Can the government compel you to provide someone a service against your will?

[Vuk]

Your post is riddled with hypocrisies and inaccuracies, so allow me to tackle it piece at a time.

Typically, sexual orientation is on that list as well, at least in places that value human rights. So you have just defeated your own point. If a dog breeder cannot refuse to sell to you because you are black, or female, then he should not be allowed to refuse to sell to you because you are gay.

You would have some kind of point if being gay was something like being black or male that you were just born with. The science is not settled on that, so any legislative protections would be premature.
If you have to serve customers and cannot make exceptions for sexual orientation, then does that mean that a gay dude who runs a gay bar cannot turn straight couples away if they come to his business? Of course that should be his right, and it should be the right someone to turn a homosexual away if they think their actions/beliefs conflict with their morals/philosophy or that of their business.

My objection to diddling little boys has nothing to do with morality. Rather, it is based on proof that an adult having sexual relations with a minor is harmful to the minor.

So what? Who cares if it is harmful to the minor? The reason that you think someone 'innocent' (and indeed the very concepts of innocence and guilt) being harmed is wrong is based in your moral beliefs. If you have no morals then you are a fracking piece of rock. Even cold-blooded killers have morals.

Homosexuals being allowed to marry (or just being allowed to be, for that matter) harms nobody.

Says who? There is a considerable amount of evidence suppressed by the scientific community and lobbyist groups linking homosexual sex to the spread and mutation of some of the world's most horrible diseases. What you do in the bed room doesn't stay in the bed room when you spread a disease around that kills millions. God did not create our bodies to engage in homosexual sex, and when you use it in such a way it is not intended for, there are unintended consequences.

Also, endorsing homosexuality and legitimizing it will only help it to spread. Gay people are the victims of hormonal imbalance or sexual/mental trauma usually. Being gay is not emotionally healthy, and helping spread it hurts people.
You can call me a crazy bigot all you want, but every single gay person I have ever known has been either the victim of sexual abuse (usually by a gay rapist), or been preyed upon when they were at a very emotionally vulnerable mental state, or have severe hormone imbalance. No matter what, it is not healthy. I don't think gays are evil (you have evil one and good ones, just like with straights), but I do think their life style is not emotionally or physically healthy, and I don't think it would be a good thing for society to make it seem acceptable to young people.

I do note however that you have managed to sneak pedophilia into a discussion about homosexuals, which is a common tactic of the right. Nicely done. But there is really no relevance in your comparison.

It was actually not intentional, but for you to say that there is not a strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is dishonest. Like I said, most gay people I know well have been victims of abuse when they were children (most gay celebrities I know of too). I don't think that by any stretch that all gay/bi people are pedophiles, but I do think that most pedophiles are gay/bi.
Ever hear of a North American Man/Girl Love Association or North American Woman/boy Love Association? No, me neither.

Homosexuality is not a "belief."

Having gay sex is not a belief, but believing that gay marriage and gay sex is acceptable is. Wouldn't going to such a wedding condone that?

Hatred of homosexuals is a belief.

Hating homosexuals? Who said anything about that? Is thinking that cancer is an unhealthy disease and detesting it the same thing as hating a cancer patient? I disagree with homosexuality, but that does not mean I hate homosexuals.

If the church event was a legal event that was not harming anyone else (by, for example, inciting discrimination against homosexuals) then I would have the law apply the same way.

See what you did there? You say that just by holding their beliefs they are harming others! Of course many people believe that homosexuality harms society, so they would believe that a gay wedding is just as offensive.

Would you allow a town with only one grocery store to starve a gay man to death because the grocer was a bigot who didn't like homosexuals?

First of all, I would love to see a town that only had one place to eat and no other place to get food in an acceptable travel distance. If it is out in the sticks, then the guy has a vehicle as you cannot get around without one. If it is an urban area, then there is more than one place to eat.
In your hypothetical situation though, the grocer would be harming the man. Not taking wedding pictures or selling someone a dog does not harm them, so there is a world of difference. Add into that that we are talking about businesses that are an expression of the business owner your analogy falls apart completely.

[Montmorency]

If you have to serve customers and cannot make exceptions for sexual orientation, then does that mean that a gay dude who runs a gay bar cannot turn straight couples away if they come to his business?

Jeez, then where would the straight women go?

[Goofball]

Your post is riddled with hypocrisies and inaccuracies, so allow me to tackle it piece at a time.


You would have some kind of point if being gay was something like being black or male that you were just born with. The science is not settled on that, so any legislative protections would be premature.
If you have to serve customers and cannot make exceptions for sexual orientation, then does that mean that a gay dude who runs a gay bar cannot turn straight couples away if they come to his business? Of course that should be his right, and it should be the right someone to turn a homosexual away if they think their actions/beliefs conflict with their morals/philosophy or that of their business.

