I don't even get why this proposition ever existed. Because, gay marriage WAS legal in California for a while before this ever came up, and everything was fine! No problems arose because of gays and lesbians being allowed to marry in California, so why was this thing written up in the first place?
@jonathanUtah1 Because of people like you. Also, not all gay people kill themselves. And straight people kill themselves, too. So you pretty much missed every target with that one:P
@hearttopmodel05 When straight people kill themselves we acknowledge their mental illness. When Gays kill themselves we put the blame on everyone else. For a person to kill themselves they have to angry at themselves, the violence they commit is against themself. So back to my original point why are the suicide rates so high in the gay community? If they were angry at the "Bullies" then why are the homicide rates not higher?
@jonathanUtah1 Again, your argument is flawed from the ground up. Because people don't kill themselves ONLY because of mental illness, and it's extremely ignorant and narrow-minded for you to say that. People kill themselves for a whole host of reasons, and if any specific thing is driving mass amounts of people to give up hope on life, gay or straight, then it's unacceptable.
@hearttopmodel05 So it is a crime to be mean to someone? So if a kid comes to school with a horrible haircut and his friends make fun of him and then he kills himself they should be punished right.
@jonathanUtah1 Making fun of someone's haircut isn't bullying. Also, being mean to someone and bullying are very, very different things. CLEARLY you don't know what bullying is. Bullying is far more vicious and unrelenting, and is meant to tear down someone's self-esteem. It's common sense that no one's going to kill themselves just because someone made fun of their hair, and if they did it would be very unusual.
@jonathanUtah1 because fucked up people like who bully them to the point of suicide. How would you feel is someone debilitated you to the point of having no hope in the world. You are so ignorant it disgusts me. Homophobia at it's best. It is 2011. By the way, why are you watching a No PROP 8 video? Are you gay? Cool with me.
@Dslater417 That makes no sense. Would you kill yourself if you were bullied? Why do you need other people to draw your hope from? Maybe these kids are just crazy!
@jonathanUtah1 Personally? No, I wouldn't kill myself. However, when you think that this is the way that society views and perceives you, that the horrible people in High School will follow you into adulthood, and that just about all hope in the world is lost, what would you do? There really is no changing you mind here, and as mad as you're making me, I pity you. Homosexuality isn't the disease, your homophobia is the real disease. I hope one day you will realize that.
I live in Den Haag, Netherlands and I think you are stupid. We have had gay marriage here for 10 years and the sky has not fallen. Wha is God waiting for? he all powerful he could destory Nederland, Canada and Sweden etc. Also do you think it is okay to be attracted to the same sex but not to act on it? Why? Why deny yourself the right to love a person? Love can never be a bad thing. We are sexual creatures and are supposed have relationships with others. Gay sex hurts noone
How comes no kathy griffin talking about Black peoples in the jail and not in the college. all peeples care about is the gay and no won cares about blacks. Racists.
@Laroughtenshighton I think CreekJohnson is black - so I think he is upset that his community does not receive celebrity endorsement for their plights.
@CreekJohnson200 This is about prop 8, I'm sure there are plenty of videos on racism out there, look it up. But first, look up "Everyone's a little bit racist" from Avenue Q, and listen to the song. It's very truthful.
@BROADCASTRECAPTV "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees (religious leaders), you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean" ....sounds like this guy hated religion too.
Like we don't have better things to think about. lol that made my day. people need to grow up and let gays get married, don't teach it in school, just let them marry eachother, and then focous on more improtant things.
@auryc7 Humans are not a monogamous species. Monogamy can be forged, but it is never natural. If you think that gays are less likely to desire monogamy, then you have failed to realize that polls based on the testimony of self-character are even less reliable than most polls.
I still don't see your point. Are you saying that we should ban adoption? Or do you want to ban the marriage of people who do adopt? I cannot understand why children would influence your opinion of gay marriage.
@B01318183 Monogamy is a learned behavior, and those who don't learn it tend towards rather shorter lifespans. It is only thanks to modern medical technology that they live as long as they do. If you don't think this is the case, I urge you to look up the origins and spread of HIV. As far as 'excessive procreation'....what do you consider excessive procreation? Overpopulation today is due in no small part to medical advances causing people to live longer.
@rumours77 When are heterosexuals going to learn monogamy? Probably about the same time that we enforce it. There USED to be social penalties for NOT being monogamous and also for procreating outside of marriage, but it's become socially acceptable and now we have women with five kids, all with different fathers and if we don't feed them (because they won't work) we are heartless bastards.
As if griffin can be taken seriously about anything... the chick is crazy batshit insane. How does it help the gay community by having all these crazy assholes saying it's ok to be gay. The poster child for "gay" these days seems to be dumbass nuts who can't say anything about self control. Typical hollywood bs.
@rumours77 Who isn't without fault? But hollywood is on the leading edge of apostasy, and they are hand in hand with the perverted and deviant. Truly iam a sinner of the worst kind, but have been saved by the grace of God through Christ.
@rumours77 Who isn't without fault? But hollywood is on the leading edge of apostasy, and they are hand in hand with the perverted and deviant. Truly iam a sinner of the worst kind, but have been saved by the grace of God through Christ.
@fatskateman Let's look at it from another perspective too. Recently a kidney recipient was found to be AIDS positive....which he got from the kidney donor (who'd had unprotected sex). Let's look at lifespans: The kidney donor, with AIDs drugs, may live 10 years or more. The kidney recipient now has AIDS AND has to take antirejection drugs which SUPRESS HIS IMMUNE SYSTEM! He may not even live 1 or 2 years! How is getting a lethal disease NOT his business? The donor's choice is killing him.
@auryc7 Actually its the screening proses that failed. Also the transplant was done incorrectly. There should NOT have been any blood in the kidney at the time of the transplant and there was. I'm surprised the recipient didn't die due to clotting.
So if you are right and the donor's choice is killing him, what punishment should the donor face? Life? Death penalty? A fine? What effect would this have on others choosing to donate?
@fatskateman The screening process did not fail, the donor did not follow the doctor's instructions. The transplant was done correctly. The residual blood in the kidney would be enough to pass the AIDS virus. That is why anyone around an AIDS infected person is instructed to stay away from that person's blood and wipe down any surface that the infected person's blood has been on WITH BLEACH. There are health classes specifically for dealing with blood bourne pathogens.
@auryc7 So again what punishment should the donor face?
Just because a gay person describes other gay people as being hedonistic, doesn't mean that he has the knowledge or has done the research to say with any certainty that he is right. Just a person's opinion based on his limited personal experience. If I wanted to suppress black people I could find black people making sweeping negative generalizations about themselves and use it against them. Doesn't make what they said statistically true.
@fatskateman As for punishment.....I'd reccommend, at the least, that his name and identity are publically released and that all his friends, family, and coworkers be notified that they should be tested for AIDS. As far as the hedonism.....the american psychiatric association noted that homosexuals are usually not monogamous, some of the other sources I have quoted in the past noted even married homosexuals not being monogamous and the gay guy I quoted was on Yahoo answers.
@auryc7 So shame! U think this person, who went through an incredibly painful surgery at no benefit of his own, should be shamed and ridiculed for, and yes he did, saving the life of a dying person. BTW U should read the story closer. The donor died! The donor died, the match was made, the kidney was taken, was NOT drained of blood. If it was the internal temp would have dropped to around 40 degrees killing any HIV. But ti was full of blood and internal temp only dropped to 65 w/ HIV surviving
@fatskateman Look up 'Patient gets AIDS from Kidney Transplant' on Stuff.co.nz and you'll find that not only are you wrong, but you are also wrong in multiple instances. This was on my FIRST SEARCH RESULT! Also, take a look at 'HIV during blood transfusion' and you will find on Healthcaremagic(.com) that a doctor has answered the question that at 4 degrees Celsius, it can live for 3 weeks and it can live for YEARS if frozen. 40 F is above 4 C. Proven wrong again.
You have continuously failed to acknowledge overpopulation as a very real and dangerous problem. You have also failed to give me one very specific example of a dangerous effect that would occur if it were allowed.
@B01318183 I understand overpopulation as a problem, but encouraging homosexuality doesn't address that. A very significant portion of the homosexual population HAS children from past heterosexual relationships. (source, US Census). Sterilization, limits to how or when couples may have children will address the issue, but once again...good luck with that. The idea that women have the RIGHT to procreate and the RIGHT to be supported by the government when they do is common these days.
@auryc7 "A very significant portion of the homosexual population HAS children from past heterosexual relationships." LIES. Well. Define "very significant portion" cus that can mean anything. And wouldn't accepting homosexuality reduce the social pressure to attempt a heterosexual lifestyle, resulting in less homosexuals having babies?
@auryc7 You seem to be confused. My argument is not that homosexuality is superior; my argument is that heterosexuality is not superior. My argument is that procreation is not always the best thing, especially in this era.
Your main point was that heterosexuality is superior because of reproduction. Your "US Census" citation only shows me that any fertile person, both gay and straight, can reproduce. It ironically weakens your original point.
@B01318183 I'm not confused. My point remains. Heterosexuality can, and often does, result in children. Homosexuality does not. No man-man or woman-woman pairing ever has or will result in naturally occurring offspring of the two. From a cultural perspective, I believe that barring criminal behavior or death, the natural parents of a child should raise that child. Also, from a cultural perspective, I believe that monogamy is both correct and superior and statistically, gays aren't monogamous.
Okay, so....the only time heterosexuals have sex is for the purpose of having children?? They never have sex just for fun??
Monogamous?? You show me a man who has sex for the first time on his wedding night, remains faithful to his one and only wife until death not divorce do them part, never even looking at another woman with lust in his eyes, and I will show you the true meaning of "minority".
A piece of ass is a piece of ass....ask any straight boy. He'll tell you.
@rumours77 You can have sex just for fun, but if you aren't monogamous you are taking risks. If you are engaging in anal sex or oral sex there are risks there, too, since those aren't orfices designed for that particular use. If you aren't sterile, you are risking getting pregnant if you are a woman or impregnating your partner if you are a guy. The whole 'a piece of ass is a piece of ass' is the reason that MILLIONS of africans have AIDS. Please, by all means tell them 'it's just sex'.
Cars crash more often than airplanes. Should I take a jet to work?
I created that analogy in order to combat your assertion that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality. You think that if something can be considered superior in one situation, it should be considered superior in all situations. Our national and international situation is not one that can be cured with excessive procreation. In fact, excessive procreation is dangerous.
@B01318183 Lastly, if you think overpopulation is the problem, look to who is producing most. How about all those welfare moms just pumping out more kids and all of them have different fathers and those moms are not only not married, they haven't even finished high school. How would YOU fix that? Think about it. Sterilization? Good luck with that. You'll hear the screams of outrage on the moon. Cut off welfare? How dare you starve them. Educate them? They want to be ignorant.
The idea that you are not forcing anything on anyone just because you are "defending the established position" is rediculous. It only means that you, and others like you, have been forcing your belief on society for years. Sex is not marriage. Conflating the two makes you sound insensitive and unrealistic.
@B01318183 Secondly, you should look at the results of the alternatives. Polygamy can work, but most societies in which it operates view women as property, not equal to men. Middle east and third world countries for example. ANY study of multiple sex partners will show widespread STD spread and AIDS spread. Take Africa for example. Marriage has historically been a lifetime commitment. Studies have shown shorter relationships and lack of monogamous relations with homosexual couples.
@fatskateman Actually, the study I was quoting was one of YOUR sources about marriages in (the Netherlands?) It's the same study that pointed out that lesbian couples divorce at twice the rate of gay male couples. www2.law.ucla.edu(williamsinstitute/publications/USCensusSnapshot.pdf) has a good set of numbers, but you have to do the math yourself. As of 2005, there were 270,313 children living with same sex couples and an estimated 65,500 adopted children. That's a significant portion.
