in the past. As a matter of fact I worked at this place back in Wisconsin called Universal Silencer. I MIG welded huge mufflers that would go on anything under the sun. Ships, you name it, anyway, there was a guy that worked there name Gary, and I'd drank, smoked pot, pulled his car out of a snow bank, LOOOOOOOONG before I found out he was a FAG! Someone had to TELL me. He didn't ACT like a sissie, or queer, he just prefered cock instead of pussy.
So when I found out he was a queer, I told him "man, that's some sick fuckin' shit, and I don't like it", but it didn't really change the relationship I already had with the guy. I continued to stop at the bar and drink beer and smoke dope with the guy, (he always had some good shit), just like nothing had happened. The only difference was, I told him how I felt about his lifestyle choice.
So it's not the "person" I "hate", it's the "sexual" part of it all that purely and simply turns my frickin' stomach. 

There's NOTHING "homophobic" about that. My reaction to it absolutely "NORMAL".


----------



## OCA

Mariner I don't think you have any right to seek to limit others' pursuit of happiness said:
			
		

> Yes I do and so do many tens of millions of others, please reference the vote of the past election in the 11 states it was on the ballot. There will eventually be a ban in at least 49 of 50 states.
> 
> If one is not disgusted by this obviously morally lacking behavior then one must not have common sense. Do you not have common sense Mariner?
> 
> This story is almost over, homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists are dead in the water in America, better go to Canada.


----------



## OCA

Mariner said:
			
		

> I was writing a little tongue-in-cheek. Sorry if it came out more seriously than I intended. You're right about the word: it can be used in many ways. There's a good review of the many meanings at a religious tolerance website:
> 
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm
> 
> They finally settle on the following for their own purposes:
> 
> "Homophobia as engaging in a behavior aimed at restricting the human rights of persons who have  a homosexual orientation and/or who engages in homosexual behavior. This behavior can take many forms: signing a plebiscite; sending an Email to one's senator or representative; participating in a demonstration; voting on a school board; voting to elect a homophobe; talking to coworkers or friends, etc. These rights  include what many believe to be the most important human right:  to be married; to have their spousal status recognized and registered; and to be assigned benefits and obligations by the government."
> 
> By that definition, OCA is a homophobe, and that is the idea I had in mind when I wrote before. As for hate-mongering, well, there is a certain amount of emotion in his posts, but if he says he doesn't actually hate gay people, I'm willing to take his word for it.
> 
> Mariner



There is no such thing as homophobia, again its a madeup term by the left meant to demonize and stigmatize with no basis in reality. If i'm against heroin am I a heroinphobe?


----------



## OCA

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> I don't "personally" know any queers... right now. I've known them in the past. As a matter of fact I worked at this place back in Wisconsin called Universal Silencer. I MIG welded huge mufflers that would go on anything under the sun. Ships, you name it, anyway, there was a guy that worked there name Gary, and I'd drank, smoked pot, pulled his car out of a snow bank, LOOOOOOOONG before I found out he was a FAG! Someone had to TELL me. He didn't ACT like a sissie, or queer, he just prefered cock instead of pussy.
> So when I found out he was a queer, I told him "man, that's some sick fuckin' shit, and I don't like it", but it didn't really change the relationship I already had with the guy. I continued to stop at the bar and drink beer and smoke dope with the guy, (he always had some good shit), just like nothing had happened. The only difference was, I told him how I felt about his lifestyle choice.
> So it's not the "person" I "hate", it's the "sexual" part of it all that purely and simply turns my frickin' stomach.
> 
> There's NOTHING "homophobic" about that. My reaction to it absolutely "NORMAL".



Pale you did the right thing, of course you had to continue to work with him but stopping the socializing and telling him that he was a sick fuck was absolutely correct. If you continue to hang with a homosexual lifestyle choicist and don't tell them what they are doing is wrong and harmful to themself its the same as if you hang with a crackhead and buy him crack.


----------



## Shattered

OCA said:
			
		

> Pale you did the right thing, of course you had to continue to work with him but stopping the socializing and telling him that he was a sick fuck was absolutely correct. If you continue to hang with a homosexual lifestyle choicist and don't tell them what they are doing is wrong and harmful to themself its the same as if you hang with a crackhead and buy him crack.



I was under the impression from reading, that Pale is NOT stop socializing with the guy..  He says right here:



> I told him "man, that's some sick fuckin' shit, and I don't like it", but it didn't really change the relationship I already had with the guy. I continued to stop at the bar and drink beer and smoke dope with the guy, (he always had some good shit), just like nothing had happened. The only difference was, I told him how I felt about his lifestyle choice.



...that nothing changed.


----------



## OCA

Shattered said:
			
		

> I was under the impression from reading, that Pale is NOT stop socializing with the guy..  He says right here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that nothing changed.



Oh wait you're right, I read it wrong. 

If I was Pale i'd have stopped seeing this guy at the bar, i'm not in the habit of hanging with degenerates.


----------



## Shattered

So long as they're not throwing their choices in your face, what would be the difference?  Apparently, it took a long time for him to figure out the guy *was* gay, which means he wasn't making ridiculous demands, throwing it around, etc, and was just acting like a normal person...

Everything in life, regardless of what studies show, what a Bible reads, etc. comes down to personal choice.

I'm just curious, because I know a few gay, and bisexual people, and their personal lifestyle is not enough to bother trashing very good friendships for...

(and no, that does not make me a degenerate)


----------



## OCA

Shattered said:
			
		

> So long as they're not throwing their choices in your face, what would be the difference?  Apparently, it took a long time for him to figure out the guy *was* gay, which means he wasn't making ridiculous demands, throwing it around, etc, and was just acting like a normal person...
> 
> Everything in life, regardless of what studies show, what a Bible reads, etc. comes down to personal choice.
> 
> I'm just curious, because I know a few gay, and bisexual people, and their personal lifestyle is not enough to bother trashing very good friendships for...
> 
> (and no, that does not make me a degenerate)



Ohhhh they would not be able to hide it for very long around me and my circle, we would sniff that shit out. "Hey Greg why you don't want to tag team this broad with us?" "Uh what is this stupid ass Streisand crap doing here?" "Whats with the Queer As Folk videos?" 

I'm Greek, no matter your preconceptions about us the modern Greeks don't go for that shit, makes you less of a man, well not really a man at all. 

Plus the fact that their decision making process is all fucked up, can't trust them to do the right thing on important matters.


----------



## janeeng

I am going to have agree with shattered here! her comments make sense.

I think it's pretty funny to see comments from some of the guys about FAGS, QUEERS, etc.. Let's be honest here, your problem is only that it sickens you that 2 men be together.  Now let it be 2 woman and then the story changes, this is ok in most mens eyes.  Oh, what a turn on it is for you, or how your wildest dreams would allow you to take part.  Who really are we to judge any of them? If they aren't trying to pick you up, what business is it of yours to pass any judgement? And any disease can be passed whether Gay or NOT! Simple example are drug users using dirty needles, how many of them wound up with AIDS? ALOT! and then, because of getting it, they decide to have sex with as many people as they could.  And right away to blame anal sex as the only way to pass AIDS.  Don't you think men/woman perform anal sex? you think it's just the gays only that carry AIDS? Alot has changed from years ago on the causes of this and how it is contracted.  Still comes down to the fact that some just can't stand the fact that there are gays out there.  It's their lives, let them live it as they see fit.  If no harm being done to you personally, then you have no right to judge others.


----------



## OCA

Janeeng baby baby. Its all about male with female, not the other way. No matter how you slice it, no matter how you argue it everything we know about science and nature and all that other crap goes back to that same fact, its MAN AND WOMAN. We are all born with that innate sense, that cannot be argued, some others make the bad choice to eat pipes or muff bump, hey in your own house git er done, but don't try and force society to recognize your perversion as normal and natural, its wrong.

Now as for the lesbo shit, yeah I like the two at one time but not them focusing on each other, I want their attention focused squarely on me, hell the lesbo scenes in porn I usually ff through, I need an end result, get my drift?


----------



## Merlin1047

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Your argument is based on bigotry. You can say you're not a bigot until you're blue in the face but you want to deny the right to civin un--er, SECULAR MARRIAGE (have another cookie) to gays, when only good things can come from it. This is the land of the free, where all men are created equal, but you want things to be unequal for those who were created gay.



Thank you.  Your pathetic, bitchy, immature little hissy-fit proves my case far better than I could.

Typical leftist dolt.  You cannot address the substance of the issue so you denigrate it.  You accuse me of intolerance.  Look in the mirror, Skippy.


----------



## Mariner

"There's no such thing as homophobia," it's just a "made-up word"?

You're starting to sound like President Clinton parsing the meaning of "is."

All our words are "made-up." They serve as shorthand for larger concepts. This particular concept (in the mild form that I intended, as I explained above) fits you perfectly. Why not wear the label with pride? 

I'm surprised that you care that liberals would consider it unacceptable. You don't care what gay people think of your opinions, so why would you care what liberals like me think?

Mariner.


----------



## nakedemperor

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Thank you.  Your pathetic, bitchy, immature little hissy-fit proves my case far better than I could.
> 
> Typical leftist dolt.  You cannot address the substance of the issue so you denigrate it.  You accuse me of intolerance.  Look in the mirror, Skippy.



For some reason your disgust at homosexual relationships makes it impossible for you to embrace the most fundamental principles of America. THIS is the substance of the argument, tolerance. And your lack thereof is responsible for inequality. Look in the mirror? Man, i'll be intolerant of your intolerance, I don't care if your feelings get hurt. But what's the result of your intolerance? Its a little more...tangible, shall we say.


----------



## Merlin1047

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> For some reason your disgust at homosexual relationships makes it impossible for you to embrace the most fundamental principles of America. THIS is the substance of the argument, tolerance. And your lack thereof is responsible for inequality. Look in the mirror? Man, i'll be intolerant of your intolerance, I don't care if your feelings get hurt. But what's the result of your intolerance? Its a little more...tangible, shall we say.



My feelings get hurt?  Don't flatter yourself.  In order for you to accomplish that, I would first have to develop some level of give-a-shit in regard to your opinion of me.  Trust me, I could not possible care less.

Meantime, you continue to prove that you lack a rational basis for your argument so you resort to childish, petulant personal attacks.

Your continued reliance on the constitution proves your ignorance.  There is not now, nor has there ever been any constitutional guarantee such as you claim.  Simply because someone desires something does not mean that there is a constitutional basis to claim it as a "right". 

One last note - I have by and large attempted to keep my posts on this subject on a rational and factual basis.  You have responded with personal attacks and transparent attempts to provoke me.  Continue in this vein and you will find yourself given some time to consider the wisdom of your immature name calling.


----------



## nakedemperor

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> My feelings get hurt?  Don't flatter yourself.  In order for you to accomplish that, I would first have to develop some level of give-a-shit in regard to your opinion of me.  Trust me, I could not possible care less.
> 
> Meantime, you continue to prove that you lack a rational basis for your argument so you resort to childish, petulant personal attacks.
> 
> Your continued reliance on the constitution proves your ignorance.  There is not now, nor has there ever been any constitutional guarantee such as you claim.  Simply because someone desires something does not mean that there is a constitutional basis to claim it as a "right".
> 
> One last note - I have by and large attempted to keep my posts on this subject on a rational and factual basis.  You have responded with personal attacks and transparent attempts to provoke me.  Continue in this vein and you will find yourself given some time to consider the wisdom of your immature name calling.



You hyporcrite. 

"Thank you. Your pathetic, bitchy, immature little hissy-fit proves my case far better than I could.

Typical leftist dolt. You cannot address the substance of the issue so you denigrate it. You accuse me of intolerance. Look in the mirror, Skippy"

So I'm a dolt, pathetic, bitchy, and immature, and MY personal, petulant name calling is in question?

Pot, kettle. Get off your horse.


----------



## Merlin1047

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> You hyporcrite.
> 
> "Thank you. Your pathetic, bitchy, immature little hissy-fit proves my case far better than I could.
> 
> Typical leftist dolt. You cannot address the substance of the issue so you denigrate it. You accuse me of intolerance. Look in the mirror, Skippy"
> 
> So I'm a dolt, pathetic, bitchy, and immature, and MY personal, petulant name calling is in question?
> 
> Pot, kettle. Get off your horse.



I do not issue idle threats.

Take two days off.  Perhaps your attitude will improve.  Or perhaps this case of PMS you seem to have will have passed by then.


----------



## OCA

Mariner said:
			
		

> "There's no such thing as homophobia," it's just a "made-up word"?
> 
> You're starting to sound like President Clinton parsing the meaning of "is."
> 
> All our words are "made-up." They serve as shorthand for larger concepts. This particular concept (in the mild form that I intended, as I explained above) fits you perfectly. Why not wear the label with pride?
> 
> I'm surprised that you care that liberals would consider it unacceptable. You don't care what gay people think of your opinions, so why would you care what liberals like me think?
> 
> Mariner.



I care what libs think only because libs will go to underhanded and dirty tactics to get what they want, such as the case with gay marriage up in Queerachusets, they got 1, just 1 judge on the Supreme Court to order the legislature to pass a law making it legal, never mind that the citizens were against it it just doesn't matter to libs.

What will libs and homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists say now when marriage is banned in the U.S.? That here in our majority rules democracy that we are all just a bunch of homophobic bigots? Nevermind we are standing up for what is unarguably right, we are just neanderthals, not progressive enough.

LOL another thing, this who are we to judge bullshit....we judge everyday in this country, look at our laws. Passing a law against queer marriage will be no different. That argument needs to be chucked in the garbage can.


----------



## OCA

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> For some reason your disgust at homosexual relationships makes it impossible for you to embrace the most fundamental principles of America. THIS is the substance of the argument, tolerance. And your lack thereof is responsible for inequality. Look in the mirror? Man, i'll be intolerant of your intolerance, I don't care if your feelings get hurt. But what's the result of your intolerance? Its a little more...tangible, shall we say.



Nakey read this and read it good, tolerance for some things are fine, like i'll tolerate cell phones on the golf course, i'll tolerate somebody with 18 items in the 15 or less aisle but I will not tolerate something which is so vile so unarguably wrong, something which violates the tenents of a civilized society. We pick and choose our battles and unfortunately for you common sensical Americans have drawn the line in the sand to queer marriage, it will not be crossed. Please learn to live with all the basic rights thjat you and I share equally under the constitution and stop asking for "special" rights. They will not be granted.


----------



## musicman

Mariner said:
			
		

> "There's no such thing as homophobia," it's just a "made-up word"?
> 
> You're starting to sound like President Clinton parsing the meaning of "is."
> 
> All our words are "made-up." They serve as shorthand for larger concepts. ,
> 
> Mariner.





Can't agree with you here, Mariner. I tend to subscribe to the Rush Limbaugh theory: "Words mean things".