No, it should not. That is where our fundamental disagreement lies. Turning away anyone from any business based on sexual orientation, gay or straight, should not be allowed.

So what? Who cares if it is harmful to the minor? The reason that you think someone 'innocent' (and indeed the very concepts of innocence and guilt) being harmed is wrong is based in your moral beliefs. If you have no morals then you are a fracking piece of rock. Even cold-blooded killers have morals.

Sure, if you want to say a belief in not harming others is a moral belief that's fine. I then propose that this is the only morality that should have any value, as it is also practical. All other moral beliefs are based on trying to force others to behave as you want them to simply because you find behaviour to the contrary offensive, either due to religious beliefs or social/cultural prejudices.

Says who? There is a considerable amount of evidence suppressed by the scientific community and lobbyist groups linking homosexual sex to the spread and mutation of some of the world's most horrible diseases. What you do in the bed room doesn't stay in the bed room when you spread a disease around that kills millions. God did not create our bodies to engage in homosexual sex, and when you use it in such a way it is not intended for, there are unintended consequences.

That's where you lose me. I will never accept "God doesn't want you to" as a legitimate argument about any topic. It has no basis in logic and "God's will" can be made to serve whatever purpose anybody wants. It has no validity whatsoever. And there is absolutely no research suggesting anything you said was true with respect to disease.

Also, endorsing homosexuality and legitimizing it will only help it to spread. Gay people are the victims of hormonal imbalance or sexual/mental trauma usually. Being gay is not emotionally healthy, and helping spread it hurts people.
You can call me a crazy bigot all you want, but every single gay person I have ever known has been either the victim of sexual abuse (usually by a gay rapist), or been preyed upon when they were at a very emotionally vulnerable mental state, or have severe hormone imbalance. No matter what, it is not healthy. I don't think gays are evil (you have evil one and good ones, just like with straights), but I do think their life style is not emotionally or physically healthy, and I don't think it would be a good thing for society to make it seem acceptable to young people.

You have the cause and effect reversed. Gay people don't have hard lives because they are gay. They have hard lives because society generally treats them like second class citizens. And, for the record, almost without exception, the gay people I know are happy, healthy, adn successful.

It was actually not intentional, but for you to say that there is not a strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is dishonest. Like I said, most gay people I know well have been victims of abuse when they were children (most gay celebrities I know of too). I don't think that by any stretch that all gay/bi people are pedophiles, but I do think that most pedophiles are gay/bi.
Ever hear of a North American Man/Girl Love Association or North American Woman/boy Love Association? No, me neither.

How many websites come up if you google "lolita" or "teen girls," all of which aimed at heterosexual men? There is no evidence to support a link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

Having gay sex is not a belief, but believing that gay marriage and gay sex is acceptable is. Wouldn't going to such a wedding condone that?




Hating homosexuals? Who said anything about that? Is thinking that cancer is an unhealthy disease and detesting it the same thing as hating a cancer patient? I disagree with homosexuality, but that does not mean I hate homosexuals.

Sorry, I wasn't implying that you in particular hate homosexuals, only that there are people who do.

See what you did there? You say that just by holding their beliefs they are harming others! Of course many people believe that homosexuality harms society, so they would believe that a gay wedding is just as offensive.

Sorry, to be clear: It's not their beliefs that are causing harm. It's the actions they take (discrimination, for example) based on those beliefs that cause harm. You're free to believe whatever you want. As long as you don't harm others and try to use your beliefs as justification.

First of all, I would love to see a town that only had one place to eat and no other place to get food in an acceptable travel distance. If it is out in the sticks, then the guy has a vehicle as you cannot get around without one. If it is an urban area, then there is more than one place to eat.
In your hypothetical situation though, the grocer would be harming the man. Not taking wedding pictures or selling someone a dog does not harm them, so there is a world of difference. Add into that that we are talking about businesses that are an expression of the business owner your analogy falls apart completely.

So it's okay to deny some services but not others? How do we decide which ones? Should there be a big list? As far as the "expression" aspect goes, as I said before: when you, as a photog take on a commercial contract, the creativity, thoughts and ideas you are being paid to express are not yours, but those of your customer. This is not a freedom of expression issue. Using your argument, a bricklayer or a landscaper could refuse to work on a gay man's property because he believed his "art" would be compromised.

[Beskar]

I personally disagree with that view of technical grounds, but I lost the argument because nobody else on either side was interested in the technical question. So now I'm not allowed to air my views in public, or to act upon them.

