Utah State Sen. Compares Gays To Alcoholics, Terrorists: ‘They’re The Greatest Threat To America’
Utah State Sen. Compares Gays To Alcoholics, Terrorists: ‘They’re The Greatest Threat To America’
Today, the Utah state legislature “dealt a final blow” to the last of five gay rights bills taken up under the Common Ground Initiative, when it defeated a bill that would have granted gay couples rights of inheritance and medical decision-making. Yesterday, the state House rejected bills that would have allowed gay adoption and protected gays from housing and employment discrimination.
Last night, Utah’s local ABC station received leaked portions of an interview with state senator Chris Buttars (R), which will be highlighted in an upcoming documentary on Proposition 8. Buttars is an outspoken opponent of gay rights; in the latest interview, he compares gays to alcoholics and Muslim terrorists, and warns that gay people are “probably the greatest threat to America.” Some excerpts from the interview:
– To me, homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion. And you say that around here now and everybody goes nuts! But I don’t care.
– They say, I’m born that way. There’s some truth to that, in that some people are born with an attraction to alcohol.
– They’re mean! They want to talk about being nice — they’re the meanest buggers I ever seen. It’s just like the Moslems. Moslems are good people and their religion is anti-war. But it’s been taken over by the radical side. And the gays are totally taken over by the radical side.
– I believe that you will destroy the foundation of American society, because I believe the cornerstone of it is a man and a woman, the family. … And I believe that they’re, internally, they’re probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of. Yep, the radical gay movement.
Listen here:
Buttars bragged that he “killed” every piece of gay rights legislation in Utah, and said that President Bush — “like him or love him” — “saved” America “for the foreseeable future” by appointing conservatives to the Supreme Court.
Buttars discussed how the Mormon church would never give in on gay rights. Indeed, Mormons contributed nearly 40 percent of the more than $40 million raised to defeat marriage equality in California. He helped kick out Gay Straight Alliance clubs in Utah schools, claiming they were “criminal” and threatening that gay people’s “greatest target is your kids.”
Transcript:
I believe in the Constitution being something that was inspired of God. And the way these people are destroying the Constitution is by saying the Constitution is a living document. That means it’s subject to change. But truth don’t change. It does not change, and I won’t accept any of that.
So they say marriage is between a man and a woman and that’s changed. Look around, look at all these combinations. Combinations that are abominations, as far as I’m concerned. To me, homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion. And you say that around here now and everybody goes nuts! But I don’t care.
[...]
They say, I’m born that way. There’s some truth to that, in that some people are born with an attraction to alcohol. One drink and you’re gone.
[...]
Their number one goal is just to proselyte youth. That’s why I threw them out of the schools, I said it’s not a friendship club, that’s a recruiting station.
[...]
They’re mean! They want to talk about being nice — they’re the meanest buggers I ever seen. It’s just like the Moslems. Moslems are good people and their religion is anti-war. But it’s been taken over by the radical side. And the gays are totally taken over by the radical side. You don’t see the gay out there saying, Let’s not do this. Let’s not do this, gang. You seem ‘em marching around with signs and everything else.
[...]
I believe the whole thing is immoral. And I believe you’re moving towards — you see, if you say to me, quit shoving your morals down my throat, Butters, my answer back is you know my morals, what’s yours? What is the morals of a gay person? You can’t answer that. Because anything goes! So now you’re moving towards a society that has no morals. There’s never been a nation survived that’s done that.
[...]
I believe that you will destroy the foundation of American society, because I believe the cornerstone of it is a man and a woman, the family. In my mind, it’s the beginning of the end. Oh it’s worse than that. Sure, Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide. You can’t tell me that something that was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah’s not going on wholesale right now, and to a large degree by [? unintelligible] the gay community. … The underbelly is they do not want equality, they want superiority. … They say we want to be treated just equal. They don’t. And I believe that they’re internally they’re probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of. Yep, the radical gay movement.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Let’s get to work and see what Butthead Buttars has in his closet of horrors, shall we? I’m sure it’s full of pedophilia and affairs, maybe an abortion or two along the way. The most vocal among us usually has the most to hide about his perverted ways.