Any honest attempt to make sense of combining the prefix "homo" and the word "phobia" would yield a bizarre definition like, "neurotic, irrational fear of human beings". In other words, it's meaningless; that's why it's not really a word. Rather, it is a made-up term whose only reason for existing is the advancement of a specific sociopolitical agenda. I, therefore, refuse to dignify it with "word" status. Many agree with me.


----------



## Mariner

Take a look at the website I mentioned. As you say, the word began as an irrational fear of homosexuality, and is now more commonly used in the way I intended as simple dislike of homosexuality. 

I can see a grain of truth in your point--that if the word still has too many meanings to be clear, then we should be careful how we use it. But this is the natural history of language. You can choose almost any word and confuse yourself with its origins. Word meanings are agreed by society and evolve over time. I see no problem with using this word as long as we agree on the definition--I'd propose the mild version I quoted above. 

OCA--you persist in claiming that your opinion that something is "obviously" vile is more important than a gay person's desire for equal rights. You want to take rights away from others who do you no harm..

As for Massachusetts, gay marriage has caused nary a blip. The sky didn't fall on May 18th. There were no riots or anarchy. There was no flood of heterosexual divorce. From my house, you could hear the wedding celebrations. If you want to preach "traditional values," go teach in a red state, where the talk is cheap but the divorce rates, out-of-wedlock birth rates, and teen pregnancy rates are all typically higher than in Massachusetts. Gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage, and it doesn't threaten your right to marry (if you haven't already). 

Isn't equality a traditional value too?

Mariner.

PS It's quite clear that you and I will never see eye to eye on this, so maybe we should give it a rest?

PPS Merlin--you specialize in ad hominem attacks, and then express outrage when you receive some (from NE) in return.


----------



## jimnyc

Mariner said:
			
		

> OCA--you persist in claiming that your opinion that something is "obviously" vile is more important than a gay person's desire for equal rights. You want to take rights away from others who do you no harm..



Take rights away? Wrong! How about just not extending them ADDITIONAL rights. They already have the identical rights as you and I.



> PPS Merlin--you specialize in ad hominem attacks, and then express outrage when you receive some (from NE) in return.



Please PM Merlin if you have a question, moderators will not be questioned about their diecisions on the board.


----------



## Mariner

I based my statement that OCA wanted to take rights away on something he said above about homosexuality being ok in private but not in public. I assumed he meant that, for example, gays shouldn't hold hands or kiss in public, which would be taking rights away.

If on the other hand he meant "public recognition via marriage" then you're right, he's not actually advocating taking any rights away, he's just in favor of continued discrimination against gays in the marriage laws.

Mariner.


----------



## jimnyc

Mariner said:
			
		

> If on the other hand he meant "public recognition via marriage" then you're right, he's not actually advocating taking any rights away, he's just in favor of continued discrimination against gays in the marriage laws.



How can it be discrimination when EVERY citizen is held to the same standards? I don't believe it's discrimination to not extend the current laws to fit their lifestyle.


----------



## 007

Mariner said:
			
		

> If on the other hand he meant "public recognition via marriage" then you're right, he's not actually advocating taking any rights away, he's just in favor of continued discrimination against gays in the marriage laws.
> 
> Mariner.



There's nothing "discriminatory" about his position, or any of the other millions and millions of people that agree with him, including me.

"Marriage" is meant for a MAN and WOMAN. What part about that don't you understand? Is it too complicated? Two men wanting to marry is about as stupid as taking a top fuel dragster to the Daytona 500 and wanting to race.

Get a fucking clue.


----------



## Bullypulpit

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> *Study Indicates Homosexual Acts Shorten Lifespan*
> 
> A new study by the Family Research Institute adds strong new evidence that homosexual acts lead to morbid sicknesses and early death.
> 
> Careful sifting of evidence from four separate databases support the conclusion that homosexual activities may shorten the persons lifespan by as much as 30 years.
> 
> Obituaries in the homosexual press along with data from two large, random sexuality surveys and a comparison of tests on IV drug users and homosexuals were used. In each case, median age of death was less than 50 years for those involved in homosexuality.
> 
> One of the studies was done in Colorado and indicated that homosexuals and IV drug users are 10 times as likely to die before age 65 than the rest of the state population.
> 
> This recent study confirms evidence published by FRI in 1993. There, 6,714 obituaries from 16 U. S. homosexual journals over a 12 year span were compared to a large sampling of regular newspaper obituaries.
> 
> Median age of death for the homosexuals was less than 45, with only 2 percent surviving past 65, while the median age for the regular population was over 70 with more than 60 percent living past 65.
> 
> Causes of early death included murder, accidents and drug abuse, but primarily sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Homosexuals were 116 times more apt to be murdered, 24 times more likely to commit suicide, 18 times more apt to die in traffic accidents.
> 
> Before the "sexual revolution," only a few STDs were even identified.
> 
> Now, AIDS is only one of more that three dozen STDs commonly seen in medical centers in the larger cities.
> 
> People addicted to both homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity now travel the world to find new thrills. They return with not only AIDS, but virulent forms of hepatitis and TB, intestinal parasites, and other diseases transmitted by the exchange of blood and other body fluids.
> 
> Gods requirement of monogamous heterosexuality contains great protection against spread of disease. Sex was designed as an expression of love between a man and woman committed to each other for life.
> 
> Using sex to chase an ever growing appetite for greater thrills creates frustrations often expressed in violence. Such a struggle for satisfaction leads to abuse of the body, breaking down its normal defenses against disease.
> 
> Today there is great national concern over the effects of tobacco. Smoking only shortens life expectancy by a few years, but we discourage it by laws and high taxes.
> 
> Yet we pass laws to protect homosexual partnerships and practices and ignore the data showing the much greater medical and social risk.
> 
> Gods way is always best. We, who are Christians, must bear witness to this truth every way possible.
> 
> 
> http://www.seafox.com/lifespan.html




<center><h1><font color=red><a href=http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html>New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal</a></font></h1></center>

Stop watching gay porn and come out of the closet ya big queen! You'll be a much easier person to live with.


----------



## Mariner

I don't understand is the passive-voice phrase "meant for" that you used. Who decides that? Why does your opinion on that automatically outweigh the opposite opinion of gay people (and their straight friends, such as me)?

You know, my strong feelings on this subject arise from actually knowing many gay people and several committed, loving gay couples, both men and women. When you and other people here post, it doesn't sound like you've spent any time with such people. When I look at these friends, I simply cannot imagine saying to them, "You don't have a right to the same societally recognized commitment to one another that I have to my wife." It strikes me as deeply unfair, and opposed to the basic principle of equality that makes this nation great. 

I do see the issue as a one-way street. At every step, America has chosen to increase equality and enfranchise groups previously seen as "other" and threatening to the fabric of society. Younger people support gay marriage more strongly than older people. I'm sure we'll have it eventually--and I don't think it'll do America the slightest harm. 

Mariner.


----------



## 007

pulit said:
			
		

> <center><h1><font color=red><a href=http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html>New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal</a></font></h1></center>
> 
> Stop watching gay porn and come out of the closet ya big queen! You'll be a much easier person to live with.



Nice try pulit, but no cigar. That was...


----------



## Patriot

Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> <center><h1><font color=red><a href=http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html>New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal</a></font></h1></center>
> 
> Stop watching gay porn and come out of the closet ya big queen! You'll be a much easier person to live with.





I didnt know that a total of 64 men constituted the ENTIRE concentration of men on the planet. Talk about generalizing.....


----------



## Patriot

Mariner said:
			
		

> I don't understand is the passive-voice phrase "meant for" that you used. Who decides that? Why does your opinion on that automatically outweigh the opposite opinion of gay people (and their straight friends, such as me)?
> 
> You know, my strong feelings on this subject arise from actually knowing many gay people and several committed, loving gay couples, both men and women. When you and other people here post, it doesn't sound like you've spent any time with such people. When I look at these friends, I simply cannot imagine saying to them, "You don't have a right to the same societally recognized commitment to one another that I have to my wife." It strikes me as deeply unfair, and opposed to the basic principle of equality that makes this nation great.
> 
> I do see the issue as a one-way street. At every step, America has chosen to increase equality and enfranchise groups previously seen as "other" and threatening to the fabric of society. Younger people support gay marriage more strongly than older people. I'm sure we'll have it eventually--and I don't think it'll do America the slightest harm.
> 
> Mariner.





My opinions are derived from my gay friends that cant hold a relationship to save their life. They all ( the lesbos) had bad experiences with men before deciding they were lesbos and to top it all off they liked to all ( male and female friends) like to flaunt their gayness in my face and most tried to flirt with me. 

I never flaunted my desire for the opposite sex in their face AND I never cheated on my boyfriends and used people the way these people did. ( Hence the reason they are all no longer my friends..) 

This is how I can easily say that it is NOT about love but about literaly fucking around. In fact many of my friends told me they never wanted to be married and that they weren't just bi-sexual but were tri-sexual meaning they would "try" to fuck just about anything that moved. 


And no procreation IS threatening our society. No more kids equals no more society. What part of that DONT you get?


----------



## Mariner

monopoly on promiscuity. 

I seem to know a different type of gay person than you. More than half the gay people I know are married, and all but one of the others is in a long-term committed relationship.

As for procreation--there have always been gay people. In the past they stayed in the closet as spinster aunts and bachelor uncles. What makes you think that if gays can marry each other there will suddenly be no more babies? Being gay isn't contagious.

Mariner


----------



## Bullypulpit

Patriot said:
			
		

> My opinions are derived from my gay friends that cant hold a relationship to save their life. They all ( the lesbos) had bad experiences with men before deciding they were lesbos and to top it all off they liked to all ( male and female friends) like to flaunt their gayness in my face and most tried to flirt with me.
> 
> I never flaunted my desire for the opposite sex in their face AND I never cheated on my boyfriends and used people the way these people did. ( Hence the reason they are all no longer my friends..)
> 
> This is how I can easily say that it is NOT about love but about literaly fucking around. In fact many of my friends told me they never wanted to be married and that they weren't just bi-sexual but were tri-sexual meaning they would "try" to fuck just about anything that moved.
> 
> 
> And no procreation IS threatening our society. No more kids equals no more society. What part of that DONT you get?




Corollary to that, I've known many straight folks who can't maintain a relationship to save their lives. But what straight couples don't have to deal with, is the pressure imposed by the social stigmata same-gender couples have to face. There is no rational reason supported by proof of harm, to either the individuals involved or society at large, from same-gender couples involved in committed, long-term relationships. Sexual promiscuity, either straight or gay, leads to problems from STD's to partner abuse and a plethora of other social and health related problems. 

By actively supporting couples, straight or gay, in forming stable families many of these situations can be eliminated. The form of these families is irrelevant, so long as they are allowed to form the stable, happy, healthy  life long relationships that we all want to see families become.


----------



## Bullypulpit

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Nice try pulit, but no cigar. That was...



That's just one study. That the most virulent homophobes are the most uncertain regarding their own sexuality is supported by many other studies. You and OCA should get together and explore those deeply supressed feelings.


----------



## Shattered

> By actively supporting couples, straight or gay, in forming stable families many of these situations can be eliminated. The form of these families is irrelevant, so long as they are allowed to form the stable, happy, healthy life long relationships that we all want to see families become.



By forming "families", I assume that you're referring to gay couples adopting children?  *Bad idea.*  While I'm all for "live & let live...in your own house", do you realize what you would be subjecting those innocent children to?  Lifelong ridicule and harrassment from their peers.  Lack of acceptance among society...  

If you're such a peace loving person, why would you be in favor of something that has the undeniable potential for great harm?


----------



## Patriot

That is because with the gay community it is all about me, me and more me! They happen to be probably the selfish group of humans outside of the hollywood elitist snobs that feel they have the pulse of America. 


The bottom line is this. When crybabies want their way they sue for it. How many good loving families or mainstream heartland Americans do you see sueing to NOT HAVE see or deal with the gay "in your face cause it is all about me" bullshit?


----------



## 007

Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> That's just one study. That the most virulent homophobes are the most uncertain regarding their own sexuality is supported by many other studies. You and OCA should get together and explore those deeply supressed feelings.



*STUDY SHOWS THOSE WHO USE WORD "HOMOPHOBE" TO DEMONIZE ANTI-GAYS HAVE SEVERE IDENTITY CONFLICTS​   *



We know your personality has betrayed you pulit, your evident lack of character and moral compass is a prime example of someone struggling to find out who they are.

A simple solution: bend over, grab your ears, give a quick jerk, and with any luck your head will pop out of your ass. Look in the mirror. I know you won't like what you see, but that's why you terrorise and demonize those who DO know who and what you are. Quit eating shit and drinking piss for breakfast, and just maybe you too someday will be normal, and LIKE yourself.


----------



## Bullypulpit

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> *STUDY SHOWS THOSE WHO USE WORD "HOMOPHOBE" TO DEMONIZE ANTI-GAYS HAVE SEVERE IDENTITY CONFLICTS​   *
> 
> 
> 
> We know your personality has betrayed you pulit, your evident lack of character and moral compass is a prime example of someone struggling to find out who they are.
> 
> A simple solution: bend over, grab your ears, give a quick jerk, and with any luck your head will pop out of your ass. Look in the mirror. I know you won't like what you see, but that's why you terrorise and demonize those who DO know who and what you are. Quit eating shit and drinking piss for breakfast, and just maybe you too someday will be normal, and LIKE yourself.




My moral compass is fine boyo, and I know very well who I am, and I like what I see in the mirror. 

As for demonizing folks, it seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I merely state the facts. You spout  religious right wing-nut propaganda. And judging from how virulent and over the top your response is, I musta hit a nerve. Have a nice day .


----------



## Patriot

Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> I merely state the facts. You spout  religious right wing-nut propaganda. And judging from how virulent and over the top your response is, I musta hit a nerve. Have a nice day .





First off who are you to judge Pale Rider? I thought all you so called tolerant left wing nut jobs were into tolerance and not handing out judgements? This makes you a hypocrite. 

Then you have the balls to produce an article that has a study done on 64 males and calls it a fact? When you can come to me and give me better than 75% of the male population THEN and only then can you call it fact! 

And to top it all off you start to call Pale names which by the left wingers is sacriledge but only when the person calling the name is offending you or your left wing commie bastards. What a two faced hypocrite. I guess your dumb ass forgot to check the very first post Pale posted, which, by the way, started this whole thread, where HE POSTED a finding of fact by the scientific community!


Check your facts before spewing your shit! Or are you gay too?


----------



## Mariner

Whether a study is valid or not does not depend only on "n," the number of subjects. It depends on whether the difference between the experimental and control subjects was large enough to establish "statistical significance." Many scientific studies are completed with very small samples. In fact, investigators are expected to calculate the smallest sample needed to achieve statistical validity, in order not to waste precious research money.

