Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-04-2013, 01:56 PM   #26
finglobes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackschmittusa View Post
finglobes

Let me know if I understand you right. You believe that AIDS is part of an environmental change that will weed out gay people from the general population? This is your "natural correction".
AIDS is directly correlated to bad hygiene and unhygienic sexual practices. That's a reason why it spread in Africa more there than anywhere else. If a person knowingly drank water from a sewer and got sick there would be no surprise about it. In big cities you have a segment of the population that routinely practices unhygienic sex with many partners (often random). This is a disease conducive scenario. That's why the homosexual population leads by a lot in disease cases (AIDS, hepetitis, STDs etc). Researchers in San Fran have feared have feared several diseases combining in the gay population. Its just a big petri dish in many ways. Like bacteria infections if you keep trying to fix problem with medicine without fixing underlying issue sooner or latter a worse disease comes up. We see that with bacteria and antibiotics. The same will be true of AIDS. Something worse will come up.

As for the "correction" that would not be just about the disease and the people who cause it. It would be about all the systems in society and those who allowed them to deteriorate. In last 50 yrs the libs ruined the black family. Where 65% of prison inmates were white in the 1950s they are now mostly black. A high illegitimacy promotes a high crime rate (its not poverty because there was more of that pre-60s and never the crime). Now there are millions of basically anti-social types who will look to have their way as America economy gets euthanized by Obama and Dems. The big cities will be a nightmare at some point. The liberal metrosexuals wil find themselves at the mercy of the street gangs they created. So you see its not just about the disease or the gays. In real ways the enablers who know better are worse than the people with the compulsive behaviour.
finglobes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:04 PM   #27
Charles Kozierok
Elite Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,762
Default

One of the simplest and most reliable ways of combatting STDs is monogamy.

Gay marriage opponents who talk about AIDS are being transparently disingenuous.
__________________
"Of those who say nothing, few are silent." -- Thomas Neill
Charles Kozierok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:17 PM   #28
First
Diamond Member
 
First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by finglobes View Post
Gay marriage is a mutation that only takes place in an unhealthy social organism. Its no accident gay marriage is cropping up just as America is crashing and burning. First normal marriage was debased ("Its just a piece of paper!") and now its reincarnated as the most special thing in the world - but for homosexuals. I mean its all farce. Any day there will be a new AIDS from the gay populations except everyone might catch that disease and then their will be rage. Just like market bubbles nature and society make corrections and when it does it can be catastrophic. Clock is ticking.
There is so much fail here, I mean wow, I didn't think people were honestly this far gone from reality.
First is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:46 PM   #29
Nintendesert
Diamond Member
 
Nintendesert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LOLorado.
Posts: 7,761
Default

Had the gay movement gone after civil unions instead of trying to jab every religious person in the eye and call it gay marriage there wouldn't be nearly as much opposition as there is now.

The gay community needs monogamy for many reasons and should already be here had it not been for the militant wings of the gay community trying to spite others.
__________________
TFP4Life!
Nintendesert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 05:53 PM   #30
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok View Post
One of the simplest and most reliable ways of combatting STDs is monogamy.

Gay marriage opponents who talk about AIDS are being transparently disingenuous.
Yep, agreed.

Having more gay marriges won't bring more "love" into the world, though, as some proponents like to argue. Love isn't exclusive to marriage.
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 07:01 PM   #31
werepossum
Lifer
 
werepossum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 19,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
Yep, agreed.

Having more gay marriges won't bring more "love" into the world, though, as some proponents like to argue. Love isn't exclusive to marriage.
More love, no. More security and structure, yes.
__________________
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know,
72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the
tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you
guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy - Barack Hussein Obama
werepossum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 07:19 PM   #32
sandorski
No Lifer
 
sandorski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: coquitlam, bc
Posts: 56,999
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendesert View Post
Had the gay movement gone after civil unions instead of trying to jab every religious person in the eye and call it gay marriage there wouldn't be nearly as much opposition as there is now.

The gay community needs monogamy for many reasons and should already be here had it not been for the militant wings of the gay community trying to spite others.
Ridiculous.
__________________

FX 8320@4ghz||Zalman LQ310||AsusM5A99X EVO R2
||XFX 5870 1gb||16gb Corsair Vengeance DDR3||Seasonic M12 II 500watts||Zalman Z9 Plus||Asus MS238H

Science inspires us towards a better tomorrow, Fundamentalism wants us to die.
sandorski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 07:38 PM   #33
werepossum
Lifer
 
werepossum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 19,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendesert View Post
Had the gay movement gone after civil unions instead of trying to jab every religious person in the eye and call it gay marriage there wouldn't be nearly as much opposition as there is now.

