Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Point is, studies of this nature, whatever position they take (lots of puns are are easy on this subject, huh? LOL), are going to be biased one way or another.
For every study you provide, I can provide a counter-one. And vice-versa. At some point in time, perhaps just common sense and life experience might give a better answer. For instance...
When I mentioned earlier about young homosexual males being the most promiscuous group of all? I didn't only base it on numerous surveys...but on just a common-sense observation of young male nature.
Hell, I was that age myself at one time and, even though I was/am straight, I am not so old as to not know how the desire to have sex as often and uncommited as possible is a major factor in the whole outlook! And with as many willing female partners as can be found. I know I sure gave it my best shot back in my day (geez...these possible puns again! ).
*AHEM* So it really just stands to reason that you take young males attracted to other males who share that male hormonal disposition, then BANG! (ah hell, another one! I swear...).
And further, yes, AIDS is mostly spread by that type sex. Especially in the early days. This is not a matter of bigotry nor hatred nor "homophobia"...but a fact. No cherry-picked study is going to change what most people really know, anyway.
To come back to square one? Again (and again), I don't care what consenting adults do. I thought the old law a little silly and no problem with repealing it. Further, I have a few friends who are openly gay and no problem. One was a regular hunting and fishing friend. We would give each other hell about it, but it was all in good fun. I can even support "Civil Unions" among gay couples.
BUT...I stop very short of pretending -- in the name of political correctness and/or fear of being labeled a (*gasp*) "Homophobe" -- to believe something that I don't, and that reality tells me is simply not true. Or, to believe that wisdom says one thing and nature another.
so are you suggesting that people who are born with the homosexual orientation just be put to death... die and be reborn heterosexual?
no matter what 'studies' you talk about people are GAY and they have EVERY right to have relationships in accordance with THEIR sexual orientation.
making 'arguments' makes no sense since it wasn't chosen in the first place.
Yes, there are all kinds of sexual "preferences" or deviations, whichever word you like, practiced both by gays and straight couples. I'm not a "professional" to judge "normalcy" of the ones involved, but I have my suspicions. And that's why it's so important to force all the sexual "diversity" back into PRIVATE bedrooms. If you open a door of publicity and legalization to one group of non traditional sex lovers, it will never stop there.
Interesting use of the concept of 'tradition', but it's typical of the psycho babble plaguing conservative thinking. As if retreating back in evolution far enough to knuckle dragging is God's will. I think not, but conservatives needing to live that out can do it on their own dime without me. My religious observation prohibits my participation. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee
You gays should stop being so selfish, social decadence is easy to unleash but it's hard to stop. Survive and Reproduce, remember? EVERYTHING, that doesn't help surviving and reproduction should be forced underground where it belongs.
IF you believe individual rights are crucial to the American way, and free will of religion paramount, the burden of leading by positive example is upon you. That is the Christian way. That is the Judaic way. That is the Buddhist way. Nothing about the law should force anyone into a hetero or homosexual life. In the natural unfolding of a young adult is the realization or their sexual orientation. External forces should not be permitted to inflict itself upon them, whether commercial avarice, political agendas, religious dogma, parental hang ups, malevolent pedophiles, incest, whatnot. Everybody OUT! (Which includes you).
Mamma bear has spoken.
Loosely paraphrased, I believe it was Sophocles who said; never create laws you cannot enforce. On that sound premise alone SCOTUS was correct.
[snip]So the next means of transmission on the list being unprotected sex was met by malevolent theologians blocking sex education. Allow the most at risk demographic groups- youth less than adroit at self discipline- to die of ignorance as their hormonal urges override good judgment. Applicable to hetero and homosexual populations alike, but none more under served than the homosexual population whom a select group of heterosexuals in America refuse to allow or acknowledge their right to exist. Whether by covert or overt aggression, the common theme is aggression. These are not Christians. They're the blood thirsty old covenant mob that releases a murderer and convicts Jesus.
You can continue on with the accusation of promiscuity scapegoating gays all the while actively prohibiting them from entering into monogamous relationships. [snip] [snip] Christian taliban are an anathema to the teachings of Jesus.
Nobody prohibits gays from entering monogamous relationships.
Is the CDC part of the Christian Taliban. HIV/AIDS is overwhelmingly a male homosexual illness. To suggest or claim, or whatever you're doing, that gays are too stupid or uninformed to recognize the risk is nuts. So is what you said about SCOTUS.
um, being gay isn't a fetish, it's a sexual orientation. and nobody has EVER said that they should be able to have sex in public. we should however, be able to marry in accordance with our UNCHOSEN sexual orientation, JUST LIKE YOU GET TO, and we should be able to talk about our partners at work the way YOU GET TO.