No doubt there’s fire behind this smoke and this thug didn’t become vocal for nothing. The louder they shriek; the greater the skeletons they’re hiding.
Dig deep on Butthead Buttars. There’s no doubt he’s got plenty of stuff he’d rather have hidden.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:34 pmI’ve got it: It’s the Larry and Butt-ars show! Toe tapping their way across america!
February 18th, 2009 at 6:34 pmHere’s a good starting point – Skeletons of Butthead Buttars
http://voiceofutah.blogspot.com/2008/03/buttars-illegal-immigrantlifestyle.html
**He looks like a scowling doucha baga in this photo.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:37 pmI gotta agree with ya, rimhotep. Anyone that virulently anti-gay has to be pushing back against something inside him.
He might not be gay, but he’s at least afraid that he might be.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:39 pmDon’t tell me… he’s still in the closet… he’s still in denial about his own sexuality.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:39 pmLook at that photo — Mr. Grinch is alive!
drew3 will be here to tell us how this bigotry means that America deserves some special lovin’.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:39 pmButtars?!?
Does he live in South Park?
Haw haw!
February 18th, 2009 at 6:40 pmWhat’s fascinating about this link is that it clearly outlines his bigamist grandpappy who NEVER became a citizen yet took the government’s money. This freak whose grandpappy was a criminal and a sicko with multiple wives now doesn’t want any gays to have rights? He’s a total butthead with a totally appropriate last name “Butt(head)ar”
February 18th, 2009 at 6:41 pmhttp://voiceofutah.blogspot.com/2008/03/buttars-illegal-immigrantlifestyle.html
Have fun with this and send it to that nice list someone provided of every media rep in the country.
These Republiscum had better be careful about how visible they make themselves these days. Their personal closets are full of horrors and they’re about to be “outed”.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:42 pmOk, Utah gays, time to move. Why give your tax dollars to support people like this?
February 18th, 2009 at 6:42 pmWonder what Mr. Buttars thinks about his grandpappy’s illicit lifestyle and his belief in the “sanctity of one man and one woman” when this pervert had several wives?
February 18th, 2009 at 6:43 pmHe’s wrong about that. The Constitution IS a living document. There isn’t much in the Constitution that is very specific with one exception being the “Oath of Office” for the President. The writers of the Constitution knew that the nation would grow and that things would change so they wrote a document knowing it wasn’t perfect with the hope that it would have enough flexibility to survive for generations to come.
This grinchy fool needs to get educated about something other than the Mormon Church.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:44 pmButtars joins a long list of Republican hypocrites and self-loathers. He looks like the poster boy for perversion.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:44 pmA note to all gay Republicans…this should make you aware of what the Grand Old Perverts think of you.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:45 pmThe Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:47 pm$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget
Chris Buttars (R)
around here we know
him as “olby sucks”
:)
February 18th, 2009 at 6:49 pmProjecting much?
February 18th, 2009 at 6:50 pmOh, those terrible Gay-o-fascists, planning to blow up people and buildings in coordinated… nay, color-coordinated attacks.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:51 pmI am all flabbergasted. I don’t know wether to rag on the Borgen Project or the idiot from Utah
February 18th, 2009 at 6:53 pmYeah I guess gays are right up there with fascist republican windbag haters.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:54 pmhmmm – I wonder how long it will take the “rapture trolls” to get their rocks off on this one. Im going to go have dinner with my gay friends.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:55 pmI think this man is the greatest threat to our nation’s security, not homosexuals. What an ignorant and bigoted man. The people of Utah should be ashamed that they’ve elected this idiot.
By the way, please check out my new blog here: http://plunditry.com and tell me what you think. Thanks.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:56 pmI thought this guy buttars lived in South Park, CO. Must be thinking of someone else.