Mostly due to the technical definition you give in no longer valid in society, it is out of touch with modern reality. Marriage is not seen as something as the sole purpose of reproduction, marriage is seen as a commitment between two people who love each-other. The whole children part is counted separately. In this, whether is it man, women, either, in combination, it is simply two people loving each other. Parenting is separate, it can occur before and after marriage, especially as there are many options such as fostering/adopting which doesn't require the two people involved to put the bun in the oven.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So I take it that you fault whatever is going on in the UK for not going far enough, not because you're particularly concerned for the gays, but because legal kludges weaken the authority and coherence of the legal system.

You want a clear, concrete and widely applicable legal redefinition of marriage.

That's it?

No - I want the legal abolition of marriage, because anything less will sow confusion. With the advent of genetic testing women no longer need a piece of paper to prove who the father of their children is.

All marriage is used for today is to regulate divorce, which just creates more money for lawyers. Much better for people to sign a contract saying how their goods will be divided up. That would protect people who "don't want to get married" for whatever reason by making it clear to them that they need a contract.

Currently, those people are left high and dry because their "Common Law" marriages are not recognised.

The other key point to understand is that, given the historical dynastic role of marriage, I don't consider the "exclusion" of homosexuals to be an injustice. Indeed, the fact that it is now seen as an injustice proves to my mind that "marriage" has now ceased to resemble the institution with which it shares a name.

It's a fact of historical record that the early Church conducted homosexual unions, but they couched those unions in terms of the erotic love between the couple, not in the matrimonial terms of family.

Mostly due to the technical definition you give in no longer valid in society, it is out of touch with modern reality. Marriage is not seen as something as the sole purpose of reproduction, marriage is seen as a commitment between two people who love each-other. The whole children part is counted separately. In this, whether is it man, women, either, in combination, it is simply two people loving each other. Parenting is separate, it can occur before and after marriage, especially as there are many options such as fostering/adopting which doesn't require the two people involved to put the bun in the oven.

Oh don't be sappy - what you've basically said is that the thing people do now in getting "married" is a different thing to what their parents did. Basically, people no longer get married - they just have a big expensive party that looks a bit like a wedding.

See above.

[PanzerJaeger]

First of all, it may not be easy, but you can choose to not be gay.

How does one choose not to be gay? Can you explain in more detail?

Says who? There is a considerable amount of evidence suppressed by the scientific community and lobbyist groups linking homosexual sex to the spread and mutation of some of the world's most horrible diseases. What you do in the bed room doesn't stay in the bed room when you spread a disease around that kills millions. God did not create our bodies to engage in homosexual sex, and when you use it in such a way it is not intended for, there are unintended consequences.

Also, endorsing homosexuality and legitimizing it will only help it to spread. Gay people are the victims of hormonal imbalance or sexual/mental trauma usually. Being gay is not emotionally healthy, and helping spread it hurts people.
You can call me a crazy bigot all you want, but every single gay person I have ever known has been either the victim of sexual abuse (usually by a gay rapist), or been preyed upon when they were at a very emotionally vulnerable mental state, or have severe hormone imbalance. No matter what, it is not healthy. I don't think gays are evil (you have evil one and good ones, just like with straights), but I do think their life style is not emotionally or physically healthy, and I don't think it would be a good thing for society to make it seem acceptable to young people.

but for you to say that there is not a strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is dishonest. Like I said, most gay people I know well have been victims of abuse when they were children (most gay celebrities I know of too). I don't think that by any stretch that all gay/bi people are pedophiles, but I do think that most pedophiles are gay/bi.

Where are you getting this from? Can you source any of it?

[Vuk]

It has no validity whatsoever. And there is absolutely no research suggesting anything you said was true with respect to disease.You have the cause and effect reversed. Gay people don't have hard lives because they are gay. They have hard lives because society generally treats them like second class citizens. And, for the record, almost without exception, the gay people I know are happy, healthy, adn successful.How many websites come up if you google "lolita" or "teen girls," all of which aimed at heterosexual men? There is no evidence to support a link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

I know you won't trust the site, but I don't think you can argue that their sources are legit.
http://www.frc.org/?i=IS01B1

Even look at this article sticking up for gays: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...-cuts-life-ex/
It states that though what the guy said was the truth in the 90's, it no longer is because we have gotten better at treating AIDs.

This dude has a point, it is basically playing in the toilet. How disgusting is it to dip your penis into fecal matter? That is something you would expect from an animal, not a human. how can that be healthy? You wonder why the gay community is so diseased...
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22Sx...osx_lifspn.htm


I know you are gonna say "Oh I cannot read those or believe them because the people writing them are Christian!", but keep in mind that they are also scientists in the field with PhDs and quote many sources you would trust to back up their arguments.
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

The list goes on and on. That is just a few from a quick Google search.

How does one choose not to be gay? Can you explain in more detail?

