The problem with "domestic partnership" :: Free Realms

#527 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 5:31 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,

#528 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 5:33 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,

Quote Reply

#529 May 08 2009 at 5:34 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Jophed,

Quote:

If someone wants to advocate polygamy or incest or marrying their cat

Are you comparing humans with cats?

If two of age americans decide they want to marry how is that any different from what the homosexuals are trying to do?

I'm using the same arguements the homosexuals use to validate a perverted lifestyle choice. Polygamy and incest don't hurt anyone right?

I don't see how polygamy hurts anyone. Incest is illegal because it weakens the gene pool.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

#530 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 5:41 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ash,

Quote Reply

#531 May 08 2009 at 5:45 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Ash,

Quote:

Incest is illegal because it weakens the gene pool.

And homosexuals account for 71% of the aids cases even though they're only 1% of the population.

Getting AIDS is avoidable. There's no magic AIDS button that gets pressed when you sign up to be gay.

Meanwhile if you have a child with a relative, odds are those recessive genes are coming through.

Face it varrus, you can't blanket punish a group. You can't stop people from having sex.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#532 May 08 2009 at 5:46 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1627863823061

Scholar

3,229 posts

62% and it's outstripped by high risk heterosexual contact in women (66%)

http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm

▲ Page top

#533 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 5:48 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ash,

Quote Reply

#534 May 08 2009 at 5:50 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1627863823061

Scholar

3,229 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Nor am I trying to. I'm well within my rights to not have my govn recognize a behaviour choice that is so closely related with one of the most lethal diseases around.

Do you support aids?

I refer you to my post above as to why what you have just written is complete crap. You know we had the whole "the gay killer" era.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#535 May 08 2009 at 5:51 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Ash,

Quote:

Face it varrus, you can't blanket punish a group. You can't stop people from having sex.

Nor am I trying to. I'm well within my rights to not have my govn recognize a behaviour choice that is so closely related with one of the most lethal diseases around.

Do you support aids?

I don't support AIDS any more than I support diabetes or any other disease. However, it is not your right to tell people they can't engage in activities that increase their risk.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

#536 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 5:56 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Goggy,

#537 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 5:57 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ash,

Quote Reply

#538 May 08 2009 at 5:58 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

What I am saying is my govn has no place recognizing said behaviour.

This phrase is meaningless. You say it an awful lot though.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#539 May 08 2009 at 6:00 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1627863823061

Scholar

3,229 posts

hangtennow wrote:

~~****~~sex~~uality~~ is a lifestyle choice invariably linked with aids. No getting around it. The question is do we have a govn validate this lifestyle choice.

FTFY.

Well statistics are always a problem, how the CDC and Avert compiled there stats we do not know. I would lean towards Avert, not because I chose their reference material, but as an AIDS charity I think homosexual and heterosexual AIDS sufferers are more likely to participate than in a government run organisation.

You'll probably disagree.

▲ Page top

#540 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 6:01 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ash,

Quote Reply

#541 May 08 2009 at 6:02 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Ash,

Quote:

This phrase is meaningless. You say it an awful lot though.

And you keep saying I want to ban homosexual intercourse; which i've never said.

Gay marriage =/= homosexual intercourse. You go on and on and on about AIDS, which is a product of sex. However, the issue at hand is homosexual marriage. The two have nothing to do with each other, legally speaking.

Edited, May 8th 2009 9:03am by AshOnMyTomatoes

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

#542 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 6:07 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ash,

Quote Reply

#543 May 08 2009 at 6:08 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Ash,

Quote:

However, the issue at hand is homosexual marriage. The two have nothing to do with each other, legally speaking.

And legally speaking there is no precedence for what the homosexual community is doing.

I thought AIDS was your argument.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#544 May 08 2009 at 6:08 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Goggy,

Ok you've posted a link from an aids charity organization.

Now take a look at the CDC numbers,

Quote:

In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM

And that 5-7% number I believe to be on the high end.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice invariably linked with aids. No getting around it. The question is do we have a govn validate this lifestyle choice.

Lesbians don't seem to get AIDS, though. And if you're against gay marriage why do you rail against the gay lifestyle? They're separate. If anything, marriage would produce more monogamous relationships, lower multiple partners, and thus lower AIDS. Again, not to mix up sex and marriage.

▲ Page top

#545 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 6:10 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ash,

Quote Reply

#546 May 08 2009 at 6:12 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Ash,

Quote:

I thought AIDS was your argument.

It's a reason, not an argument. My argument would be I don't believe our govn should condone immoral behaviour, much like we don't condone incest or polygamy.

Oh. So we can leave AIDS off the official lists of "factual arguments against gay marriage," and put it onto the list of "varrus's personal opinion." Check.

Also note that your next "argument" includes the words "I don't believe" and "immoral behavior," which are subjective. More for the "personal opnion" list.

Edited, May 8th 2009 9:14am by AshOnMyTomatoes

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#547 May 08 2009 at 6:13 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1627863823061

Scholar

3,229 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Ash,

Quote:

I thought AIDS was your argument.

It's a reason, not an argument. My argument would be I don't believe our govn should condone immoral behaviour, much like we don't condone incest or polygamy.

You consider homosexuality to be illegal as incest or polygamy.

Is this religious bigotry, moral or both?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#548 May 08 2009 at 6:36 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

hangtennow wrote:

Jophed,

Quote:

If someone wants to advocate polygamy or incest or marrying their cat

Are you comparing humans with cats?

I'm comparing the "What about polygamy?" argument with the "What about marrying cats?" argument. Both have equal relevance to the gay marriage debate.

If you want to start a new thread discussing polygamy on its own merits apart from the same sex marriage debate, go for it.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

#549 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 6:47 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,

Quote Reply

#550 May 08 2009 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Jophed,

Quote:

If you want to start a new thread discussing polygamy on its own merits apart from the same sex marriage debate, go for it.

BS we're talking about govn advocating immoral behaviour.

You're talking about your definition of immoral behavior. The rest of us are talking about same-sex marriage.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#551 May 08 2009 at 6:51 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1591797278547

Sage

3,829 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Jophed,

Quote:

If you want to start a new thread discussing polygamy on its own merits apart from the same sex marriage debate, go for it.

BS we're talking about govn advocating immoral behaviour.

What's immoral about polygamy? If all parties are consenting adults and there has been no coercion, what's wrong with allowing more than two people to commit to a stable and permanent family unit? Heck, there is even Biblical support for it.

▲ Page top

The problem with "domestic partnership"Follow