I often wonder why “teh gays” don’t go head on at that “the Foundation of American Democracy is the Family” canard. I’d bet you dollars to donuts there’s some pretty dysfunctional family histories among the founding fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. I seem to recall Ben Franklin having a troubled relationship with his son(s) and John Adams being at odds with one of his as well. I guess it would be “anti-uhmurkin” to bring any of that up and besmirch their hallowed blah blah blah.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:57 pmTo me, homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion. Chris Buttars (R)
To me, Mormonism will always be a religious perversion.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:58 pmChuck Feney
I still say that pictures of these guys all belong on the before part of a Metamucil commercial. Someone should slip some Exlax into their coffee.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:00 pmYou gotta hand it to these homophobes; they are all gay themselves and they hate it. Falwell, Phelps, Craig, Haggard…they have never come to terms with it.
It’s always right wing men too who have this paranoia. Why is that? Men who are gay on the left are comfortable with it, but wingnuts, especially religious ones are the worst. Their body says one thing, and their minds warped by religion makes them feel like they are full of sin therefore they hate themselves.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:01 pmAny way to kick Utah out of the Union?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:01 pmButtars should be put out to pasture with the other senile, useless, hateful, bigoted, non-Christian idiots who find themselves so much better than anyone else. Jesus would be ashamed of Buttars, and anyone like him. And we certainly didn’t need the (R) after his name– it goes without saying. What hate-mongering, anti-Bible losers the (R)s are. They just don’t get it. Never will, apparently.
Buttars bragged that he “killed” every piece of gay rights legislation in Utah.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:01 pmHow to even comment on this? — What it really means is “Buttars killed every opportunity for equality in the U.S. He hates equality. He thinks he’s better than you.”
If the Constitution “don’t change”, then why are all those things called “amendments” part of it?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:02 pmFebruary 18th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
– They say, I’m born that way. There’s some truth to that, in that some people are born with an attraction to alcohol.
And what RIGHTS are alcoholics actually denied , ButtPlug ?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:03 pmI think it’s cute as all get out when Mormons go on a moralizing crusade.
kiddie-diddlers, talking smack about gay people!?!?!
irony’s motherlode.
the entertainment just never stops with these wingnuts – i hope they never become self-aware in the least, so I can continue to laugh, milk-out-the-nose-style, at EVERYTHING they say.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:03 pmof course with a last name like “buttars” i am sure he was on the receiving end of more than one anal sex joke involving his name growing up. “hey chris, you like it up the butt-ahs?”
as a gay man, i say most respectfully to chris buttars
FCUK OFF
February 18th, 2009 at 7:03 pmIf the Constitution was ‘inspired’ by God, why are there so many provisions that say God should go lay by his dish?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:03 pmThat’s all we have to do?
Come up with one?
And you’ll STFU?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:04 pmName one gay person that actually accomplished something worth while?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:05 pmmartina navratolova
ellen degeneres
melissa etheridge
portia di rossi
gertrude stein
keith haring
oscar wilde
david geffen
shall i go on Lame Troll Dan or will you just STFU now?
“they’re probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of.”
Ahem….er…ah…never mind.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:06 pmShould we even bother with LTdan the shrimper?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:06 pm“– To me, homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion.”
February 18th, 2009 at 7:07 pmthis coming from a man whose presumtive religious beliefs turned a blind eye to polygamy until…well pretty much always
Who?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:07 pmJust out of curiosity, how many gays are closeted born again christians?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:07 pmoooh – LTDan’s bringin’ it from DEEEEEP down in hater country.
most of the gay people I know, Dan, since you obviously have nothing but crackerbarrel stereotypes to work with, have so much money they could buy your trailer court, bulldoze it, and turn it into a spa in less than a week’s time.
better watch who you go hatin’ on – you’ll probably end up working for them someday
February 18th, 2009 at 7:08 pmSomeone wake Darwin.
I think we’ve found the missing link.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:08 pmBozo The Neoclown Says:
Name one gay person that actually accomplished something worth while?
I thought that question took the prize for stupidest question ever — or at least for today.
