"I'm gay and I'm voting No. Here's why." (Anti-Gay Propaganda)

[K1052]

Great, we agree that the gay lifestyle leads to more disease.

It is of concern to me though, like the meth argument. Do you do meth? If you don't, I don't see how that would be of the slightest concern to you personally. I guess that makes it ok?

Lots of things lead to more disease in a purely statistical sense. What other harmful activities do you propose to address? Obesity, alcoholism, industrialization, technology? Or are you just drawing a line at gays because you think their sex is icky?

 

[Gizmo j]

Interestingly, rates of STDs have been going up because an increasing number of hetero people believe they don't need a condom because they're having hetero sex and you can't get STDs through hetero sex.

My argument was that hetero sex is just as dangerous as gay sex....

The red herring is you trying to pass off men having sex with men as harmless. Your reasoning why gays are thinking they don't need condoms is equal to saying smokers have no idea about lung cancer.

So if gays wore condoms sex would be safer... yeah great. And if worms had guns, birds wouldn't eat them. Both are not happening. You are totally passing over reality - what is actually happening, and the fact is, that is leading a homosexual lifestyle is WAY more prone to disease. Here is a good summary:

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

ANY disease that can be obtained through anal and oral sex can JUST AS EASILY be past through penile/vaginal sex.

I will say this one more time in case you didn't get it the other times.

Heterosexual men who either had a vasectomy or testicular cancer have a much higher chance of having a STD, the reason for this is because many of these men believe they do not need a condom because they cannot impregnate a woman which makes it more likely for them to catch a STD. Its the same thing with gay men, many of them believe that because neither of them can get pregnant they do not need a condom which makes it easier to spread diseases.

 

[Vaux]

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

ANY disease that can be obtained through anal and oral sex can JUST AS EASILY be past through penile/vaginal sex.

I will say this one more time in case you didn't get it the other times

You are the one not getting it. I know how disease gets passed. Apparently you are the one that does not understand that the gays are way more high risk and are many many times more likely to receive and pass them because of their sexual habits.

And also, about your doctor and farmers analogy - doctors can still grow food, but gays can't reproduce thus the point of the analogy that all of humanity would cease to exist... so yeah you get the facepalm.

 

[K1052]

YApparently you are the one that does not understand that the gays are the ones passing the vast majority of them and are many many times more likely to receive and pass them because of their sexual habits.

Demonstrably untrue. Gays are not responsible for a majority of STIs. Their rate of incidence per capita may be higher than some segments of the population but they in no way account for an overall majority of cases. You're just making stuff up at this point.

 

[Vaux]

Lots of things lead to more disease in a purely statistical sense. What other harmful activities do you propose to address? Obesity, alcoholism, industrialization, technology? Or are you just drawing a line at gays because you think their sex is icky?

I'm just saying the gay lifestyle should not be celebrated like it is. I would say that anything that if the entire population did it would lead to the death of the human race, well that would be a bad thing to do. So pick whatever you want and add it to the list.

 

[K1052]

I'm just saying the gay lifestyle should not be celebrated like it is. I would say that anything that if the entire population did it would lead to the death of the human race, well that would be a bad thing to do. So pick whatever you want and add it to the list.

Why? Does it threaten your own sexuality or masculinity in some way? Seems like this is more a you problem than everyone else's problem. Nobody is requiring you to celebrate anything and it affects you in no tangible way.

 

[Vaux]

Demonstrably untrue. Gays are not responsible for a majority of STIs. Their rate of incidence per capita may be higher than some segments of the population but they in no way account for an overall majority of cases. You're just making stuff up at this point.

No you're right about that I misspoke, the percentage of the gay population is low. It's the risk I was referring to.

 

[Vaux]

Why? Does it threaten your own sexuality or masculinity in some way? Seems like this is more a you problem than everyone else's problem. Nobody is requiring you to celebrate anything and it affects you in no tangible way.

Nobody is requiring me to take meth, but I still condemn it. Let's not pretend like you don't have opinions on things that don't immediately affect you, either. Everyone does.

 

[K1052]

Nobody is requiring me to take meth, but I still condemn it. Let's not pretend like you don't have opinions on things that don't immediately affect you, either. Everyone does.

Oral sex is also not natural and increases disease. Should we condemn blowjobs and cunnilingus?

My overarching point is that all sexual activity includes risk across the spectrum. Men (even heterosexual ones) typically have more partners and thus a higher incidence of STIs. It merely follows that gay men will have yet higher incidence for the same reasons.

Of course I have opinions on things that don't immedately affect me. Everybody does. I do try to use conversation and introspection to question why I may hold that opinion and is it logical. The slippery slope argument that my acceptance of gay sex is tantamount to endorsing meth use is pretty absurd.

 

[werepossum]

My argument was that hetero sex is just as dangerous as gay sex....


GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

ANY disease that can be obtained through anal and oral sex can JUST AS EASILY be past through penile/vaginal sex.