Mariner.


----------



## Merlin1047

Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> That's just one study. That the most virulent homophobes are the most uncertain regarding their own sexuality is supported by many other studies. You and OCA should get together and explore those deeply supressed feelings.



Damn, Bully!  You've got to stop talking like that.  You're beginning to turn me on, you big stallion you.


----------



## Bullypulpit

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Damn, Bully!  You've got to stop talking like that.  You're beginning to turn me on, you big stallion you.



Oh thtop it, you big silly.


----------



## Bullypulpit

Patriot said:
			
		

> First off who are you to judge Pale Rider? I thought all you so called tolerant left wing nut jobs were into tolerance and not handing out judgements? This makes you a hypocrite.
> 
> Then you have the balls to produce an article that has a study done on 64 males and calls it a fact? When you can come to me and give me better than 75% of the male population THEN and only then can you call it fact!
> 
> And to top it all off you start to call Pale names which by the left wingers is sacriledge but only when the person calling the name is offending you or your left wing commie bastards. What a two faced hypocrite. I guess your dumb ass forgot to check the very first post Pale posted, which, by the way, started this whole thread, where HE POSTED a finding of fact by the scientific community!
> 
> 
> Check your facts before spewing your shit! Or are you gay too?




It's just one of many studies boyo, so don't get yer knickers in a twist. As for Pale, I find his ignorance amusing, especially as he gets so pissed of when he's in the wrong.


----------



## 007

Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> It's just one of many studies boyo, so don't get yer knickers in a twist. As for Pale, I find his ignorance amusing, especially as he gets so pissed of when he's in the wrong.



Hey pulit... I know you're a jerked off fucking piss bag. You could walk under a snake and you'd have to reach up to scratch it's belly. You're street trash and talk like a subliminal liberal training tape. You're a laugh, and I respond to you purely for it's entertainment value, which is close to nil, and boredom.


----------



## musicman

Mariner said:
			
		

> I can see a grain of truth in your point--that if the word still has too many meanings to be clear, then we should be careful how we use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .





But that wasn't my point at all. "Homophobia" is a senseless, made-up term. Following any common-sense rules regarding the origin of language, it means, "irrational fear of humans". In other words, it means nothing. It is a sham word whose only reason for existing is to manipulate human thought toward a specific sociopolitical outcome. I refuse to be manipulated in this way. If every great book written by every wise man states that the sky is plaid, there will doubtless be those who will remark that the plaid is of  lovely hues today. I won't be one of them.


----------



## Patriot

Mariner said:
			
		

> Whether a study is valid or not does not depend only on "n," the number of subjects. It depends on whether the difference between the experimental and control subjects was large enough to establish "statistical significance." Many scientific studies are completed with very small samples. In fact, investigators are expected to calculate the smallest sample needed to achieve statistical validity, in order not to waste precious research money.
> 
> Mariner.





So what you are telling me is that you get turned on when watching homo porno? I mean that IS what you you are saying since you agree with that statistic.......


----------



## Mariner

I don't even know what homo porno looks like. But again, your statement wouldn't be an insult except to other homophobes.

You don't just decide to "agree" or not agree with a scientific finding. It's true or it's not true. I have no idea what the inner life of a homophobe is like, or what such a person experiences when viewing porn, gay or straight. But if a statistically valid study shows that such a person is more likely to be turned on by gay porn than a non-homophobe, then it seems to lend some credence to the Freudian notion of "counterphobia," that we often purposefully make ourselves into the opposite of what we fear we actually are. Whether that's actually happening in any particular person is impossible to say. But it certainly would seem worth thinking about for homophobic people, as it may offer them a reason behind the energy they put into their homophobia.

As for the word, this stuff about it being made-up doesn't make any sense. All our words are made up, and many of them have very amusing etymologies. They have evolved over time. As long as we agree on our meaning for the word, we're fine. I prefer the non-pejorative meaning of "homophobe," i.e. someone who doesn't like gay people. That's the most common meaning now, not the original meaning of irrational fear of gay people.

Mariner.


----------



## OCA

Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> My moral compass is fine boyo, and I know very well who I am, and I like what I see in the mirror.
> 
> As for demonizing folks, it seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I merely state the facts. You spout  religious right wing-nut propaganda. And judging from how virulent and over the top your response is, I musta hit a nerve. Have a nice day .



Lol everytime Bully gets backed in a corner he spouts out "right wing religious nut", ......amazing.


----------



## OCA

I just got a kick out of reading all the posts in the last couple pages, "homophobia"....you've got to be shitting me. Why is it that when one stands up for what is obviously right and has been considered right since the garden of eden the secular left cries foul, says "who are we to judge"? This is the whole problem with America on a variety of issues, we are so afraid to tell somebody or some group that they are wrong because we might hurt their feelings, because of quotes in the bible etc. etc., the end result is a society run amok, social anarchy if you will where anything goes if it makes you feel good....because god forbid if we pass judgement...what a fucking mess in America!

Well homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists looks like the line is being drawn at you people, please reference the votes of 11 states in the last election..the people aren't taking it anymore, they are making a sound and moral judgement, and you know what? It doesn't fucking matter if homosexuality choice doesn't hurt me or it doesn't hurt you its about standing up for what is right, that is what we do here in America.

You know the funny thing about this is the homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists brough all this on themselves, boy did they fuck up in San Francisco and Queerachusets.


----------



## musicman

Mariner:

That you prefer the non-pejorative meaning of the "word", homophobe, only amounts to your saying that the sky is a more subtle plaid. You're falling for it - or you're trying to make others fall for it. It is an insidious, agenda-driven perversion of the English language. It seeks to create a malady, whereby one who does not accept homosexuality as an orientation - no better or worse than any other - is the one with the problem. You're only quibbling over the degree of this invented problem.

I'm not falling for it, and, as OCA pointed out, neither are the majority of Americans. The sky is not plaid. Homophobia is not a word. The attempt to mainstream homosexuality has helped to bring an entire political party crashing down. America has spoken.


----------



## nakedemperor

musicman said:
			
		

> Mariner:
> 
> That you prefer the non-pejorative meaning of the "word", homophobe, only amounts to your saying that the sky is a more subtle plaid. You're falling for it - or you're trying to make others fall for it. It is an insidious, agenda-driven perversion of the English language. It seeks to create a malady, whereby one who does not accept homosexuality as an orientation - no better or worse than any other - is the one with the problem. You're only quibbling over the degree of this invented problem.
> 
> I'm not falling for it, and, as OCA pointed out, neither are the majority of Americans. The sky is not plaid. Homophobia is not a word. The attempt to mainstream homosexuality has helped to bring an entire political party crashing down. America has spoken.



As free as you are to abstain from using it, "homphobia" is a word in common use in all regions with a fairly solid definition, as Mariner pointed out, being "one who doesn't like gay peple". This is not a function of the "attempt to mainstream homosexuality", its a response to an emerging phenomenon by a society which uses words to describe things.


----------



## musicman

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> As free as you are to abstain from using it, "homphobia" is a word in common use in all regions with a fairly solid definition, as Mariner pointed out, being "one who doesn't like gay peple". This is not a function of the "attempt to mainstream homosexuality", its a response to an emerging phenomenon by a society which uses words to describe things.





And, as free as you likewise are to use it, I say, shame on anyone in a position to do so who tries to impart upon this term some sort of official Imprimatur. They are willing participants in an attempt to bastardize the English language for purely political ends. Surely you won't deny that calling someone who is less than accepting of homosexuality "phobic" carries with it a negative connotation. This is by design. It is underhanded. It is intellectually dishonest.
I can disagreee civilly with a person all day long, but when I start hearing sneaky little lies, my respect leaves rapidly - like air rushing out of a blown tire.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> As free as you are to abstain from using it, "homphobia" is a word in common use in all regions with a fairly solid definition, as Mariner pointed out, being "one who doesn't like gay peple". This is not a function of the "attempt to mainstream homosexuality", its a response to an emerging phenomenon by a society which uses words to describe things.



Typically, words constructed to describe things stick with original meanings of their constituent greek or roman components, hence, since phobia means "fear" it is at least a poorly constructed and inaccurate word, since anyone who's afraid of a fag must be one.


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Typically, words constructed to describe things stick with original meanings of their constituent greek or roman components, hence, since phobia means "fear" it is at least a poorly constructed and inaccurate word, since anyone who's afraid of a fag must be one.





And likewise, the prefix homo, as applied herre, has to mean, "human being". If one wished to advance the theory that those who will not codify homosexuality are somehow phobic, he could alllege that they have a "phobia of homosexuality". But, no - that wouldn't fly. It doesn't have that Madison Avenue ZING to it.

I detest dishonesty.


----------



## manu1959

ok.. ok ...ok....if i am a women trapped in a man's body (a lesbian if you will) 

and i have sex with my wife.........will it affect my health?

.............................i'll get me coat


----------



## 007

musicman said:
			
		

> And, as free as you likewise are to use it, I say, shame on anyone in a position to do so who tries to impart upon this term some sort of official Imprimatur. They are willing participants in an attempt to bastardize the English language for purely political ends. Surely you won't deny that calling someone who is less than accepting of homosexuality "phobic" carries with it a negative connotation. This is by design. It is underhanded. It is intellectually dishonest.
> I can disagreee civilly with a person all day long, but when I start hearing sneaky little lies, my respect leaves rapidly - like air rushing out of a blown tire.



It boils down to this musicman, if the queer lovers and supporters want to use and try and legitimize the concocted word homophobe, then we NORMAL people should be of the mind that they are all, as we should describe them, HETEROPHOBES.


----------



## nakedemperor

musicman said:
			
		

> And likewise, the prefix homo, as applied herre, has to mean, "human being". If one wished to advance the theory that those who will not codify homosexuality are somehow phobic, he could alllege that they have a "phobia of homosexuality". But, no - that wouldn't fly. It doesn't have that Madison Avenue ZING to it.
> 
> I detest dishonesty.



Oh. I didn't realize there was something wrong with a negative connotation attached to the term for people who are anti-gay. We can also call them bigots, but then we run into the same problem.


----------



## Patriot

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Oh. I didn't realize there was something wrong with a negative connotation attached to the term for people who are anti-gay. We can also call them bigots, but then we run into the same problem.




From the Encarta dictionary......

Bigot:


intolerant person: somebody who has very strong opinions, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity, and refuses to accept different views



WOW! That would mean YOU Naked!


Now anti gay would be a perfect label for me!


----------



## musicman

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Oh. I didn't realize there was something wrong with a negative connotation attached to the term for people who are anti-gay. We can also call them bigots, but then we run into the same problem.





Define "anti-gay", please.


----------



## shadrack

musicman said:
			
		

> And likewise, the prefix homo, as applied herre, has to mean, "human being". If one wished to advance the theory that those who will not codify homosexuality are somehow phobic, he could alllege that they have a "phobia of homosexuality". But, no - that wouldn't fly. It doesn't have that Madison Avenue ZING to it.
> 
> I detest dishonesty.


Oil is hydrophobic.

It's not intellectually dishonest to use -phobe or -phobic.  It can simply mean repels or doesn't mix.  A person that is not gay and is not accepting of homosexuality is homophobic.

Maybe the homophobe should insist on being called a heterophile.


----------



## Mariner

When we call someone arachnophobic is there a negative connotation?

As for language drift and society's agreement on the meaning of words--no one gives an official imprimatur, though dictionaries try--everyone can use words as s/he pleases.

If you think language can't drift bizarrely, consider the word gay, which used to mean happy. (By the way, I object to the word "language" since I use sign language all day, which doesn't use the tongue at all, and therefore doesn't fit the etymology of language <lingua, tongue.)

Mariner.


----------



## musicman

shadrack:

The use of the word "phobic" is not the issue. It is  the addition of the prefix "homo", for the disingenuous purpose of creating a definition which does not exist, that rankles me. Again, "having a phobia of homosexuals", I could accept. It's honest. It doesn't even begin to hold water, but it's an honest attempt at a definition. "Homophobia" is convenient. By that daffynition, anyone who refuses to accept homosexuality as an orientation - no better or worse than any other - is somehow "phobic". But, can't you see how problematic it is? By that yardstick,either, A) humanity has - unknowingly - been phobic for the entirety of it's history, or, B) homosexuality has lately acquired a new nobility.

Then again, there's C):

Most Americans are "live and let live" types. Homosexuality has, throughout history, been regarded as a perversion. Although homosexuals comprise only 2-3% of the population, they account for a staggering 25-40% of child molestations. Their almost exclusive culpability in the introduction and spread of AIDS throughout America cannot be seriously debated. It is a dangerous and destructive lifestyle. Yet, for all that, most Americans aren't interested in condemning ANYONE out of hand. "Live and let live", we say.

That's simply not good enough for homosexual activists. They don't want, "live and let live", damn it - they want ACCEPTANCE! They want CODIFICATION! They want LEGITIMACY!  "I'm just going to mind my own business" won't do it. No - it has to be "Yours is an orientation given you by nature, and is, as such, no worse than my own; probably better, in fact. To the degree that my innate feelings, my teachings, and the words of the one I call God condemn your actions as unnatural, sick, and dangerous, I am in the grasp of hateful bigotry". 

Does that sound like the mantra you'd like to chant, shadrack? Because that's what they're after, and they won't be satisfied with anything less.


----------



## musicman

Mariner said:
			
		

> When we call someone arachnophobic is there a negative connotation?
> 
> 
> 
> Mariner.





Only if he then becomes, by definition of the word, "arachnophobic", a hysterical bigot, denying spiders their rights.

Besides which, that word actually makes sense.


----------



## musicman

shadrack said:
			
		

> Oil is hydrophobic.....
> 
> .  A person that is not gay and is not accepting of homosexuality is homophobic.





Do me a favor and look up the prefix "homo" in your dictionary.


----------



## musicman

Mariner said:
			
		

> If you think language can't drift bizarrely, consider the word gay, which used to mean happy.
> 
> Mariner.





Interesting, isn't it? One can almost sense a pattern here...an obsessive quest for the legitimization of a perverted lifestyle through....the manipulation of LANGUAGE.

Wow - what was that? Did a light just come on!