May I marry a tree or a cow and talk about them? What about polygamy? What about countless "orientations" out there? You may have your unchosen sexual orientation, unfortunately, it's not for you or me to decide what you or me should be able to do. Only social "self-preservation" should dictate what choices should we be able to make as individuals. There is strong push to "integrate" and legalize open gays into society (under penalty of law, naturally). I have my "suspicions" about the global push. They may just use your desire to talk about your partner to accomplish something else, like controlled demolition. Think about it, even Rome didn't legalize same sex marriages (despite wide spread sodomy etc.), maybe they knew something you don't want to? Something along the line - anything that doesn't help survival & reproduction should not be legalized?
Interesting use of the concept of 'tradition', but it's typical of the psycho babble plaguing conservative thinking. As if retreating back in evolution far enough to knuckle dragging is God's will. I think not, but conservatives needing to live that out can do it on their own dime without me. My religious observation prohibits my participation. Thanks.
I'm anything but conservative, just read a couple of posts of mine. Sorry.
Quote:
IF you believe individual rights are crucial to the American way, and free will of religion paramount, the burden of leading by positive example is upon you.
There are NO God given individual rights, there are only rights given to you by society (it's ruling class more exactly). If "society" self-destructs to give you the rights you wish to have, that's mighty selfish of you.
Quote:
Nothing about the law should force anyone into a hetero or homosexual life. In the natural unfolding of a young adult is the realization or their sexual orientation.
Societies are built around survival and reproduction. That what they are for. Sorry, they are not to provide you (or me) with the rights we wish to have. If you want society not to reinforce natural behavior patterns making reproduction (and survival) possible in order to please your gay sensitivities, first, there is no point to that society (it's good as a dead one), second, you cannot build a viable society around gay marriage and freedom of sexuality, it never happened before, it will not happen in the future. To call for society to stop "indoctrination" its young residents into natural sexual & social behavior is the same as to call for that society to self-destruct.
You and I have exchanged many times before (sometime in agreement, sometime not), and I know you to be "good people."
But -- with all due respect -- will you please write/talk in a manner that can be more easily understood?
Again, with all due respect, I think that sometimes you write in this esoteric style of professional academian for a professional publication, because you think it makes you look "smarter" or something.
On the contrary, many people cannot really follow what you are trying to say. I mean, there is a time for a doctorate thesis...and there is a time for saying things in plain understandable English vernacular!
I think some people are afraid to say this to you because they fear coming across as it they cannot intellectually grasp what you are trying to say. But at the same time, I think that is all it is. Being "wordy" and "abtruse" is not synonymous with being insightful and/or wise.
If you don't think I know what I am talking about? Welllll, as it is (no brag, just fact), I have won quite a few awards in journalism, and even been published in a few minor rags. Writing is an avocation of mine (and I am humble enough to know I will never retire off the royalties of my trash), but I DO know the first rule of good writing is not to try and dazzle your audience with your brilliance...but to relate your point in the most direct and simple and sincerest words possible! The WORST thing a writer can to is to presume to "talk above" those they want to convince!
Just a word to the wise...
Bottom line? I don't really understand your point in the least!
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady
Loosely paraphrased, I believe it was Sophocles who said; never create laws you cannot enforce. On that sound premise alone SCOTUS was correct.
As for the 2 examples you've sited above, they are the longstanding byproduct of self fulfilling prophecies via faux christian culture running amok. Aids was more likely transmitted rapidly through blood transfusions because no one was aware of the threat. Once it became clear, once the screening was implemented, how many cases are transmitted through that means? Near zero I'd venture to guess.
So the next means of transmission on the list being unprotected sex was met by malevolent theologians blocking sex education. Allow the most at risk demographic groups- youth less than adroit at self discipline- to die of ignorance as their hormonal urges override good judgment. Applicable to hetero and homosexual populations alike, but none more under served than the homosexual population whom a select group of heterosexuals in America refuse to allow or acknowledge their right to exist. Whether by covert or overt aggression, the common theme is aggression. These are not Christians. They're the blood thirsty old covenant mob that releases a murderer and convicts Jesus.