Leaving aside the obvious answer that there are hundreds of thousands of gay people in the mainstream accomplishing things every day, even a cursory look at music, art, theater, dance . . . it’s just a remarkably stupid question.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:09 pmstupid is as LT does. q.e.d.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:10 pmgummitch,
February 18th, 2009 at 7:10 pmwhat do i get for naming a handful without even thinking twice?
When old jerks like this die off, so do their obsolete, screwed up ideas.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:11 pmBozo The Neoclown Says:
Name one gay person that actually accomplished something worth while?
martina navratolova
ellen degeneres
melissa etheridge
portia di rossi
gertrude stein
keith haring
oscar wilde
david geffen
shall i go on Lame Troll Dan or will you just STFU now?
*
i don’t think dan knows
any of those people.
he’s led a sheltered life.
:)
February 18th, 2009 at 7:12 pmunless the managed to ‘pee in the pool’.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:13 pmWell, never say never. The Mormons allowed blacks into their religion. What the Church does not want you to know is how they force their young men on missions and how many commit suicide because of conflicted feelings. The Church also does not want you to know how many young, gay, confused men are encouraged to marry and have children. These marriages untimely fall apart breaking up a family. Then the Church blames it all on the ‘gays’. How sick and hateful can you get? Throw Utah out of the union.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:13 pmLTdan Says:
martina navratolova
ellen degeneres
melissa etheridge
portia di rossi
gertrude stein
keith haring
oscar wilde
david geffen
shall i go on Lame Troll Dan or will you just STFU now?
LET ME GUESS, ALL THOSE QUEERS ARE ACTORS, WRITERS OR “ARTISTS”? ROTFL! THEY DON’T CONTIBUTE ANYTHING YOU MORON.
*
the angry right wing.
ready to go out and
win more elections.
*
February 18th, 2009 at 7:14 pmdan,
February 18th, 2009 at 7:14 pmdavid geffen could literally buy and sell your worthless ass ten times over. he’s a music mogul. then again, since none of the acts his label represents opens for NASCAR races, I’m sure you’ve never heard of geffen records.
J Edgar Hoover…
February 18th, 2009 at 7:14 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
Retard Dan, please list things you have contributed to society.
*
when dan’s around there
are fewer rodents in the
neighborhood.
*
but that’s more of a “help”
than a contribution, i guess.
*
February 18th, 2009 at 7:15 pm(sounds like someone’s having trouble coming to grips with some of those nocturnal emmission dreams he’s had – those with the tanned, muscular men who make him do things his mom told him he’d go to hell for)
Just watch some wrestling on the teevee LT, it’ll make you feel better (for a while, anyway)
February 18th, 2009 at 7:15 pmLTdan Says:
——————————————————————————–
Gays don’t even contribute to society. Name one gay person that actually accomplished something worth while? All these weirdos do is spread disease and cry all day. They are lucky we don’t treat them like Iran does.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Freddie Mercury brought joy to millions with his voice and his work in Queen ; what have you ever done , besides soiled yourself ?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:15 pmDon’t forget Sir Ian McKellen, Stephen Fry, Neil Patrick Harris.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:15 pmLuis M Says:
Don’t forget Sir Ian McKellen, Stephen Fry, Neil Patrick Harris.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:15 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
*
larry craig
ted haggard
*
(i’m adding those names
so dan won’t feel left out.)
**
February 18th, 2009 at 7:16 pmgive in to it Dan – ask that cute guy who works over at ponderosa out for a date.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:17 pm#
LTdan Says:
Gays don’t even contribute to society. Name one gay person that actually accomplished something worth while? .
Abe Lincoln
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041206/lincoln.html
James Baldwin,Walt Whitman, Graham Chapman (Monty Python)
February 18th, 2009 at 7:17 pmLTDan, wasn’t Reagan gay? he was one of those Hollywood types after all…
February 18th, 2009 at 7:17 pmLame Troll Dan
February 18th, 2009 at 7:17 pmwe answered your question. just because you don’t like the answer isn’t our problem nor, does it give you justification to change your original question.
Let me translate the above in words you can understand: You got punked, beyotch
LTdan Says:
MUSIC, ART, AND POETRY ARE ALL LUXURIES!
