To allow, or not to allow.....the question about gay rights.

[CryptLord1234]

I said their lifestyles have a propensity to be much more destructive.

How do you figure that? I say this because the gay people I know, by and large, lead cleaner and healthier lives than the straight people I know.

[DarkNemesis]

Because the tissue in the anus (unlike the vagina which has some resilience to STD's) has little or no protection. Since the body naturally absorbs protiens, and semen is packed full of them....you get the idea.

Now this obviously DOESN'T mean every time a gay man has sex he'll contract an STD, nor does it mean all gays have them, I merely means that the propensity for AIDS/whatnot is mucher higher. In short, it's playing with fire.

And yes, this is pulled form actual experiences. Both of my parent's knew gays growing up in the 70's, one of them was a close friend of my mom's. He 'became' gay (at a gay bar needless-to-say) and died within 5 years later. No joke. Also, I have read several places where the average life expectancy is around 30. Mind you, that's the average.

Don't missunderstand me, I don't hate gays, but I surely don't believe in government endorcing unhealthy lifestyles. They don't endorse smoking or drinking, why this then?

It makes no sense.

You wan't to be gay fine, but don't expect me to pay for it with taxes. And too, marriage is between a man and a woman, and it has stayed that way for thousands of years, so why are we suddenly going to completely redefine it?

Just my 2 cents.

[Tehw00tz]

Man you know a lot about gay sex.

[DarkNemesis]

Yes, well, that was my entire point, their are logical and scientific reasons for not supporting gay special privledges, people just need to hear the truth.

[CryptLord1234]

Because the tissue in the anus (unlike the vagina which has some resilience to STD's) has little or no protection. Since the body naturally absorbs protiens, and semen is packed full of them....you get the idea.

Now this obviously DOESN'T mean every time a gay man has sex he'll contract an STD, nor does it mean all gays have them, I merely means that the propensity for AIDS/whatnot is mucher higher. In short, it's playing with fire.

Let 'em play with fire. 'Pursuit of Happiness' and all that. Doesn't say anywhere that the government has to protect us from everything. If that were the case, take cars away from. . .well, pretty much everyone.

[quote = "DarkNemesis"]And yes, this is pulled form actual experiences. Both of my parent's knew gays growing up in the 70's, one of them was a close friend of my mom's. He 'became' gay (at a gay bar needless-to-say) and died within 5 years later. No joke. Also, I have read several places where the average life expectancy is around 30. Mind you, that's the average. [/quote]

Because one guy died in 5 years, that makes a huge impact on the data. Also, where have you read these things? I'm looking at one "International Journal of Epidemiology"*, an Oxford Journal, which states no avg. life expectancy, but rather states that gay people can expect their life to be 5 - 21 years less than that of a straight people. So unless the avg. life expectancy in the US is 51. . .(which it isn't, it's 77.7 years**) . . .I'm curious to see where that's coming from.

Don't missunderstand me, I don't hate gays, but I surely don't believe in government endorcing unhealthy lifestyles. They don't endorse smoking or drinking, why this then?

It makes no sense.

I'd say their stance on smoking and drinking is rather neutral. They force companies to present you with the information (The AMA warning on the back of cigarette boxes, for instance) but they aren't saying that it's downright wrong. It's not their call, it's yours. On the other hand, they make a deal of money from taxing the shit out of cigarettes, for instance, so that's a positive.

Gay marriage, I'd imagine, is the same way. They're required to put out the information (you probably won't live as long) but they aren't going to say it's downright wrong.

You want to be gay fine, but don't expect me to pay for it with taxes. And too, marriage is between a man and a woman, and it has stayed that way for thousands of years, so why are we suddenly going to completely redefine it?

Just my 2 cents.

Let me reword this first sentence slightly: "You want to be straight, fine, but don't expect me to pay for it with taxes." Gay people pay taxes the same as straight people, why don't they get equal rights?