By not buggering men. (in the case of males) I thought that would be pretty obvious.

[Beskar]

By not buggering men. (in the case of males) I thought that would be pretty obvious.

By that logic, finding yourself not having sexual relations with women means you are not heterosexual?
I am sure you would disagree with that assertion.

Though, a famous example of some one not having sexual relations with those of the same gender even though experiencing sexual attraction is Stephen Fry.

Anyway, the definitions are pretty much as follows:

homosexual: sexual attraction to those of the same sex
heterosexual: sexual attraction to those of the opposite sex.
bisexual: sexual attraction to those of either sex.
pansexual: sexual attraction regardless of sex.
demisexual: sexual attraction based on emotional bonding. (can have preference)
asexual: no sexual attraction regardless of sex.

Not performing an act is separate does not make you "not-homo" "not-hetero" etc

[Goofball]

I know you won't trust the site, but I don't think you can argue that their sources are legit.
http://www.frc.org/?i=IS01B1

The sources may be legit, but the interpretation is extremely flawed. For example, one of the authors, in trying to argue that the gay population is only 0.5% of the population instead of the more generally accepted 10%, uses survey data from homosexuals that says a very small number of them have had only same-sex partners their whole lives. This ignores that fact the many homosexuals fight against their own sexuality at first because society treats them so badly that they want to at least give heterosexuality a try. Look at the flip side. Many heterosexuals experiment at least once in their lives with homosexual sex. Does that make them not true heterosexuals?

Even look at this article sticking up for gays: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...-cuts-life-ex/
It states that though what the guy said was the truth in the 90's, it no longer is because we have gotten better at treating AIDs.

This dude has a point, it is basically playing in the toilet. How disgusting is it to dip your penis into fecal matter? That is something you would expect from an animal, not a human. how can that be healthy? You wonder why the gay community is so diseased...
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22Sx...osx_lifspn.htm

The human mouth is one of the most unclean and bacteria-ridden parts of the body. Yet heterosexuals regularly mate it with the penis and the vagina, and the anus. Many men enjoy and engage in anal sex with women, as well. No wonder the heterosexual community is so diseased.

I know you are gonna say "Oh I cannot read those or believe them because the people writing them are Christian!", but keep in mind that they are also scientists in the field with PhDs and quote many sources you would trust to back up their arguments.
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

The list goes on and on. That is just a few from a quick Google search.




By not buggering men. (in the case of males) I thought that would be pretty obvious.

That point was nicely covered already by Tiaexz. Your arguments are based on nothing more than yout personal feelings. As with the sources you quited above, you have used the common Christian tactic: You decide what the answer is then try to make the data conform to your belief. That is not science.

[Vuk]

By that logic, finding yourself not having sexual relations with women means you are not heterosexual?
I am sure you would disagree with that assertion.

Though, a famous example of some one not having sexual relations with those of the same gender even though experiencing sexual attraction is Stephen Fry.

Anyway, the definitions are pretty much as follows:

homosexual: sexual attraction to those of the same sex
heterosexual: sexual attraction to those of the opposite sex.
bisexual: sexual attraction to those of either sex.
pansexual: sexual attraction regardless of sex.
demisexual: sexual attraction based on emotional bonding. (can have preference)
asexual: no sexual attraction regardless of sex.

Not performing an act is separate does not make you "not-homo" "not-hetero" etc

Like many psychological conditions, if you abstain from the behavior, the desire will eventually subside. That probably is not true for people suffering from hormone imbalance, but that can be treated.

Look at the flip side. Many heterosexuals experiment at least once in their lives with homosexual sex. Does that make them not true heterosexuals?

Yeah. It makes them bi. A heterosexual is someone who is only attracted to/only has willing sex with people of the opposite gender. Just like a homosexual is someone who is only attracted to/only has willing sex with people of the same gender. If you do both, then you are bi or one of the other ridiculous PC terms people come up with.

The human mouth is one of the most unclean and bacteria-ridden parts of the body. Yet heterosexuals regularly mate it with the penis and the vagina, and the anus. Many men enjoy and engage in anal sex with women, as well. No wonder the heterosexual community is so diseased.

There is a reason that sodomy was traditionally banned, and not just amongst homosexuals. (sodomy includes oral sex) Unfortunately unhealthy practices from the gay community have corrupted the straight community as well.

You decide what the answer is then try to make the data conform to your belief. That is not science.