So was education in your case, and apparently your family couldn’t afford it.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:18 pmI think we’ll need to have LameTroll Dan define what “accomlished something worthwhile” means before we can go further.
Obviously, LTdan, you dismiss accomplishment in the arts as something worthwhile. Also sports.
Can you explain just what IS “worthwhile” to you?
This will save time, as we can then tailor our responses to your criteria, rather than continuing to name accomplished gay people and have you come up with one reason after another why their accomplishments don’t count.
Thanks.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:18 pmAlexander the Great
February 18th, 2009 at 7:18 pmSocrates
Richard the Lionhearted
LTdan Says:
Freddie Mercury brought joy to millions with his voice and his work in Queen ; what have you ever done , besides soiled yourself ?
MUSIC DOES NOT COUNT YOU STUPID LIB! MUSIC, ART, AND POETRY ARE ALL LUXURIES! THEY ARENT NEEDED!
*
dan has anyone ever used
the word “fun” to describe you?
*
didn’t think so.
*
February 18th, 2009 at 7:18 pmIf the U.S. is so weak that it could be ruined by gays, then gays are the least of our problems.
Hey, LTdan, I’ve worked for quite a few gay Republican couples. Butch “husband”, artsy architect or interior-design “wife”. Real Ozzie and Harriet chit.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:18 pmLameTroll Dan,
February 18th, 2009 at 7:20 pmyou’re amongst friends. fess up, did your girlfriend leave you for another chick and take her strap-on with her, leaving you with an “empty” feeling you-know-where?
poor ol’Dan.
someday he’ll meet the right guy, and then he’ll finally understand where all his anger and anxiety have been coming from.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:20 pmFrancis Bacon
February 18th, 2009 at 7:21 pmFrederick the Great
TE Lawrence
Eleanor Roosevelt
Pope Benedict IX
Montezuma
Peter the Great
Pope John XII
Hoodathunk Says:
Alexander the Great
Socrates
Richard the Lionhearted
*
ryan seascrest
troy aikman’s brother (clay)
cheney’s daughter (i forget her name, i think it’s martina)
and last but not least, mamie eisenhower.
*
see dan, you have a rich history!
*
February 18th, 2009 at 7:21 pmDoes Alexander the Great count? That’s kind of an accomplishment, isn’t it? Conquering the known world?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:21 pmLTdan Says:
What does count?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:21 pmPolitics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_politicians
Warfare?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta
Republicans?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans
give us a baseline…
all of a sudden, Lame Troll Dan, proud member of the flat earth society is interested in science? that’s some funny sheeyat.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:22 pmHe was sublimating
February 18th, 2009 at 7:23 pmand just maybe, dan, that special guy will also show you how the caps lock key works.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:23 pmDidn’t God so love man that he gave his only son to save mankinds’ soul?
d
February 18th, 2009 at 7:23 pmMUSIC DOES NOT COUNT YOU STUPID LIB! MUSIC, ART, AND POETRY ARE ALL LUXURIES! THEY ARENT NEEDED!
And evidently brains are not needed in your world. Larry Craig is gay. Lindsey graham is gay. David Vitter wears diapers. Cheney’s daughter is gay. The beat goes on dude. Get a life and maybe you will feel better about yourself. And frankly, it is OK if you are gay. No problem. Let it out boy, the truth will set you free!
February 18th, 2009 at 7:23 pmLTdan Says:
——————————————————————————–
Freddie Mercury brought joy to millions with his voice and his work in Queen ; what have you ever done , besides soiled yourself ?
MUSIC DOES NOT COUNT YOU STUPID LIB! MUSIC, ART, AND POETRY ARE ALL LUXURIES! THEY ARENT NEEDED!
February 18th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Then why are music and art present at every Catholic/Christian church service ……………….????
Are you going to denounce their necessity ???
February 18th, 2009 at 7:23 pmRalph you are so perfectly wry at times I feel gay about you, and that doesn’t diminish my masculinity one little bit.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:24 pmand he only hung around with guys and hookers, bobwurst. Don’t tell LT
February 18th, 2009 at 7:24 pmPresident Bush — “like him or love him”
Heckuva choice there. I’d list some others but there’s not much point wasting bandwidth on countless pejoratives.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:25 pmdan i’m curious,
what do you plan on
doing now?