@auryc7 Do you really think its honest to lump surrogacy and sperm donation in with "past heterosexual relationships"? Heres another issue of dishonesty, maybe you're just repeating this so I don't blame U. Gay woman get divorced more than straight people; gay men are less monogamous than straight people. It is not acceptable to extrapolate that into saying that gays get divorced more often and are less monogamous. Its a lie. A blatant and intentional misuse of the data.
@fatskateman Unless you can provide solid numbers about sperm donation and surrogacy, it is entirely logical to assume that most of those children were concieved and born heterosexually. As far as the lie, what sources are you using? I used loveandpride(com) and I quote: There is a high rate of divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within eight years and lesbian couples 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples
@auryc7 If U don't have the facts U can't just make them up. U do this a lot. If something makes sense to U, U assume its true and then state it as fact. U may be right about this, I don't know. YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER!
loveandpride(com is a jewelry site. Please clarify
@fatskateman The website I gave you is the correct one. Put in 'loveandpride' and 'wedding statistics' in your search engine. I would point out that I was searching for a site that had the data and approached the subject from YOUR direction. I honestly can't find any other statistics from a pro gay site. I had troubles finding antigay sites with them, and those were mostly religious. I did find a fascinating post in Yahoo Answers where a gay guy explained the hedonistic gay community.
@auryc7Well the issues we've been discussing are not very convincing on either side. So it doesn't surprise me you can't find a whole lot of publicized studies on news websites. I have access to the University data base being a due paying alumni. The most convincing argument comes from personal relationships. People are most comfortable with gay marriage when they have contact with gay people.
Unless I'm going to have sex with you, you do not need to know or be concerned about who I sleep with
@fatskateman Let me refute your argument. Let's say in one year you have three sex partners. Let's say each of those people, being of like mind, have three sex partners also (including you). You haven't slept with 3 people. From a center for disease control perspective, you've slept with NINE people, and that's only one step removed. Clinics that treat STDs have been able to literally trace certain specific strains of STDs through communities. Person A infected B and C who infected D,E,F, etc.
@auryc7 The scenario you present only works if the exposure to infection rate is 100%. Everyone that is exposed becomes infected. I don't know of any disease that works that certainly not any STDs. Also you must assume that the infected is instantly contagious and able to spread the disease the moment they become infected. Again I dont know of any pathogen that works that way.
Why was the kidney recipient who contracted HIV big news? Is it because it happens all the time or because it was rare?
@fatskateman The scenario I present works every time. It is in use by the CDC and the AMA and is used by health organizations around the world. You find a carrier and you have to assume anyone in contact with said carrier is infected unless proven otherwise. It works with flus, colds, viruses, and you bet your butt that they treat AIDS the same way. As for the kidney recipient, it was news because the donor was tested AIDS free 11 days before the procedure and did something stupid after that.
@auryc7 Creating models for the spread of disease is complicated. Let me ask you, how does condom use factor into the model you present?
It was news because it has NEVER happened before. Not from that type of transplant. It happened because the kidney, which does not carry HIV in its tissue, was not handled properly and the blood in side which should have been drained and transfused with the recipient's blood, was not and still contained the virus.
@fatskateman The STD spread the clinics were tracking wasn't 'complicated'. It was facts as to who had which disease and who got that particular type of STD next. The 'model' I presented wasn't a hypothetical, it was a representation of ACTUAL tracking of STDs. As for the transplant....you CAN'T remove ALL traces of blood from the organ and even ONE cell can pass on AIDS. As for why it has NEVER happened, it is because of rigorous testing to prevent AIDS carriers from donating.
@auryc7 Ive heard this stat before. Sweden legalized civil unions in 1995 marriage in 2009. The study you're citing is from 2005. The couples that married in fear the unions would be repealed (now or never) who weren't ready divorced soon after. You see this tread when ever marriage law are expanded. Inter-faith, inter-racial, same-sex, all show this trend. High divorce rates in the first decade and drop off drastically by the end of the 2nd. This was expected and normal and not specific to gays
@fatskateman I'll also point out, though it doesn't necessarily mean anything, that gay marriages in the netherlands have continued to decline since it's legalization....apparently since homosexuals as a whole have become disinterested in marriage in the Netherlands. I am rather disturbed by the 'free sexuality' in the gay community. I point again to the STD and AIDS spread. It happens with heterosexuals too, but there's no incentive for gays to not 'ride bareback'. There is for heteros
@rumours77 As I told fatskateman, when your sex life affects other people by spreading AIDS or STDs, you bet it's my business. I'm not just down on homosexuals....I'm down on heterosexuals too. People with multiple sex partners are hands down the leading cause of STD spread and one of the leading causes of AIDS spread. Just like other diseases, we ALL need to be stamping on this....HARD.
You're using AIDS as an excuse to help support your own personal hatred for gay people and gay marriage, just as Christians use the Bible for the same thing. If gay people were allowed to get married, they wouldn't (legally) be allowed to "sleep around" (legally) which could possibly cut down on their promiscuity and therefore AIDS, and you know this.
What are you doing to help put an END to heterosexual horny college boy hot-chick promiscuity, and how can I help you do it??
@rumours77 On the contrary, I'm using the fact that homosexual subculture is hedonistic (that was the expression used by gay people talking about their own culture) and the proliferation of multiple sex partners to speak out against multiple sex partners and hedonism. I am also against gay marriage, but one of the things I turned up is that many of the married homosexuals are promiscuous ANYWAYS. As for ending college promiscuity...I'm up for any ideas you have. I am against it.
@fatskateman You argue about the transmission of STDs even though they are called SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES which only can happen via sex via MULTIPLE PARTNERS. You argue about hedonism and lack of monogamy amongst homosexuals, yet STD clinics have shown conclusively about the spread of STDs and AIDS in gay communities and you argue about the testimony of people from that very community. AIDS carriers are NOT suitable for transplant organs. You should have already known that.
Lets say I have HIV. Say I've had 5 sexual partners in my life. Lets say sex partner 1 has HIV. Partner 2 does not. 3 does. 4 does not. And 5 has HIV. Who did I catch it from and who did I give it to.
The disease model U presented, the 1 that "clinics were...(using to)...actually track STDs" should easily be able to tell exactly whom spread HIV to whom with only this info. Any extra piece of info U need makes the model exponentially more complex
@fatskateman As for your 'example'....ANY exchange of bodily fluids can transmit HIV. Blood, saliva, urine....it can ALL transmit HIV. Considering your lack of even BASIC knowledge of criteria for organ donation, HIV and STDs you can continue arguing, but all you are doing is showing ignorance.
@auryc7 Well acording to The Center for Disease Control HIV can only be transmited through blood, plasma, semen and vaginal fluid. Also, since HIV has no DNA rather it has RNA, it cannot survive in temps below 50 degrees or temps above 125 being that the RNA brakes apart. The RNA will also brake apart in envirnments which are too acidic as in saliva or not acidic enough as in urine. Many viruses can survive being frozen but not HIV. Proven wrong...HARDLY
@fatskateman Yes, proven wrong. As my source pointed out, frozen HIV can exist indefinitely and HIV at 4 C can live for 3 weeks.....WAY longer than an organ can remain viable. Transplant criteria mandate HIV, Hepatitis and other bloodbourne pathogen testing BEFORE organ donation can occur. Even in the case of an organ donor pronounced dead, they HAVE to do blood tests BEFORE transplanting any organs. UWHealth(.org) under 'organ donation' has a good list of tests with a 4 hr turnaround time.
@auryc7 Whats the difference between "exist" and viable for infection. My body will still exist if frozen but my body would not be viable as a life form because my cells would brake down and not be able to multiply. HIV exists and can be detected in saliva and urine but they are not viable for infection being that the RNA is damaged and can not multiply. Same can be said for HIV that has been frozen. Again, miss use of the data to prove a point. I say that makes you a lier.
@fatskateman Really? You like to play with language. PostitiveFriends(.com) agrees with my first source that HIV can survive freezing and in low temperatures when in blood. In the case of organs, there is no way to cleanse an organ that doesn't destroy its viability. Your attempts to manipulate my vocabulary to call me a liar is a transparent attempt to call attention away from the fact that you don't know what you are talking about. I say that makes you an ignorant idiot.
@auryc7 Why didn't this completely hault all transplants? If the responcability to make sure an organ is free of HIV and safe for transplant falls SOLELY on the DONOR, organ transplant would would NOT BE POSSIBLE.
Instead it makes for interesting news. The risk from contracting HIV from a person who's viral load is not detectable is incrediably low, even from a trasplant. With 3,000,000 people, even if the odds are 3 billion to 1 that something like this might happen, it still happens
@fatskateman You are, again, an idiot. The first problem was (and is) people ignoring the fucking doctors. When a doctor says 'don't have unprotected sex' (and yes, that IS but ONE of the cautions donors get) he means.....don't have unprotected sex. Second problem is that the doctors foolishly trusted the donor not to be stupid. In the case of organ donors that come from people that wre in accidents and are brain dead, they do tests with a 4 hour turnaround time to verify no diseases/viruses.
@auryc7 Why would doctors foolishly trust someone. Why would they not do the test at the time of the donation. Im fairly certain they do, or at least, they are suppose to.
What does "viral load" mean to you? Im pretty sure I understand what it means.
I brought up HIV from a kidney transplant? I think that was you budy!
Oh yes. " Most Gay arn't monogamous(wrong)"lead to "non-monogamy leads to HIV(wrong a virgin can get STI while being monogamous)" "its my business cus kidney transplant"
@fatskateman Since you've done absolutely NO research on the subject, I'll school you. No, doctors don't necessarily trust anyone, but except in rush cases, there's simply not enough people in the lab to do a priority blood test on a donor that has known they were going to donate for days. The blood test is done beforehand (varying time standards for the transplant clinics) and the person is cautioned NOT to do certain things before the surgery.
@auryc7 "prophylactic drugs are often used by health care workers exposed to HIV. It is used to prevent perinatal transmission in newborn infants of HIV-infected woman as well as treating organs preped to be transplanted. Treatment typically involes such drugs as zidovudine, commonly known by its trade name, AZT." globelhealth(dot)com
Would a trasplant from a live donor be a "rush case"? Wouldnt that be a paced case with enough time to do proper testing? Why trust the donor? U Making shit up?
@fatskateman I'm most certainly not making anything up. Even a cursory examination of many websites about transplants will give you the same information. As far as "rush" cases....yes there are rush cases. Haven't you EVER gone to the DMV and had them ask you if you wanted to be an organ donor? In the case of debilitating crash which deadlines your brain, people who are organ donors can have any suitable organs removed for transplant.
@fatskateman In the case of people who simply volunteer to give organs....there are sometimes a few days between final testing and transplant. Third problem is that I'm not sure you even know what a 'viral load' is since you didn't have any clue about anything ELSE having to do with HIV. The tests are pretty thorough and would likely have found it regardless of viral loading. As for this conversation....it's a tangent YOU went off on, not me.
@auryc7 "you didn't have any clue about anything ELSE having to do with HIV" really I'm not the one that thinks someone can catch HIV from the urine on a toilet seat or the saliva from kissing. It's actually relatively difficult to catch HIV compared to other viruses. HIV is very fragile and its RNA falls apart rather easily. Which is why we can't make a vaccine for it. A weakened form of the virus just falls apart and the anti-bodies never form an immune responce from the pile of HIV pieces.
@fatskateman As far as HIV....you don't apparently realize that there is no way to sterilize an organ and have it remain viable, and as for your 'examples' of what I believe.....no, I don't think that and never did. You made it up and attributed it to me. As for me bringing this up.....HIV and STDs are spread heavily via sex, so monogamy stops the spread. Monogamy in marriage stops the spread. Gays are statistically not monogamous in or out of marriage.