----------



## shadrack

musicman said:
			
		

> shadrack:
> 
> The use of the word "phobic" is not the issue. It is  the addition of the prefix "homo", for the disingenuous purpose of creating a definition which does not exist, that rankles me. Again, "having a phobia of homosexuals", I could accept. It's honest. It doesn't even begin to hold water, but it's an honest attempt at a definition. "Homophobia" is convenient. By that daffynition, anyone who refuses to accept homosexuality as an orientation - no better or worse than any other - is somehow "phobic". But, can't you see how problematic it is? By that yardstick,either, A) humanity has - unknowingly - been phobic for the entirety of it's history, or, B) homosexuality has lately acquired a new nobility.
> 
> Then again, there's C):
> 
> Most Americans are "live and let live" types. Homosexuality has, throughout history, been regarded as a perversion. Although homosexuals comprise only 2-3% of the population, they account for a staggering 25-40% of child molestations. Their almost exclusive culpability in the introduction and spread of AIDS throughout America cannot be seriously debated. It is a dangerous and destructive lifestyle. Yet, for all that, most Americans aren't interested in condemning ANYONE out of hand. "Live and let live", we say.
> 
> That's simply not good enough for homosexual activists. They don't want, "live and let live", damn it - they want ACCEPTANCE! They want CODIFICATION! They want LEGITIMACY!  "I'm just going to mind my own business" won't do it. No - it has to be "Yours is an orientation given you by nature, and is, as such, no worse than my own; probably better, in fact. To the degree that my innate feelings, my teachings, and the words of the one I call God condemn your actions as unnatural, sick, and dangerous, I am in the grasp of hateful bigotry".
> 
> Does that sound like the mantra you'd like to chant, shadrack? Because that's what they're after, and they won't be satisfied with anything less.


homo comes from the greek homos for same; homo comes from the latin homo for man

There have been different levels of acceptance of homosexuality in societies throughout history.....from very tolerant to harsh judgement.

"they", "they", "they"............how 'bout a little individualism

Many disturbed people act out as homosexual or pedophiles and there are social costs as you point out.  But there is evidence that "homosexuality" is a physiological condition......consider intersexuals, hormonal imbalances, physical structure of the brain......these people should be provided a little empathy.  Those with antisocial behaviors should be treated and/or locked up.

Wouldn't it bring more stability to society to make a legitimate institution for homosexual couples?  ie, If same-sex relations were viewed as a legitimate and responsible contractual partnership between two consenting adults it might provide the incentive to be responsible.


----------



## musicman

shadrack said:
			
		

> homo comes from the greek homos for same; homo comes from the latin homo for man
> 
> There have been different levels of acceptance of homosexuality in societies throughout history.....from very tolerant to harsh judgement.
> 
> "they", "they", "they"............how 'bout a little individualism
> 
> Many disturbed people act out as homosexual or pedophiles and there are social costs as you point out.  But there is evidence that "homosexuality" is a physiological condition......consider intersexuals, hormonal imbalances, physical structure of the brain......these people should be provided a little empathy.  Those with antisocial behaviors should be treated and/or locked up.
> 
> Wouldn't it bring more stability to society to make a legitimate institution for homosexual couples?  ie, If same-sex relations were viewed as a legitimate and responsible contractual partnership between two consenting adults it might provide the incentive to be responsible.





So, by any honest attempt to establish definition, "homophobia" can only mean, "irrational fear of human beings" - in other words - nothing. It is an underhanded attempt to acheive legitimization for a perverted lifestyle through the disingenuous manipulation of language. And - as Mariner was helpful enough to point out - it's not the first.

I've seen the studies by LeVar and others which attempt to establish a physiological link to homosexuality. They are thin air; so hopelessly flawed and loaded as to be laughable. The studies will continue as long as there are people with money and a vested interest in the legitimization of homosexuality.  I remain unmoved.

On the other hand, the studies that show homosexuality to be a dangerous and destructive behavior are a matter of public record. I do not believe that legitimizing perversion in any of it's forms would help to stabilize society; quite the opposite, in fact.


----------



## musicman

shadrack said:
			
		

> "they", "they", "they"............how 'bout a little individualism
> 
> .





LOL! Gimme a break, willya? You sound like my sophomore English teacher. He was a stickler - although, truthfully, I've probably called him worse.

Actually, the "they" are the homosexual activists I'd referenced in my previous paragraph. Sorry.


----------



## 'ol Perfessor

Fear of silly people. 
     The greatest gift is to see ourselves as others see us. (I lack this, Do Yoo?) Anyway, my observation in a long life is that those incapable of "mainstream" relationships imitate the bastions and traditions they scorn.I.E. gays want to marry, lesbian women use artificial "devices".
     What For? 
The epitome of the homosexual lifestyle, ( the elusive ,mythical gay gene notwithstanding) is the complete freedom of commitment to binding social standards. 
     A kind of 6th grader, yell poop the loudest, blind to the facts alternative Darwinism resistance to all of human progress as it were. Like the Koala bear of Austrailia,( who canna exist without the Eucalyptus leaves which are all he will eat) Where would the homosexual exist without athe golden rays of nurture or outright objections of our politically correct society? 
     I see no effort to imitate the Pilgrims of  Mayflower fame and leave the decadent oppressors to live in hand holding, skipping, lisping freedom somewhere where they could be left alone!
     A truer more imaginative response would be to procure some other , more public, previously innocent oriface for the defining arena of modern homosexuality. 
     Perhaps the nose or ear could be modified and re- labeled. Thus each libertine would truly have a cause and uniqueness to announce to the world rather than a pale imitation of all they therein are somehow "agin"( as sgt York used to say).
 so rants the'ol perfessor


----------



## OCA

Koroithophobia LMFAO!

Koroidos is Greek, being Greek it is usually referring to someone as the butt of a joke or a dumbass.


----------



## OCA

Lol this crap is funny. Listen there is no doubt there have been homosexual lifestyle choice perversionsists throughout history and they have always been rightfully scorned for their incorrect choices. The attempt to legitimize homosexuality choice through the court system is nothing more than, dare I say it again, an attempt to legitimize a perversion of choice and to soothe the troubled conscience of the ones who make that choice. 

Call me or others homophobic all you want, it will not change the fact that this attempt is going to end up in the garbage can, its not like the civil rights movement of the 60's, Blacks and others can't change who they are....not so with homosexuals....its a made up minority based on something not right.


----------



## OCA

Why do liberals have such a problem accepting that there are and have been moral absolutes?


----------



## Merlin1047

musicman said:
			
		

> So, by any honest attempt to establish definition, "homophobia" can only mean, "irrational fear of human beings" - in other words - nothing. It is an underhanded attempt to acheive legitimization for a perverted lifestyle through the disingenuous manipulation of language. And - as Mariner was helpful enough to point out - it's not the first.



Those who promote the homosexual lifestyle would no doubt see your devotion to definition as amounting to carping.  But the fact is that leftists in general, and homosexuals in particular love to engage in Orwellian "newspeak".  They believe that by reinventing the language, they can make their behavior more acceptable to the mainstream.  They believe that they can hide behind euphemisms and politically correct leftist rhetoric.

It rather reminds me of a rape trial where the defense attorney tries to get his guilty client off the hook by demonizing the victim and suggesting that somehow she deserved it.  Homosexuals are demonizing those who oppose their deviant and perverted behavior in an effort to silence the opposition.  They figure that if they cannot gain acceptance, then they will settle for characterizing criticism of homosexuals as a "phobia" - thereby shifting the focus away from their conduct and painting those who do not share their views as irrational and unbalanced.

What the homosexual support group fails to understand is the principle of backlash.  If homosexuals limited themselves to presenting rational arguments, devoid of half-truths, distortions, and personal attacks they might gain some substantial support.  But when they engage in strident, obnoxious, screeching, inflammatory rhetoric they cause others to cease listening.  When they have "gay pride" days where they prance around  with the butt cut out of their jeans, when they conduct themselves in a manner totally unacceptable in public, then they cause more and more people to say "Hell no.  This is not the kind of society I want."

And to get back on topic, let's cut to the chase about this whole homosexual marriage issue.  The bottom line is money - period.  Homosexuals want access to employer sponsored health care programs so that they have another avenue to pay for AIDS treatment.  They want access to government benefits currently limited to heterosexual married couples.  They want the benefit of reduced taxes from a joint tax return for a married couple.  THAT'S what this is all about.  They can spout about rights and equality all they want, but the bottom line is money.

And one more note on the so-called "civil union" garbage.  Somebody explain to me the difference between a civil marriage and a civil union.  Aside from a whole bunch of screeching and some smartass pablum, I've failed to get a rational answer on this point.  I suspect that the reason for that is that there is no rational answer.  The two are, from a legalistic view, one and the same.


----------



## Mariner

the particular moral absolutes promulgated by Judeo-Christian culture. I don't think J-C culture has any more legitimacy than Hindu culture or Aleut culture. People are equal. I refuse to accept that you are better than me because of your religion--or worse. 

OCA, Merlin, etc.: How would you react if a brother/sister/child told you today that s/he was gay?

OCA--how do you know it's a choice to be gay? Since you believe it's a choice, then you presumably made a conscious decision at some point to prefer women to men? How did you go about making that choice? Did you weigh pros and cons? If it's a choice, then why do you feel such disgust when imagining gay sexuality? If it were really a choice, you'd simply feel, "Oh, I happen to prefer chocolate to vanilla." Your level of disgust strongly suggests that sexual orientation is not a choice at all.

Mariner.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Mariner said:
			
		

> believe in the particular moral absolutes promulgated by Judeo-Christian culture. I don't think J-C culture has any more legitimacy than Hindu culture or Aleut culture. People are equal. Different cultures have different values, and I don't believe I have the right to place mine above theirs. I consider cultures that are willing to place themselves above others to be arrogant, and I think this arrogance leads to all sorts of problems when cultures collide. In the "red" heartland where there is near-unanimity of cultural beliefs, maybe you can get away with it. On the coasts and along the rivers, where there is contact with the outside world, I think you need to develop more tolerant beliefs in order to get by--unless of course you're happy offending others all day long. I don't think it's any surprise that the "purple" map of the recent election shows clearly that the further you are from contact with the outside world, the more you were likely to prefer Bush's born-again worldview.
> 
> OCA, Merlin, etc.: How would you react if a brother/sister/child told you today that s/he was gay?
> 
> OCA--how do you know it's a choice to be gay? If you believe it's a choice, to you feel you could equally easily choose not to be straight yourself?
> 
> Mariner.



Go talk to your muslim friends about tolerance.  Go tell them about it as they kill their own daughter for being raped.


----------



## Mariner

There you go again, overgeneralizing. Fundamentalist, theocratic Muslim regimes do indeed violate basic human rights. I've said before that I think multi-culturalism can be taken too far, and that there is a bottom-line need for seeking universal values. The world is working on that. I would think the example of Muslim fundamentalism would make Christian fundamentalists more wary about seeking to enforce on others their own most strident beliefs, but it doesn't seem to, for some reason.

My particular Muslim friends are highly critical of Muslim intolerance for human rights when it occurs. 

Mariner.


----------



## Merlin1047

Mariner said:
			
		

> In the "red" heartland where there is near-unanimity of cultural beliefs, maybe you can get away with it. On the coasts and along the rivers, where there is contact with the outside world,



LOL - you have the nerve to call people with core values arrogant and then you make a statement like that.  Examine your own attitude - you view the populace of conservative states as a collection of inbred, drooling, knuckle-dragging, sister-dating retards.  You think that someone who lives in a "red" state has no contact with the outside world.  Well, I've been from one side of this globe to the other and I'm about as "red state" as you can get.



			
				Mariner said:
			
		

> OCA, Merlin, etc.: How would you react if a brother/sister/child told you today that s/he was gay?



Not that it's any of your business, but as it happens, I have a half-brother who is homosexual.  That doesn't mean that I don't love him.  That also doesn't mean that I don't think he's a pervert - and I have told him so.  But somehow we still manage to get along.  Weird, ain't it.

Now excuse me, but I've got to go to a family reunion to look for a date for the office party.


----------



## OCA

Mariner said:
			
		

> the particular moral absolutes promulgated by Judeo-Christian culture. I don't think J-C culture has any more legitimacy than Hindu culture or Aleut culture. People are equal. I refuse to accept that you are better than me because of your religion--or worse.
> 
> OCA, Merlin, etc.: How would you react if a brother/sister/child told you today that s/he was gay?
> 
> OCA--how do you know it's a choice to be gay? Since you believe it's a choice, then you presumably made a conscious decision at some point to prefer women to men? How did you go about making that choice? Did you weigh pros and cons? If it's a choice, then why do you feel such disgust when imagining gay sexuality? If it were really a choice, you'd simply feel, "Oh, I happen to prefer chocolate to vanilla." Your level of disgust strongly suggests that sexual orientation is not a choice at all.
> 
> Mariner.



Answer to question 1: would seek immediate help whether it be medical or psychological, in the case of a boy it would be a quick trip to a Reno whorehouse. If behavior persisted it would kill me but the relationship would be terminated until situation rectified by choice perversionist.

#2: Lol you people just don't get it, we are ALL born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex....reread your biology. Its like trying to argue that the sun rises in the west **sigh**

There was a fool on here by the name of Mattskramer who used all the same foolish arguments equalizing sexuality with food etc. etc. those arguments were plundered and raped. Why is it hard for you to understand? You have a natural attraction to the opposite sex, you CHOOSE TO BE WITH THE SAME SEX..sort of like if i'm with a woman and decide instead of the pussy i'm gonna tag her in the ass....that is choice. Homos all want the pussy subconsciously but choose to eat pipes or in the case of women munch muff.


----------



## OCA

Hey Mariner nice edit of your post...I think Merlin caught the quote I wanted, the one about middle America being out of touch...or was that less educated you meant to say? Your condescencion and feeling of superiority to those who reject socialist secular beliefs is vividly ugly.


----------



## nakedemperor

OCA said:
			
		

> Why do liberals have such a problem accepting that there are and have been moral absolutes?



No problem with that, but the bible isn't a perfect barometer of moral absolutes, and the bible is the impetus for many peoples' inabilities to accept homosexuality. Then again, the bible also condones slavery (as long as you treat your slaves well, and release them after 7 years, or something). Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not put it in a person's butt...? You're right, being able to fall romantically in love with someone of the same sex is OBVIOUSLY a hardline moral absolute.


----------



## deaddude

Patriot said:
			
		

> So we shouldnt judge criminals? Or should we only follow the bible when it suits your liberal self?  It also says homosexuality is a sin.




Is my using one part of the bible to make my point any worse then you using one part of the Bible to judge homosexuals? 

Which testament is the homosexuality as sin thing in anyway? Also does the bible have an opinion on lesbians?


----------



## manu1959

Mariner said:
			
		

> OCA--how do you know it's a choice to be gay? Since you believe it's a choice, then you presumably made a conscious decision at some point to prefer women to men? How did you go about making that choice? Did you weigh pros and cons? If it's a choice, then why do you feel such disgust when imagining gay sexuality? If it were really a choice, you'd simply feel, "Oh, I happen to prefer chocolate to vanilla." Your level of disgust strongly suggests that sexual orientation is not a choice at all.
> 
> Mariner.



ok if it is not a choice then what is it?

learned behavoiur? genetic?