I will say this one more time in case you didn't get it the other times.

Heterosexual men who either had a vasectomy or testicular cancer have a much higher chance of having a STD, the reason for this is because many of these men believe they do not need a condom because they cannot impregnate a woman which makes it more likely for them to catch a STD. Its the same thing with gay men, many of them believe that because neither of them can get pregnant they do not need a condom which makes it easier to spread diseases.

The bolded is simply not true. Anal sex whether gay or straight more easily spreads disease because the anus and rectum are not designed for intercourse, lacking natural lubrication and having very thin separations from vascular tissue.

It's also worth pointing out that whatever the pathology of a sexually transmitted disease, human behavior is always the biggest factor. Your biggest risk factor will always be whether your partner has an STD, not exactly how you mash your naughty bits together.

Beyond that, virtually everyone has some contributing factor to disease which is higher than the norm. If we start concentrating on one particular group, especially a small minority, then in good conscience we should concentrate on them all. I don't think anyone could consider that to be limited government - or freedom. Who wants to see motorcycles banned because they are more dangerous than cars? Who wants to see skiing or bicycling or hiking banned because they are more dangerous than doing government-designed exercises in a safe, government-supervised gym?

 

[werepossum]

Oral sex is also not natural and increases disease. Should we condemn blowjobs and cunnilingus?

My overarching point is that all sexual activity includes risk across the spectrum. Men (even heterosexual ones) typically have more partners and thus a higher incidence of STIs. It merely follows that gay men will have yet higher incidence for the same reasons.

Of course I have opinions on things that don't immedately affect me. Everybody does. I do try to use conversation and introspection to question why I may hold that opinion and is it logical. The slippery slope argument that my acceptance of gay sex is tantamount to endorsing meth use is pretty absurd.

Good post. Everybody says use a condom. Well, either a condom isn't going to fully protect you, or you're not doing your job properly. The biggest issue is whether your partner has an STD, which comes down to not sticking your wick in unknown sockets. Testing, and trust, should be key in the 21st century. And yes, men of all bents will have more STDs. Always have, always will, with the exclusion of hookers anyway.

Luckily for me I matured in that golden age when herpes and AIDS were not yet known and you could not catch anything not easily curable. I feel sorry for you kids today.

 

[nickqt]

Good post. Everybody says use a condom. Well, either a condom isn't going to fully protect you, or you're not doing your job properly. The biggest issue is whether your partner has an STD, which comes down to not sticking your wick in unknown sockets. Testing, and trust, should be key in the 21st century. And yes, men of all bents will have more STDs. Always have, always will, with the exclusion of hookers anyway.

Luckily for me I matured in that golden age when herpes and AIDS were not yet known and you could not catch anything not easily curable. I feel sorry for you kids today.

Herpes isn't some new disease that just popped up a few years ago.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs400/en/

Most people with a herpes infection don't even know they're infected.

Might want to go get tested.

 

[mikeymikec]

You are the one not getting it. I know how disease gets passed. Apparently you are the one that does not understand that the gays are way more high risk and are many many times more likely to receive and pass them because of their sexual habits.

So in a thread about marriage: you know, the institution that almost exclusively revolves around monogamy, you're complaining that some people are more promiscuous than others?

An equally illogical argument would be to say that marriage shouldn't exist because some people prefer one-night-stands.

 

[SlickSnake]

There is a retarded new YouTube channel called "Mothers and Fathers Matter".

As you probably guessed the comments and ratings are disabled in every one of their videos.

They made a video featuring gay men claiming marriage is solely based upon children and that its wrong for same-sex couples to adopt or conceive children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6HD8KLQBvA

They give 2 stupid arguments, the first is nothing new its the old "You need both genders to raise children" spiel which is a bad argument because there are tons of single parents and no one is petitioning that kids should be taken away from there single parent.

The second argument is that if a gay couple attempts surrogacy there are cases where there are custody battles between the parents and the surrogate mother, even though custody battles happen all the time with male+female parents.

Of course they are. Because the Christian religious nutters don't have to defend their warped, religious viewpoints to anyone but God. Just like the fanatical Islamics. Any religious fundies honestly think they are morally superior to everyone else (see Duck Dynasty, The Duggars, Westboro, et all) and so God gives them a free pass to oppress and attack gays and anyone else they disagree with. And of course, they don't show any gay women coughing up this crap on this video, because a sane gay woman would already know better, since she can clearly have kids and still be gay.

And does anyone honestly believe these "actors" are really gay? Seriously? Maybe there are gay men who don't want to get married, ever, but still, I NEVER saw a SANE gay person make those kinds of claims that weren't obviously being brainwashed and manipulated by a church, which these paid shills obviously are.

By comparison, this load of crap is a lot more realistic and believable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awyb2Bzs4XE

 

[SlickSnake]

Don't know how much credence I give this, but in a diverse world, you're bound to find diverse opinions...even among people for the same general cause.