Actually mate, he very nicely proved that studies suggesting a causal link between patterns in the brain and homosexual behavior have never been replicated or stood up to peer review. To be scientific something needs to be observable and you need to be able to replicate it.
It is funny that what you accuse Christians of doing is exactly what the pro-gay community does. They see man buggering as a human right, so they try to invent science to legitimize their unhealthy addiction.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Like many psychological conditions, if you abstain from the behavior, the desire will eventually subside. That probably is not true for people suffering from hormone imbalance, but that can be treated.

snip

Yeah. It makes them bi. A heterosexual is someone who is only attracted to/only has willing sex with people of the opposite gender. Just like a homosexual is someone who is only attracted to/only has willing sex with people of the same gender. If you do both, then you are bi or one of the other ridiculous PC terms people come up with.

Sustained practice of both makes you bi, experimenting a few times to see if that is who you are does not forever make you bi.

There is a reason that sodomy was traditionally banned, and not just amongst homosexuals. (sodomy includes oral sex) Unfortunately unhealthy practices from the gay community have corrupted the straight community as well.

There was a reason that jews were traditionally persecuted. What does this have to do with anything?

Actually mate, he very nicely proved that studies suggesting a causal link between patterns in the brain and homosexual behavior have never been replicated or stood up to peer review. To be scientific something needs to be observable and you need to be able to replicate it.
It is funny that what you accuse Christians of doing is exactly what the pro-gay community does. They see man buggering as a human right, so they try to invent science to legitimize their unhealthy addiction.

Can you please link to studies showing that gays are more unhealthy than straight people?

[Vuk]

snip

Chill mate. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you should go around swearing and insulting them. Or is this a personal issue for you? In all seriousness though, I am actually most likely better educated than you, so I wouldn't go bringing that up if I were you.

Sustained practice of both makes you bi, experimenting a few times to see if that is who you are does not forever make you bi.

So if I just experiment with rape once I am not a rapist? Ok, I see how this works now.

There was a reason that jews were traditionally persecuted. What does this have to do with anything?

Yes, and a bad reason. Whereas the reason sodomy was outlawed was actually a really good reason: public health.

Can you please link to studies showing that gays are more unhealthy than straight people?

Ah, I see then that you have not read the articles I posted already.

Do you really need a study though to prove that sticking your schlong in a man's crap-shute with all his crap is less healthy than straight intercourse?

[rvg]

Chill mate. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you should go around swearing and insulting them. Or is this a personal issue for you? In all seriousness though, I am actually most likely better educated than you, so I wouldn't go bringing that up if I were you.

For real.

Ah, I see then that you have not read the articles I posted already.

Do you really need a study though to prove that sticking your schlong in a man's crap-shute with all his crap is less healthy than straight intercourse?

Well said, good man. Well said.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It is a personal issue because I actually know gay people. And they are not unclean, they are not gay by choice.

I don't tolerant blatant ignorance of someones identity. I have been personally criticized by people in the backroom when I attacked other members religiosity. But apparently, give Vuk the microphone and lets let him talk because it's "unfair" we just ridicule him all the time. Now we have a whole thread where Vuk tries to argue that sodomy laws back in the middle ages are relevant to criticise gays because of "unclean poop sex" since there is obviously no such thing as an anal cleansing nowadays. I mean every anal scene in porn has the males just COVERED in poop right?

There is no discussion with the Grand Wizard and there is no discussion with people who condemn self exploration with blanket black and white terms.

I have never respected you Vuk and this can be my first official infraction/ban for the year. I have seen too much suffering first hand to hear this garbage here.

[Vuk]

It is a personal issue because I actually know gay people.

First of all, thanks for making my day man! You are better than television.
Second of all, who cares if you know gay people? Why does that make it personal? I know gay as well...heck, everyone on earth probably knows somebody gay. I know pastry chefs, does that make their plight personal to me? I know plumbers, does that mean I should take the plight of plumbers personally?

And they are not unclean.

What exactly do you mean by unclean? If you literally mean "not clean", then so is everyone else. If you mean "unnatural and evil", then you are obviously not responding to me. All I said is a type of sex is unhealthy. Working in a sewer is unhealthy, but that doesn't mean I'd classify those who do as "unclean". That is a very loaded word that you injected into the conversation my friend, not me.

they are not gay by choice.

Of course you know this for a fact because you are a god who knows everything, right?

I don't tolerant blatant ignorance of someones identity.

Really? Like when you said "You are a backwards, uneducated, uncultured ****."?
If you will not 'tolerate' someone disagreeing with you on the definition of a word or concept, then why do you bother discussing it? Why not just gather about a big group of homies who think just like you are all pat each other on the back and affirm the common belief? Surely that would be less stressful for you.

I have been personally criticized by people in the backroom when I attacked other members religiosity.

You attack people's religion? My, my, I don't believe it! And tell me my excitable friend, were they doing the right things by attacking you personally, or being emotional, illogical buffoons? Food for thought.

Now we have a whole thread where Vuk tries to argue that sodomy laws back in the middle ages are relevant to criticise gays because of "unclean poop sex" since there is obviously no such thing as an anal cleansing nowadays.