----------



## TheEnemyWithin

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> *Study Indicates Homosexual Acts Shorten Lifespan*
> 
> A new study by the Family Research Institute adds strong new evidence that homosexual acts lead to morbid sicknesses and early death.
> 
> Careful sifting of evidence from four separate databases support the conclusion that homosexual activities may shorten the persons lifespan by as much as 30 years.
> 
> Obituaries in the homosexual press along with data from two large, random sexuality surveys and a comparison of tests on IV drug users and homosexuals were used. In each case, median age of death was less than 50 years for those involved in homosexuality.
> 
> One of the studies was done in Colorado and indicated that homosexuals and IV drug users are 10 times as likely to die before age 65 than the rest of the state population.
> 
> This recent study confirms evidence published by FRI in 1993. There, 6,714 obituaries from 16 U. S. homosexual journals over a 12 year span were compared to a large sampling of regular newspaper obituaries.
> 
> Median age of death for the homosexuals was less than 45, with only 2 percent surviving past 65, while the median age for the regular population was over 70 with more than 60 percent living past 65.
> 
> Causes of early death included murder, accidents and drug abuse, but primarily sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Homosexuals were 116 times more apt to be murdered, 24 times more likely to commit suicide, 18 times more apt to die in traffic accidents.
> 
> Before the "sexual revolution," only a few STDs were even identified.
> 
> Now, AIDS is only one of more that three dozen STDs commonly seen in medical centers in the larger cities.
> 
> People addicted to both homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity now travel the world to find new thrills. They return with not only AIDS, but virulent forms of hepatitis and TB, intestinal parasites, and other diseases transmitted by the exchange of blood and other body fluids.
> 
> Gods requirement of monogamous heterosexuality contains great protection against spread of disease. Sex was designed as an expression of love between a man and woman committed to each other for life.
> 
> Using sex to chase an ever growing appetite for greater thrills creates frustrations often expressed in violence. Such a struggle for satisfaction leads to abuse of the body, breaking down its normal defenses against disease.
> 
> Today there is great national concern over the effects of tobacco. Smoking only shortens life expectancy by a few years, but we discourage it by laws and high taxes.
> 
> Yet we pass laws to protect homosexual partnerships and practices and ignore the data showing the much greater medical and social risk.
> 
> Gods way is always best. We, who are Christians, must bear witness to this truth every way possible.
> 
> 
> http://www.seafox.com/lifespan.html




You tell us nothing we don't know already.


----------



## TheEnemyWithin

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> LOL - you have the nerve to call people with core values arrogant and then you make a statement like that.  Examine your own attitude - you view the populace of conservative states as a collection of inbred, drooling, knuckle-dragging, sister-dating retards.  You think that someone who lives in a "red" state has no contact with the outside world.  Well, I've been from one side of this globe to the other and I'm about as "red state" as you can get.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that it's any of your business, but as it happens, I have a half-brother who is homosexual.  That doesn't mean that I don't love him.  That also doesn't mean that I don't think he's a pervert - and I have told him so.  But somehow we still manage to get along.  Weird, ain't it.
> 
> Now excuse me, but I've got to go to a family reunion to look for a date for the office party.



I hate it when people excuse homosexuality just cause they have gay relatives. I do and they're all total pervs.   And don't anyone ever bring up Cheney's d-a-u-g-h-t-e-r. Just as perved as all the others.


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO

There sure is alot of talk about "God" today!


----------



## 007

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> *Those who promote the homosexual lifestyle would no doubt see your devotion to definition as amounting to carping.  But the fact is that leftists in general, and homosexuals in particular love to engage in Orwellian "newspeak".  They believe that by reinventing the language, they can make their behavior more acceptable to the mainstream.  They believe that they can hide behind euphemisms and politically correct leftist rhetoric.
> 
> It rather reminds me of a rape trial where the defense attorney tries to get his guilty client off the hook by demonizing the victim and suggesting that somehow she deserved it.  Homosexuals are demonizing those who oppose their deviant and perverted behavior in an effort to silence the opposition.  They figure that if they cannot gain acceptance, then they will settle for characterizing criticism of homosexuals as a "phobia" - thereby shifting the focus away from their conduct and painting those who do not share their views as irrational and unbalanced.
> 
> What the homosexual support group fails to understand is the principle of backlash.  If homosexuals limited themselves to presenting rational arguments, devoid of half-truths, distortions, and personal attacks they might gain some substantial support.  But when they engage in strident, obnoxious, screeching, inflammatory rhetoric they cause others to cease listening.  When they have "gay pride" days where they prance around  with the butt cut out of their jeans, when they conduct themselves in a manner totally unacceptable in public, then they cause more and more people to say "Hell no.  This is not the kind of society I want."      *



*  And there you have it. For Christ sake, READ IT, DIVULGE IT, UNDERSTAND IT, AND THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!       *


----------



## Mariner

editing it, even if Right Wing responded within seconds of the original version. Right, I decided I didn't want to imply that people were so out of touch in the heartland--after all, I was once engaged to a heartland woman, and her family was not out of touch at all. And my best friend, though he now lives in the East, is as heartland as an be.

On the other hand, the map itself is rather remarkable--you can follow blue paths up the rivers and along the coasts. If it doesn't mean that greater exposure to diversity and ideas makes people less receptive to Bush's message, then what does it mean? Cambridge is 2/3 non-white, as is Boston. 90 languages are spoken in the school where I teach. That makes it a pretty different environment from central Oklahoma, doesn't it? (And please notice I didn't say "better," I said different.)

Mariner.


----------



## Mariner

a visit to Reno, you crack me up. Well, I give you credit for consistency.

Pale Rider. OK, I see you point. You're saying that the word homophobic itself seems to have built in prejudice, kind of like Bush's use of "death tax" for the inheritance tax. To me, and to many other people, it's just a descriptor, though--maybe you're putting ideas into our heads that aren't there? I said several times that the "mild" definition proposed on the religious tolerance website was how I intended to use the word, and others here agreed that it's frequently used that way.

Manu, if it's not a choice then maybe it's not a choice: the person simply realizes that he/she is sexually attracted to people of the same sex, in the same way those of who are straight experience our first inklings of attraction to the opposite sex. I don't know for sure--I'm not gay--but that's how my gay friends describe it. 

I have repeatedly seen the need to love one's family members overcome dislike-of-homosexuality (are you happy with that phrase, PaleRider?) I actually posted the question because there was a gay relative of my wife's at Thanksgiving--my wife's conservative parents accepted him just fine--and because last evening I talked with a couple who were strict Catholics, both of whose sons have come out as gay--the couple chose to revise their beliefs rather than reject their sons. I believe there is a one-way street here, as gay people feel more comfortable out of the closet, leading to greater acceptance of gay people in general--just as Dick Cheney can't openly criticize homosexuality any more, as it would mean condemning a daughter he loves.

OCA, if it was truly a choice that could go either way, then the rational person would want to try it both ways before deciding which was better, no? You didn't answer my question--how DID you decide?

Merlin, as for the difference between civil union and civil marriage: the problem is that the word marriage is used in current law. So to offer marriage to some couples but not to others is to discriminate. So either gov't can get out of the business of marriage, and offer everyone a civil union, or it ought to offer all couples marriage. That was the essence of the Mass. Supreme Court's ruling, which was quite eloquent and which I recommend reading.

Mariner.


----------



## musicman

Mariner:

You can't seriously believe that red states being "inland" constitutes their being cut off from the outside world - not in this day and age - not with today's technology.

If you can find it, take a look at the demographic map that breaks down which candidate carried which COUNTY. That map tells the real story. You won't have trouble recognizing it; it is far from "purple". It's a big RED doohinky with tiny little blue specks on it, where you find the major cities. It is proof positive that our founding fathers were indeed wise when they established the electoral system. City voters look at things differently from their country cousins. Why penalize the rural voter - the more self-reliant, "get Big Daddy Government out of my way" voter, simply because he is outnumbered in the tiny little clusters known as cities?

I'll credit you with having edited your post, but - face it - words that could be construed as contemptuous of those who don't share your views actually left your lips ( or, more accurately, your fingertips). Maybe you ought to get out of the city every now and then.


----------



## Merlin1047

Mariner said:
			
		

> Merlin, as for the difference between civil union and civil marriage: the problem is that the word marriage is used in current law. So to offer marriage to some couples but not to others is to discriminate. So either gov't can get out of the business of marriage, and offer everyone a civil union, or it ought to offer all couples marriage. That was the essence of the Mass. Supreme Court's ruling, which was quite eloquent and which I recommend reading.
> 
> Mariner.



That is no difference - that is merely equivocation.  And your conclusion is faulty.  You jump to the conclusion that homosexuals have a RIGHT to be married by the state merely because they WANT to be married.  Simply because one claims a certain "right" does not mean that such a "right" actually exists, or if it exists in some form, that such a "right" is protected by the Constitution.  Yes, prohibiting homosexuals from marrying is discriminatory.  But such discrimination is neither illegal nor unconstitutional.    We, as a society, have a right to determine the criteria for marriage (unions).  That has been true for centuries.  Courts have no basis for meddling in this area.  If homosexuals are to be given the privelige of married status, then that must be decided by referendum.  The decision on who has a right to be married in our society belongs to the people, not to the courts.   Homosexuals seek to subvert the will of the people by doing a sleazy end-run around the law with the assistance of liberal activist judges. 

The ruling of the Mass Supreme Court is just about as noteworthy as a ruling from the 9th circuit out in la-la-land.  Both are populated by liberals with agendas.  They do not interpret the law, they seek instead to change it to suit their own views.  Unfortunately this kind of judicial activism is becoming more common and points out the fact that we are badly in need of getting control of our rogue court system.  But that is another subject.


----------



## Merlin1047

Mariner said:
			
		

> On the other hand, the map itself is rather remarkable--you can follow blue paths up the rivers and along the coasts. If it doesn't mean that greater exposure to diversity and ideas makes people less receptive to Bush's message, then what does it mean?



Mariner, if you were familiar with the demographics of the "blue" areas along the Mississippi river, you would know that those areas contain a high percentage of black voters.  Same as the blue belt from Georgia, across central Alabama and into eastern Mississippi.

Black voters traditionally vote Democrat.  That was borne out by the statistic in the last election which showed nearly 90 percent of black people supporting kerry.

So your supposition that  those living along Old Man River are somehow more cosmopolitan and better educated was nothing more than a shot in the dark.  And you missed by a mile.


----------



## Merlin1047

Mariner said:
			
		

> I have repeatedly seen the need to love one's family members overcome dislike-of-homosexuality (are you happy with that phrase, PaleRider?) I actually posted the question because there was a gay relative of my wife's at Thanksgiving--my wife's conservative parents accepted him just fine--and because last evening I talked with a couple who were strict Catholics, both of whose sons have come out as gay--the couple chose to revise their beliefs rather than reject their sons. I believe there is a one-way street here, as gay people feel more comfortable out of the closet, leading to greater acceptance of gay people in general--just as Dick Cheney can't openly criticize homosexuality any more, as it would mean condemning a daughter he loves.



You still seem to be buying into the homosexual argument that opposition to the homosexual lifestyle amounts to hatred of homosexuals.  No doubt that is true to some extent.  But I believe that most people share my attitude.  I do not hate or despise homosexuals as individuals.  But that doesn't mean that I have to roll over and accept their lifestyle as a norm.  Nor do I have to acquiesce to their demands for acceptance and legitimacy.  I view homosexual conduct as a perversion.  But unlike many homosexuals, who seem to be unable to separate honest disagreement from hatred, I can separate my dislike of the lifestyle from my feelings about the individual.

Too damn bad most libs seem to be unable to do the same.


----------



## nakedemperor

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> And to get back on topic, let's cut to the chase about this whole homosexual marriage issue.  The bottom line is money - period.  Homosexuals want access to employer sponsored health care programs so that they have another avenue to pay for AIDS treatment.  They want access to government benefits currently limited to heterosexual married couples.  They want the benefit of reduced taxes from a joint tax return for a married couple.  THAT'S what this is all about.  They can spout about rights and equality all they want, but the bottom line is money.



Financial equality is still equality. What if we told black people that we thought their getting married was deviant and told them we weren't going to give them tax benefits, etc. for being married couples. Would they just roll over and say, 'Well, at least we have our equal rights'. 

Its only about the money. Well, lot's of things are 'only about the money' in this day and age, and money is a pretty darn big part of life these days. 

Moreover, its not just about the money. You language proves just how ignorant and disrespectful you can be in terms of gay rights. Gays want their unions to be socially and publicly recognized, JUST as hetero relationships are. This is only symbolic, yadda yadda, you might say. Well, in a stable, loving, caring relationship, having some level of acceptance from the public and from the government is a blessing and a boon, and has NOTHING to do with the monitary business. Way to reduce the benefits of a state-recognized union to greed.


----------



## nakedemperor

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> So your supposition that  those living along Old Man River are somehow more cosmopolitan and better educated was nothing more than a shot in the dark.  And you missed by a mile.



Where did he say 'better educated'? And what do you mean by 'cosmopolitan'?


----------



## OCA

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> No problem with that, but the bible isn't a perfect barometer of moral absolutes, and the bible is the impetus for many peoples' inabilities to accept homosexuality. Then again, the bible also condones slavery (as long as you treat your slaves well, and release them after 7 years, or something). Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not put it in a person's butt...? You're right, being able to fall romantically in love with someone of the same sex is OBVIOUSLY a hardline moral absolute.



You mistake romantic love for degenerate lust.


----------



## OCA

deaddude said:
			
		

> Is my using one part of the bible to make my point any worse then you using one part of the Bible to judge homosexuals?
> 
> Which testament is the homosexuality as sin thing in anyway? Also does the bible have an opinion on lesbians?



Homosexuality is mentioned as an abomination in they eyes of god many times but most prominently in the book of Romans. A practicing queer can still get to heaven but must not engage in homosexuality or lust after anyone in his heart homosexually or heterosexually(i'm as guilty as sin for undressing chicks and banging them with my eyes, the Greek in me) No HLCP can get into heaven without repenting and changing their ways, simple as that.