*
February 18th, 2009 at 7:25 pm“MUSIC DOES NOT COUNT YOU STUPID LIB! MUSIC, ART, AND POETRY ARE ALL LUXURIES! THEY ARENT NEEDED!”
LameTrollDan, does this mean we can get rid of playing the national anthem?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:25 pmLTdan the shrimper. Check out Ray Warren. BTW: Are we allowed to count all those republican politicos and clergy folk that do gay stuff but claim they aren’t gay? Just wondering. Wasn’t there some question about good old Abe Lincoln…
February 18th, 2009 at 7:25 pmHey Daryll – wanna make out??
February 18th, 2009 at 7:26 pmTombaker was right!
February 18th, 2009 at 7:27 pmLame Troll Dan has found that special man…darryl.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxo to the new couple
They’re registered at the rest area near mile marker 223 off of I-15 in central Texas.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:28 pmOkay , that guy’s appearance is more disturbing than anything in history ; who’s the wise guy who thought it a good idea to merge clones of Rupert Murdock and Dick Cheney together , anyway ?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:29 pmYeah, Larry Craig and the countless other Gay RepuBilly “leadership” who risked all our own and family’s health and safety by engaging in twisted public toilet gay romps should be all ousted!
FlashBack:
RepuBillys support Craig and all the other Gay kinky Senators and are somehow demanding Burris resign for “volunteering additional truth” on an affidavit which confirms no crimes occurred?
Proven time and time again – RepuBillys are the party of Hypocrites!
February 18th, 2009 at 7:29 pmI sense a contradiction in our LT troll. Under the right-wing philosophy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (more on the side of “don’t tell”) how could one identify a gay person contributing a great deal to society? The right is completely ok with shutting out the accomplishments and skills of those in our military who are revealed to be gay.
Also, how is one’s sexual preference linked to their intellectual ability, or lack thereof?
You better pull your head out of your ass and pull your pants up,
February 18th, 2009 at 7:29 pmIt was the ball park franks.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:30 pmcome on Daryll – I promise I won’t try to cop a feel.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:31 pmi wonder who’s the bottom in Dan’s and Darryl’s relationship?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:31 pmSo, a scientific advancement, huh? That’s a pretty strict criterion. Unnaturally strict, one might say. Political leadership doesn’t count as a worthwhile accomplishment?
But if that’s what you demand, then…
how about John Maynard Keynes? Do you not consider economics a science? Or maybe Ludwig Wittgenstein? he was a mathematician.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:31 pmThe Senator is a mormon..The mormons financed the california defeat of same sex marriage….but…. having multiple wives is (was) ok for a long time in Utah..
February 18th, 2009 at 7:33 pmA great example of why politics and religion should not be mixed..
Mr Brady?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:33 pmthose guys don’t count either Ralph – cause they’re ivory-tower intellectual elitists.
until you find an example of a part-time minimart cashier who is also a fan of Extreme Cage Fighting and Monster Truck Rallies, you’ll be shootin’ blanks at a man’s man like Dan.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:34 pmLT Dan is in the closet making a sandwich.
What goes well with KY Jelly, he asks himself?
Peanut Buttars?
(Very Nacho Cheesy, I know.)
February 18th, 2009 at 7:34 pmOr maybe Leonardo daVinci?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:34 pmChris Buttars (R):
Moslems are good people and their religion is anti-war.
Actually this kinda surprised me coming out of a (R). I guess Obama’s change is working.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:34 pmThis is the reason why a few people and me our creating an initiative to take back the rainbow and restore the true definition of the term “gay”, which means happy.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:35 pm—-
“A few people and I” (are). Damn do dumb people get raptured?
Hey councilman wanna do a little femural lovin’?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:35 pmGee thanks, McWars. Care to put pizza off the list too?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:35 pmDa Vinci was publicly denounced as a
“sodomite” at age 24, along with a 17-year-old
friend and two other young men. He never
married, and willed all his possessions to a
young man, Francisco Melzi.