Really? That was my argument? Wow, I guess the boogey monsters must have deleted where I posted that! lol
As far as I remember, I neither mentioned the middle ages, or condoned any sodomy law. I said there was a reason for sodomy laws; not that any particular sodomy law was ever properly implemented. I obviously, for instance, don't condone the capital punishment that went along with breaking most of those laws.
Sure, there are anal cleansings, but that does not remove the bacteria. If you do remove the bacteria, then you are gonna have major health problems and not be able to digest your food properly.
Ever hear of "Dirty Sanchez"? Clean, right? But of course, all these guys stop and cleanse their colon before sex (even though a massive amount of the gay male community loves random hook-ups with random strangers in random places at random times...let me guess, after they meet in the bathroom one tells the other "Hold on mate, let me cleanse my colon over the sink before you bugger me"). Be serious, we cannot even get teens to use condoms. You really think most gay men do a colon cleanse before they bugger?

I mean every anal scene in porn has the males just COVERED in poop right?

Well, I guess I will have to defer to your knowledge of gay porn, as I have had no experiences with it myself.

There is no discussion with the Grand Wizard and there is no discussion with people who condemn self exploration with blanket black and white terms.

The Grand Wizard? Oh, you mean the guy who blows up every time someone disagrees with him and refuses to actually answer their arguments? Yeah, I know what you mean...

I have never respected you Vuk

Is this supposed to be news or something?

this can be my first official infraction/ban for the year.

Actually, with the number of times you have behaved disrespectfully to other members this year, I think it says lots about the moderation here that this will be your first infraction.
(No offense mods who actually do your jobs, but a lot of your mates don't. Go ahead, give me an infraction for complaining. Better yet, wait to nab me on a technicality in another post...that is what you usually do)

I have seen too much suffering first hand to hear this garbage here.

Poor, poor you. You are breaking my heart here Mr. Victim Boy.
As a side note though, if you are trying to get someone's sympathy, maybe you should stop treating everyone you disagree with like crap. Tends to go a long way.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And tell me my excitable friend, were they doing the right things by attacking you personally, or being emotional, illogical buffoons?

They did the right thing.

Clean, right? But of course, all these guys stop and cleanse their colon before sex (even though a massive amount of the gay male community loves random hook-ups with random strangers in random places at random times...let me guess, after they meet in the bathroom one tells the other "Hold on mate, let me cleanse my colon over the sink before you bugger me"). Be serious, we cannot even get teens to use condoms. You really think most gay men do a colon cleanse before they bugger?

Most common location of sexual encounters between gay men happen in a house. And anal sex actually happens a lot less than you expect.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...438.x/abstract
"The most commonly reported behavior was kissing a partner on the mouth (74.5%), followed by oral sex (72.7%), and partnered masturbation (68.4%). Anal intercourse occurred among less than half of participants (37.2%) and was most common among men ages 18–24 (42.7%). "

Well, I guess I will have to defer to your knowledge of gay porn, as I have had no experiences with it myself.

Gay or straight porn bro. What are you so afraid of?

Actually, with the number of times you have behaved disrespectfully to other members this year, I think it says lots about the moderation here that this will be your first infraction.
(No offense mods who actually do your jobs, but a lot of your mates don't. Go ahead, give me an infraction for complaining. Better yet, wait to nab me on a technicality in another post...that is what you usually do)

I know how I act on here and I do not claim to deserve sympathy from anyone. I do not expect respect from anyone here and I would understand if starting tomorrow everyone stopped replying to anything I said. If I ask for sympathy it is up to everyone individually to give it and I appreciate it when it is given, even if I do not show it as well as I should.

As a side note though, if you are trying to get someone's sympathy, maybe you should stop treating everyone you disagree with like crap. Tends to go a long way.

I would rather be told by others to leave the org rather than engage in a polite conversation with you. My experiences are what they are. I won't abandon them just for the sake of keeping up appearances here.

If people have had enough of me, just tell me. Life is too short to deal with a hothead like me.

[PanzerJaeger]

Vuk - Do you believe that sexual attraction is a conscious choice? If you needed to be attracted to men for some reason, could you will it to happen? I'm not talking about the ability to maintain an erection throughout a sex act, but the attraction - two very different things.

Well, I guess I will have to defer to your knowledge of gay porn, as I have had no experiences with it myself.

Obviously not, but I'm wondering if you've even had basic sex ed. You're quoting a lot of overtly biased sources that are selectively quoting actual sources to create a narrative that fits their agenda. Yes, it is quite true that unprotected anal sex is risky. What your sources seem to be leaving out is that any form of unprotected sex is risky. The human vagina is rather filthy in its own right, and plays host to a myriad of infectious diseases. STDs via vaginal sex were rampant in America long before sodomy was decriminalized, and far more STDs are spread today through vaginal intercourse than the anal version, and yet your sources don't appear interested in warning their readers about the dangers of heterosexual sex.