----------



## OCA

Mariner said:
			
		

> a visit to Reno, you crack me up. Well, I give you credit for consistency.
> 
> Pale Rider. OK, I see you point. You're saying that the word homophobic itself seems to have built in prejudice, kind of like Bush's use of "death tax" for the inheritance tax. To me, and to many other people, it's just a descriptor, though--maybe you're putting ideas into our heads that aren't there? I said several times that the "mild" definition proposed on the religious tolerance website was how I intended to use the word, and others here agreed that it's frequently used that way.
> 
> Manu, if it's not a choice then maybe it's not a choice: the person simply realizes that he/she is sexually attracted to people of the same sex, in the same way those of who are straight experience our first inklings of attraction to the opposite sex. I don't know for sure--I'm not gay--but that's how my gay friends describe it.
> 
> I have repeatedly seen the need to love one's family members overcome dislike-of-homosexuality (are you happy with that phrase, PaleRider?) I actually posted the question because there was a gay relative of my wife's at Thanksgiving--my wife's conservative parents accepted him just fine--and because last evening I talked with a couple who were strict Catholics, both of whose sons have come out as gay--the couple chose to revise their beliefs rather than reject their sons. I believe there is a one-way street here, as gay people feel more comfortable out of the closet, leading to greater acceptance of gay people in general--just as Dick Cheney can't openly criticize homosexuality any more, as it would mean condemning a daughter he loves.
> 
> OCA, if it was truly a choice that could go either way, then the rational person would want to try it both ways before deciding which was better, no? You didn't answer my question--how DID you decide?
> 
> Merlin, as for the difference between civil union and civil marriage: the problem is that the word marriage is used in current law. So to offer marriage to some couples but not to others is to discriminate. So either gov't can get out of the business of marriage, and offer everyone a civil union, or it ought to offer all couples marriage. That was the essence of the Mass. Supreme Court's ruling, which was quite eloquent and which I recommend reading.
> 
> Mariner.



I didn't decide, I follow the correct path of nature and don't try to swim upstream. There is only 1 choice, and that is the conscious choice the HLCP's make.

There is not going to be an accepotance of the HLCP's, are you not paying attention to the voting?


----------



## 5stringJeff

OCA said:
			
		

> No HLCP can get into heaven without repenting and changing their ways, simple as that.



[religion mode]

Nobody, period, can get into heaven without repentance.

[/religion mode]


----------



## OCA

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> [religion mode]
> 
> Nobody, period, can get into heaven without repentance.
> 
> [/religion mode]



Absolutely true, but hence the topic I was speaking to the HLCP's amongst us.


----------



## nakedemperor

OCA said:
			
		

> You mistake romantic love for degenerate lust.



If I were in your position, you being not gay, and hence have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about, I'd be careful about positing such inane assumptions as this. My neighbors at home are gay. They have been partners for 30 years now. They have a son who graduated last year from Brown (I met him my first year here). They are very much in love. Their son grew up in a stable, LOVING relationship, and is probably one of the better socially adjusted people I've ever met.

Degenerate lust? Right.


----------



## musicman

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Financial equality is still equality. What if we told black people that we thought their getting married was deviant and told them we weren't going to give them tax benefits, etc. for being married couples. Would they just roll over and say, 'Well, at least we have our equal rights'.
> 
> .
> 
> .





In the homosexual struggle for "equality", have you noticed how conspicuous the black voter is by his absence? That's because he has struggled against discrimination for what he IS. Homosexuals hoped to recruit him in their struggle against discrimination for what they DO. He's not having any of it, because he resents the hell out of it. I don't blame him.


----------



## Mariner

what it comes down to for you, it seems, is an inability to see homosexuals couples' feelings for one another as love, or their attraction to one another as similar to straight couples' attraction to one another. You can only do this because you refuse to believe what they actually say, or pay attention to how so many of them act--seeking stable partnerships, contributing to the community, paying taxes, raising children. That's the norm among the gay couples I know. Far from destroying the community through some perversion, they are contributing to it--immensely.

When you refuse to believe what they say, you immediately treat them as "lesser" and with disrespect, in my opinion. When you say, "It's all about money," that's more disrespect. 

OCA--you're avoiding my question: if homosexuality is a choice, how did you personally go about choosing? If you chose by following your natural feelings of attraction to women and repulsion at the idea of sex with men, then why can't you imagine that some men have the opposite experience--and imagine how awful it would be for you if some moralistic people labelled your preference a "perversion"? If you actually take a moment to listen to gay people, that's exactly what they describe.

Red/blue/purple and the rivers--you could be right, in regard to the Mississippi, Merlin, but you have to admit how isolated the really red areas are from both commerce and ethnic diversity. 

Mariner.


----------



## nakedemperor

musicman said:
			
		

> In the homosexual struggle for "equality", have you noticed how conspicuous the black voter is by his absence? That's because he has struggled against discrimination for what he IS. Homosexuals hoped to recruit him in their struggle against discrimination for what they DO. He's not having any of it, because he resents the hell out of it. I don't blame him.



So you're saying there are people who "do" homosexual stuff and people who "don't do" homosexual stuff? Come on. What homosexuals do is a function of what they are, not the other way around. I don't purport to know why some people are physically attracted to men and some to women. I'm a bisexual, and I sure as shit don't know *why* I am what I am. But I never made a "decision" to be attracted to men. Why on earth would I do that? To subject myself to ridicule and physical abuse? If its genetic or psychological, I don't know, and frankly its a moot point. 

And to generalize the way you are doing is kind of bizarre. The leader of the Gay-Straight Alliance chapter here is a black man. His absense is SHOCKING.


----------



## musicman

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> So you're saying there are people who "do" homosexual stuff and people who "don't do" homosexual stuff? Come on. What homosexuals do is a function of what they are, not the other way around. I don't purport to know why some people are physically attracted to men and some to women. I'm a bisexual, and I sure as shit don't know *why* I am what I am. But I never made a "decision" to be attracted to men. Why on earth would I do that? To subject myself to ridicule and physical abuse? If its genetic or psychological, I don't know, and frankly its a moot point.
> 
> And to generalize the way you are doing is kind of bizarre. The leader of the Gay-Straight Alliance chapter here is a black man. His absense is SHOCKING.





Come on, man. Just what point did you hope to make here - that there are black homosexuals? Thank you for that fast-breaking news flash, nakedemporer. Back to you, Dan....

You know perfectly well what I'm saying. Blacks tend to vote as a bloc, and - as a bloc - they have resoundingly rejected the overtures of homosexual activists, who hoped to draw comparisons between the "gay rights struggle" and racial discrimination. African-Americans know that their skin is black. No leap of faith is required - no elaborate scientific studies - no social engineering. All they have to do is look in the mirror. They were born with black skin, and they have struggled to achieve equality in America because of that one fact. They have been discriminated against because of what they ARE. And, as a bloc, they have demonstrated that they resent having their struggle trivialized. I don't blame them. 

Can you say - with THAT degree of certainty - that homosexuals are discriminated against because of what they are? No, you can't - and you admit as much in your post ("If it's genetic or psychological, I don't know..."). It requires leaps of faith, elaborate scientific studies, and social engineering - and still you've proven nothing.

African-Americans don't have that problem.


----------



## OCA

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> If I were in your position, you being not gay, and hence have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about, I'd be careful about positing such inane assumptions as this. My neighbors at home are gay. They have been partners for 30 years now. They have a son who graduated last year from Brown (I met him my first year here). They are very much in love. Their son grew up in a stable, LOVING relationship, and is probably one of the better socially adjusted people I've ever met.
> 
> Degenerate lust? Right.



If you were in my position? Eat shit. What the fuck do I have to be careful for? You? Shit you can't even decide between hairpie and balls across the nose. Gay people cannot have a son or a daughter, physically impossible unless they go the unnatural way which really is the only way since they are not meant to be together in the manner that is meant to raise a family. Love, no no.....lust and selfishness. I wonder how tormented the child is when a normal little boy or girl asks "why do you have two mommies or why do you have two daddies?" The thought of raising a child in a HLCP is nothing more than a political act of selfishness.


----------



## OCA

Mariner said:
			
		

> what it comes down to for you, it seems, is an inability to see homosexuals couples' feelings for one another as love, or their attraction to one another as similar to straight couples' attraction to one another. You can only do this because you refuse to believe what they actually say, or pay attention to how so many of them act--seeking stable partnerships, contributing to the community, paying taxes, raising children. That's the norm among the gay couples I know. Far from destroying the community through some perversion, they are contributing to it--immensely.
> 
> When you refuse to believe what they say, you immediately treat them as "lesser" and with disrespect, in my opinion. When you say, "It's all about money," that's more disrespect.
> 
> OCA--you're avoiding my question: if homosexuality is a choice, how did you personally go about choosing? If you chose by following your natural feelings of attraction to women and repulsion at the idea of sex with men, then why can't you imagine that some men have the opposite experience--and imagine how awful it would be for you if some moralistic people labelled your preference a "perversion"? If you actually take a moment to listen to gay people, that's exactly what they describe.
> 
> Red/blue/purple and the rivers--you could be right, in regard to the Mississippi, Merlin, but you have to admit how isolated the really red areas are from both commerce and ethnic diversity.
> 
> Mariner.



No avoidance of your question sparky you just don't like the answer. NONE OF US choose attraction to the opposite sex its as normal as the sun rising in the east or the Mississippi River flowing south, ONLY HLCP's make a choice whether consciously or subconsciously to live the dangerous lifestyle they do, they can however with help decide to also get out of that dangerous lifestyle at anytime.


----------



## 'ol Perfessor

No one in the homo lobby wants to get along. they want to get over. The truth is that the condition is treatable, ( and not by death like in Islam),but the treatment gets no pub due to the MSM agenda.


----------



## Merlin1047

Mariner said:
			
		

> what it comes down to for you, it seems, is an inability to see homosexuals couples' feelings for one another as love, or their attraction to one another as similar to straight couples' attraction to one another. You can only do this because you refuse to believe what they actually say, or pay attention to how so many of them act--seeking stable partnerships, contributing to the community, paying taxes, raising children. That's the norm among the gay couples I know. Far from destroying the community through some perversion, they are contributing to it--immensely.



I see that now we're into do-it-yourself psychoanalysis.  Wrong - I have no "inability to see homosexuals couples' feelings for one another as love".  I understand that implicitly.  What you don't understand is that this doesn't change the fact that homosexual love is still a perversion.  It is unnatural and deviant.  It is NOT something which I feel should be supported and encouraged by giving it legitimate status.  So while you try to quantify my attitudes as being emotionally and intellectually deficient, it is in fact YOU who are unable to take an objective and critical view of homosexual relationships.

And as far as homosexual couples raising children - that is something which I cannot countenance.  An impressionable child should never be allowed to be raised under such influences.



			
				Mariner said:
			
		

> When you refuse to believe what they say, you immediately treat them as "lesser" and with disrespect, in my opinion. When you say, "It's all about money," that's more disrespect.



More bullshit.  That's not disrespect, that's calling it like I see it based on what I have read and heard.  Only leftists equate honesty with disrespect.  Perhaps that's because you guys don't have much tolerance for the truth.



			
				Mariner said:
			
		

> Red/blue/purple and the rivers--you could be right, in regard to the Mississippi, Merlin, but you have to admit how isolated the really red areas are from both commerce and ethnic diversity.



I have to admit no such thing.  In your rush to denigrate conservative voters you characterize cities like Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, New Orleans, Huntsville, Atlanta, Savannah, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Birmingham, Charlotte, Mobile, Tallahassee, Pensacola etc etc etc as flaccid backwaters where straw-chewing hicks languish around collecting welfare checks.  I don't know where you're from, but apparently they don't teach much geography there.  This argument was bankrupt from the very beginning.  If you were a bit less blinded by your unwarranted assumptions you could see that.  I suggest you drop this particular angle before you throw into the crapper the little bit of credibilty you have remaining.


----------



## OCA

[QUOTE='ol Perfessor]No one in the homo lobby wants to get along. they want to get over. The truth is that the condition is treatable, ( and not by death like in Islam),but the treatment gets no pub due to the MSM agenda.[/QUOTE]

Perfessor you are 110% correct, its the dirty little secret the HLCP leadership doesn't want out.


----------



## Mariner

officially removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses and treatable conditions a long time ago. There have been plenty of studies showing that "treatment" is ineffective, and at present only a subset of fundamentalist Christian counselors even try. The other several million therapists in the U.S. would disagree wtih you.

Mariner.


----------



## 007

*RECOVERY, CHANGE & HOMOSEXUALITY
WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE TO SAY   *

by Yvette Cantu

Family Research Council


People leaving the homosexual lifestyle to recover their heterosexual identities have received considerable media attention in the past several months. Although extensive public discussion regarding this issue is a relatively new phenomenon, psychiatrists and psychologists have been helping people overcome same-sex attractions for decades. Medical doctors and mental health professionals agree that men and women struggling with homosexuality can, and do, change.


The 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association to delete homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (the APAs official list of disorders) was "not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times," according to Dr. Ronald Bayer in Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (New York: Basic Books, 1981, pp. 3-4). A 1977 survey conducted by the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality reported that 69 percent of the 10,000 psychiatrists polled considered homosexuality a pathological adaptation.


For over 70 years, prominent medical and mental health professionals have been helping people who struggle with homosexuality to lose their same-sex attractions and recover heterosexual identities. Here are statements from just a few of them:


* "There is at present sufficient evidence that in a majority of cases homosexuality can be successfully treated by psychoanalysis." 


Charles W. Socarides, M.D., Homosexuality (New York: Jason Aronson, 1978), p. 3. Positions held include clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. In 1995, he received the Distinguished Professor Award from the Association of Psychoanalytic Psychologists, British Health Service. He is the current president of National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (N.A.R.T.H.). 


* Masters and Johnson reported a 71.6 percent success rate for patients leaving homosexuality after a follow-up of six years. 


William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, Homosexuality in Perspective (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1979), pp. 402 and 408. William H. Masters obtained his M.D. from the University of Rochester. Positions held: professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology for the School of Medicine of Washington University; director of the Reproductive Biological Research Foundation; and co-director and chairman of the board of the Masters and Johnson Institute. Virginia E. Johnson obtained her M.D. from the University of Missouri. Positions held: research director of the Reproductive Biological Research Foundation and co-director of the Masters and Johnson Institute. 


* "The rate of recovery among the homosexuals treated in these groups is 49 percent."


Dr. Toby Bieber, "Group Therapy with Homosexuals," Comprehensive Group Psychotherapy, Harold I. Kaplan and Benjamin J. Saddock, eds. (Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company, 1971), p. 532. Formerly a faculty member of New York Medical College, she is now on the group-therapy faculty of the Contemporary Center for Advanced Psychoanalytic Studies in New Jersey. 


* "In nearly thirty years, I have successfully concluded analyses of one hundred homosexuals ... and have seen nearly five hundred cases in consultation. ... On the basis of the experience thus gathered, I make the positive statement that homosexuality has an excellent prognosis in psychiatric-psychoanalytic treatment of one to two years duration, with a minimum of three appointments each week provided the patient really wishes to change."


* "And cure denotes not bisexuality, but real and unfaked heterosexuality."


* "The color of a persons eyes cannot be changed therapeutically, but homosexuality can be changed by psychotherapy." 


Dr. Edmund Bergler, Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life (New York: Collier Books, 1962), pp. 176, 79, 166. Graduated Viennas Medical School and served on staff at the Freud Clinic from 1927 to 1937.