Florence Nightingale Nightingale played a vital role in the
February 18th, 2009 at 7:36 pmopening up of legitimate careers for women
outside the home and, in this way, helped create
the social and economic conditions that made the
modern lesbian (and heterosexual working
woman) possible.
Isn’t a bit presumptuous of Garyll to be calling himself “Republican Councilman”?
After all, he’s working on a six year plan to run for office, and he may not win. Consider, this is the guy who last spring insisted that Jesus had given him the go-ahead to call his candidate “President-elect Huckabee”.
Besides, six years is a long time. Daryll might have come out of the closet by then, and Republicans wouldn’t want him.
So I’m suggesting a little humility, D.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pmOnly if you don’t use a condom, Daryll.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pmBy the looks of it, almost exclusively.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pmLTdan,
LTdan,
Dormez vous?
Dormez vous?
Sonnez les matines,
Sonnez les matines,
Din, din, don!
Din, din, don!
*
où avez-vous passé dan?
:)
February 18th, 2009 at 7:38 pmRepublican Couchpotato
Darryl, you will go to hell and succeed Adolf Hitler in his regimen, having one large pineapple shoved up your ass on a daily basis.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:38 pmLtDan, How do you feel about the biggest hero of WWII? The savior of countless American lives who single handedly stopped the Japanese war machine? I refer, of course, to Enola Gay. You have a neocon Bhuddist koan here dannyboy: either embrace the gay or repudiate the deaths of millions of people.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:38 pmYeah, well, so is proclaiming yourself a Councilman six years before the election. But that doesn’t bother you any.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:39 pmno, darryl,
February 18th, 2009 at 7:39 pmi was raised to believe since there’s so little love in this world, I have no right to devalue it if it’s between two consenting adults.
aw c’mon Daryll – make out with me – just 5 minutes worth…
February 18th, 2009 at 7:39 pmnext tombaker will be telling “i only wanna put the head in” and darryl will be falling for it.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:41 pmRHF,
February 18th, 2009 at 7:41 pmyou just took all the fun out of darryl’s upcoming weekend. killjoy.
tombaker, I’m cool with that.
you know what i mean
(Terrorist fist-jab)
February 18th, 2009 at 7:41 pmThat’s it? That’s what your going to run with, D?
“save the rainbow?” and gay means happy!
So you and LTDan are “happy,” but not gay? Or are you gay but not “happy?” WTF? You’re confusing me w/ all of this double talk, D. What are all those Hoosers going think?
I think you and your “team” need to go back to the drawing board on this one, D.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:41 pmI get it — Darryl will literally run against his republican councilman, trip him over and attempt sex before live balloting. That will be the ribbon-cutting on the closet’s grand opening.
No warped mind in play here, just a look into Darryl’s.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:46 pmYeah, but Da Vinci was gay. Don’t forget—the right-wing arguments are circular, emotional, and solipsistic.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:47 pmGod told me that Huckabee is gay
February 18th, 2009 at 7:48 pmIs the Mormon church paying taxes? They ought to be.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:50 pmDoes your councilman need sharpening, darryl?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:52 pm***wink, wink, wink***
***nudge, nudge, nudge***
February 18th, 2009 at 7:53 pmWhy do right-wingers immediately jump to bestiality when given half a chance? It’s almost like they’re looking for permission or something.
Ya ever hear of a concept called “consenting adults”, Councilman?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:54 pmDaryll – it won’t be irresponsible at all – we can use dental dams.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:54 pmDrywall,
god created man in his own image,10% of us are gay,therefore, god is gay 10% of the time.
god is love, love is blind, therefore, god is blind.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:55 pmyes Ralph, he has, but he always understood “adults” to mean any animal past puberty. he went to the Rick Santorum Insitute for the Study of Sexuality.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:56 pmRepublican Councilman Says:
I guess man and beast should be able to intimately love each other, as well.