As for the whole "marriage is between a man and a woman" precedence, well, it can be overturned for the same reason as any other precedence is overturned: There's a decently good reason for it, and I'll say it again: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . ." Gay or straight, you have access to equal rights from the government, and if the government is willing to support marriage contracts, they apply to all, not just some.

Now, I won't say churches should marry gay people -- As has been said before, they're their own thing, they can decide their own organization for themselves.

*http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... /30/6/1499

**http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm

EDIT: And I still don't see how the government recognizing marriage between two people who love each other is "special."

[Waki_Miko]

Because the tissue in the anus (unlike the vagina which has some resilience to STD's) has little or no protection. Since the body naturally absorbs protiens, and semen is packed full of them....you get the idea.

Your statement makes it seem that it's more of an anal sex issue rather than a gay issue.
And in female-female sexual intercourse, there's no semen. Did you forget to add something? (Hint: One doesn't need semen to transmit HIV)

Now this obviously DOESN'T mean every time a gay man has sex he'll contract an STD, nor does it mean all gays have them, I merely means that the propensity for AIDS/whatnot is mucher higher. In short, it's playing with fire.

Depending on which study or whom you choose to believe, AIDS can either be more likely to be in heterosexual or homosexual individuals.
I have no comment on this, because what I find in a quick search is rather inconclusive (and my interest in the matter isn't enough to warrant further investigation).

And yes, this is pulled form actual experiences. Both of my parent's knew gays growing up in the 70's, one of them was a close friend of my mom's. He 'became' gay (at a gay bar needless-to-say) and died within 5 years later. No joke. Also, I have read several places where the average life expectancy is around 30. Mind you, that's the average.

My question is: do you think that your sample size of 1 somehow a definitive representation of the entire homosexual population?

And you're picking someone who goes to a bar to presumably engage in one-night-stands with strangers?
What If I were to rephrase what you said as follows:
"I heard from someone about this straight guy. He started going to (non-gay) bars and died within 5 years."
Say, I know a straight person that kicked the bucket early from AIDS, but that's not enough data (not even close).
In any case, can it be confirmed that AIDS was contracted through sexual intercourse and not through the use of unclean needles (narcotic use)?
In the case it wasn't caused from sexual intercourse, can it be determined for sure that his lifestyle had a part to play in his death, or was it just plain bad luck?

Don't missunderstand me, I don't hate gays, but I surely don't believe in government endorcing unhealthy lifestyles. They don't endorse smoking or drinking, why this then?

It makes no sense.

I think that sexual orientation is separate from the lifestyle that one adopts. Just because I like individuals of the same gender doesn't mean I drink/smoke/take narcotics/engage in unprotected free sex/ etc. and am unable to settle down in a stable long-term relationship (can't say 'marriage' here, apparently) with my wonderful girlfriend.

You wan't to be gay fine, but don't expect me to pay for it with taxes.

...What? Is there going to be a Gay Tax to help gay people or something? If so, I don't want it; it's demeaning.

To me, it's more about the legal rights of gay people. As it stands in most places in the world, gay couples don't have much legal rights as compared to heterosexual couples. In places where such unions are not recognised, should something bad happen to either one individual (a.k.a. death), you'd just have to cross his/her fingers, hoping no one's going to challenge his/her partner's will (because if that happens, there's no certification of marriage/civil union/domestic partnership to support you) and leave you with nothing. Kind of bad if you're unable to support yourself (i.e. if your only job was to manage the household or suffer some kind of disability).

And too, marriage is between a man and a woman, and it has stayed that way for thousands of years, so why are we suddenly going to completely redefine it?

If you're talking about having done something for thousands of years and thus shouldn't be changed:
"And too, we have the right to practice slavery, and it has stayed that way for thousands of years, so why are we suddenly going to completely abandon it?"
Now that doesn't sound right at all, does it?

Just my 2 cents.

Somehow this made me laugh because you were just talking about taxes.

