Same sex marriage

[soulcougher73]

Sorry. But children are awfully important to a society.

So lets see here. We've had societies for 1000s of years and gay people all these thousands of years and somehow were still here. Hmm You're right. Gays will kill off societies. My bad. You win.

 

[soulcougher73]

You totally missed my point.

I did? Looks to me like i took your point and body slammed it. It got owned hard.

 

[etrigan420]

It matters given the fact that gay men are not known at all to be monogamous.

When you do the equivalent of sticking your penis in black water and then wanting to put that inside another person, you'd bet it matters.

And, I am surprised that idiots like you cannot discern the difference between function (a vagina used to birth kids, discard urine, and for sexual intercourse) and purpose (an anus' sole purpose is to HOLD and DISCARD fecal waste).

You may as well stick your penis in a sewage pipe.

lolololol...

This is just...I can't...oh man...Thanks for that.

A couple of tips:

1. Be more discerning of the men you stick your dick into.

2. Eat more fiber, and encourage your "black water" partner to do the same.

3. Seek out professional help. Pointing out on the doll where the "bad man" touched you can be traumatic, but is the only way to true healing.

As an aside, what does any of that have to do with same sex marriage?

 

[nehalem256]

So lets see here. We've had societies for 1000s of years and gay people all these thousands of years and somehow were still here. Hmm You're right. Gays will kill off societies. My bad. You win.

Did I say any of that?

Gay relationships are unimportant to society. And therefore there is no reason to give special recognition to them.

Heterosexual relationships are very important to society. A fact recognized for 1000s of years and therefore societies around the world have decided to give special recognition to them.

 

[dank69]

It matters given the fact that gay men are not known at all to be monogamous.

When you do the equivalent of sticking your penis in black water and then wanting to put that inside another person, you'd bet it matters.

And, I am surprised that idiots like you cannot discern the difference between function (a vagina used to birth kids, discard urine, and for sexual intercourse) and purpose (an anus' sole purpose is to HOLD and DISCARD fecal waste).

You may as well stick your penis in a sewage pipe.

I see we've progressed to the "gay sex is icky" part of the debate. Imbecile.

 

[alzan]

It matters given the fact that gay men are not known at all to be monogamous.

When you do the equivalent of sticking your penis in black water and then wanting to put that inside another person, you'd bet it matters.

And, I am surprised that idiots like you cannot discern the difference between function (a vagina used to birth kids, discard urine, and for sexual intercourse) and purpose (an anus' sole purpose is to HOLD and DISCARD fecal waste).

You may as well stick your penis in a sewage pipe.

Neither are hetero men.

There's this really neat invention called a condom, it helps prevent pregnancy, the passing on of STDs, it keeps the penis from getting icky during the woman's period, etc.

Surprisingly enough not all gays enjoy or participate in anal sex; just as not all women enjoy or participate in anal sex.

 

[Retro Rob]

I did? Looks to me like i took your point and body slammed it. It got owned hard.

No, you didn't.

My point was that going from anus-to-vagina, or anus-to-anus is EXTREMELY high-risk, which is why, according to a study I read from the CDC about a year or so ago, gay men were responsible for 64 percent of new cases of HIV.

Had you taken the time to comprehend that, you would have gotten my point.

 

[nehalem256]

Neither are hetero men.

There's this really neat invention called a condom, it helps prevent pregnancy, the passing on of STDs, it keeps the penis from getting icky during the woman's period, etc.

Surprisingly enough not all gays enjoy or participate in anal sex; just as not all women enjoy or participate in anal sex.

And yet even with all those awesome inventions gay men are 50-100x more likely to contract HIV in the US.D:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It matters given the fact that gay men are not known at all to be monogamous.

Sure, in the exact same way that black people are known to be criminals. In that, yes, some are, but more are not, and it would be monstrously stupid to paint with so broad a brush and then use that as your basis for crafting policy decisions. And besides which, a gay man who wants to sleep around doesn't have to get married just because it's suddenly allowed. Why are all the conservative arguments against gay marriage based around the idea that it's going to be mandatory?

 

[Retro Rob]

Neither are hetero men.

There's this really neat invention called a condom, it helps prevent pregnancy, the passing on of STDs, it keeps the penis from getting icky during the woman's period, etc.

Surprisingly enough not all gays enjoy or participate in anal sex; just as not all women enjoy or participate in anal sex.

That I get, but I was trying to make a specific point.

 

[alzan]

And yet even with all those awesome inventions gay men are 50-100x more likely to contract HIV in the US.D:

Citation needed

 

[MrPickins]

You are the one claiming that marriage solves all sorts of important problems. I am asking you to defend that.

Apparently you can't.

I feel no need to defend a position that is so obvious. The statement I made was in no way controversial. (Notice you're the only one that disagrees with it?)

And I am not opposed to heterosexual marriage because I don't believe that marriage exists to determine who makes medical decisions for you. That was your claim.

Yeah, we know, you're the guy who thinks marriage is only about procreation.

I'll give you a hint as someone who has been married for more than a decade : It's not.

Procreation and the control thereof is only a part of what marriage is about. I shouldn't have to keep repeating this to you.