One could play the same game by replacing gays with blacks. Countless studies indicate that STD infection, and particularly HIV/AIDS, is a uniquely African American problem in the US. The black identifier correlates more strongly with STD infection than the gay one. Using the same dishonest cherry picking of data, a case could easily be made that black sex in America is inherently unhealthy and should be discouraged. Of course, that would be just as ridiculous as the argument your sources put forth.

Your sources have created a gay strawman of sorts who has unprotected sex with hundreds (thousands!) of partners through 'random hook-ups with random strangers in random places at random times...' Such a lifestyle is, indeed, quite unhealthy! However, that caricature has almost no resemblance to the reality associated with being gay. The mean number of sexual partners each year is about two, not two hundred. ACIN already refuted the nonsense you posted about random hookups, but here are some more fun facts.

"Of all sexual behaviors that men reported occurring during their last sexual event, those involving the anus were the least common," Rosenberger said. "There is certainly a misguided belief that 'gay sex equals anal sex,' which is simply untrue much of the time."

More than 40 percent of the study's participants reported that their most recent sexual partner was someone they were dating, their boyfriend or their spouse/partner. In comparison, an earlier study of predominantly heterosexual participants found that rate to be just over half.

I would submit that you do not understand homosexuality or the reality of what it means to be gay. Just as with the heterosexual population, promiscuity and risky sexual behavior certainly occurs among homosexuals; however, such activity is no more representative of gay people than straight people.

[Tellos Athenaios]

At the risk of contracting Lemur's disease; here's Popehat's write up: http://www.popehat.com/2013/08/22/th...ion-revisited/

Me, I particularly like the quoted argument by Justice Bosson:

On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.

(Emphasis mine.)

Let's hope the don't-want-to-pay-employment-benefits-because-I-disagree-with-the-choices-of-my-employees crowd grows up and learns that lesson about civic duty and civility, too.

[Vuk]

Vuk - Do you believe that sexual attraction is a conscious choice? If you needed to be attracted to men for some reason, could you will it to happen? I'm not talking about the ability to maintain an erection throughout a sex act, but the attraction - two very different things.

We are hard wired to be attracted to adults of the opposite sex and same species. Anything else is either the result of an unhealthy hormone imbalance or a person being trained to be stimulated by something. Whether that was being raped as a child, being preyed upon when depressed and associating good feelings with the sex act, or whatever.
It is also something that can be untrained.

One could play the same game by replacing gays with blacks. Countless studies indicate that STD infection, and particularly HIV/AIDS, is a uniquely African American problem in the US. The black identifier correlates more strongly with STD infection than the gay one. Using the same dishonest cherry picking of data, a case could easily be made that black sex in America is inherently unhealthy and should be discouraged. Of course, that would be just as ridiculous as the argument your sources put forth.

The reason these STDs are so common among black people is because gay relationships are extremely common and an enormous amount of America's black population is poor and does not practice safe or clean sex. Add needles onto that and you get the current situation. It doesn't mean being black is the problem, but that behaviors common amongst the black community are the problem.


As far as your sources, they are all biased and almost all based on survey data. The problem with that is that for all you know these men were reporting falsely in order to combat stereotypes about their sexuality. It is social science, and not science. Also, it is at odds with older data collected on the same subject, so even if the person conducting the research did not fabricate it and most of the respondents reported truthfully, that is still a recent development in the gay community, and for most of our country's history that was not true.

Whether the majority of them have tons of sex partners or not, and whether the majority of them have sex in bathrooms or homes, does it really matter? Sodomy is still extremely unhealthy (whether practiced by straights or gays), and much more likely to be practiced by gays than straights. In fact, unlike straight people who can engage in normal sexual intercourse, gay people's only options is sodomy (whether oral or anal, which are both extremely unhealthy).

You are right that majority of the scientific (university educated) community is on your side, because it is the politically correct thing to believe and they are heavily indoctrinated in Uni. I'll remind you though that at times the scientific community came down on the side of eugenics and many other messed up beliefs and practices. That doesn't make it right, nor does it mean that it is a settled issue because currently the scientific community reaches a partial consensus.

When it really gets down to it there is no way to objectively know 100% either way, and we make the choices based on our morals. We both look at the same data and draw different conclusion.

Let's just agree to disagree, as I really don't have the time to keep contributing to this thread anyway.