[Luftwaffles]

Yes, well, that was my entire point, their are logical and scientific reasons for not supporting gay special privledges, people just need to hear the truth.

You don't get to talk about science because you don't understand (and refuse to learn about) evolution. You probably have no idea what the word "empirical" means. I honestly wonder if you made it past 8th grade.

However, you also know a surprising amount about anal sex. That pretty much makes you a fag in the closet, like the one in Brüno. Do you like Top Gun by any chance?

[Dark_Nemesis]

You don't get to talk about science because you don't understand (and refuse to learn about) evolution. You probably have no idea what the word "empirical" means. I honestly wonder if you made it past 8th grade.

So I am suddenly ignorant simply becuase I refuse to embrace a mere theory as science? That is the most bigoted statement I have every read. Congratulations.

There is zero proof for evolution, it is only a theory, and not science. Learn the difference.

[GeneralFunk]

Government doesn't endorse smoking, drinking, or taking drugs, so why should they endorse gay rights??? If you want to be gay, fine, I can't tell you how to live. But don't expect me to approve of it by paying for you to be treated for HIV or AIDS.

Instead they endorse diabetes and obesity while making us pay money for it. See corn.

it steers away from traditional family values and posses a danger on kids. They're is a reason why kids with BOTH parents to raise them are alot less likely to make bad choices. Like stealing, taking drugs, dropping out of school/college, or committing other crimes. Its called balance and role modeling.

My mom's friend is gay is over 50 and his son is straight, mentally stable, and clean. I hate to draw up a statistic without a source, but according to some source I can't find again, children are 100 times more likely to be molested by a parent under a heterosexual parental unit. Based on the people I've seen, met, and been around, I would have to agree with it. Though the statistic doesn't show if said father was in the closet or not. Of all the gay people I've met, their parents were straight. I personally think forcing bad relationships together is much more toxic than single parent situations.

[Dekar]

So I am suddenly ignorant simply becuase I refuse to embrace a mere theory as science? That is the most bigoted statement I have every read. Congratulations.

There is zero proof for evolution, it is only a theory, and not science. Learn the difference.

Here, I looked it up on simple english wiki so everyone can understand it:

Certain people oppose the idea of evolution. They disagree with it for a number of reasons. Most often these reasons are influenced by or based on their religious beliefs. People who disagree with evolution usually believe in creationism or intelligent design.

Despite this, evolution is one of the most successful theories in science. People have found it to be useful for different kinds of research. None of the other proposals explain things, such as fossil records, as well. So, for almost all scientists, evolution is not in doubt.[26][27][28]

And that makes you a creationist.

Creationism is the belief that God (or another higher form) created the universe, like it says in the Bible, Torah, Qur'an, or other religious books.

Creationists usually do not believe that all of today's living things came about from simple organisms changing slowly over time. They believe that life was created much as it is today, and that one form of life cannot change into another. There are things that show evolution, such as fossils, the remains of living things that died long ago. Older living things seen in fossils are different from the life we see today, and can be put into order to show changes over time. Creationists say that this and other things are not enough and argue that virtually every living thing that has a fossil counterpart is practically identical to it. They also argue that the order is arbitrary because there is no place on earth where the rock layers are completely intact.

Some people do not believe their religious book to be word-for-word true, and say God used evolution to create life. This idea is called theistic evolution. Others believe that evolution alone created life.

Almost all scientists, as well as the United States courts say that creationism is not part of science.[1][2][3][4]

It sounds like this mere "theory" is expected to not be overthrown by newer theories longer than any physical "theories" which brought us stuff like space travel and computers.

BTW one of the top rules for science is, something is the truth, until it is proven to be wrong. All of our physical laws are just theories and some get replaced over time by better ones.

[Discombobulator]

DarkNemesis is Simple.

[Luftwaffles]

So I am suddenly ignorant simply becuase I refuse to embrace a mere theory as science? That is the most bigoted statement I have every read. Congratulations.