"Monogamy in marriage stops the spread. Gays are statistically not monogamous in or out of marriage." What experience do you have with gay marriage?? How may Gay people have you been married too?? Straight people are also not monogamous, otherwise divorce wouldn't be nothing more than just a hobby.
@rumours77 As far as statistical homosexual marriage, I was citing a study in the Netherlands, where gay marriage IS legal and the number of gay marriages there continue to decline every year. Also, the American Psychiatric Association mentions this lack of monogamous behavior in their article on homosexuality and there is a homosexual man who talked about the homosexual community he came from on Yahoo Answers. As far as consequences of nonmonogamous behavior....AIDS and STDs are but two.
"citing a study in the Netherlands where Gay marriage IS legal" doesn't cut it. Gay marriage is also legal right here in the United State of Iowa as well as all New England states with the exception of Rhode Island, and Rhode Island offers Legal Unions.
I know countless straight people that have been married and divorced countless times (the ones whom bothered to get married) because they can't stop sleeping around, and spreading STDs. One of which is unwanted pregnancy.
Every study says a child a natural family is the ideal environment.How do children get male & womanhood bonding available only in a natural marriage?Saying marriage is a civil right is an insult to Dr. King & Malcolm X.Sodomy is not a civil right.Dr. Robert Spitzer, who got this off the list of mental diseases in the 1980's said 2001: "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue some people can and do change"
@rumours77 Legalized gay marriage hasn't been around in the US long enough for any meaningful statistics to have developed. Even the netherlands statistics are only based around about a decade's worth of results. I think it is important to point out, however, that gay marriages in the netherlands have been dwindling every year. As for the straights, yeah, I know that straights are prone to sleeping around too. There is, however, a little bit more caution involved generally due to pregnancy.
"meaningful statistics", "decades worth of results", The Netherlands", "dwindling every year", "sleeping around, too", ............not the hot issue. You're blaming AIDS and STD s on Gay people ALONE and you're full of shit. Let's talk about you hetero-whore-hopping boys, shall we??
@rumours77 I'm not, in fact, blaming gay people alone for anything. Your accusation that I am, and your statement that I am "full of shit" proves that you don't have ANY grasp on my argument. What I AM saying is that I do not support gay marriage because statistically, in places that HAVE gay marriage, gays STILL don't behave monogamously. STDs and AIDS are passed along in great part due to promiscuity and percentage wise, homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals.
We are no longer talking about Gays, we are now going to talk about promiscuous straight boys whom sleep with multiple women, many of them even after they are married (hence the term "DIVORCE"), and the diseases they spread by their "whore hopping".
I haven't had sex in 6 months. My son hasn't had sex with less than 20 different women in 6 months.
@rumours77 Unless your son came about by artificial means, you had sex with a member of the opposite sex, therefore you are more properly 'bisexual'. As far as your son's promiscuity.....I'd say he was irresponsible. You, presumably, raised him so I'd lay a fair amount of credit for his sterling behavior at your feet. I'm not saying you caused him to sleep around, but I can't imagine you fulfilled your role as a parent very well. Where's his other parent in all this?
@rumours77 Let's compare, shall we? My parents have been together, happily married, for 40+ years. They raised my siblings and I with morality, discipline, a strong work ethic and showed us daily exactly how much work a real marriage was. They showed nothing but love and support through our various endeavers, and as a result, my sibs and I are all fairly successful. My sibs are ALSO married and have children...who exhibit the same ethics, morality, discipline and manners that my parents taught.
@rumours77 Compared to three generations of successful, productive, decent people, we have you and your hedonistic son. So we like sex too.....so? What raises me and most other people above the animals is our forethought, consideration, and willingness to restrain our base instincts, which is a skill that apparently you and your son don't have. Your whining and excuses for your son's behavior are reprehensible.
It's not just my son, you stupid fuck. It's it's the entire male heterosexual race. You people will fuck anything that stands still and says "yes". And then make up excuses for it.
My whining, My ass. You're full of shit dude.....and a hypocrite to boot.....
@rumours77 Firstly, I follow my own views, so I can't be a hypocrite. Secondly, I believe I've pointed out before that fun thing called 'self control' which you apparently lack. Thirdly, if you want to blame somebody for something, look in the mirror. You had a child with somebody and then what....just decided later on to be gay? You didn't, apparently, have the decency to raise the child with his other parent, and from your own words you didn't put the least bit of morality into his head.
@auryc7 R U a virgin? Have U slept with anyone before the poor girl U have not yet married? If U define monogamy in such a way that its practice would end all STDs then U are not monogamous unless U and your girl R both virgins. To suggest that all of humanity is to do this, 1 sex partner a lifetime, then first U must change what it is to be human.
What do you say to monogamous gays who can't get married? Too Bad, guilt by association? Just lump all of them together. How is that not Bigotry?
@fatskateman I'm not changing anything. I'm not changing humanity at all. I'm asking for standards to be kept. There is a difference, and it's not exactly unheard of. There are a number of animals who mate for life. Surely if dumb animals can do it, humans can, right? As far as the bigotry....it's all in your point of view. YOU say it's unfair to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation. There are a lot of sexual practices that are illegal. Is the government bigoted?
@auryc7 So because some sex act are illegal that means that any sex act can be illegal? BTW gay sex is not illegal.
U said U can't support gay marriage because gays are not monogamous. Banning ALL gays from marriage when all gays are NOT non-monogamous, is bigotry. I can't see how its not. If the standard for you is monogamy, then why add sexuality to that at all? Why is it a gay-straight issue and not a monogamous vs. non-monogamous issue
@fatskateman I never said gay sex was illegal. I don't support gay marriage in part because of the mindset that gay culture adopts (which is nonmonogamous in part because of the assumption that sex is relatively risk free). I also don't support gay marriage because I don't think homosexuality is a normal or natural biological act. I consider it deviant. The sexual standard I use is: Two consenting adults of different genders, nonrelated, engaging in vaginal intercourse in a monogamous fashion.
@auryc7 So why bring up monogamy at all? Besides feeling it to be distasteful, its persistence isn't a deciding factor at all. If it were the case that all homosexuals were completely monogamous, you would still not support gay marriage. You still support straight marriage even though a vast majority of us at one point or another do not practice monogamy.
It seems to me that monogamy is a red haring; hand waving in order to demonize gays and make yourself look like less of bigoted douche-bag
@fatskateman Really? Bigoted douche-bag, am I? Strong words coming from someone who has proven repeatedly that he's full of hot air. I'm still waiting for that reference about treating transplant organs with drugs. I'm still waiting to hear if you think the government is bigoted. I'm also waiting for a coherent counterargument. I've told you the sexual standard that I follow, and if you check current sexual laws against it, the government generally follows it too.
Is the government bigoted? In some places yes, government officials are bigoted and often violate the constitution.
So the government follows your sexual standard? So where on a marriage license does it stipulate that you must have vaginal intercourse? In fact the state doesn't care how or with whom you have sex when validating a marriage. These issues can affect how a marriage is dissolved if 1 or both partners decide to end it, not the same thing.
@fatskateman be more specific about your source...I couldn't find anything on treating transplant organs with drugs. As far as sexual standards...it doesn't say on a marriage licence that you can't do a lot of things. I was establishing a frame of reference for what sexual deviance is. I don't think that (providing it doesn't cause harm to others) most sexual deviances should be illegal or regulated. I do feel that only the standard should be legally recognised, however.
U said yesterday that the government holds the same standards on sex and marriage that U do, but today U are clearly saying that government is out of step with your standards. So which is it? This leads me to think that U are willing to say anything to make a point. I personally believe in smaller government not one that is regulating the goings on inside our bedrooms. If the gov. has these powers officials can outlaw any personal morality on all of us. Condoms outlawed ext
@fatskateman Check my standard against sexual laws. Fact is, sex and sex drives evolved for one reason: reproduction. Any sexual act which could prevent this is therefore a deviance from the intent of sex, and I feel no deviance should have legal standing. Another example of what I'm talking about: One of the strongest instincts any animal has is to survive. Suicide is considered abberant behavior because it runs counter to that basic instinct, hence, illegal.
@auryc7 So evolution is your standard for sexual morality? BS! So no condoms no anal no homo no masturbation? Why choose evolution for SEXUAL standards and not on footwear, travel or trade. Evolution has prepared us to be violent, but thats just fine if evolution is the standard, right?
We do not live in the world evolution has prepared us for. Exp. Our sex drive is geared for a 85% infant morality rate. Today the US has a .0068% infant mortality. Does this influence your standards at all?
@fatskateman The thing is.....sex is a biological act. The penis and vagina are DESIGNED to go together. All the other variations on it, such as anal sex, oral sex,beastiality, fetishes.....they are exactly what I said: deviations. Some are relatively harmless, some are quite harmful. The law generally makes the harmful ones illegal. My position is that NO deviation should have a legal standing. Circumventing reproduction via prophyllactics is a related but separate issue.
@auryc7 Actually the anus has a very good design for sex. Its the right size, the right shape, its self lubricated, prostate stimulation can trigger orgazims in men, and its in the right part of the body for easy penitration. Compare that to say a nostril or an ear. The anus is not as resistant to infection as a vagina although the mouth is MUCH more resistant to infection than the vagina.
If the only reason for sex is reproduction, then condoms should be a bigger issue than homosexuality
@fatskateman Please tell me you are joking. 1. The colonic/rectal muscles ripple DOWN to expel fecal matter. Anal sex directly opposes these one way muscles. 2 Anal shape is not 'right' for anal sex...the penis forcibly moves the colon. 3. The anus doesn't 'self lubricate' worth mentioning-vaginal or oral secretions are FAR more prolific. Authorities ALWAYS recommend lube. 4. Colonic/rectal tears and infection, incontinence, and even colonic perforation are probable results of anal sex.
@auryc7 So the vagina is using muscles to pull the penis in? Wrong, try again.
Unless the penis is unhumanly long then the colon is not moved.
The anus does self lubricate, thats how shit slides out and why a penis can slide in. Authorities will also say to use lube during vaginal sex.
Incontinence? Ive debunked U on this before, but let me refer you to "Savage LoveCast" episode #240 where Dan Savage discusses this myth with Dr. Vy Chu
@fatskateman The anus 'lubrication' is mucus, and is produced in nowhere near the quantities required for sex. If you bothered to learn anything, you'd know that vaginal lube is only required when the woman doesn't have time to 'get wet' or when age reduces the performance of the ducts in the vagina. As far as 'debunking' incontinence....the risk is real. Anal sex can damage the inner and outer anal sphincters resulting in incontinence. The anus is an 'exit only' orfice.
@auryc7 Lets say you an animal where the female's vagina is right next to the ass hole. Being right next to eachother the risk of the male sticking his cock in the ass hole is rather high. Who will reproduce more; a female that becomes incontinent and has painful damage to her colon after anal penetration, or the female that is just fine.
@fatskateman You say evolved, I say designed, but regardless of the verbage you use, you are still an idiot. You are saying that one or more males of ANY species are going to consistantly miss and hit her asshole? You must not know animals very well. It's obvious that you don't understand sex drives or species survival either. Nearly every creature's top two drives are survival and procreation. Oral sex and anal sex have NOTHING to do with either of those things.
@auryc7 Evolved is the right term and designed not not
Dogs, cat, rabits on and on miss all the time and fuck the ass. "one or more males...are going to consistantly miss and hit her asshole?" yes this happens millions of times everyday.
the ass is suitable for sex. The nostil and the ear is not. That is what my post said, dumb fuck. "The anus is not designed for sex" yes its structure is well suitable for sex when compared to the nostril or ear.
@fatskateman The anus is NOT designed for sex, and anal sex serves exactly no purpose. Just because an orfice is big enough for penile penetration does not mean that penile penetration of that orfice is a good idea. And by the by....anal sex, if evolution HAD adapted for it, would have served some reproductive or survival purpose, and it does neither. Once again, you fail.
Once again, YOU fail. Heterosexual people perform anal sex on a regular basis, and you are doing NOTHING to stop it. Why?? Because heterosexual anal sex isn't gay and all you are doing is attacking gay sex because you are not gay and you don't understand being gay. That's what we humans do. We attack things we don't understand. You don't care about heterosexual "sodomy". If you did, you'd stop it. All you care about is hating gay people.
@rumours77 You once again miss my point. I DON'T CARE if anyone is gay, anyone enjoys anal or oral sex....I frankly don't give a shit if you like screwing animals. What you concievably do in the bedroom with another consenting adult is your own business. What you do in the LEGAL arena, however, IS my business, just as it is anyone's business. Gay marriage ignores the fact that gender roles DO have a purpose and a role in the Legal system and with marriage.
I once again miss your point because you once again fail to make it. You say you don't care if someone is gay out of one side of your mouth and then say that gay people do not have the right to be legal out of the other side of your mouth, because "gender roles DO have a purpose". Which is true. To pro-create, and that's it. Which means all of these bed-hopping college boys, divorce, re-marriage all of these things you make up acceptable excuses for are just that. Excuses.
@rumours77 My point? Marriage is for heterosexual couples because of the (statistical) ability to produce children (naturally) in the bonds of matrimony. There are reasons to allow for divorce and re-marriage, but as I've said before (and you've ignored) I'm AGAINST bed-hopping. As far as who you are sleeping with...if you are married and it's not your spouse, you are WRONG. Period. If you are not married, I don't care who or what you sleep with, just don't advocate sleeping around.
I don't advocate sleeping around either, I just don't appreciate you assuming that all bed-hoppers are gay, they are not. Yes, gay men do sleep around, but straight men AND women do too and AIDS/HIV (the origin of this argument) is not limited to the gay community. For the record, unwanted pregnancies and abortions have little or nothing to do with the gay community which you seem to be attacking because we sleep around.
Attack your own people for a change. They sleep around, too.
@rumours77 1. I don't attack gays about abortions or unwanted pregnancies. You must be projecting.
2. Marriage is a LEGAL issue. I'm not telling you you can't be with a girl you love, I'm not telling you you can't engage in whatever harmless sex you like, I'm saying that there is a definite difference between sex and marriage. Marriage, statistically involves children, which is something homosexual partners cannot naturally have.
@auryc7 When a men is sexually aroused his anal glad produces lube. Isn't that strange? Anal stimulation can cause men to orgasm. From your point of view, these facts are bizzare. Beyond strange, why would this be if anal sex played no part in our evolution. Add in the fact that bonobos and chimps regularly practice anal sex. These are our closest animal relatives and they practice male-on-male anal sex.
BUT IN NO WAY DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION!! Your stupidity hurts people.
@fatskateman So you're saying men's asses get sloppy when they have sex? Please, do me the favor of showing me your references. I've never seen a guy with a dripping butthole from being sexually aroused, otherwise teenage boys would be soaking the back of their underwear every day. As for chimps and bonobos........humans have a nice, wide variety of STDs....how many OTHER animals procreate madly and have STDs? Bonobos also practice incest. You are for that too?
@auryc7 Ever washed a teenaged boys underwear? Savage lovecaste episode #215 which cites The American Journal of Men's Health. The effect decreases with age but is still detectable in elderly men
"how many OTHER animals procreate madly and have STDs?" um lets see. Cats cows dogs dolphins rabbits on and on and on.
Horizontal incest had very little risk. However Vertical incest is very risky and interestingly enough bonobos don't do that. Its one of the only bonobial sexual taboos.
@fatskateman Interestingly enough, I missed the huge rabbit herpes outbreak, I didn't hear a peep about the cat clamydia sweeping the nation, and I haven't seen a thing on the dolphins with genital warts.....oh, and humans are the only ones dying of AIDS.......primates don't get sick from PIV. As for teenage boys underwear....I was a teenage boy once and I was just as horny as any other teenage boy....oddly enough, for your argument, I didn't have mucus dripping out my butt.
@auryc7 Cats die all the tim eof FIV BTW. And yes dolphins get herp as do rabbits. So you know about PIV, then when you asked about animal STDs you knew for a fact they exist. You dishonest asshole.
Odd about your butt though. Strange. I wonder how many times a woman has to change her underwear cus of all the vaginal fluid dripping down her leg. Teenage girls are just as horny as teenage guys. I bet thats why they use those pad thingys. what do you think? Dumbass
@fatskateman WoW...okay, first thing: PIV does not in any way, shape, or form affect monkeys. PIV crossed species to make HIV which is deadly to us via AIDS. Since it exists benignly, I don't consider it an STD. Second thing....women change their underwear because of VAGINAL secretions, not anal secretions, and generally, the pads are used for their PERIOD. Please do us all a favor and take a sex ed class. Any reasonable resource will prove you wrong.
@auryc7 U pretend not to realize when others are being snarky. Now really, be honest and I know thats hard for you, did you really think that I didn't know why woman wear pads?
The fact that you think vaginal secretions soil woman's panties makes me think that you might be a virgin. Having never been exposed to a vagina, you wouldn't know that this isn't the case for most woman. Nor is this the case for most men. Ever get a brown spot on your underwear even when you wiped well? Sometimes, right
@fatskateman Yes, I really think you didn't know why women wear pads. You attempted to link that with guys soaking their underwear. That's not generally an issue with most guys, hence why there aren't pads for guys. I don't even want to THINK about that commercial. As far as the HIV infection....first, HIV was first discovered in the 1980's, althought there are indications it existed in the 70's. The first organ transplant infection was in the 1190s in italy.
@auryc7 OIC yes I was using sarcasm. You were assuming that men would anal secretions dripping down their legs or soaking their underwear. I was comparing this to women, which we both agree secrete vaginal fluid, who do not typically have vaginal fluid dripping down their legs or soaking their underwear.
1190's ha? When was the first SUCCESSFUL organ transplant? Actually HIV maybe have been around a lot longer being that the area from which it developed had little to no healthcare.
@fatskateman When PIV made the species jusmp and became HIV I only know from records, and I'll trust the records. For your information, the first successful organ transplant was in 1954. As for case law supporting who you can and cannot marry. Incest laws come to mind. Arranged marriages come to mind, and parents giving consent for their minor children come to mind as well. Age of consent laws restrict your choices by will of the electorate.....hell, POLYGAMY laws restrict marriage choices
@auryc7 Arranged marriages are not illegal as long as all parties consent. Polygamy laws don't discriminate based on any physical qualifcations. Age of consent is designed to protect children from clear risks of physical and/or mental harm as is required of all discriminatory policies, exp. woman's and men's prisons. Where is the clear risk of physical and/or mental harm in allowing gay marriage?
@fatskateman Polygamy, by its very nature discriminates against one sex. If you want the freedom to love and marry who you wish, arranged marriage goes directly against your professed position. Your argument that we have been apex predators is patently false because we haven't existed as humans for even 1 million years and we have consistantly been apex considerably less time than we have existed. We are still prey for sharks, tigers, mountain lions, bears, and other large predators.
@fatskateman 1. Arranged marriages don't really have 'consent, as such. It's a 'this is who you will marry, you WILL do what I say'. 2. Regardless of whether it's many husbands or many wives, the lopsided nature of the relationship denies the gender 'equality' that you are all about. 3. We have been 'apex' for a negligible period of time, evolution wise.
Men's asses's get sloppy when they have sex because the dude on top greases up with KY before sticking it in which causes the slop. Gay teens who have had sex with other gay teens DO soak their underwear. Don't know about every day, but it does happen. I know. I was once a gay teen.
As for the chimps and bimbo icest.........you're on your own. :)
@auryc7 You can really pound the shit and totally fuck your partner's ass. Thats because its structure allows this.
The penis and vagina were never DESIGNED. They do not have a PURPOSE. Life evolved and was not CREATED. We do not have a sex drive SO THAT we will reproduce. We reproduced BECAUSE we had a sex drive.
You have no understanding of what evolution actually is. Im guessing you have a high school education on the subject and your teacher was also the football coach. EPIC FAILURE
@fatskateman Lol....this coming from someone who mentioned nostrils, ear canals and penile penetration in the same post. Either you have no spatial perception, a wild imagination, or you are hung like a hamster. Any other brilliant comments before I start ridiculing you for being an idiot? I absolutely love how you start talking evolution and yet put anal and oral sex in the same context. You are an idiot. Only ONE orfice is for penile penetration: the vagina.
@rumours77 As for penile penetration...it's simple. Biologically speaking, sex actually does something in only ONE instance: vaginal intercourse. While people are free to do whatever they like in their bedrooms (provided it doesn't harm others) my position is that no sexually deviant act (like blowjobs or anal sex) should have any legal standing in our judicial system. I've already stated my position on a sexual standard (read back a few posts) and that is the standard our courts should uphold.
I don't even get why this proposition ever existed. Because, gay marriage WAS legal in California for a while before this ever came up, and everything was fine! No problems arose because of gays and lesbians being allowed to marry in California, so why was this thing written up in the first place?
hearttopmodel05 2 months ago
@hearttopmodel05 If being Gay is normal than why do they kill themselves
jonathanUtah1 2 months ago
@jonathanUtah1 Because of people like you. Also, not all gay people kill themselves. And straight people kill themselves, too. So you pretty much missed every target with that one:P
hearttopmodel05 2 months ago
@hearttopmodel05 When straight people kill themselves we acknowledge their mental illness. When Gays kill themselves we put the blame on everyone else. For a person to kill themselves they have to angry at themselves, the violence they commit is against themself. So back to my original point why are the suicide rates so high in the gay community? If they were angry at the "Bullies" then why are the homicide rates not higher?
jonathanUtah1 2 months ago
@jonathanUtah1 Again, your argument is flawed from the ground up. Because people don't kill themselves ONLY because of mental illness, and it's extremely ignorant and narrow-minded for you to say that. People kill themselves for a whole host of reasons, and if any specific thing is driving mass amounts of people to give up hope on life, gay or straight, then it's unacceptable.
hearttopmodel05 2 months ago
@hearttopmodel05 You are still confused. Its ok. If a girl dumps her boyfriend and he kills himself is she culpable?
jonathanUtah1 2 months ago
Comment removed
hearttopmodel05 2 months ago
@jonathanUtah1 No, it's not a crime to dump someone, while it is a crime to bully someone. But, she would still probably feel guilty about it.
hearttopmodel05 2 months ago
@hearttopmodel05 So it is a crime to be mean to someone? So if a kid comes to school with a horrible haircut and his friends make fun of him and then he kills himself they should be punished right.
jonathanUtah1 2 months ago
@jonathanUtah1 Making fun of someone's haircut isn't bullying. Also, being mean to someone and bullying are very, very different things. CLEARLY you don't know what bullying is. Bullying is far more vicious and unrelenting, and is meant to tear down someone's self-esteem. It's common sense that no one's going to kill themselves just because someone made fun of their hair, and if they did it would be very unusual.
hearttopmodel05 2 months ago
@jonathanUtah1 because fucked up people like who bully them to the point of suicide. How would you feel is someone debilitated you to the point of having no hope in the world. You are so ignorant it disgusts me. Homophobia at it's best. It is 2011. By the way, why are you watching a No PROP 8 video? Are you gay? Cool with me.
Dslater417 2 months ago
@Dslater417 That makes no sense. Would you kill yourself if you were bullied? Why do you need other people to draw your hope from? Maybe these kids are just crazy!
jonathanUtah1 2 months ago
@jonathanUtah1 Personally? No, I wouldn't kill myself. However, when you think that this is the way that society views and perceives you, that the horrible people in High School will follow you into adulthood, and that just about all hope in the world is lost, what would you do? There really is no changing you mind here, and as mad as you're making me, I pity you. Homosexuality isn't the disease, your homophobia is the real disease. I hope one day you will realize that.
Dslater417 2 months ago
@Dslater417 So why not just kill the horrible people?
jonathanUtah1 2 months ago
@jonathanUtah1 We don't want to kill anyone. We need to educate.
Dslater417 2 months ago
@Dslater417 Are you going to set up education camps?
jonathanUtah1 2 months ago
I live in Den Haag, Netherlands and I think you are stupid. We have had gay marriage here for 10 years and the sky has not fallen. Wha is God waiting for? he all powerful he could destory Nederland, Canada and Sweden etc. Also do you think it is okay to be attracted to the same sex but not to act on it? Why? Why deny yourself the right to love a person? Love can never be a bad thing. We are sexual creatures and are supposed have relationships with others. Gay sex hurts noone
MamaMario13 4 months ago
How comes no kathy griffin talking about Black peoples in the jail and not in the college. all peeples care about is the gay and no won cares about blacks. Racists.
CreekJohnson200 4 months ago in playlist Kathy Griffin
@CreekJohnson200 wtf,this is for prop8,are u fucking retarded?And black people in jail?Wow,that is racist,scumbag.
Laroughtenshighton 4 months ago
@Laroughtenshighton I think CreekJohnson is black - so I think he is upset that his community does not receive celebrity endorsement for their plights.
jonathanUtah1 2 months ago
@CreekJohnson200 This is about prop 8, I'm sure there are plenty of videos on racism out there, look it up. But first, look up "Everyone's a little bit racist" from Avenue Q, and listen to the song. It's very truthful.
musicianforlife8295 4 months ago
@musicianforlife8295 that were good advice. thank you.
CreekJohnson200 3 months ago
Yes to Prop 8 end these Faggots now!!!!!!!!
SaintHakim504 5 months ago
@SaintHakim504 End the fat homophobic rednecks now!!!!!
thewhitegirlblues 5 months ago
@thewhitegirlblues Ha I love trolling you FAGGOTS now go commit suicide its what yall do best!!!!!!1
SaintHakim504 5 months ago
@SaintHakim504
Wow, no comment
BROADCASTRECAPTV 4 months ago
@thewhitegirlblues Ahh thats the best you could do except Im Black and in great shape Try again Retard!!!!!!!!
SaintHakim504 5 months ago
I say just let them get married but dont push your ideas on others.
TheGuinnessboys 5 months ago
@TheGuinnessboys
Just like religions do, pushing their ideas on others
BROADCASTRECAPTV 4 months ago
@BROADCASTRECAPTV "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees (religious leaders), you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean" ....sounds like this guy hated religion too.
TheGuinnessboys 4 months ago
I LOVE THESE PEOPLE. NO ON PROP H8 BITCHES.
ov7spears 6 months ago
eww no HOMO
razaa09 7 months ago
@razaa09 just hating
astraL0LZ 7 months ago
Why do christians want to take what is right? It makes no sense to me, they are trying to protect a word...
DrDeathMetalJr 7 months ago
Like we don't have better things to think about. lol that made my day. people need to grow up and let gays get married, don't teach it in school, just let them marry eachother, and then focous on more improtant things.
keg10609 8 months ago
@auryc7
(cont.)
Why are you still acting like excessive procreation is important?
B01318183 8 months ago
@auryc7 Humans are not a monogamous species. Monogamy can be forged, but it is never natural. If you think that gays are less likely to desire monogamy, then you have failed to realize that polls based on the testimony of self-character are even less reliable than most polls.
I still don't see your point. Are you saying that we should ban adoption? Or do you want to ban the marriage of people who do adopt? I cannot understand why children would influence your opinion of gay marriage.
(cont.)
B01318183 8 months ago
@B01318183 Monogamy is a learned behavior, and those who don't learn it tend towards rather shorter lifespans. It is only thanks to modern medical technology that they live as long as they do. If you don't think this is the case, I urge you to look up the origins and spread of HIV. As far as 'excessive procreation'....what do you consider excessive procreation? Overpopulation today is due in no small part to medical advances causing people to live longer.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7
If "Monogamy is a learned behavior" at what point are heterosexuals going to learn it?? Fornication, Adultery, Divorce, Re-Marriage.....
These things are not monogamous.
Try again.
rumours77 8 months ago
@rumours77 When are heterosexuals going to learn monogamy? Probably about the same time that we enforce it. There USED to be social penalties for NOT being monogamous and also for procreating outside of marriage, but it's become socially acceptable and now we have women with five kids, all with different fathers and if we don't feed them (because they won't work) we are heartless bastards.
auryc7 8 months ago
YES ON PROP 8
DAHOUSERECORDS 9 months ago
yes on prop 8
DAHOUSERECORDS 9 months ago
@DAHOUSERECORDS no on prop h8
idaman12345 9 months ago
As if griffin can be taken seriously about anything... the chick is crazy batshit insane. How does it help the gay community by having all these crazy assholes saying it's ok to be gay. The poster child for "gay" these days seems to be dumbass nuts who can't say anything about self control. Typical hollywood bs.
notxxr 9 months ago
@notxxr
A lot like Christians, who can find fault in every one but themselves.
Typical Christian bs.
I see your point.
rumours77 9 months ago
@rumours77 Who isn't without fault? But hollywood is on the leading edge of apostasy, and they are hand in hand with the perverted and deviant. Truly iam a sinner of the worst kind, but have been saved by the grace of God through Christ.
notxxr 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rumours77 Who isn't without fault? But hollywood is on the leading edge of apostasy, and they are hand in hand with the perverted and deviant. Truly iam a sinner of the worst kind, but have been saved by the grace of God through Christ.
notxxr 9 months ago
podfh
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman Let's look at it from another perspective too. Recently a kidney recipient was found to be AIDS positive....which he got from the kidney donor (who'd had unprotected sex). Let's look at lifespans: The kidney donor, with AIDs drugs, may live 10 years or more. The kidney recipient now has AIDS AND has to take antirejection drugs which SUPRESS HIS IMMUNE SYSTEM! He may not even live 1 or 2 years! How is getting a lethal disease NOT his business? The donor's choice is killing him.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 Actually its the screening proses that failed. Also the transplant was done incorrectly. There should NOT have been any blood in the kidney at the time of the transplant and there was. I'm surprised the recipient didn't die due to clotting.
So if you are right and the donor's choice is killing him, what punishment should the donor face? Life? Death penalty? A fine? What effect would this have on others choosing to donate?
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman The screening process did not fail, the donor did not follow the doctor's instructions. The transplant was done correctly. The residual blood in the kidney would be enough to pass the AIDS virus. That is why anyone around an AIDS infected person is instructed to stay away from that person's blood and wipe down any surface that the infected person's blood has been on WITH BLEACH. There are health classes specifically for dealing with blood bourne pathogens.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 So again what punishment should the donor face?
Just because a gay person describes other gay people as being hedonistic, doesn't mean that he has the knowledge or has done the research to say with any certainty that he is right. Just a person's opinion based on his limited personal experience. If I wanted to suppress black people I could find black people making sweeping negative generalizations about themselves and use it against them. Doesn't make what they said statistically true.
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman As for punishment.....I'd reccommend, at the least, that his name and identity are publically released and that all his friends, family, and coworkers be notified that they should be tested for AIDS. As far as the hedonism.....the american psychiatric association noted that homosexuals are usually not monogamous, some of the other sources I have quoted in the past noted even married homosexuals not being monogamous and the gay guy I quoted was on Yahoo answers.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 So shame
fatskateman 9 months ago
@auryc7 So shame! U think this person, who went through an incredibly painful surgery at no benefit of his own, should be shamed and ridiculed for, and yes he did, saving the life of a dying person. BTW U should read the story closer. The donor died! The donor died, the match was made, the kidney was taken, was NOT drained of blood. If it was the internal temp would have dropped to around 40 degrees killing any HIV. But ti was full of blood and internal temp only dropped to 65 w/ HIV surviving
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman Look up 'Patient gets AIDS from Kidney Transplant' on Stuff.co.nz and you'll find that not only are you wrong, but you are also wrong in multiple instances. This was on my FIRST SEARCH RESULT! Also, take a look at 'HIV during blood transfusion' and you will find on Healthcaremagic(.com) that a doctor has answered the question that at 4 degrees Celsius, it can live for 3 weeks and it can live for YEARS if frozen. 40 F is above 4 C. Proven wrong again.
auryc7 9 months ago
i think Kathy Griffin should produce a new sitcom called Tyler Clementi's house.
TheColeYounger 9 months ago
@auryc7 (cont.)
You have continuously failed to acknowledge overpopulation as a very real and dangerous problem. You have also failed to give me one very specific example of a dangerous effect that would occur if it were allowed.
B01318183 9 months ago
@B01318183 I understand overpopulation as a problem, but encouraging homosexuality doesn't address that. A very significant portion of the homosexual population HAS children from past heterosexual relationships. (source, US Census). Sterilization, limits to how or when couples may have children will address the issue, but once again...good luck with that. The idea that women have the RIGHT to procreate and the RIGHT to be supported by the government when they do is common these days.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 "A very significant portion of the homosexual population HAS children from past heterosexual relationships." LIES. Well. Define "very significant portion" cus that can mean anything. And wouldn't accepting homosexuality reduce the social pressure to attempt a heterosexual lifestyle, resulting in less homosexuals having babies?
fatskateman 9 months ago
@auryc7 You seem to be confused. My argument is not that homosexuality is superior; my argument is that heterosexuality is not superior. My argument is that procreation is not always the best thing, especially in this era.
Your main point was that heterosexuality is superior because of reproduction. Your "US Census" citation only shows me that any fertile person, both gay and straight, can reproduce. It ironically weakens your original point.
B01318183 9 months ago
@B01318183 I'm not confused. My point remains. Heterosexuality can, and often does, result in children. Homosexuality does not. No man-man or woman-woman pairing ever has or will result in naturally occurring offspring of the two. From a cultural perspective, I believe that barring criminal behavior or death, the natural parents of a child should raise that child. Also, from a cultural perspective, I believe that monogamy is both correct and superior and statistically, gays aren't monogamous.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7
Okay, so....the only time heterosexuals have sex is for the purpose of having children?? They never have sex just for fun??
Monogamous?? You show me a man who has sex for the first time on his wedding night, remains faithful to his one and only wife until death not divorce do them part, never even looking at another woman with lust in his eyes, and I will show you the true meaning of "minority".
A piece of ass is a piece of ass....ask any straight boy. He'll tell you.
Monogamy??
rumours77 9 months ago
@rumours77 You can have sex just for fun, but if you aren't monogamous you are taking risks. If you are engaging in anal sex or oral sex there are risks there, too, since those aren't orfices designed for that particular use. If you aren't sterile, you are risking getting pregnant if you are a woman or impregnating your partner if you are a guy. The whole 'a piece of ass is a piece of ass' is the reason that MILLIONS of africans have AIDS. Please, by all means tell them 'it's just sex'.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 (cont.)
Cars crash more often than airplanes. Should I take a jet to work?
I created that analogy in order to combat your assertion that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality. You think that if something can be considered superior in one situation, it should be considered superior in all situations. Our national and international situation is not one that can be cured with excessive procreation. In fact, excessive procreation is dangerous.
(cont.)
B01318183 9 months ago
@B01318183 Lastly, if you think overpopulation is the problem, look to who is producing most. How about all those welfare moms just pumping out more kids and all of them have different fathers and those moms are not only not married, they haven't even finished high school. How would YOU fix that? Think about it. Sterilization? Good luck with that. You'll hear the screams of outrage on the moon. Cut off welfare? How dare you starve them. Educate them? They want to be ignorant.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7
(cont.)
The idea that you are not forcing anything on anyone just because you are "defending the established position" is rediculous. It only means that you, and others like you, have been forcing your belief on society for years. Sex is not marriage. Conflating the two makes you sound insensitive and unrealistic.
(cont.)
B01318183 9 months ago
@B01318183 Secondly, you should look at the results of the alternatives. Polygamy can work, but most societies in which it operates view women as property, not equal to men. Middle east and third world countries for example. ANY study of multiple sex partners will show widespread STD spread and AIDS spread. Take Africa for example. Marriage has historically been a lifetime commitment. Studies have shown shorter relationships and lack of monogamous relations with homosexual couples.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 "Studies have shown shorter relationships and lack of monogamous relations with homosexual couples." Which study is this? I can't find it
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman Actually, the study I was quoting was one of YOUR sources about marriages in (the Netherlands?) It's the same study that pointed out that lesbian couples divorce at twice the rate of gay male couples. www2.law.ucla.edu(williamsinstitute/publications/USCensusSnapshot.pdf) has a good set of numbers, but you have to do the math yourself. As of 2005, there were 270,313 children living with same sex couples and an estimated 65,500 adopted children. That's a significant portion.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 Do you really think its honest to lump surrogacy and sperm donation in with "past heterosexual relationships"? Heres another issue of dishonesty, maybe you're just repeating this so I don't blame U. Gay woman get divorced more than straight people; gay men are less monogamous than straight people. It is not acceptable to extrapolate that into saying that gays get divorced more often and are less monogamous. Its a lie. A blatant and intentional misuse of the data.
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman Unless you can provide solid numbers about sperm donation and surrogacy, it is entirely logical to assume that most of those children were concieved and born heterosexually. As far as the lie, what sources are you using? I used loveandpride(com) and I quote: There is a high rate of divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within eight years and lesbian couples 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 If U don't have the facts U can't just make them up. U do this a lot. If something makes sense to U, U assume its true and then state it as fact. U may be right about this, I don't know. YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER!
loveandpride(com is a jewelry site. Please clarify
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman The website I gave you is the correct one. Put in 'loveandpride' and 'wedding statistics' in your search engine. I would point out that I was searching for a site that had the data and approached the subject from YOUR direction. I honestly can't find any other statistics from a pro gay site. I had troubles finding antigay sites with them, and those were mostly religious. I did find a fascinating post in Yahoo Answers where a gay guy explained the hedonistic gay community.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7Well the issues we've been discussing are not very convincing on either side. So it doesn't surprise me you can't find a whole lot of publicized studies on news websites. I have access to the University data base being a due paying alumni. The most convincing argument comes from personal relationships. People are most comfortable with gay marriage when they have contact with gay people.
Unless I'm going to have sex with you, you do not need to know or be concerned about who I sleep with
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman Let me refute your argument. Let's say in one year you have three sex partners. Let's say each of those people, being of like mind, have three sex partners also (including you). You haven't slept with 3 people. From a center for disease control perspective, you've slept with NINE people, and that's only one step removed. Clinics that treat STDs have been able to literally trace certain specific strains of STDs through communities. Person A infected B and C who infected D,E,F, etc.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 The scenario you present only works if the exposure to infection rate is 100%. Everyone that is exposed becomes infected. I don't know of any disease that works that certainly not any STDs. Also you must assume that the infected is instantly contagious and able to spread the disease the moment they become infected. Again I dont know of any pathogen that works that way.
Why was the kidney recipient who contracted HIV big news? Is it because it happens all the time or because it was rare?
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman The scenario I present works every time. It is in use by the CDC and the AMA and is used by health organizations around the world. You find a carrier and you have to assume anyone in contact with said carrier is infected unless proven otherwise. It works with flus, colds, viruses, and you bet your butt that they treat AIDS the same way. As for the kidney recipient, it was news because the donor was tested AIDS free 11 days before the procedure and did something stupid after that.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 Creating models for the spread of disease is complicated. Let me ask you, how does condom use factor into the model you present?
It was news because it has NEVER happened before. Not from that type of transplant. It happened because the kidney, which does not carry HIV in its tissue, was not handled properly and the blood in side which should have been drained and transfused with the recipient's blood, was not and still contained the virus.
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman The STD spread the clinics were tracking wasn't 'complicated'. It was facts as to who had which disease and who got that particular type of STD next. The 'model' I presented wasn't a hypothetical, it was a representation of ACTUAL tracking of STDs. As for the transplant....you CAN'T remove ALL traces of blood from the organ and even ONE cell can pass on AIDS. As for why it has NEVER happened, it is because of rigorous testing to prevent AIDS carriers from donating.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 Ive heard this stat before. Sweden legalized civil unions in 1995 marriage in 2009. The study you're citing is from 2005. The couples that married in fear the unions would be repealed (now or never) who weren't ready divorced soon after. You see this tread when ever marriage law are expanded. Inter-faith, inter-racial, same-sex, all show this trend. High divorce rates in the first decade and drop off drastically by the end of the 2nd. This was expected and normal and not specific to gays
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman I'll also point out, though it doesn't necessarily mean anything, that gay marriages in the netherlands have continued to decline since it's legalization....apparently since homosexuals as a whole have become disinterested in marriage in the Netherlands. I am rather disturbed by the 'free sexuality' in the gay community. I point again to the STD and AIDS spread. It happens with heterosexuals too, but there's no incentive for gays to not 'ride bareback'. There is for heteros
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7
The only fact that you need to deal with is that my sex life is none of your business. Just as you sex life is none of mine. < Period.
rumours77 9 months ago
@rumours77 As I told fatskateman, when your sex life affects other people by spreading AIDS or STDs, you bet it's my business. I'm not just down on homosexuals....I'm down on heterosexuals too. People with multiple sex partners are hands down the leading cause of STD spread and one of the leading causes of AIDS spread. Just like other diseases, we ALL need to be stamping on this....HARD.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7
You're using AIDS as an excuse to help support your own personal hatred for gay people and gay marriage, just as Christians use the Bible for the same thing. If gay people were allowed to get married, they wouldn't (legally) be allowed to "sleep around" (legally) which could possibly cut down on their promiscuity and therefore AIDS, and you know this.
What are you doing to help put an END to heterosexual horny college boy hot-chick promiscuity, and how can I help you do it??
rumours77 9 months ago
@rumours77 On the contrary, I'm using the fact that homosexual subculture is hedonistic (that was the expression used by gay people talking about their own culture) and the proliferation of multiple sex partners to speak out against multiple sex partners and hedonism. I am also against gay marriage, but one of the things I turned up is that many of the married homosexuals are promiscuous ANYWAYS. As for ending college promiscuity...I'm up for any ideas you have. I am against it.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 "As for ending college promiscuity...I'm up for any ideas you have."
I know lets ban them from marrying just like we do gays. If we don't like how they have sex we just don't let them marry. ITS BRILLIANT I TELL YOU
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman You argue about the transmission of STDs even though they are called SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES which only can happen via sex via MULTIPLE PARTNERS. You argue about hedonism and lack of monogamy amongst homosexuals, yet STD clinics have shown conclusively about the spread of STDs and AIDS in gay communities and you argue about the testimony of people from that very community. AIDS carriers are NOT suitable for transplant organs. You should have already known that.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 Alright, here is a really easy one.
Lets say I have HIV. Say I've had 5 sexual partners in my life. Lets say sex partner 1 has HIV. Partner 2 does not. 3 does. 4 does not. And 5 has HIV. Who did I catch it from and who did I give it to.
The disease model U presented, the 1 that "clinics were...(using to)...actually track STDs" should easily be able to tell exactly whom spread HIV to whom with only this info. Any extra piece of info U need makes the model exponentially more complex
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman As for your 'example'....ANY exchange of bodily fluids can transmit HIV. Blood, saliva, urine....it can ALL transmit HIV. Considering your lack of even BASIC knowledge of criteria for organ donation, HIV and STDs you can continue arguing, but all you are doing is showing ignorance.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 Well acording to The Center for Disease Control HIV can only be transmited through blood, plasma, semen and vaginal fluid. Also, since HIV has no DNA rather it has RNA, it cannot survive in temps below 50 degrees or temps above 125 being that the RNA brakes apart. The RNA will also brake apart in envirnments which are too acidic as in saliva or not acidic enough as in urine. Many viruses can survive being frozen but not HIV. Proven wrong...HARDLY
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman Yes, proven wrong. As my source pointed out, frozen HIV can exist indefinitely and HIV at 4 C can live for 3 weeks.....WAY longer than an organ can remain viable. Transplant criteria mandate HIV, Hepatitis and other bloodbourne pathogen testing BEFORE organ donation can occur. Even in the case of an organ donor pronounced dead, they HAVE to do blood tests BEFORE transplanting any organs. UWHealth(.org) under 'organ donation' has a good list of tests with a 4 hr turnaround time.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 Whats the difference between "exist" and viable for infection. My body will still exist if frozen but my body would not be viable as a life form because my cells would brake down and not be able to multiply. HIV exists and can be detected in saliva and urine but they are not viable for infection being that the RNA is damaged and can not multiply. Same can be said for HIV that has been frozen. Again, miss use of the data to prove a point. I say that makes you a lier.
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman Really? You like to play with language. PostitiveFriends(.com) agrees with my first source that HIV can survive freezing and in low temperatures when in blood. In the case of organs, there is no way to cleanse an organ that doesn't destroy its viability. Your attempts to manipulate my vocabulary to call me a liar is a transparent attempt to call attention away from the fact that you don't know what you are talking about. I say that makes you an ignorant idiot.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 Why didn't this completely hault all transplants? If the responcability to make sure an organ is free of HIV and safe for transplant falls SOLELY on the DONOR, organ transplant would would NOT BE POSSIBLE.
Instead it makes for interesting news. The risk from contracting HIV from a person who's viral load is not detectable is incrediably low, even from a trasplant. With 3,000,000 people, even if the odds are 3 billion to 1 that something like this might happen, it still happens
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman You are, again, an idiot. The first problem was (and is) people ignoring the fucking doctors. When a doctor says 'don't have unprotected sex' (and yes, that IS but ONE of the cautions donors get) he means.....don't have unprotected sex. Second problem is that the doctors foolishly trusted the donor not to be stupid. In the case of organ donors that come from people that wre in accidents and are brain dead, they do tests with a 4 hour turnaround time to verify no diseases/viruses.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 Why would doctors foolishly trust someone. Why would they not do the test at the time of the donation. Im fairly certain they do, or at least, they are suppose to.
What does "viral load" mean to you? Im pretty sure I understand what it means.
I brought up HIV from a kidney transplant? I think that was you budy!
Oh yes. " Most Gay arn't monogamous(wrong)"lead to "non-monogamy leads to HIV(wrong a virgin can get STI while being monogamous)" "its my business cus kidney transplant"
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman Since you've done absolutely NO research on the subject, I'll school you. No, doctors don't necessarily trust anyone, but except in rush cases, there's simply not enough people in the lab to do a priority blood test on a donor that has known they were going to donate for days. The blood test is done beforehand (varying time standards for the transplant clinics) and the person is cautioned NOT to do certain things before the surgery.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 "prophylactic drugs are often used by health care workers exposed to HIV. It is used to prevent perinatal transmission in newborn infants of HIV-infected woman as well as treating organs preped to be transplanted. Treatment typically involes such drugs as zidovudine, commonly known by its trade name, AZT." globelhealth(dot)com
Would a trasplant from a live donor be a "rush case"? Wouldnt that be a paced case with enough time to do proper testing? Why trust the donor? U Making shit up?
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman I'm most certainly not making anything up. Even a cursory examination of many websites about transplants will give you the same information. As far as "rush" cases....yes there are rush cases. Haven't you EVER gone to the DMV and had them ask you if you wanted to be an organ donor? In the case of debilitating crash which deadlines your brain, people who are organ donors can have any suitable organs removed for transplant.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 Remind me again; what does this has to do with gay marriage?
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman In the case of people who simply volunteer to give organs....there are sometimes a few days between final testing and transplant. Third problem is that I'm not sure you even know what a 'viral load' is since you didn't have any clue about anything ELSE having to do with HIV. The tests are pretty thorough and would likely have found it regardless of viral loading. As for this conversation....it's a tangent YOU went off on, not me.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 "you didn't have any clue about anything ELSE having to do with HIV" really I'm not the one that thinks someone can catch HIV from the urine on a toilet seat or the saliva from kissing. It's actually relatively difficult to catch HIV compared to other viruses. HIV is very fragile and its RNA falls apart rather easily. Which is why we can't make a vaccine for it. A weakened form of the virus just falls apart and the anti-bodies never form an immune responce from the pile of HIV pieces.
fatskateman 9 months ago
@fatskateman As far as HIV....you don't apparently realize that there is no way to sterilize an organ and have it remain viable, and as for your 'examples' of what I believe.....no, I don't think that and never did. You made it up and attributed it to me. As for me bringing this up.....HIV and STDs are spread heavily via sex, so monogamy stops the spread. Monogamy in marriage stops the spread. Gays are statistically not monogamous in or out of marriage.
auryc7 9 months ago
@auryc7 lol neither are straights
AckmaKcd 8 months ago
@auryc7
"Monogamy in marriage stops the spread. Gays are statistically not monogamous in or out of marriage." What experience do you have with gay marriage?? How may Gay people have you been married too?? Straight people are also not monogamous, otherwise divorce wouldn't be nothing more than just a hobby.
rumours77 8 months ago
@rumours77 As far as statistical homosexual marriage, I was citing a study in the Netherlands, where gay marriage IS legal and the number of gay marriages there continue to decline every year. Also, the American Psychiatric Association mentions this lack of monogamous behavior in their article on homosexuality and there is a homosexual man who talked about the homosexual community he came from on Yahoo Answers. As far as consequences of nonmonogamous behavior....AIDS and STDs are but two.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7
"citing a study in the Netherlands where Gay marriage IS legal" doesn't cut it. Gay marriage is also legal right here in the United State of Iowa as well as all New England states with the exception of Rhode Island, and Rhode Island offers Legal Unions.
I know countless straight people that have been married and divorced countless times (the ones whom bothered to get married) because they can't stop sleeping around, and spreading STDs. One of which is unwanted pregnancy.
rumours77 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every study says a child a natural family is the ideal environment.How do children get male & womanhood bonding available only in a natural marriage?Saying marriage is a civil right is an insult to Dr. King & Malcolm X.Sodomy is not a civil right.Dr. Robert Spitzer, who got this off the list of mental diseases in the 1980's said 2001: "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue some people can and do change"
BlackRepublican2010 8 months ago
@rumours77 Legalized gay marriage hasn't been around in the US long enough for any meaningful statistics to have developed. Even the netherlands statistics are only based around about a decade's worth of results. I think it is important to point out, however, that gay marriages in the netherlands have been dwindling every year. As for the straights, yeah, I know that straights are prone to sleeping around too. There is, however, a little bit more caution involved generally due to pregnancy.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7
"meaningful statistics", "decades worth of results", The Netherlands", "dwindling every year", "sleeping around, too", ............not the hot issue. You're blaming AIDS and STD s on Gay people ALONE and you're full of shit. Let's talk about you hetero-whore-hopping boys, shall we??
........and yes, we shall.......
rumours77 8 months ago
@rumours77 I'm not, in fact, blaming gay people alone for anything. Your accusation that I am, and your statement that I am "full of shit" proves that you don't have ANY grasp on my argument. What I AM saying is that I do not support gay marriage because statistically, in places that HAVE gay marriage, gays STILL don't behave monogamously. STDs and AIDS are passed along in great part due to promiscuity and percentage wise, homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7
We are no longer talking about Gays, we are now going to talk about promiscuous straight boys whom sleep with multiple women, many of them even after they are married (hence the term "DIVORCE"), and the diseases they spread by their "whore hopping".
I haven't had sex in 6 months. My son hasn't had sex with less than 20 different women in 6 months.
I'm Gay, he's not.
Your turn........
rumours77 8 months ago
@rumours77 Unless your son came about by artificial means, you had sex with a member of the opposite sex, therefore you are more properly 'bisexual'. As far as your son's promiscuity.....I'd say he was irresponsible. You, presumably, raised him so I'd lay a fair amount of credit for his sterling behavior at your feet. I'm not saying you caused him to sleep around, but I can't imagine you fulfilled your role as a parent very well. Where's his other parent in all this?
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7
He's "other parent" is a Southern Baptist Christian from Olive Branch, Mississippi.
My son is promiscuous because he is a young horny college guy whom likes to suck pussy.
Just like the rest of you Christian boys.....had you the balls to admit it....like my son.
rumours77 8 months ago
@rumours77 Let's compare, shall we? My parents have been together, happily married, for 40+ years. They raised my siblings and I with morality, discipline, a strong work ethic and showed us daily exactly how much work a real marriage was. They showed nothing but love and support through our various endeavers, and as a result, my sibs and I are all fairly successful. My sibs are ALSO married and have children...who exhibit the same ethics, morality, discipline and manners that my parents taught.
auryc7 8 months ago
@rumours77 Compared to three generations of successful, productive, decent people, we have you and your hedonistic son. So we like sex too.....so? What raises me and most other people above the animals is our forethought, consideration, and willingness to restrain our base instincts, which is a skill that apparently you and your son don't have. Your whining and excuses for your son's behavior are reprehensible.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7
It's not just my son, you stupid fuck. It's it's the entire male heterosexual race. You people will fuck anything that stands still and says "yes". And then make up excuses for it.
My whining, My ass. You're full of shit dude.....and a hypocrite to boot.....
rumours77 8 months ago
@rumours77 Firstly, I follow my own views, so I can't be a hypocrite. Secondly, I believe I've pointed out before that fun thing called 'self control' which you apparently lack. Thirdly, if you want to blame somebody for something, look in the mirror. You had a child with somebody and then what....just decided later on to be gay? You didn't, apparently, have the decency to raise the child with his other parent, and from your own words you didn't put the least bit of morality into his head.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 R U a virgin? Have U slept with anyone before the poor girl U have not yet married? If U define monogamy in such a way that its practice would end all STDs then U are not monogamous unless U and your girl R both virgins. To suggest that all of humanity is to do this, 1 sex partner a lifetime, then first U must change what it is to be human.
What do you say to monogamous gays who can't get married? Too Bad, guilt by association? Just lump all of them together. How is that not Bigotry?
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman I'm not changing anything. I'm not changing humanity at all. I'm asking for standards to be kept. There is a difference, and it's not exactly unheard of. There are a number of animals who mate for life. Surely if dumb animals can do it, humans can, right? As far as the bigotry....it's all in your point of view. YOU say it's unfair to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation. There are a lot of sexual practices that are illegal. Is the government bigoted?
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 So because some sex act are illegal that means that any sex act can be illegal? BTW gay sex is not illegal.
U said U can't support gay marriage because gays are not monogamous. Banning ALL gays from marriage when all gays are NOT non-monogamous, is bigotry. I can't see how its not. If the standard for you is monogamy, then why add sexuality to that at all? Why is it a gay-straight issue and not a monogamous vs. non-monogamous issue
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman I never said gay sex was illegal. I don't support gay marriage in part because of the mindset that gay culture adopts (which is nonmonogamous in part because of the assumption that sex is relatively risk free). I also don't support gay marriage because I don't think homosexuality is a normal or natural biological act. I consider it deviant. The sexual standard I use is: Two consenting adults of different genders, nonrelated, engaging in vaginal intercourse in a monogamous fashion.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 So why bring up monogamy at all? Besides feeling it to be distasteful, its persistence isn't a deciding factor at all. If it were the case that all homosexuals were completely monogamous, you would still not support gay marriage. You still support straight marriage even though a vast majority of us at one point or another do not practice monogamy.
It seems to me that monogamy is a red haring; hand waving in order to demonize gays and make yourself look like less of bigoted douche-bag
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman Really? Bigoted douche-bag, am I? Strong words coming from someone who has proven repeatedly that he's full of hot air. I'm still waiting for that reference about treating transplant organs with drugs. I'm still waiting to hear if you think the government is bigoted. I'm also waiting for a coherent counterargument. I've told you the sexual standard that I follow, and if you check current sexual laws against it, the government generally follows it too.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 iuheath(dot)org not hard to find.
Is the government bigoted? In some places yes, government officials are bigoted and often violate the constitution.
So the government follows your sexual standard? So where on a marriage license does it stipulate that you must have vaginal intercourse? In fact the state doesn't care how or with whom you have sex when validating a marriage. These issues can affect how a marriage is dissolved if 1 or both partners decide to end it, not the same thing.
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman be more specific about your source...I couldn't find anything on treating transplant organs with drugs. As far as sexual standards...it doesn't say on a marriage licence that you can't do a lot of things. I was establishing a frame of reference for what sexual deviance is. I don't think that (providing it doesn't cause harm to others) most sexual deviances should be illegal or regulated. I do feel that only the standard should be legally recognised, however.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 Look harder
U said yesterday that the government holds the same standards on sex and marriage that U do, but today U are clearly saying that government is out of step with your standards. So which is it? This leads me to think that U are willing to say anything to make a point. I personally believe in smaller government not one that is regulating the goings on inside our bedrooms. If the gov. has these powers officials can outlaw any personal morality on all of us. Condoms outlawed ext
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman Check my standard against sexual laws. Fact is, sex and sex drives evolved for one reason: reproduction. Any sexual act which could prevent this is therefore a deviance from the intent of sex, and I feel no deviance should have legal standing. Another example of what I'm talking about: One of the strongest instincts any animal has is to survive. Suicide is considered abberant behavior because it runs counter to that basic instinct, hence, illegal.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 So evolution is your standard for sexual morality? BS! So no condoms no anal no homo no masturbation? Why choose evolution for SEXUAL standards and not on footwear, travel or trade. Evolution has prepared us to be violent, but thats just fine if evolution is the standard, right?
We do not live in the world evolution has prepared us for. Exp. Our sex drive is geared for a 85% infant morality rate. Today the US has a .0068% infant mortality. Does this influence your standards at all?
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman The thing is.....sex is a biological act. The penis and vagina are DESIGNED to go together. All the other variations on it, such as anal sex, oral sex,beastiality, fetishes.....they are exactly what I said: deviations. Some are relatively harmless, some are quite harmful. The law generally makes the harmful ones illegal. My position is that NO deviation should have a legal standing. Circumventing reproduction via prophyllactics is a related but separate issue.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 Actually the anus has a very good design for sex. Its the right size, the right shape, its self lubricated, prostate stimulation can trigger orgazims in men, and its in the right part of the body for easy penitration. Compare that to say a nostril or an ear. The anus is not as resistant to infection as a vagina although the mouth is MUCH more resistant to infection than the vagina.
If the only reason for sex is reproduction, then condoms should be a bigger issue than homosexuality
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman Please tell me you are joking. 1. The colonic/rectal muscles ripple DOWN to expel fecal matter. Anal sex directly opposes these one way muscles. 2 Anal shape is not 'right' for anal sex...the penis forcibly moves the colon. 3. The anus doesn't 'self lubricate' worth mentioning-vaginal or oral secretions are FAR more prolific. Authorities ALWAYS recommend lube. 4. Colonic/rectal tears and infection, incontinence, and even colonic perforation are probable results of anal sex.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 So the vagina is using muscles to pull the penis in? Wrong, try again.