* In 1950, Dr. Anna Freud "lectured in New York on the recent advances in treatment of homosexuals, stating that many of her patients lost their inversion as a result of analysis. This occurred even in those who had proclaimed their wish to remain homosexual when entering treatment, having started only to obtain relief from their homosexual symptoms." 


Dr. Charles Socarides, "Homosexuality," American Handbook of Psychiatry, 2nd edition, Vol. 3 (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1974), p. 308. Dr. Anna Freud studied with her father, Sigmund Freud. 


* "I do not believe that there is a basic genetic homosexual tendency in man. If this were true, the cured patient would still have his homosexual needs, which he does not."


Dr. Arthur Janov, The Primal Scream (New York: Dell Publishing Company, 1970), p. 328. Positions held: psychologist and psychiatric social worker at Los Angeles Childrens Hospital and consultant to California Narcotic Outpatient Program. Developed the Primal Scream program. 


* "The myth that homosexuality is untreatable still has wide currency among the public at large and among homosexuals themselves. ... Although some gay liberationists argue that it would be preferable to help these persons accept their homosexuality, this writer is of the opinion that, if they wish to change, they deserve the opportunity to try, with all the help that psychiatry can give them. ..." 


Dr. Judd Marmor, "Homosexuality and Sexual Orientation Disturbances," Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry II, 2nd edition, (Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1975), p. 1519. Grad. Columbia University. Positions held: resident neurologist at Montefiore Hospital; president of the American Psychiatric Association; and president of American Academy of Psychoanalysis.


* "There is, nevertheless, continuing conviction among most, although not all, dynamically oriented psychiatrists in general and psychoanalysts in particular that homosexuality can and should be changed to heterosexuality."


Dr. Richard A. Isay, "Homosexuality and Psychiatry," Psychiatric News (February 7, 1992), p.3. Positions held: Clinical professor of psychiatry at Cornell Medical College and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues.

http://www.cathfam.org/Hitems/RECOVERY.html


----------



## Mariner

Pale Rider, which certainly document the extent of change within the medical profession, which mirrors the change within society. Notice how there were no controlled studies in the list. That's because there has been none showing that homosexuality is "treatable," while there have been many showing that it is not. 

The younger generation of psychiatrists (and physicians in general) would completely disagree with these quotes, and find them an embarrassing chapter in the history of the business. I know this because I teach residents and fellows in my work. And I also know enough older psychiatrists (including psychoanalysts) to say that most have disavowed their previously beliefs on this subject as it has become increasingly clear that you can't change whom someone is sexually attracted to, and that the only impediment to living a fulfilled life as a gay person is others' homophobia. 

Mariner.


----------



## OCA

Mariner said:
			
		

> officially removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses and treatable conditions a long time ago. There have been plenty of studies showing that "treatment" is ineffective, and at present only a subset of fundamentalist Christian counselors even try. The other several million therapists in the U.S. would disagree wtih you.
> 
> Mariner.



The APA removed it under financial and social pressure to do so from the HLCP leadership. There are hundred of groups formed all over the USA of recovering HLCP's. It is proven that psychological treatment is effective, the HLCP's don't want that out and will surpress it at all costs.


----------



## OCA

Mariner said:
			
		

> Pale Rider, which certainly document the extent of change within the medical profession, which mirrors the change within society. Notice how there were no controlled studies in the list. That's because there has been none showing that homosexuality is "treatable," while there have been many showing that it is not.
> 
> The younger generation of psychiatrists (and physicians in general) would completely disagree with these quotes, and find them an embarrassing chapter in the history of the business. I know this because I teach residents and fellows in my work. And I also know enough older psychiatrists (including psychoanalysts) to say that most have disavowed their previously beliefs on this subject as it has become increasingly clear that you can't change whom someone is sexually attracted to, and that the only impediment to living a fulfilled life as a gay person is others' homophobia.
> 
> Mariner.



In other words i'm going to close my eyes and bury my head in the sand because these studies do not support my position.....how typically liberal.


----------



## 007

Mariner said:
			
		

> Pale Rider, which certainly document the extent of change within the medical profession, which mirrors the change within society. Notice how there were no controlled studies in the list. That's because there has been none showing that homosexuality is "treatable," while there have been many showing that it is not.
> 
> The younger generation of psychiatrists (and physicians in general) would completely disagree with these quotes, and find them an embarrassing chapter in the history of the business. I know this because I teach residents and fellows in my work. And I also know enough older psychiatrists (including psychoanalysts) to say that most have disavowed their previously beliefs on this subject as it has become increasingly clear that you can't change whom someone is sexually attracted to, and that the only impediment to living a fulfilled life as a gay person is others' homophobia.
> 
> Mariner.



This WHOLE LAST STATEMENT by you Mariner is pure, unadulterated, bull shit, and a cop out.

Homosexuality IS treatable. There is an impressive recovery percentage for those who DO seek treatment for this embarrasing and perverted mental illness.

You only hinder progress in the direction of treatment for those who wish to be treated. You're a loud voice and advocate of the perverse and deviant behavior of the homosexual choice crowd. You're just the type of person they're looking for. However, the vast majority of Americans, and the population in general, dissagree with you.

You're entitled to think and believe as you wish. But don't come in here and try and pump us full of your _"queers can't help it, and we can't help them" _ bull shit. I don't buy it, and OBVIOUSLY, the others don't here as well.


----------



## Patriot

Mariner said:
			
		

> And I also know enough older psychiatrists (including psychoanalysts) to say that most have disavowed their previously beliefs on this subject as it has become increasingly clear that you can't change whom someone is sexually attracted to, and that the only impediment to living a fulfilled life as a gay person is others' homophobia.
> 
> Mariner.





This is incorrect especially when you have men leaving their wives for other men. I mean they where sexually attracted to them and could certainly have kids with them. Or do you and others just fuck for shits and giggles? I dont know of many men who can get an erection with out SOME sort of a remote attraction....So if they were attracted to females.......


----------



## nakedemperor

Mariner... when you get to the point where you're arguing whether or not homosexuality is an "illness", I'm not sure the discussion is still worth having at all.


----------



## Patriot

Making poor choices over and over again IS an illness!


----------



## Mariner

Saying it's a cop out doesn't make it so. Take a look at all the studies which support my position--and talk to a few psychiatrists yourself. I know dozens of them, including quite a few "bigwigs," and I know many young trainees as well as older psychoanalysts. (There are more psychiatrists in one block of West Cambridge than in the entire state of Wyoming.) I've known exactly one psychiatrist who took your position--and maybe he's now changed his mind based on the research.

Why not get over trying to fix or change other people who are not hurting you in any way? How would you feel if someone felt that you needed fixing, and aimed the kind of animosity at you that you aim towards gays?

Mariner

P.S. NE--yes, this has been an extended experiment in seeing whether an argument on this subject can actually progress.


----------



## jimnyc

Mariner said:
			
		

> Why not get over trying to fix or change other people who are not hurting you in any way? How would you feel if someone felt that you needed fixing, and aimed the kind of animosity at you that you aim towards gays?



If I was involved in acts that were vile, disgusting and abnormal & 3/4 of the nation were against such acts - I would expect some animosity. I believe homosexuality is bad for society and therefore bad for me.

Nobody was trying to "fix" anyone until the queers started trying to ram this marriage thing down our throats. I may not be able to fix the queers, but I can keep them from thinking they are like me and getting married when I vote in a NY minute against same sex marriages.


----------



## musicman

Mariner:

"There are more psychiatrists in one block of West Cambridge than in the entire state of Wyoming".

I just think that statement bears repeating.


----------



## Mariner

isn't it. When I lived in West Cambridge, my neighbors included Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer (3 doors up), the woman who coined the term "domestic violence" (across the street), Rockefellers (several doors up, where the houses got bigger), Yo Yo Ma (another big house), film-makers, one of the pre-eminent architects in the country, an investment banker, a symphony orchestra conductor... and within a mile of my house, I knew the homes of at least 30 psychiatrists. As I recall, Wyoming has 11 psychiatrists.

But hey, it seems to work: 15,500 of the 112,000 jobs created nationwide this month were created right here in Massachusetts.

Mariner.


----------



## musicman

Yep - dang that crappy Bush economy!


----------



## 007

Mariner said:
			
		

> Why not get over trying to fix or change other people who are not hurting you in any way? How would you feel if someone felt that you needed fixing, and aimed the kind of animosity at you that you aim towards gays?



And that's EXACTLY what all you bleeding heart liberal, perverted lifestyle supporters would LIKE us to do. "GET OVER IT". In other words, let the queers have their way.

Well mariner, fuck you and the liberal jackass you rode in on into this conversation. The conservative figure head is an "elephant", known for it's strength. You'll NEVER get me to "get over" ANYTHING when it comes to men fucking each other up the ass. It's a vile, disgusting, perverted, deviant, behavior, and it SHOULD NOT be pushed on good, upstanding, NORMAL people. "WE" don't like it, and "WE" don't need you sons a bitches telling us to "GET OVER IT". 

How about this... "YOU" *GET OVER   * the fact that "I'M" a heterosexual, and have NORMAL reactions to the thought of homosexual sex?

For someone touting themselves as educated and brushing elbows with high society, you sure are dumb.


----------



## Mariner

I know this belongs on another thread, but the economy just posted its worst quarter since 2002. The normal job creation rate is around 150K jobs per year, so last month's 112 is low. During Clinton's years we created over 200K per month, which Bush has done only once or twice. Face it, supply side doesn't work. Every single Bush prediction about the economy has turned out to be laughably inaccurate. Time to return from Oz to Kansas, from supply-side fantasyland to economic reality. The Emperor has no clothes.

Pale Rider: I give up--but thanks for explaining your point of view.

Mariner.


----------



## nakedemperor

Mariner said:
			
		

> The Emperor has no clothes.



Oh..Oh god..OH GOD... *runs off covering self*


----------



## musicman

Mariner said:
			
		

> I know this belongs on another thread, but the economy just posted its worst quarter since 2002. The normal job creation rate is around 150K jobs per year, so last month's 112 is low. During Clinton's years we created over 200K per month, which Bush has done only once or twice. Face it, supply side doesn't work. Every single Bush prediction about the economy has turned out to be laughably inaccurate. Time to return from Oz to Kansas, from supply-side fantasyland to economic reality. The Emperor has no clothes.
> 
> Pale Rider: I give up--but thanks for explaining your point of view.
> 
> Mariner.





Well, perhaps we'll run into one another on another thread, and you can tell me what - in your view - economic reality IS.

That would be an interesting conversation.


----------



## nakedemperor

musicman said:
			
		

> Well, perhaps we'll run into one another on another thread, and you can tell me what - in your view - economic reality IS.
> 
> That would be an interesting conversation.



Hehe. Challenge him to a duel!!  :firing:


----------



## 'ol Perfessor

The American Psychiatric Association
officially removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses and treatable conditions a long time ago. There have been plenty of studies showing that "treatment" is ineffective, and at present only a subset of fundamentalist Christian counselors even try. The other several million therapists in the U.S. would disagree wtih you.

Mariner.

The information of the treatability is available, it is suppressed by the MSM and homo lobby. The percentage of homos is brutally inflated. Ultra-liberal media is not good for you or me.


----------



## nakedemperor

[QUOTE='ol Perfessor]The information of the treatability is available, it is suppressed by the MSM and homo lobby.[/QUOTE]

Well, that and legitimate medical science.


----------



## OCA

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Well, that and legitimate medical science.



Wrong again, follow the money.


----------



## alien21010

> Wrong again, follow the money.



Ah... The irony.  A bit paranoid are we?  

But, let's just dismiss legitimate science as a massive conspiracy which would require thousands of doctors' cooperation as well as psychiatrists...  And virtually every medical school...

I don't suppose you are familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor are you?


----------



## nakedemperor

OCA said:
			
		

> Wrong again, follow the money.



It lead to Pennsylvania Avenue.. what's the next clue?


----------



## Patriot

alien21010 said:
			
		

> Ah... The irony.  A bit paranoid are we?
> 
> But, let's just dismiss legitimate science as a massive conspiracy which would require thousands of doctors' cooperation as well as psychiatrists...  And virtually every medical school...
> 
> I don't suppose you are familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor are you?




You mean the simple answer that doctors like Kinsey where bleeding heart faggots?


----------



## Mariner

some pretty high quality research into actual Americans' sex lives, and discovered some things that were quite shocking at the time but that have been confirmed by many other studies since: that significant percentages of both men and women are gay, that a remarkable number of young heterosexual men have homosexual experiences, that women have active fantasy lives and actually can enjoy sex, that a rather surprising number of people have had sexual contact with farm animals, and that extramarital affairs are amazingly common. All these things helped usher in an era of being able to talk about sex, which the Victorians had consigned to extreme secrecy. Getting angry at Kinsey for reporting these things is like shooting the messenger because you don't like his message.

Mariner.


----------



## Patriot

Mariner said:
			
		

> some pretty high quality research into actual Americans' sex lives, and discovered some things that were quite shocking at the time but that have been confirmed by many other studies since: that significant percentages of both men and women are gay, that a remarkable number of young heterosexual men have homosexual experiences, that women have active fantasy lives and actually can enjoy sex, that a rather surprising number of people have had sexual contact with farm animals, and that extramarital affairs are amazingly common. All these things helped usher in an era of being able to talk about sex, which the Victorians had consigned to extreme secrecy. Getting angry at Kinsey for reporting these things is like shooting the messenger because you don't like his message.
> 
> Mariner.




You are joking right?  You do understand that most of his test subjects were criminals and pedophiles right? And that most testing he did was illegal. You know the ones with sexual stimulation to children? Or how about the testing where he used himself as a subject? How scientific is that?

Are you really THAT naive? Or like other libs do you used stupidity as an excuse to justify your bizarre belief system? I mean if all the libs in the world said jumping over the brooklyn bridge made you a stronger, healthier, human being and we had scientific experiments to validate our point you would fall for it hook and line?


----------



## Mariner

It's kind of like Freud--filled with errors, but so deeply insightful that society is changed by it, despite itself.

I don't think scientific experiments would demonstrate that jumping off the bridge was healthy.

Mariner.


----------



## Patriot

So according to your logic Hitler, while full of errors, was deeply insightful? I guess we should have just accepted his bullshit? I mean that is what you are saying..That just because it is wrong we as a society needs to accept it as the truth and just run with it....


So question...How does following the wrong advise work for you?


----------



## Said1

Patriot said:
			
		

> So according to your logic Hitler, while full of errors, was deeply insightful? I guess we should have just accepted his bullshit? I mean that is what you are saying..That just because it is wrong we as a society needs to accept it as the truth and just run with it....
> 
> 
> So question...How does following the wrong advise work for you?



Good question, although I didn't think you would have a problem with Hitler and the whole Aryan Race "final solution" thing.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Mariner said:
			
		

> I know this belongs on another thread, but the economy just posted its worst quarter since 2002. The normal job creation rate is around 150K jobs per year, so last month's 112 is low. During Clinton's years we created over 200K per month, which Bush has done only once or twice. Face it, supply side doesn't work. Every single Bush prediction about the economy has turned out to be laughably inaccurate. Time to return from Oz to Kansas, from supply-side fantasyland to economic reality. The Emperor has no clothes.
> 
> Pale Rider: I give up--but thanks for explaining your point of view.
> 
> Mariner.



Yeah.  I guess you're too much of a wussy to put it on the thread was this discussion was actually going on, where i already decimated you.


----------



## OCA

I've come to the conclusion that ol' Mariner is just another old moral relativist without conviction unwilling to take a stand on anything, I mean that is what live and let live and it doesn't hurt anybody else really means. 

I guess you can't teach morality, you either are born with it or destined to live on the fence all your life.


----------



## 007

OCA said:
			
		

> I've come to the conclusion that ol' Mariner is just another old moral relativist without conviction unwilling to take a stand on anything, I mean that is what live and let live and it doesn't hurt anybody else really means.
> 
> I guess you can't teach morality, you either are born with it or destined to live on the fence all your life.



Hey OCA, I think mariner might be 'ole *mattskrammer* back to give his crap another whirl under another name. He sure sounds like him.


----------



## 007

Patriot said:
			
		

> So according to your logic Hitler, while full of errors, was deeply insightful? I guess we should have just accepted his bullshit? I mean that is what you are saying..That just because it is wrong we as a society needs to accept it as the truth and just run with it....
> 
> 
> So question...How does following the wrong advise work for you?



You've got this guy nailed to the floor drea. I think we've ALL got this lib nailed to the floor. It's become abundantly evident what kind of radical leftist agenda this flake mariner has.


----------



## nakedemperor

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> You've got this guy nailed to the floor drea. I think we've ALL got this lib nailed to the floor. It's become abundantly evident what kind of radical leftist agenda this flake mariner has.



First of all, from what I've seen, mariner is not at all a radical; nor is he even that far to the left. And he especially isn't flaky. Even if you don't agree with him, he's been exceedingly polite and very eloquent and prompt in providing responses to several people responding to or critiquing his arguments.


----------



## 007

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> First of all, from what I've seen, mariner is not at all a radical; nor is he even that far to the left. And he especially isn't flaky. Even if you don't agree with him, he's been exceedingly polite and very eloquent and prompt in providing responses to several people responding to or critiquing his arguments.



He's a pacifist naked. A leftist pacifist with an agenda. And you are just his type of listener.


----------



## Mariner

believe me--just look around at the wider culture to see the effects of Kinsey's research. He presaged the sexual revolution of the 60s, ending the Victorian notion that sex didn't actually exist. I'm not saying it that was good or bad, just pointing out that it happened, so that the degree of his influence shouldn't be in question. But do you guys really want to go back to the nice conservative days of ankle-length bathing suits, single-sex colleges, and backroom abortions?

Mariner.


----------



## Merlin1047

Mariner said:
			
		

> But do you guys really want to go back to the nice conservative days of ankle-length bathing suits, single-sex colleges, and backroom abortions?
> 
> Mariner.



No, but I'd like to go back to the days when a bathing suit could not be classified as "butt floss".  I'd like to go back to the days teenage girls didn't get pregnant nearly as often as they do today.  I'd like to go back to the time when it wasn't necessary to have security and metal detectors in our high schools.  I'd like to go back to a time when men and women kept their private sex lives private.  When men didn't kiss men in public and women didn't kiss women while swapping spit on national television.

I'd like to go back to the day when an honest person was prized and not seen as a sucker.  I'd like to go back to a time when a person's word meant something.  I'd like to revisit the era when a six year old boy would not have been sent home from school for sexual harrassment because he kissed a girl.  I'd like to see a return to a grading standard in our schools and have that standard applied equally to all students - before the NAACP claimed that an exam could be "racist" solely because more blacks were flunking.  I'd like, once again, to see students in our high schools forced to measure up to a standard rather than having the "standard" dumbed-down so everyone can feel good about themselves.

I'd like to go back to a time when the Democratic party was a group of people who represented idealism and service to the nation instead of the group of self-serving narcissistic perverts it has turned into.

Color me nostalgic.


----------



## Gem

Mariner,

How much do you REALLY know about Kinsey and his research?


----------



## 007

Mariner said:
			
		

> believe me--just look around at the wider culture to see the effects of Kinsey's research. He presaged the sexual revolution of the 60s, ending the Victorian notion that sex didn't actually exist. I'm not saying it that was good or bad, just pointing out that it happened, so that the degree of his influence shouldn't be in question. But do you guys really want to go back to the nice conservative days of ankle-length bathing suits, single-sex colleges, and backroom abortions?
> 
> Mariner.



This "kinsey" you keep refering to as the holy grail of sexual revolutionists wasn't anything more than a deviant, sexual quack mariner. He had a zeal for perversion.

Now if you want to talk about the sexual revolution, Hugh Hefner did more for that than any other human being on earth to date.


----------



## OCA

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Hey OCA, I think mariner might be 'ole *mattskrammer* back to give his crap another whirl under another name. He sure sounds like him.



Ahhh this hadn't occurred to me but you could be right, i'll do some checking.


----------



## nakedemperor

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> This "kinsey" you keep refering to as the holy grail of sexual revolutionists wasn't anything more than a deviant, sexual quack mariner. He had a zeal for perversion.
> 
> Now if you want to talk about the sexual revolution, Hugh Hefner did more for that than any other human being on earth to date.



I mean, pornography doesn't really have a lot to do with the sexual revolution; to conflate the natural progression of sexuality with the most iconic philanderer and sinner of United States history doesn't really do much justice to women's liberation and sexual advancements of the 20th century.


----------



## OCA

And just what the hell is the natural progression of sexuality anyway? And what the hell does women's rights have to do with any of this?


----------



## 007

OCA said:
			
		

> Ahhh this hadn't occurred to me but you could be right, i'll do some checking.



You notice all has become very quite from the mariner camp since the mention of mattskrammer. Interesting...


----------



## 007

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> I mean, pornography doesn't really have a lot to do with the sexual revolution; to conflate the natural progression of sexuality with the most iconic philanderer and sinner of United States history doesn't really do much justice to women's liberation and sexual advancements of the 20th century.



You're sure good at the goobldee gook when you want to be naked. You babbled on and said virtually nothing of substance.

Yes, Hugh Hefner did more for the "sexual revolution" than anyone else in American history. He broke the ice you might say, and many don't see what he does as porno. Now if you want to talk about porno, then you should refer to the likes of that piece of shit pig like Larry Flint and the filthy rag he publishes, then you'd be talking about pornography.


----------



## OCA

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> You notice all has become very quite from the mariner camp since the mention of mattskrammer. Interesting...



I checked but their addresses are way different from each other, the coincidences are stunning though.


----------



## hylandrdet

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> *Study Indicates Homosexual Acts Shorten Lifespan*
> 
> A new study by the Family Research Institute adds strong new evidence that homosexual acts lead to morbid sicknesses and early death.
> 
> Careful sifting of evidence from four separate databases support the conclusion that homosexual activities may shorten the persons lifespan by as much as 30 years.
> 
> Obituaries in the homosexual press along with data from two large, random sexuality surveys and a comparison of tests on IV drug users and homosexuals were used. In each case, median age of death was less than 50 years for those involved in homosexuality.
> 
> One of the studies was done in Colorado and indicated that homosexuals and IV drug users are 10 times as likely to die before age 65 than the rest of the state population.
> 
> This recent study confirms evidence published by FRI in 1993. There, 6,714 obituaries from 16 U. S. homosexual journals over a 12 year span were compared to a large sampling of regular newspaper obituaries.
> 
> Median age of death for the homosexuals was less than 45, with only 2 percent surviving past 65, while the median age for the regular population was over 70 with more than 60 percent living past 65.
> 
> Causes of early death included murder, accidents and drug abuse, but primarily sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Homosexuals were 116 times more apt to be murdered, 24 times more likely to commit suicide, 18 times more apt to die in traffic accidents.
> 
> Before the "sexual revolution," only a few STDs were even identified.
> 
> Now, AIDS is only one of more that three dozen STDs commonly seen in medical centers in the larger cities.
> 
> People addicted to both homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity now travel the world to find new thrills. They return with not only AIDS, but virulent forms of hepatitis and TB, intestinal parasites, and other diseases transmitted by the exchange of blood and other body fluids.
> 
> Gods requirement of monogamous heterosexuality contains great protection against spread of disease. Sex was designed as an expression of love between a man and woman committed to each other for life.
> 
> Using sex to chase an ever growing appetite for greater thrills creates frustrations often expressed in violence. Such a struggle for satisfaction leads to abuse of the body, breaking down its normal defenses against disease.
> 
> Today there is great national concern over the effects of tobacco. Smoking only shortens life expectancy by a few years, but we discourage it by laws and high taxes.
> 
> Yet we pass laws to protect homosexual partnerships and practices and ignore the data showing the much greater medical and social risk.
> 
> Gods way is always best. We, who are Christians, must bear witness to this truth every way possible.
> 
> 
> http://www.seafox.com/lifespan.html



One problem, before the sexual revolution?

Syphillis existed in America as early as Columbus. however, I do know where you're going with this. 

C. Everett Koop (In my opinion), the greatest Surgent General of all time, testified before congress on the issue concerning health and how it pertains to sodomy.

In his testimony, he described in graphic details the potential risk of sodomy. He explained to the commission that the anus, unlike the vagina, was not naturally designed to expand to accomidate the size of the penis, therefore, the tearing of the anal tissue could result in bleeding, thus the blood exposure. Furthermore, he also added that the natural chafing of the penis, combined with the bacteria and viruses, contained within the fecal residue, that lies within the intestinal wall of the anus, makes for an easy viral or bacterial infection. 

He, however, could not conclude that heterosexual relations are any safer because sodomy is being utilyzed in some heterosexual relationships.

So when in doubt, use a condom!


----------



## Gem

***Graphic Post Notice:  To the Easily Offended I Apologize***
Hylandrdet,

One can state that "homosexual acts" are dangerous to homosexual men in the long run because anal sex as a heterosexual act is not "the norm," while sodomy is the main way homosexual partners "have sex."  

It is unsafe and unclean whether it is done by straight or gay couples however, and all people, male or female, need to be very careful when they decide to participate in sodomy.

However, what the studies have found more in the case of homosexual couples than straight ones, is that homosexual men have a tendency to have a high number of sexual partners, and they perform sodomy with a much higher number of people than straight people earlier on, more frequently, and more often unprotected (to be crude, but straight men  don't often try to have anal sex with a girl on the second date unless they are uninterested in a third!).

This is not a discovery that the homosexual community needs to be defensive about.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the anus is a dirty place, feces is teeming with living bacteria...so sticking a sensitive, thin-skinned, easily tearable organ in a sensitive, thin-skinned, easily-terrible orifice that happens to be covered in bacteria is probably not the safest activity that two people can participate in.  When you increase the number of people and down play the safety procedures...the risk compunds...hence the results of the study.

While I have no problem believing the outcome of this study, I do agree with your main point...SAFE SEX is key.


----------



## musicman

Sex is supposed to be the ultimate expression of romantic love. I don't know why people have to get all shitty about it.


----------



## musicman

So, the greatest Surgeon General of all time concluded that rolling around in feces is dangerous. I'm glad THAT'S cleared up. And, all this time, we poor, backward simple folk have just been going on common sense and faith.

Help me out here, though, will you? All these brilliant, scientific types seem to be able to use the terms "sodomy" and "safe sex" in the same sentence - with a straight face, yet.

Tell me - what is the SAFE way to roll around in feces?


----------



## no1tovote4

musicman said:
			
		

> So, the greatest Surgeon General of all time concluded that rolling around in feces is dangerous. I'm glad THAT'S cleared up. And, all this time, we poor, backward simple folk have just been going on common sense and faith.
> 
> Help me out here, though, will you? All these brilliant, scientific types seem to be able to use the terms "sodomy" and "safe sex" in the same sentence - with a straight face, yet.
> 
> Tell me - what is the SAFE way to roll around in feces?




Well I figure if you wrap it up then you don't usually get feces on it...



Can't imagine why I'd try it though.  But heck, whatever turns your crank...


----------



## musicman

I would figure "not rolling around in feces" is the best way not to get feces on it. Beats all the wrapping in the world.


----------



## no1tovote4

musicman said:
			
		

> I would figure "not rolling around in feces" is the best way not to get feces on it. Beats all the wrapping in the world.




Well yeah...

But heck if they want to do it, it is their choice.  I can't see any reason to stop them.


----------



## dilloduck

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Well yeah...
> 
> But heck if they want to do it, it is their choice.  I can't see any reason to stop them.



Being a minority has never been a really "safe" enterprise no matter how you slice it.


----------



## hylandrdet

Gem said:
			
		

> ***Graphic Post Notice:  To the Easily Offended I Apologize***
> Hylandrdet,
> 
> One can state that "homosexual acts" are dangerous to homosexual men in the long run because anal sex as a heterosexual act is not "the norm," while sodomy is the main way homosexual partners "have sex."
> 
> It is unsafe and unclean whether it is done by straight or gay couples however, and all people, male or female, need to be very careful when they decide to participate in sodomy.
> 
> However, what the studies have found more in the case of homosexual couples than straight ones, is that homosexual men have a tendency to have a high number of sexual partners, and they perform sodomy with a much higher number of people than straight people earlier on, more frequently, and more often unprotected (to be crude, but straight men  don't often try to have anal sex with a girl on the second date unless they are uninterested in a third!).
> 
> This is not a discovery that the homosexual community needs to be defensive about.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the anus is a dirty place, feces is teeming with living bacteria...so sticking a sensitive, thin-skinned, easily tearable organ in a sensitive, thin-skinned, easily-terrible orifice that happens to be covered in bacteria is probably not the safest activity that two people can participate in.  When you increase the number of people and down play the safety procedures...the risk compunds...hence the results of the study.
> 
> While I have no problem believing the outcome of this study, I do agree with your main point...SAFE SEX is key.



Outstanding post; you're starting to understand the methods to my "madness".


----------



## 007

hylandrdet said:
			
		

> Outstanding post; you're starting to understand the methods to my "madness".



We know you're mad, but I have yet to see any method.

Quite simply, Gem has espoused her understanding of why the homosexual lifestyle choice is more dangerous to ones health, by and whole, based off the sexual acts of homosexuals, compared to heterosexuals.

It is the arguements of those defending the perverted homosexual acts that are confusing and hard to comprehend.


----------