You can continue on with the accusation of promiscuity scapegoating gays all the while actively prohibiting them from entering into monogamous relationships. They've regularly been targeted by social groups and institutionalized abuses. It's the same behavior of denial RTL uses to attack the whole of womankind herding them into abortion clinics they'd rather not be in. Incredulously all the while claiming it's a defense of marriage and family values. The same marriage contract social conservatives have perverted unmercifully turning marriage into legalized prostitution. Issuing a wife her Eva Braun shoes and socially/ legally forcing her to march in them with blind obedience to a madman because it's ordained by God she submit. Hostage Taking and Explosives in Salt Lake
Strange days indeed to see how many married swingers are in red states. Self described religious conservative Republicans can boast number one in that category? Houston, we have a problem. Continue on with the tired scapegoating of gays for what heteros corrupted... sorry. A lie is a lie is a lie. James Kraig Kahler's defense of 'the lesbians made me do it' is a symptom of his disease aping the cultural disease defended all too often under a Christian umbrella. Enough is quite enough, and THAT is a defense of faith you can bank on. Christian taliban are an anathema to the teachings of Jesus.
I'm ignoring your entire post because you linked the Family Research Council and a Catholic website as your medical source...
Do you realize you just lost all credibility? Quoting FRC about gays is like quoting the KKK on blacks, or a Nazi resource on Jews.
They are a registered hate group. Would you please actually educate yourself and stop relying on anything that supports your prejudices.
BTW, Catholic here, and vehemently reject --->catholics animating themselves in violence or oppression towards gays. Their argument is with their own sexual immaturity but it's projected outward on innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with the snakes in their heads. I do not view them as practicing Christianity and the Vatican issuing Bulls conflicting with the terms and conditions of citizenship, especially the teachings of Jesus, are rejected by myself. It is not my role as Christian to rob anyone of their free will, but to lead by example as best I know how. Their failure to teach is a failure to confront their own inner demons. I hope they realize it soon because I refuse to kill Cathars. TRUTH: the Church is under assault not by liberals or atheists, but by demented conservatives elevating tares that blaspheme the very spirit of Jesus Christ, antithetical to life itself.
I support their right to reject gays from clergy, from the pews if they clearly have nothing at all to offer them, and even to refuse to offer marriage to gays within their Church, but I refuse to support their demented notions espousing annihilation and punitive use of social policy. The slippery slope they're pushing will only result in Machiavellian contests that have no place in legislation, good governance & sound theology alike.
Last edited by harborlady; 01-08-2012 at 04:03 PM..
On the contrary, many people cannot really follow what you are trying to say. I mean, there is a time for a doctorate thesis...and there is a time for saying things in plain understandable English vernacular!
Oh dear, have I confused you? Need a sound byte? In 4 words, I aim to please!
Quote:
SWEEP YOUR OWN PORCH!
Suppose the down home folks who'd rather not think in depth about what it is they're saying or doing will comprehend that?
In some ways, we are just talking past each other, it seems. In this case, you seem to be presuming that YOUR opinion of what is "right" and "wrong" in a precedent case is self-evident. To have an opinion on a ruling is fine...but to assume it should be the said self-evident standard is -- with all due respect -- quite simplistic and naive.
This country was founded on the idea that some ideas are so obvious that they are, indeed, self-evident. The idea that consenting adults have been endowed by their creator with the right to have crazy monkey sex however they may want to do so, at least in private, seems to me to be amongst such self-evident ideas.
Quote:
By way of example, as I mentioned, some of the dissenters (Thomas in particular) called the law dumb (and I agree) and that he would have voted to repeal it. BUT...it was not unconstitutional and fully with the powers of the legislative branch of each state to determine on their own.
It IS a stupid law. It was also largely unenforced, largely unenforcable, and oft ignored. However, such laws can prove quite dangerous, should you find yourself on the s**tlist of a prosecutor on a vendetta.
Quote:
Again, talking past each other. You asked how it could be justified as a compelling state interest. I provided an example.
But the stated compelling interest must be TRUE. I can say that dihydromonoxide ought be banned because it causes erosion, and is a major component of acid rain. In this case, those are absolutely true statements, but pale in comparison to the societal benefits of the substance. Indeed, without it, we'd cease to exist.
Your excuse, that banning sodomy will prevent STD's from infecting the totality of the population, is simply untrue, and therefore not a valid example of even a hypothetical state interest.
Quote:
As it is though, it has come to pass: Anal sex between males is the single biggest cause for the spread of AIDS. And homosexual men are the "most promiscuous" of any demographic segment of the population.
As another poster pointed out, heterosexual men are actually more promiscuous, on average, than homosexual. That notwithstanding, as a swinger, I've bested the heteroexual males lifetime average in just the past few months, so I'd guess our demographic is the actual most promiscuous.
One thing you're right about is that anal sex, specifically unprotected anal sex, is the single most risky sex act humans can partake in. Then again, something had to be, and it's the very same people who want to criminalize sodomy who also tend to be anti-contraception. Forcing people who ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX regardless of the law to do so UNPROTECTED seems, of itself, evil to me.