There is zero proof for evolution, it is only a theory, and not science. Learn the difference.

Awesome statement. I'm not sure you really understand what science means and posting is almost pointless, but why the hell not. Let's start by making it clear to you what science is:

- a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
- systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Without delving too deeply in history you cannot possibly understand given that you're delusional and you lack the language skills you should have developed at your age, Evolution is indeed a legitimate science as it meets the above definitions. I suggest turning to a wikipedia page, or if you continue to stupid, open a biology textbook or even read On the Origins of Species by Charles Darwin. Things that are almost universally accepted by scientists, such as natural selection, were not simply conjured up so Darwin could lay claim to fame (actually that's what creationists and people like you try and do). He simply wrote down what he observed, and lots of the things he wrote down are things we too can observe.

Science is not a religion nor are scientists religious fanatics. Science seeks truth and a way to systematically arrange and show the operation of laws- as our definition states. If what you said is true, and evolution is indeed a silly farcical mess developed by crazy people to trick the world and make $$$cash$moneies$$$ then scientists would have discovered things that demonstrate evolution to not work. For instance, if natural selection is not true, we should theoretically see more albino deer since it's God who creates these things not some gay "theory science"- and he sure does love white people amirite? But no, alas, the albino deer- while perhaps intriguing, does not have a lifespan because it will be naturally selected for consumption either by us or some other hunter.

Natural selection also states that people like you are probably going to end up doing something so incredibly stupid you'll kill yourself in the process. We have a special award for that called a Darwin Award. While it is entirely possible that if you remain at home and refrain from any strenuous thought provoking activities (like plugging in your computer) you may live to an old age, you probably won't.

Just because you say there is "no proof" does not mean there is no proof. To the contrary, your opinion means absolutely jack shit in the meritocratic realm of science. I think you should sit down, read some biology books and get an IQ test to see if you need help.

[Dark_Nemesis]

Evolution is indeed a legitimate science

No, it's not. It's a theory.

open a biology textbook or even read On the Origins of Species by Charles Darwin.

Lol, are you really that brainwashed? You mean the books that spread evolutionary propganda, right?

I believe in some forms of evolution, and Darwin was actually correct on alot of his theories, just not all. Microevolution exists all the time, Macro doesn't.

How the hell can you possibly get a horse from a primordial soup? Please explain Mr. Biologist Ion. I'd love to hear your explanations.

[Discombobulator]

How the hell can you possibly get a horse from a primordial soup? Please explain Mr. Biologist Ion. I'd love to hear your explanations.

All it takes is a couple of billion years. The whole explanation would probably be TLDR.

[Luftwaffles]

..I'm sorry, nowhere in evolution nor anywhere existence is there something called "primordial soup". If you would like to understand how horses came to be, perhaps go read about it on wiki, I don't feel like wasting people's time here by posting its full evolutionary history (which in my opinion is boring, intuitive if you took a biology course in high school and VERY TL;DR). If you really need a lesson in it I would be less then happy to give it, but would oblige if you open up yourself to getting PM'd again. Also, if you really doubt that there was a time where there were no mammals (before they evolved into them), a good way to start enlightening us is explain to scientists how Human DNA and Cabbage DNA have absolutely nothing in common when they really share about 40-45% of the same DNA

There is no such thing as "evolutionary propaganda", what you mean is creationist propaganda, which you read because some intolerant religious people are scared to admit there may actually be some things the people who wrote the Bible didn't know (like evolution).

There is no such thing as "micro" evolution. There is just evolution. If something evolves now, it will also evolve later and definitely evolved before. Evolution did not start when Humans suddenly became aware of themselves and developed writing. Seeing as you are not a qualified scientist, you don't understand what an inference is, what empirical formulas are, you lack the language skills you should have by your age (were you born pre-mature, foreign, or both?) and you not only have delusions but are seriously committed to them, your opinion is pretty much moot in the world outside individuals with similar qualities to you. Unfortunately you'll probably breed and hurt our species, but there is always hope you're impotent.