You mean besides societies across the world for 1000s of years?

I'll post this again, because you seemed to miss it last time we discussed this line of reasoning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

 

[Retro Rob]

Sure, in the exact same way that black people are known to be criminals. In that, yes, some are, but more are not, and it would be monstrously stupid to paint with so broad a brush and then use that as your basis for crafting policy decisions. And besides which, a gay man who wants to sleep around doesn't have to get married just because it's suddenly allowed. Why are all the conservative arguments against gay marriage based around the idea that it's going to be mandatory?

lol what?

 

[Rakehellion]

Besides tradition why should your live in sex buddy inherit your things or make medical decisions for you?

Who cares? They get tax breaks. Everyone wants that.

 

[BudAshes]

The dude just likes to post long meaningless ramblings. You might as well be arguing with your dog about gay marriage.

2 posts later:

No it isn't...and I didn't say it was. The fact that we do that shows that nature takes a back seat to humanity when we want it to.

Put it like this: homosexuality in nature is just an excuse and justification for people to engage in ANY sexual behavior they may have thought was once wrong, but since they WANT to do it, they use the "nature" argument.

That argument is stopped cold as regards the millions of other things that happen in nature that we arbitrarily condemn, and the reason is that it harms others -- I have no issue with that, personally. But my overall point is that homosexual acts are not controlled by nature, they're simply controlled by our desires, so we make excuses to do it...but since we're intelligent enough to control our murderous, cannibalistic nature, why does that not also apply to sexual activity, is my question.

Now, if you want to argue that sexual reproduction is a primary facet of nature, then I'd counter that gays don't "reproduce" together....they just have sex.

:biggrin:

 

[Retro Rob]

I see we've progressed to the "gay sex is icky" part of the debate. Imbecile.

No, you just need an education on the difference between function and purpose.

You just got one.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Say something about gays and diseases, and all the excuse-making apologists come chiming in.

If you're worried about stopping the spread of STDs in the gay community, you should be in favor of prioritizing long-term monogamous relationships. If only there were some sort of socially recognized contract to encourage such unions...

 

[nehalem256]

Citation needed

In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

LGBT account for ~4% of the population. Assume half are men.

So some simple math. ~1/50 people are LGBT men. ~2/3 new HIV infections are gay men, so for every 1 non gay man infected with HIV 2 gay men will be. Results in ~100x more likely for a gay man to contract HIV.

D:

 

[soulcougher73]

No, you didn't.

My point was that going from anus-to-vagina, or anus-to-anus is EXTREMELY high-risk, which is why, according to a study I read from the CDC about a year or so ago, gay men were responsible for 64 percent of new cases of HIV.

Had you taken the time to comprehend that, you would have gotten my point.

Ok so what does that have to do with SSM? You think gays will just go away if we never legalize it?

 

[nehalem256]

If you're worried about stopping the spread of STDs in the gay community, you should be in favor of prioritizing long-term monogamous relationships. If only there were some sort of socially recognized contract to encourage such unions...

If only no one had sex before marriage

 

[SlitheryDee]

Sounds like marriage isn't actually solving any problems then according to your beliefs.

I've discussed this with you before. It promotes monogamy and stable family groups. Gay and straight couples alike will often sleep around in their youth and then form a monogamous relationship, the beginning of which is usually demarcated by marriage. If we could more reliably form permanent monogamous relationships without marriage as an extra social and economic link, then we would not need it.

I know that you're driving at children being the central point of marriage. I agree. That has little bearing on the relevance of same sex marriage however. They are free to have children if they choose, and being married would serve them in that respect as well as it does heterosexual couples.

 

[MrPickins]

Sorry. But children are awfully important to a society.

So why wouldn't you want a child of a gay couple to grow up with two parents whose marriage is legally recognized?

You need to read the US appeals court's opinion before you make any more easily refuted arguments.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...4/C:14-2388:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412338:S:0

 

[nehalem256]

So why wouldn't you want a child of a gay couple to grow up with two parents whose marriage is legally recognized?

You need to read the US appeals court's opinion before you make any more easily refuted arguments.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...4/C:14-2388:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412338:S:0

I have yet to see 2 men have a child together.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ok so what does that have to do with SSM? You think gays will just go away if we never legalize it?

LOL, you really need to read.

I was responding to Mr Pickens point about it not mattering what kind of sex a person is having, and I countered that it does matter and supported my position.

You've clearly demonstrated just how you either don't or, in all likelihood, CAN'T read...and this is the umpteenth time you've done this.

 

[nehalem256]

I've discussed this with you before. It promotes monogamy and stable family groups. Gay and straight couples alike will often sleep around in their youth and then form a monogamous relationship, the beginning of which is usually demarcated by marriage. If we could more reliably form permanent monogamous relationships without marriage as an extra social and economic link, then we would not need it.

Well considering that same-sex marriage supporters like to point ot childless couples as an argument that marriage is not about children I will point to the 50% divorce rate as an argument that marriage isn't about forming stable monogamous relationships.

And in addition I will point to this thread where we have liberals complaining about laws against adultery
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2378565&highlight=adultery