Also consider that AIDS is not as prevalent as you likely think. In recent years, about 16,000 people per year become infected. That's 0.0004% of the population, and it's a number that's been relatively consistent, which means the rate is going down as the population grows.
Quote:
But that doesn't change the fact that it would really not be hard (no pun intended this time! LOL), to "prove" a statute of that type to be one with a legitimate compelling state interest in the name of public safety.
And yet you, the State of Texas, and the 17 anti-sex groups who filed Amicus briefs in support of the law have utterly failed to do so.
I realize we're engaged in, for the most part, mental masturbation here. Despite some whackjob religious fanatics, the crys to criminalize sodomy are about the equivalent of the sound of crickets. But there are some who are bound and determined to do so, including, sadly, the fact that the official platform of the Texas State Republican Party STILL is calling for a ban.
That fact that you, or anyone capable of rubbing 2 brain cells together, doesn't see it as an inalienable right, is kinda frightening.
DentalFloss? You have rapidly decended from one I originally thought was a worthy opponent, into one who is simply incapable of engaging in rational debate/discussion without -- PLEASE tell me you are being facitious here,
Geez. Do you honestly believe that sexual practices were a consideration of the Founding Fathers when timeless and wise phrases like "self-evident" in referring to natural rights and those things intrinsic to a free people was the task at hand?
Part of the reason is that the genre are so cloistered in the world of their own press notices and tunnel vision they simply cannot handle disagreement. Which is the "self-evident" reason they eventually become hysterical and hateful in their own realm.
Hell, nothing is so intolerant as are those who denounce intolerance when they can't tolerate those who disagree with them!
The rest of your rant? Well, like I said earlier. You just can't handle disagreement and are reduced to intolerance (don't you love that word? ).
Hmmmm. Here is a very mature and worthwhile opinion of yours:
Quote:
That fact that you, or anyone capable of rubbing 2 brain cells together, doesn't see it as an inalienable right, is kinda frightening.
BTW? The term is "unalienable right." And I don't think anal sex was high on the list of considerations when the DOI was written, reckon?
Regardless, I am content to let others judge it all, as well as sources provided and arguments made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
This country was founded on the idea that some ideas are so obvious that they are, indeed, self-evident. The idea that consenting adults have been endowed by their creator with the right to have crazy monkey sex however they may want to do so, at least in private, seems to me to be amongst such self-evident ideas.
It IS a stupid law. It was also largely unenforced, largely unenforcable, and oft ignored. However, such laws can prove quite dangerous, should you find yourself on the s**tlist of a prosecutor on a vendetta.
But the stated compelling interest must be TRUE. I can say that dihydromonoxide ought be banned because it causes erosion, and is a major component of acid rain. In this case, those are absolutely true statements, but pale in comparison to the societal benefits of the substance. Indeed, without it, we'd cease to exist.
Your excuse, that banning sodomy will prevent STD's from infecting the totality of the population, is simply untrue, and therefore not a valid example of even a hypothetical state interest.
As another poster pointed out, heterosexual men are actually more promiscuous, on average, than homosexual. That notwithstanding, as a swinger, I've bested the heteroexual males lifetime average in just the past few months, so I'd guess our demographic is the actual most promiscuous.
One thing you're right about is that anal sex, specifically unprotected anal sex, is the single most risky sex act humans can partake in. Then again, something had to be, and it's the very same people who want to criminalize sodomy who also tend to be anti-contraception. Forcing people who ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX regardless of the law to do so UNPROTECTED seems, of itself, evil to me.
Also consider that AIDS is not as prevalent as you likely think. In recent years, about 16,000 people per year become infected. That's 0.0004% of the population, and it's a number that's been relatively consistent, which means the rate is going down as the population grows.
And yet you, the State of Texas, and the 17 anti-sex groups who filed Amicus briefs in support of the law have utterly failed to do so.
I realize we're engaged in, for the most part, mental masturbation here. Despite some whackjob religious fanatics, the crys to criminalize sodomy are about the equivalent of the sound of crickets. But there are some who are bound and determined to do so, including, sadly, the fact that the official platform of the Texas State Republican Party STILL is calling for a ban.
That fact that you, or anyone capable of rubbing 2 brain cells together, doesn't see it as an inalienable right, is kinda frightening.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). 
Houston, we have a problem. Continue on with the tired scapegoating of gays for what heteros corrupted... sorry. A lie is a lie is a lie. James Kraig Kahler's defense of 'the lesbians made me do it' is a symptom of his disease aping the cultural disease defended all too often under a Christian umbrella. Enough is quite enough, and THAT is a defense of faith you can bank on. Christian taliban are an anathema to the teachings of Jesus.
). 