Oh wait I forgot you're actually gay so you're probably just going to closet-visit bath-houses and get rejected for the rest of your life .

[Tehw00tz]

There is no way you have a high school diploma.


There is absolutely no way.

[Discombobulator]

Evolution is indeed a legitimate science

No, it's not. It's a theory.

open a biology textbook or even read On the Origins of Species by Charles Darwin.

Lol, are you really that brainwashed? You mean the books that spread evolutionary propganda, right?

I believe in some forms of evolution, and Darwin was actually correct on alot of his theories, just not all. Microevolution exists all the time, Macro doesn't.

How the hell can you possibly get a horse from a primordial soup? Please explain Mr. Biologist Ion. I'd love to hear your explanations.

Come to Serbia, see how much your country sucks.

PS: WHOA!

-- Between 1962 and the year 2000, the number of obese Americans grew from 13% to an alarming 31% of the population.
-- 63% of Americans are overweight with a Body Mass Index (BMI) in excess of 25.0.
-- 31% are obese with a BMI in excess of 30.0.
-- Childhood obesity in the United States has more than tripled in the past two decades.
-- According to the U.S. Surgeon General report obesity is responsible for 300,000 deaths every year.

[Tehw00tz]

Once again, BMI isn't accurate whatsoever.

Reggie Bush, the Saint's running back and one of the fastest men(the dude ran 25 mph on a punt return before) in the NFL today is 6 foot 0 inches tall. He weighs 203 pounds and his BMI is 27.5

Plus he's fucking Kim Kardashian

[Luftwaffles]

That...doesn't make BMI not work. It is well known and advised when dealing with BMI that athletes use body fat % and measuring circulation efficiency is a much better way to tell if someone's healthy. The same is somewhat true for some more athletic "normal" people but for the majority of individuals, BMI is a very good way to measure if someone's morbidly obese or simply obese.

What it means is BMI is fairly accurate, and even scientifically it is reasonably accurate enough to supplement other tests, but alone is not of much use to athletes. To people who aren't athletic however, it is a great way of measuring obesity. -.-

[Discombobulator]

Once again, BMI isn't accurate whatsoever.

Reggie Bush, the Saint's running back and one of the fastest men(the dude ran 25 mph on a punt return before) in the NFL today is 6 foot 0 inches tall. He weighs 203 pounds and his BMI is 27.5

Plus he's fucking Kim Kardashian

Oh so you're a piggie too?

[Tehw00tz]

I play highschool football and my BMI is 28.1

[Dark_Nemesis]

I play highschool football and my BMI is 28.1

Who doesn't have their HS diploma?

And yes, I have mine. But that is not a accurate sign of intelligence. Nor is believing traditional evolutionary bullshit taught by HS teachers and bio professors. I see you have fallen for it though....

[Cokemonkey11]

Once again, BMI isn't accurate whatsoever.

Reggie Bush, the Saint's running back and one of the fastest men(the dude ran 25 mph on a punt return before) in the NFL today is 6 foot 0 inches tall. He weighs 203 pounds and his BMI is 27.5

Plus he's fucking Kim Kardashian

I lol'd.

Just googled it and my BMI is 27.8, and I'm a running back/middle line backer.

What's more accurate is a water based fat percentage calculation (never done it, but I used one of those electronic scales and it told me i'm 15% body fat)

[Tehw00tz]

Who doesn't have their HS diploma?

And yes, I have mine. But that is not a accurate sign of intelligence. Nor is believing traditional evolutionary bullshit taught by HS teachers and bio professors. I see you have fallen for it though....

Yeah I don't have a HS diploma and I'm most definitely more intelligent than yourself.

[Dark_Nemesis]

Yeah I don't have a HS diploma and I'm most definitely more intelligent than yourself.

Lol, that is all I wanted to know.

You're not a super senior, are you Wootz?