Lets put it this way, would you want to put your junk into that first guys nasty mouth full of yellowed and broken teeth? I'm guessing that for 95% of the male gays out there, the answer would be a resounding NO, even if another gay had a similar snaggle toothed problem to this gay poser. And no gay male in his right mind would also parade around on Youtube with a nasty, unkempt beard looking like a hot mess of vomit like that, seriously, which means he is probably 100% straight, just like the other weirdly gay poser is.

 

[SlickSnake]

The biology argument is central and right on. Imagine people saying walking on hands is "equal" to walking on legs and suing everything in site to make accomodations - and forcing kids to accept "arm walking equality" . That would be abusive. Kids also know boys kissing each other is wierd. Making them accept it is also psychologically abusive. Of course lots of faux studies show up in media trying to suggest homosexual parents are even better than normal but all such studies fail to stand up to scrutiny. Indeed "homophobia" itself is a contorted term since it implies a mental disorder that would be involuntary.

A Really Important Psychology Study Used Faked Data

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/05/really-important-psych-study-used-faked-data.html

I think all kissing is weird, frankly. I never liked mouth to mouth tongue kissing either sex. Maybe it's psychological brainwashing against kissing men, or maybe I just think it's gross. Now, a harmless, closed mouth peck on the lips is acceptable for any sex.

And I also think muff diving is gross, and plenty of straight (and gay) people also must agree with me, so because of biology, does that mean anti-muffdivers are all really gay? What a ridiculous argument you are making. And even grown men kiss other male relatives all the time. If you kiss your son goodnight, that's considered weird? So tell us the truth, do you get aroused when you see 2 men kiss? Because for me, mouth to mouth kissing does nothing for me at all.

Also, you pointed out a mental disorder like homophobia would be involuntary and not voluntary? How so? Because I never thought that. I figured that being a hateful bigot was usually completely voluntary.

Meanwhile, there's the fact that most of the compendium of psychological and psychiatric books out there are usually nothing more than author driven fluff pieces with various generalized observations about human conditions and various random opinions attached (and even heavily religiously biased opinions masquerading as science at that). So all these variously biased psychology books and even all the biased psych studies should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism. And also don't forget that the scientist or doctor promoting a psych agenda, such as a gay one, will inevitably try to confirm whatever he thinks is right, which is an already flawed and biased perspective from the start. And the vast majority of junk science out there about homosexuality is being heavily funded by the religious right and even the feds (no surprises there), and the bias goes so far as infecting entire religious universities which receive the federal funding to do these gay junk science studies, and all to save baby Jesus from the evil gays.

 

[finglobes]

Demonstrably untrue. Gays are not responsible for a majority of STIs. Their rate of incidence per capita may be higher than some segments of the population but they in no way account for an overall majority of cases. You're just making stuff up at this point.

Depends of the disease. Homosexuals have more HIV than any other group. Every year they are close to two thirds of new cases. 20% of white homosexuals have HIV - around a third of black). Most new cases of burgeoning syphilus epidemic are homosexual men (77% in 2009 - 83.0% in 2012). Throw in hepetitis, HPV, MRSA, Herpes (1 in 4 guys) and the male homosexual population is the single most diseased cohort going

 

[K1052]

Depends of the disease. Homosexuals have more HIV than any other group. Every year they are close to two thirds of new cases. 20% of white homosexuals have HIV - around a third of black). Most new cases of burgeoning syphilus epidemic are homosexual men (77% in 2009 - 83.0% in 2012). Throw in hepetitis, HPV, MRSA, Herpes (1 in 4 guys) and the male homosexual population is the single most diseased cohort going

Which was not the erroneous claim made (that they transmit an overall majority of STIs).

 

[Gizmo j]

By comparison, this load of crap is a lot more realistic and believable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awyb2Bzs4XE

That is a satire video.

They made this other video and at 1:04 to 1:30 what the woman says is undoubtedly satire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwNxteH_AaM

 

[SMOGZINN]

Depends of the disease. Homosexuals have more HIV than any other group. Every year they are close to two thirds of new cases. 20% of white homosexuals have HIV - around a third of black). Most new cases of burgeoning syphilus epidemic are homosexual men (77% in 2009 - 83.0% in 2012). Throw in hepetitis, HPV, MRSA, Herpes (1 in 4 guys) and the male homosexual population is the single most diseased cohort going

Not that is really matters, most STIs are easily cured, the few that are not are easily managed. The only ones that are still problematic are HPV and HIV. With the new vaccines HPV will soon be a thing of the past, and HIV is currently manageable, and with a little hope will soon be nearly curable.

Also MRSA is Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and is not a STI, and is not more prevalent in gay populations. The largest risk factor for MRSA is being in a hospital or prison.

 

[Atreus21]

Someone disagrees with me!

 

[SlickSnake]

That is a satire video.

They made this other video and at 1:04 to 1:30 what the woman says is undoubtedly satire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwNxteH_AaM

You don't say.

I called it a load of crap, didn't I? :hmm: