Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

You replace my more nuanced words with your clumsier words "not about" and then attempt to show a contrast between this clumsy facsimile of my words vs some of my other words. If you're going to try to show a contradiction in what I've said, you'll need to do a better job of describing what I've actually said.

Any sexual act can be performed with other issues used as additional reasons that enhance the pleasure derived from that act, but you cannot enhance something that does not exist, which is effectively what you were arguing. I argue that the domination is something that enhances the pleasure, so what it is "about" still remains the pleasure of gay sex for the guy in jail. The domination enhances what it is fundamentally "about."

That's a complete misrepresentation of my argument. Your version of what you say I'm arguing doesn't even make sense. Why would I even bother arguing that prison sex is no different than gay sex in society? Why would I even be arguing about that? That has nothing to do with this thread.

No, you did not. Citations show what page numbers the citation refers to. You did not do this. You dropped a 37-page document in my lap and said the proof is in there. That's as good as nothing.

That's not my source and you provide no quote or proper citation to prove that what you say is true.

I did nothing for you in the past. You should keep all future personal comments that you have for me (including private messages), to yourself.

You believe you have established this. You have not. You have merely stated your opinions as if they were facts.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Implied insult. Penalty awarded.

Do you have anything more to add to this? Want to ask me if I'm going to reply to that post again?

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

swialiberal

I apologize WEB.

I was also going to add to my last post that I will not be responding to any further posts about the question.

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Alright, well I'll make this nice and simple for you and Umm. I have said that I will not reply to the post made by that banned guy because I did not like Ummm's tone. Now, since you and he are intent upon not accepting that I said no and you insist on carrying on about it, we're gonna do it this way.

I WILL reply to that post IF AND ONLY IF you and Umm each write a 5 paragraph formal argument about it. You will argue why I should not reply to that post and Umm will write why I should. Each side will argue about this formally with 5 paragraphs. If you do that and post it up, then I will reply to that post. If there is any further posting made besides that, which in any way references this discussion on whether or not I will reply to that post, then the person who talks about it is getting a minimum 3 day ban for asinine behavior.

I hope that clears my position up.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

nemesis

I didn't realize that restating a consensus is speculation? I guess restating anything anyone ever says qualifies as speculation. To quote a president is speculation or even paraphrase someone is speculation now.

Really?? I "implicitly" criticized you for speculation? You seem to know what I'm saying better then I do? Why don't you just speak on my behalf?

It's also dishonest for you to mischaracterize my comments on Umm's link. I did not dismiss it. Prove that I dismissed it. I observed that he provided no quotes from his link that reinforced his point. If you believe differently, then elaborate on how he demonstrated his point with his link.
[/quote]

These are your words.

You dismissed the link as being irrelevant to your argument on the grounds that it spoke only of rape and non-consensual sex. It did not speak of the kind of gay sex in prisons you were referring to so you did not consider it relevant. Therefore there is no point in me commenting on it.

I still cannot fathom how you come to the conclusion that paraphrasing and speculation are the same thing.

[quote]Where exactly in the article did it say that it was coming to a conclusion regarding the size of the Suprachiasmatic nucleus in humans based on animals and not humans? You have chosen to narrow your argument to a very complicated piece of text here and I still can't find that anywhere in the text? At least give me a page number.

Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
lol. I didn't use a quantity over quality argument. I gave you a link to a Wikipedia article after you requested information on physiological differences in gays. I didn't put the citations there. Since you requested the information I just assumed you would take it for what was rather then find one of the citations to nitpick about.

Will comment on a few of these links.

This man does in fact suggest that homosexuality is genetically influenced.But this isn't so much a study as it is an educated opinion of one man anyway.

AGLP Fact Sheets

I don't see how this one helps you either.

At any rate of the articles I've read none if them definitely argue homosexuality as being a choice at all. Can you point to me the one that does?

Hey, it may very well be. I never said it wasn't. However that doesn't make it a choice.

No, I messed up my quotes. Before I finished that sentence I went back to copy my comment. When I put my comment in quotes it ended up in there however I did not realize it until I re-read my post. I highlighted it rather then edit it out because if I removed it it would seem as though I edited my post further.

__________________
Proof of media bias? A mistake by the major networks they don't want you to know about. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...als_04-24.html

LiveUninhibited

Homophobia, like all phobias, is an irrational fear of something benign. Most spiders cannot kill you, and if one could, your fear of it would not be a phobia but a perfectly rational fear. Similarly, a homosexual in no way affects those in heterosexual relationships, so people feeling insecure about homosexuals is irrational and could easily be called a phobia.

Yeah, Christians in general have not earned the reputation of loving people, though they’ve done better lately than they did in the days of the Crusades and Inquisition... but it's hard to do much worse... moving on.

To most people, actions define people. We cannot know their intentions; we cannot trust their words; we assess their actions. Thus, saying that you hate an action of somebody that they feel they cannot help, and knows hurts nobody, is ignorant at best, and hateful at worst.

That’s nice I suppose, but it’s like a Christian taking an ex-Jew into their home and saying, “See how nice I am, I offer hospitality even to scum like you.” I can see why it might be aggravating to be insulted and helped at the same time. Perhaps the person quoted should just avoid the people whose lifestyle they hate.

Opposition to homosexuality is homophobic because opposition to it is irrational.

There is more than one kind of gay sex, and there is no form of gay sex that isn’t practiced by heterosexuals. Felatio occurs in homosexual and heterosexual relationships, sodomy occurs in homosexual and hetereosexual relationships, cunnilingus occurs in heterosexual and lesbian relationships. You could advise them on lower-risk sexual activity, like 69ing or something, but it doesn’t prove that being gay is inherently unhealthy.

"Perverse" sexual practices should only be a problem if they hurt somebody against their will... homosexuality does not do this. Bisexuals might have a choice, but I couldn’t become aroused by a man, and I’m sure women could not arouse some men, etc.

When people value something based upon it being “natural” or “traditional,” it might be beacuse there is no real reason to value it.

That’d be your business. Now why won't people like this guy mind their own business and keep personal morality personal? He probably shouldn’t try to be friends with homosexuals, or anybody different from him for that matter.

I’m not sure how accepting that people are different from you and letting them marry has anything to do with fidelity to your friends or religion. You could probably argue that S&M is harmful, but is it your business to prevent people from engaging in S&M voluntarily? Nope.

There is reason to believe that Christianity is evil. Isabella was evil. King Richard was evil. Falwell is evil. Christianity has done a LOT more evil to the world than good. Why don’t you take a page from your own book and cast the first stone? Oh I guess you did that a long time ago. The Christians have been throwing stones since the Romans stopped feeding them to lions. Everybody’s a sinner. Go wallow in your own guilt and don't force your misery upon others.

Yes you’re completely wrong. It is the same as saying you disapprove of Muslims or even Black people. The arbitrary disapproval of people who are different is bigotry.

You can follow your Bible all you want, but America is not a theocracy and the Bible has no place in our laws. Feel free to disapprove of homosexuals. Hell you can even disapprove of Black people if you like, but they have every right to demand equal rights under the law.

The person above obviously does not believe in civil rights, so perhaps he should not publicly debate them without expecting people to think he's a bigot.

AIDS doesn’t care about sexual orientation.

As stated above, homosexuality is not inherently physically unhealthy, but denying who you are or choosing abstinence over homosexuality is mentally unhealthy.

The Bible was written by men who contradict each other. An imaginary friend should have no bearing on public policy.

He can continue to hate their “sin." They should continue to hate the ignorance embodied in this man’s views.

Right, as if they could really do more damage than people who marry for money, or for sex, or whatever. Marriage is a legal contract, and it is only sacred to the extent that the individuals in it make it so. That has nothing to do with other marriages. Would your marriage be devalued by the actions of a celebrity getting drunk in Vegas and marrying somebody for sex? No. Gays have no bearing on your relationships.

This may be true of some people, but not me. I could acquire a taste for some things but not others. I absolutely could not be attracted to another man. Period. Anybody who feels they have the choice is bisexual, and that’s okay.

To me, and many people, being celibate would be akin to torture. What is it about homosexuality that makes it better to feel tortured for the rest of ones life than engage in it? It harms nobody against his or her will. Therefore there is nothing wrong with it. The OT may say that homosexuality is wrong, but it says the same thing about shaving sideburns and eating shellfish. These are totally arbitrary rules that many swallow because of some inexplicable faith.

They blame the leaders of our nation, not the troops following their orders. Hating the troops is like hating all Germans for Hitler.

Because many people are bisexual and they only have men to choose from in jail?

Define wrong and how homosexuality is wrong.

Exactly how does homosexuality erode “decency and quality?”

No they do so to assert power in an otherwise powerless situation, like many rapes. Rape is not necessarily about sexuality, is it about violence/power… or so I’m told… I know that I am incapable of rape so I am only repeating what my professors said.

This is not unique to gay sex. Most sex is for pleasure, not honor or dignity. Now, you should try to prove that gay sex is inherently less honorable and dignified than heterosexual sex, because that’s a huge assumption you’re relying on here.

This combined with my perspective strongly supports my earlier hypothesis on sexuality being a choice for bisexuals and not for others. Some people can choose between men and women, others cannot. Those who cannot (i.e. they’re not bisexual) have a different choice: Between homosexuality and permanent abstinence. This is a choice they should not have to make.

Personally, I promote letting people be themselves and have equal rights under the law. I am not sure what is unreasonable about that.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Well I'd say first off that it is disingenuous in ANY CASE for you to say that you "didn't realize" what speculation is as I've already provided you the dictionary definition of speculation is. So regardless of what your position is, you already know what that word means after I showed you and I've shown that you've speculated on the issue.

I wouldn't bother. I don't find your opinions to be worth speaking on your behalf.

That's not a dismissal, that's me pointing out it's irrelevancy. Your labeling that as a "dismissal" is just a biased and childish remark.

That is because you failed to observe the dictionary definition I provided to you as well as me plugging that dictionary definition into your own words. A failure like that is pretty significant failure in the use of the English language. That is why you failed to fathom this conclusion you speak of.

I would think that a complicated piece on the issue would be your strongest source. It is YOUR source after all. I will not give you the page number to YOUR SOURCE that talks about how the data is rats and quails because you request this information in a very rude way. You say "at least" give you a page number, but this is the first time you are asking me to give you that information which is like complaining about me not giving you the page number. Since you NEVER ASKED for the page number before, it is very rude how you complain about something you never asked for. Thus, due to your making your request very rudely, I deny your request.

I don't share the bias that you are advocating here. You say that I should "take it (your sources) for what it was", a blind acceptance of your sources, merely because they support your pro-gay agenda. I find that to be very hypocritical. What's the point of using sources if one is just going to blindly accept what they say, as you have done? You fail to defend your source or to even see what is the data being used for your source. If you think that you can fail to do that and still have confidence in your source, then your presenting those sources was just a farce anyway, as you were going to accept their pro-gay conclusions regardless of their quality.

Genetically influenced, but with such a weak influence as to be largely determined by choice. The study in your earlier source was just as much of an "educated opinion" of one or two men just as you criticize my source for being.

That's your failure to see that.

They all do. You've failed to see this, just as you failed to see that in your own source the data are rats and quail, and not human beings. In another study you showed, the data were sheep, and among another study you used, the data was among people who died of AIDS, thus adding in another variable that could have accounted for their physiological differences from the rest of the population.

It makes it a choice, in the context of how I talked about choice.

It still makes no sense how you quoted yourself and added in comments into the quote, which you never said in your original quote. It's a little shady.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Ygorl

That's not what this is about at all. What this is about, is this exact kind of desperate RE-framing of this issue that YOU'RE engaging in RIGHT NOW.

Call it an "irrational fear." Tell them they're "insecure."

Completely transparent.

Ummm hmm. More transparent hatred coming from you. You don't hide it well.

Very clever sophistry. So YOU may think.

More hatred.

No.

That is what your hatred is making you say.

There is nothing 'irrational' about hating a behaviour that hurts people and has ALWAYS hurt people. This is well documented fact. Well documented fact that you'll return and deny with much more hateful language and sophistry I expect.

Complete sidestepping. Very clever. So YOU may think.

Sidestepping again. They don't want us to know that there are more EX "homosexuals" than there are "homosexuals."

This is a fact that they MUST deny, because to do so undermines their want to claim rights to minority status. Which has been determined by the U.S. supreme court on three criteria:

1. Economic deprivation: No. Those engaged in the homosexual "lifestyle" are among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a higher per capita income than heterosexuals and higher household incomes. [ Wall Street Journal, Feb. 10, 1989, and New York Times, Aug. 22, 1990 ]

2. Political powerlessness: No. Homosexuals demonstrate great influential political power far beyond their actual numbers. The human rights campaign fund has annually donated millions of dollars to candidates, more than most other non-corporate PACs [The Economist, Apr. 24, 1993]. Media news and entertainment coverage is overwhelmingly favorable.

3. Immutable characteristics: No. Minority groups share unchangeable, benign, non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based on behavior.

More cleverly cloaked hatred. Very transparent. Still.

Sidestepping again. I think I've seen and dealt with enough of your cloaked hatred and sidewinding away from the actual subject.

I beleive I can safely say that the rest of what you say below will be more of the same garbage and doesn't need dealt with.

You don't have to hate the rest of the world because they refuse to redefine a stinking WORD. It's a word. ONLY a word.

__________________
Why do liberals oppose capitalism except when it produces or promotes perversions and/or degeneracy ?

africanhope

Again, I would like the objective and respectable proof of this. Please.

AH

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible pri