The gay community needs monogamy for many reasons and should already be here had it not been for the militant wings of the gay community trying to spite others.
We went through that with blacks, too. Separate but equal is never equal, else there would be no reason to be separate, and it just leads to eternal litigation and irritating marches keeping me from driving cross-town. Personally I'm heartily tired of this whole debate and, just as with blacks, the best way to stop someone from complaining about discrimination is to stop discriminating. It ain't perfect, but it works for most people most of the time.

I don't care if my neighbor's spouse is an innee or an outee and I live next to him. I fail to see why government should be so concerned on my behalf.
__________________
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know,
72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the
tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you
guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy - Barack Hussein Obama
werepossum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 07:42 PM   #34
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by werepossum View Post
More love, no. More security and structure, yes.
Again, depends on the attitude of the parents. Like I said earlier about attitudes, my wife and I have good structure and security because we value each other and the institute of marriage. Freinds of mine (hetero) enjoy strong, secure marriages. You don't need to be gay to have a secure, structured marriage.

As much as I like you and respect your views, this is a strawman at its finest.
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 07:48 PM   #35
Nintendesert
Diamond Member
 
Nintendesert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LOLorado.
Posts: 7,761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by werepossum View Post
We went through that with blacks, too. Separate but equal is never equal, else there would be no reason to be separate, and it just leads to eternal litigation and irritating marches keeping me from driving cross-town. Personally I'm heartily tired of this whole debate and, just as with blacks, the best way to stop someone from complaining about discrimination is to stop discriminating. It ain't perfect, but it works for most people most of the time.

I don't care if my neighbor's spouse is an innee or an outee and I live next to him. I fail to see why government should be so concerned on my behalf.


It's not even close. They would both have all the same function within the legal system and government recognition and just bypass the religious marriage stuff.

Whether or not gay "marriage" is allowed in a church is up to a church. Keep the Justice of the Peace and civil unions with the state and leave the rest to the religions to recognize or not as they see fit.

Instead the gay community let the radical flamboyant branch of the movement, the one that has daddy issues and recognition issues and needs to flaunt their homosexuality in everyone's face with ridiculous outfits and outlandish lisps, take over and make the process that much more difficult.
__________________
TFP4Life!
Nintendesert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 07:57 PM   #36
actuarial
Platinum Member
 
actuarial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,810
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
Again, depends on the attitude of the parents. Like I said earlier about attitudes, my wife and I have good structure and security because we value each other and the institute of marriage. Freinds of mine (hetero) enjoy strong, secure marriages. You don't need to be gay to have a secure, structured marriage.

As much as I like you and respect your views, this is a strawman at its finest.
You completely misread his post.

He didn't say you need to be gay to have a secure, structured marriage. He said those who were married have more secure, structured relationships than those who are not married.

werepossum: I apologize if I have inaccurately paraphrased here.
actuarial is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 07:59 PM   #37
actuarial
Platinum Member
 
actuarial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,810
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendesert View Post
It's not even close. They would both have all the same function within the legal system and government recognition and just bypass the religious marriage stuff.

Whether or not gay "marriage" is allowed in a church is up to a church. Keep the Justice of the Peace and civil unions with the state and leave the rest to the religions to recognize or not as they see fit.

Instead the gay community let the radical flamboyant branch of the movement, the one that has daddy issues and recognition issues and needs to flaunt their homosexuality in everyone's face with ridiculous outfits and outlandish lisps, take over and make the process that much more difficult.
If that was the case then why is my non religious hetero union called a marriage? Marriage was abandoned as a religious term a long time ago.
actuarial is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 08:00 PM   #38
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by actuarial View Post
You completely misread his post.

He didn't say you need to be gay to have a secure, structured marriage. He said those who were married have more secure, structured relationships than those who are not married.

werepossum: I apologize if I have inaccurately paraphrased here.

I don't think so because he responded to my gay marriage = more love comment.

I could be wrong, though.
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 08:26 PM   #39
werepossum
Lifer
 
werepossum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 19,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by actuarial View Post
You completely misread his post.

He didn't say you need to be gay to have a secure, structured marriage. He said those who were married have more secure, structured relationships than those who are not married.

werepossum: I apologize if I have inaccurately paraphrased here.
Nope, you're spot-on. Not more love, but more secure, structured relationships.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
I don't think so because he responded to my gay marriage = more love comment.

I could be wrong, though.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I don't believe that being gay has any advantage in love or stability over straight couples. In fact, statistically I'd bet gay couples have less stability and structure, in part because of a lack of clearly defined roles and in part because as a society we tend to screw them up. (Partly by our stressing them but also because of the radical gay wing which emphasizes things which produce less stability and structure. A friend has a son who is gay; his family church has held exorcisms to "pray out the gay demon" and finally excommunicated him. Having your loved ones tell you you are broken, let alone evil and demon-ridden, messes you up. Ditto with "gay leaders" telling you you should be having anonymous sex with strangers. Gay people get very bad influences from both sides.)

My point was that although gay marriage doesn't produce more love, it does allow gay couples who so choose to have more stability and structure by granting tax benefits, the security of mutual legal rights, societal recognition of the bond, and formalization of the relationship. By allowing gay couples to legally marry and formalize their relationship, we also give added stability and structure to our society, changing some cohabitation situations into marriages. If one believes that marriage adds stability to society - and I do, especially when rearing children - then restricting it from otherwise competent adults reduces the overall benefit to society as well as to the individuals.
__________________
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know,
72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the
tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you
guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy - Barack Hussein Obama
werepossum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 08:32 PM   #40
werepossum
Lifer
 
werepossum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 19,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendesert View Post
It's not even close. They would both have all the same function within the legal system and government recognition and just bypass the religious marriage stuff.

Whether or not gay "marriage" is allowed in a church is up to a church. Keep the Justice of the Peace and civil unions with the state and leave the rest to the religions to recognize or not as they see fit.

Instead the gay community let the radical flamboyant branch of the movement, the one that has daddy issues and recognition issues and needs to flaunt their homosexuality in everyone's face with ridiculous outfits and outlandish lisps, take over and make the process that much more difficult.
I have no problem with government getting out of the marriage business and recognizing only civil unions for all, although it seems to me that's a cop-out and unnecessary just to protect a word. But if we're to have marriage for heteros and civil unions for gays, then we're faced with a never-ending legislative battle as one side tries to get special rights for "real marriage" and the other side tries to fight it.
__________________
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know,
72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the
tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you
guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy - Barack Hussein Obama
werepossum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 07:35 AM   #41
zsdersw
Lifer
 
zsdersw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The vicinity of an area adjacent to a location
Posts: 10,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendesert View Post
It's not even close. They would both have all the same function within the legal system and government recognition and just bypass the religious marriage stuff.

Whether or not gay "marriage" is allowed in a church is up to a church. Keep the Justice of the Peace and civil unions with the state and leave the rest to the religions to recognize or not as they see fit.
Oh please... this is, as werepossum said, the mother of all cop-outs. Where was your proposal to get the government out of the marriage business and into the civil union business before people started talking about gay marriage?

No one is and no one was ever talking about forcing religious institutions to perform or recognize gay weddings.

Quote:
Instead the gay community let the radical flamboyant branch of the movement, the one that has daddy issues and recognition issues and needs to flaunt their homosexuality in everyone's face with ridiculous outfits and outlandish lisps, take over and make the process that much more difficult.
You and your ilk who feel threatened by stuff "flaunted" in your face need to get over yourselves... and grow up.

The Puritanical (aka: ignorant nonsense) attitude in this country toward nudity and the spectrum of sexual pleasures/tastes is something we're better off for losing. It is not something to covet or protect.
__________________
Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool -Mark Twain

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand -Milton Friedman

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -Robert J. Hanlon

Last edited by zsdersw; 01-07-2013 at 07:39 AM.
zsdersw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 07:40 AM   #42
zsdersw
Lifer
 
zsdersw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The vicinity of an area adjacent to a location
Posts: 10,560
Default

I have a question for all of the same-sex marriage opponents: How many homosexual/bisexual people do you personally know?
__________________
Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool -Mark Twain

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand -Milton Friedman

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -Robert J. Hanlon
zsdersw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 07:46 AM   #43
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zsdersw View Post
I have a question for all of the same-sex marriage opponents: How many homosexual/bisexual people do you personally know?
I only knew one former (let's not make this about that, please -- just wanted to mention the pertinent detail) homosexual guy about 15 years ago. Good person, a dude I had no issues with. He died about that time.

Why?
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 07:51 AM   #44
zsdersw
Lifer
 
zsdersw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The vicinity of an area adjacent to a location
Posts: 10,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
I only knew one former (let's not make this about that, please -- just wanted to mention the pertinent detail) homosexual guy about 15 years ago. Good person, a dude I had no issues with. He died about that time.

Why?
Because it is far better to speak about an issue from an experienced perspective than from an ignorant one.

If you're (not you specifically but SSM opponents in general) going to make generalizations and accusations about, and advocate restrictions upon, a group of people you should at least be familiar with that group of people.
__________________
Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool -Mark Twain

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand -Milton Friedman

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -Robert J. Hanlon
zsdersw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 08:03 AM   #45
nehalem256
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 14,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendesert View Post
Had the gay movement gone after civil unions instead of trying to jab every religious person in the eye and call it gay marriage there wouldn't be nearly as much opposition as there is now.

The gay community needs monogamy for many reasons and should already be here had it not been for the militant wings of the gay community trying to spite others.
This was covered in another thread. Maryland did this, and someone complained that it still wasn't equal because private institutions could then not be forced to recognize gays civil unions as the same as straight marriages.

Which of course is in direct contradiction to the idea that gay marriage does not affect anyone else.
nehalem256 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 08:04 AM   #46
nehalem256
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 14,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by actuarial View Post
If that was the case then why is my non religious hetero union called a marriage? Marriage was abandoned as a religious term a long time ago.
For the same reason that marriage exists in Japan, China, India, Ukraine, etc.

Marriage is not a Christian institution.
nehalem256 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 08:07 AM   #47
Retro Rob
Diamond Member
 
Retro Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: A location near you!!
Posts: 5,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zsdersw View Post
Because it is far better to speak about an issue from an experienced perspective than from an ignorant one.

If you're (not you specifically but SSM opponents in general) going to make generalizations and accusations about, and advocate restrictions upon, a group of people you should at least be familiar with that group of people.
I don't understand what's so different about them that's different from us from an individual standpoint. They're people.

We need to stop making this about love and peace and unity, becasue that isn't what this is about, IMO. It's only about getting the benefits that hetero couples (married) gets, and having a little "in yo face" factor in it. Plain and simple. Gay people care less about whether people accept them or not. I don't blame them, to be honest. I don't think they care about uniting the country -- they only want want what hetero couples have.

They and we understand that there will always be a divide, just like both whites and blacks will never completely abolish the race issue, IMO.

As far as I am concerned, it won't bother me any because I am not dead-set on "fighting against ssm". Like I've said in previous threads, no.. I don't agree with it, but shucks, if it's passed, it's passed. I really couldn't care less. Has zero affect on me.
Retro Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 08:08 AM   #48
zsdersw
Lifer
 
zsdersw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The vicinity of an area adjacent to a location
Posts: 10,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nehalem256 View Post
This was covered in another thread. Maryland did this, and someone complained that it still wasn't equal because private institutions could then not be forced to recognize gays civil unions as the same as straight marriages.

Which of course is in direct contradiction to the idea that gay marriage does not affect anyone else.
"Someone complaining" doesn't mean gay marriages affect those who aren't involved in them.

By the way, how many gay people do you know? If your opinions on this and other GLBT issues is any indication, that number is probably zero.
__________________
Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool -Mark Twain

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand -Milton Friedman

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -Robert J. Hanlon

Last edited by zsdersw; 01-07-2013 at 08:23 AM.
zsdersw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 08:18 AM   #49
zsdersw
Lifer
 
zsdersw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The vicinity of an area adjacent to a location
Posts: 10,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob M. View Post
I don't understand what's so different about them that's different from us from an individual standpoint. They're people.

We need to stop making this about love and peace and unity, becasue that isn't what this is about, IMO. It's only about getting the benefits that hetero couples (married) gets, and having a little "in yo face" factor in it. Plain and simple. Gay people care less about whether people accept them or not. I don't blame them, to be honest. I don't think they care about uniting the country -- they only want want what hetero couples have.
The bold part is particularly wrong. The only way it can be "in your face" is if you let it. Everyone else is more secure in their sexuality and their relationships.
__________________
Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool -Mark Twain

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand -Milton Friedman

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -Robert J. Hanlon
zsdersw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 08:20 AM   #50
OBLAMA2009
Diamond Member
 
OBLAMA2009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,146
Default

theres only one thing more disgusting that two dudes marrying, and that is phony religious people imposing their medieval "morality" on the rest of society

there should just be a single law that says people can do whatever they want. if youre gonna allow dudes to marry you at least ought to be allowing heterosexual polygamy and bestiality

Last edited by OBLAMA2009; 01-07-2013 at 08:23 AM.
OBLAMA2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.