Unless the penis is unhumanly long then the colon is not moved.
The anus does self lubricate, thats how shit slides out and why a penis can slide in. Authorities will also say to use lube during vaginal sex.
Incontinence? Ive debunked U on this before, but let me refer you to "Savage LoveCast" episode #240 where Dan Savage discusses this myth with Dr. Vy Chu
The vagina doesnt have a perfect "design" either
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman The anus 'lubrication' is mucus, and is produced in nowhere near the quantities required for sex. If you bothered to learn anything, you'd know that vaginal lube is only required when the woman doesn't have time to 'get wet' or when age reduces the performance of the ducts in the vagina. As far as 'debunking' incontinence....the risk is real. Anal sex can damage the inner and outer anal sphincters resulting in incontinence. The anus is an 'exit only' orfice.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 Lets say you an animal where the female's vagina is right next to the ass hole. Being right next to eachother the risk of the male sticking his cock in the ass hole is rather high. Who will reproduce more; a female that becomes incontinent and has painful damage to her colon after anal penetration, or the female that is just fine.
You fail Mr. POOPY SHOOT
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman You say evolved, I say designed, but regardless of the verbage you use, you are still an idiot. You are saying that one or more males of ANY species are going to consistantly miss and hit her asshole? You must not know animals very well. It's obvious that you don't understand sex drives or species survival either. Nearly every creature's top two drives are survival and procreation. Oral sex and anal sex have NOTHING to do with either of those things.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 Evolved is the right term and designed not not
Dogs, cat, rabits on and on miss all the time and fuck the ass. "one or more males...are going to consistantly miss and hit her asshole?" yes this happens millions of times everyday.
the ass is suitable for sex. The nostil and the ear is not. That is what my post said, dumb fuck. "The anus is not designed for sex" yes its structure is well suitable for sex when compared to the nostril or ear.
I assumed you knew how to read.Silly me
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman The anus is NOT designed for sex, and anal sex serves exactly no purpose. Just because an orfice is big enough for penile penetration does not mean that penile penetration of that orfice is a good idea. And by the by....anal sex, if evolution HAD adapted for it, would have served some reproductive or survival purpose, and it does neither. Once again, you fail.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7
Once again, YOU fail. Heterosexual people perform anal sex on a regular basis, and you are doing NOTHING to stop it. Why?? Because heterosexual anal sex isn't gay and all you are doing is attacking gay sex because you are not gay and you don't understand being gay. That's what we humans do. We attack things we don't understand. You don't care about heterosexual "sodomy". If you did, you'd stop it. All you care about is hating gay people.
Tell it like it is.
rumours77 8 months ago
@rumours77 You once again miss my point. I DON'T CARE if anyone is gay, anyone enjoys anal or oral sex....I frankly don't give a shit if you like screwing animals. What you concievably do in the bedroom with another consenting adult is your own business. What you do in the LEGAL arena, however, IS my business, just as it is anyone's business. Gay marriage ignores the fact that gender roles DO have a purpose and a role in the Legal system and with marriage.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7
I once again miss your point because you once again fail to make it. You say you don't care if someone is gay out of one side of your mouth and then say that gay people do not have the right to be legal out of the other side of your mouth, because "gender roles DO have a purpose". Which is true. To pro-create, and that's it. Which means all of these bed-hopping college boys, divorce, re-marriage all of these things you make up acceptable excuses for are just that. Excuses.
rumours77 8 months ago
@rumours77 My point? Marriage is for heterosexual couples because of the (statistical) ability to produce children (naturally) in the bonds of matrimony. There are reasons to allow for divorce and re-marriage, but as I've said before (and you've ignored) I'm AGAINST bed-hopping. As far as who you are sleeping with...if you are married and it's not your spouse, you are WRONG. Period. If you are not married, I don't care who or what you sleep with, just don't advocate sleeping around.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7
I don't advocate sleeping around either, I just don't appreciate you assuming that all bed-hoppers are gay, they are not. Yes, gay men do sleep around, but straight men AND women do too and AIDS/HIV (the origin of this argument) is not limited to the gay community. For the record, unwanted pregnancies and abortions have little or nothing to do with the gay community which you seem to be attacking because we sleep around.
Attack your own people for a change. They sleep around, too.
rumours77 8 months ago
@rumours77 1. I don't attack gays about abortions or unwanted pregnancies. You must be projecting.
2. Marriage is a LEGAL issue. I'm not telling you you can't be with a girl you love, I'm not telling you you can't engage in whatever harmless sex you like, I'm saying that there is a definite difference between sex and marriage. Marriage, statistically involves children, which is something homosexual partners cannot naturally have.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 When a men is sexually aroused his anal glad produces lube. Isn't that strange? Anal stimulation can cause men to orgasm. From your point of view, these facts are bizzare. Beyond strange, why would this be if anal sex played no part in our evolution. Add in the fact that bonobos and chimps regularly practice anal sex. These are our closest animal relatives and they practice male-on-male anal sex.
BUT IN NO WAY DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION!! Your stupidity hurts people.
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman So you're saying men's asses get sloppy when they have sex? Please, do me the favor of showing me your references. I've never seen a guy with a dripping butthole from being sexually aroused, otherwise teenage boys would be soaking the back of their underwear every day. As for chimps and bonobos........humans have a nice, wide variety of STDs....how many OTHER animals procreate madly and have STDs? Bonobos also practice incest. You are for that too?
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 Ever washed a teenaged boys underwear? Savage lovecaste episode #215 which cites The American Journal of Men's Health. The effect decreases with age but is still detectable in elderly men
"how many OTHER animals procreate madly and have STDs?" um lets see. Cats cows dogs dolphins rabbits on and on and on.
Horizontal incest had very little risk. However Vertical incest is very risky and interestingly enough bonobos don't do that. Its one of the only bonobial sexual taboos.
Try Again
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman Interestingly enough, I missed the huge rabbit herpes outbreak, I didn't hear a peep about the cat clamydia sweeping the nation, and I haven't seen a thing on the dolphins with genital warts.....oh, and humans are the only ones dying of AIDS.......primates don't get sick from PIV. As for teenage boys underwear....I was a teenage boy once and I was just as horny as any other teenage boy....oddly enough, for your argument, I didn't have mucus dripping out my butt.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 Cats die all the tim eof FIV BTW. And yes dolphins get herp as do rabbits. So you know about PIV, then when you asked about animal STDs you knew for a fact they exist. You dishonest asshole.
Odd about your butt though. Strange. I wonder how many times a woman has to change her underwear cus of all the vaginal fluid dripping down her leg. Teenage girls are just as horny as teenage guys. I bet thats why they use those pad thingys. what do you think? Dumbass
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman WoW...okay, first thing: PIV does not in any way, shape, or form affect monkeys. PIV crossed species to make HIV which is deadly to us via AIDS. Since it exists benignly, I don't consider it an STD. Second thing....women change their underwear because of VAGINAL secretions, not anal secretions, and generally, the pads are used for their PERIOD. Please do us all a favor and take a sex ed class. Any reasonable resource will prove you wrong.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 U pretend not to realize when others are being snarky. Now really, be honest and I know thats hard for you, did you really think that I didn't know why woman wear pads?
The fact that you think vaginal secretions soil woman's panties makes me think that you might be a virgin. Having never been exposed to a vagina, you wouldn't know that this isn't the case for most woman. Nor is this the case for most men. Ever get a brown spot on your underwear even when you wiped well? Sometimes, right
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman Yes, I really think you didn't know why women wear pads. You attempted to link that with guys soaking their underwear. That's not generally an issue with most guys, hence why there aren't pads for guys. I don't even want to THINK about that commercial. As far as the HIV infection....first, HIV was first discovered in the 1980's, althought there are indications it existed in the 70's. The first organ transplant infection was in the 1190s in italy.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 OIC yes I was using sarcasm. You were assuming that men would anal secretions dripping down their legs or soaking their underwear. I was comparing this to women, which we both agree secrete vaginal fluid, who do not typically have vaginal fluid dripping down their legs or soaking their underwear.
1190's ha? When was the first SUCCESSFUL organ transplant? Actually HIV maybe have been around a lot longer being that the area from which it developed had little to no healthcare.
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman When PIV made the species jusmp and became HIV I only know from records, and I'll trust the records. For your information, the first successful organ transplant was in 1954. As for case law supporting who you can and cannot marry. Incest laws come to mind. Arranged marriages come to mind, and parents giving consent for their minor children come to mind as well. Age of consent laws restrict your choices by will of the electorate.....hell, POLYGAMY laws restrict marriage choices
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 Arranged marriages are not illegal as long as all parties consent. Polygamy laws don't discriminate based on any physical qualifcations. Age of consent is designed to protect children from clear risks of physical and/or mental harm as is required of all discriminatory policies, exp. woman's and men's prisons. Where is the clear risk of physical and/or mental harm in allowing gay marriage?
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman Polygamy, by its very nature discriminates against one sex. If you want the freedom to love and marry who you wish, arranged marriage goes directly against your professed position. Your argument that we have been apex predators is patently false because we haven't existed as humans for even 1 million years and we have consistantly been apex considerably less time than we have existed. We are still prey for sharks, tigers, mountain lions, bears, and other large predators.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7 I can agree to have someone else decide whom I marry. As long as I consent.
Polyamy isn't limited to many wives. It can be many husbands, many wives or both.
Very rarely are we food for predators. Mostly a predator might kill us as a rival not for food.
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman 1. Arranged marriages don't really have 'consent, as such. It's a 'this is who you will marry, you WILL do what I say'. 2. Regardless of whether it's many husbands or many wives, the lopsided nature of the relationship denies the gender 'equality' that you are all about. 3. We have been 'apex' for a negligible period of time, evolution wise.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7
Men's asses's get sloppy when they have sex because the dude on top greases up with KY before sticking it in which causes the slop. Gay teens who have had sex with other gay teens DO soak their underwear. Don't know about every day, but it does happen. I know. I was once a gay teen.
As for the chimps and bimbo icest.........you're on your own. :)
rumours77 8 months ago
@auryc7 You can really pound the shit and totally fuck your partner's ass. Thats because its structure allows this.
The penis and vagina were never DESIGNED. They do not have a PURPOSE. Life evolved and was not CREATED. We do not have a sex drive SO THAT we will reproduce. We reproduced BECAUSE we had a sex drive.
You have no understanding of what evolution actually is. Im guessing you have a high school education on the subject and your teacher was also the football coach. EPIC FAILURE
fatskateman 8 months ago
@fatskateman Lol....this coming from someone who mentioned nostrils, ear canals and penile penetration in the same post. Either you have no spatial perception, a wild imagination, or you are hung like a hamster. Any other brilliant comments before I start ridiculing you for being an idiot? I absolutely love how you start talking evolution and yet put anal and oral sex in the same context. You are an idiot. Only ONE orfice is for penile penetration: the vagina.
auryc7 8 months ago
@auryc7
"Only ONE orfice is for penile penetration: the vagina".
Sooooooo, no more blow jobs for straight boys?? From their girlfriends/wives/one-night-stands?? Is this what you are saying??
What are you saying????????????
rumours77 8 months ago
@rumours77 As for penile penetration...it's simple. Biologically speaking, sex actually does something in only ONE instance: vaginal intercourse. While people are free to do whatever they like in their bedrooms (provided it doesn't harm others) my position is that no sexually deviant act (like blowjobs or anal sex) should have any legal standing in our judicial system. I've already stated my position on a sexual standard (read back a few posts) and that is the standard our courts should uphold.
auryc7 8 months ago