[Beskar]

We are hard wired to be attracted to adults of the opposite sex and same species. Anything else is either the result of an unhealthy hormone imbalance or a person being trained to be stimulated by something. Whether that was being raped as a child, being preyed upon when depressed and associating good feelings with the sex act, or whatever.
It is also something that can be untrained.

That is incorrect. I said in this post the reality.

[Vuk]

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that we can be trained to hump anything, but are only naturally attracted to adult members of the same species and opposite sex.

[Goofball]

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that we can be trained to hump anything, but are only naturally attracted to adult members of the same species and opposite sex.

Hmmm. Well, if you think it, it must be true. Science be damned. To quote an earlier post where you were responding to a statement that homosexuality is not a choice:

Of course you know this for a fact because you are a god who knows everything, right?

For this entire discussion you have dodged every issue, responding only with religious dogma and personal prejudice. But what's funny is that I'm pretty sure if Jesus were to come back, today, right now, and tell you in person that you actually have it wrong: homosexuality is not a choice, you would instantly convert to Islam because at least Mohammad hasn't gone soft on "teh gay."

[Vuk]

Hmmm. Well, if you think it, it must be true. Science be damned. To quote an earlier post where you were responding to a statement that homosexuality is not a choice:For this entire discussion you have dodged every issue, responding only with religious dogma and personal prejudice. But what's funny is that I'm pretty sure if Jesus were to come back, today, right now, and tell you in person that you actually have it wrong: homosexuality is not a choice, you would instantly convert to Islam because at least Mohammad hasn't gone soft on "teh gay."

Nice taking out of context there Goofball. The truth is that the sciences is not conclusive and no one knows for 100% sure right now (despite some convincing themselves otherwise).
The difference between my statement and his is that he stated it as a fact, not an opinion, whereas I clearly stated my opinion as such "Sorry, but I disagree. I think that".


Personal prejudice? Well, I am not alone there in this thread. lol After all, I am the one who discards and refuses to look at the other guy's sources because I know they are wrong because they disagree with me. I am the one insulting people and calling them stupid, uneducated, etc because I disagree with them?

Like I said, let's agree to disagree. I got no beef with gays. (pun intended) I just think that sodomy is unhealthy and homosexual relationships not emotionally healthy. I also think BDSM relationship where a husband makes his wife boy before him, or a wife whips her husband, etc. are not emotionally healthy. It doesn't mean I got anything against the people who choose that type of relationship.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that we can be trained to hump anything, but are only naturally attracted to adult members of the same species and opposite sex.

Actually - Vuk is not completely off here - there's enough evidence that sexuality is malleable to at least support his claim that people can conditioned.

See Ancient Sparta.

[HopAlongBunny]

Nature supports damn near anything you want it to.
To oft ignored is the friendly Bonobo.

http://www.psmag.com/science/bonobos...ur-past-59956/

[Vuk]

I think this nebulous concept of "Nature" is the problem. Everything is natural. If you try to arbitrate "natural" based on your human perspective, you're working from a flawed angle and you're not going to get anywhere.

If you think gay sex is sinful and against God, just say so. That argument is at least coming from a place of intellectual honesty.

I think it is 'against God' in the same way eating pork is: it is harmful for you so God told you not to do it. I also think that my observations and the science I have read mostly supports that. When I said natural, I mean following the genetic programing of a healthy, average human being with balanced hormones. Pardon me, but I don't think you can fairly say that I have been 'intellectually dishonest' in this conversation.

[Vuk]

Speaking of unscientific, macroevolution has never been observed or proven possible. It doesn't even qualify as a theory. You say that we evolved into that way and can evolve another way, but I say we were created that way. Neither of us can prove it and both of us rely on some measure of faith, even if we believe that the science supports our beliefs. That is why by the end of the day I think the best we can do is agree to disagree.
And if it is all about evolution, 'gay' societies would go extinct anyway, so I doubt evolution is intended to go in that way.

[Montmorency]

Speaking of unscientific, macroevolution has never been observed or proven possible.

Hoo boy. What exactly do you think "macroevolution" is?

And if it is all about evolution, 'gay' societies would go extinct anyway, so I doubt evolution is intended to go in that way.

How's that?

[Vuk]

How's that? Because they cannot reproduce.
Speciation has only been observed because evolutionists redefined 'species' so that they could observe speciation. lol We have observed living things rearrange existing genetic material (which God gave them to survive in a cycling world), but never have we observed new genetic material being created by random mutations (the crux of the evolutionary origins argument).

[Montmorency]

How's that? Because they cannot reproduce.

Um, that doesn't matter?

Speciation has only been observed because evolutionists redefined 'species' so that they could observe speciation. lol We have observed living things rearrange existing genetic material (which God gave them to survive in a cycling world), but never have we observed new genetic material being created by random mutations (the crux of the evolutionary origins argument).

Totally incorrect.