If man and beast are truly capable of loving each other than it’s none of your business. On the other hand, if your wife catches you sodomizing the dog, you’re in big trouble.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:57 pmWasn’t the guy that cracked the German code machine in WWII gay? Now THAT was something worthwhile don’t you think? Poor soul was ostracized so much he committed suicide before he could be ‘identified’ for security reasons. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:57 pmSweet Jeeeesus.
Throw in a little “happy” talk and D jumps on the bestiality express. What the heck is wrong with you?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:57 pmDan done run off – I think he took me up on the advice to ask that cute guy at Ponderosa out.
Tomorrow he’ll be back as LTFab-U-lous, telling us about the outfit he’s wearing to the pride parade in Louisville.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:58 pmThe only gays I’m afraid of are the ones who are mad at me.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:58 pmlivelongandprosper Says:
Wasn’t the guy that cracked the German code machine in WWII gay?
Alan Turing! Of course, we forgot about him. He amounted to something, right. Father of the modern computing and all.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:02 pmlivelongandprosper Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 8:03 pmYes he was…
Alan Turing, he was also the father of modern computer science, th same computers which allow LTdan and Darryl to post their ridiculous homophobia for the whole world to see…
LuisM- you beat me to it!
February 18th, 2009 at 8:03 pmI’m kinda ashamed for forgetting Mr. Turing, being a CompSci graduate myself.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:04 pmBobwurst Says:
Republican Councilman Says:
I guess man and beast should be able to intimately love each other, as well.
If man and beast are truly capable of loving each other than it’s none of your business. On the other hand, if your wife catches you sodomizing the dog, you’re in big trouble.
But what if his wife _is_ the dog, eh?
February 18th, 2009 at 8:06 pmThat’s more likely than the other explanation: that he kept his end of the bargain and as soon as we named a gay person who had accomplished something worthwhile, he decided to STFU.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:09 pmOh sure, Luis – but who did Turing ever beat in a cage-match?
y, thought so – nobody!!
(insert all-caps rant here)
February 18th, 2009 at 8:09 pm“– To me, homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion”
I think that means you’re doing it wrong, Mr. Buttars.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:10 pmThe greatest threat to America is people like Chris Buttars and his ilk. It seems like the only thing that people like Buttars stand for is hate.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:10 pmRepublican Councilman Says:
——————————————————————————–
Bozo The Neoclown Says:
no, darryl,
i was raised to believe since there’s so little love in this world, I have no right to devalue it if it’s between two consenting adults.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:39 pm Add Karma Recommend (2) | Report Abuse
I guess man and beast should be able to intimately love each other, as well. I guess that we can just live in this world without restrictions.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
How is same-sex intimacy the equivalent to cross-species intimacy ?
What the fu(k kind of rationale do you anally retentive morons continue to try and laughably use ?
Making shit up is not a sound basis for anything ……..
February 18th, 2009 at 8:10 pmOh, the irony.
Just what are gay people capable of, asks the troll, picking up garbage!?
-Bigoted comment submitted using Alan Turing’s machinery.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:11 pmSenator Larry Craig and Reverend Ted Haggert both were against gays. Go figure, wingnuts.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:11 pmWow, the trolls are gone. They must have actually read the countering posts, because facts do serve as a good repellent.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:16 pmLuis M Says:
Alan Turing! Of course, we forgot about him. He amounted to something, right. Father of the modern computing and all.
Ah yes. My wife, sitting across from me, reminded me of the this fact.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:17 pmThat Mr. Buttars sure is a looker – bet he’s got 9 wives and 11 girlfriends (all of whom close their eyes and imagine someone else when he “mounts” them)
February 18th, 2009 at 8:17 pmDon’t forget Buttars was directly involved with the Utah Boys Ranch
February 18th, 2009 at 8:19 pmMormon Gulag
Don’t forget Buttars was directly involved with the Utah Boys Ranch/Mormon Gulag
February 18th, 2009 at 8:19 pmMcWars – they were actually just afraid I was going to talk them over to “the other team” with my seductive wiles.
(that was fun for me, as a boring 42 y.o. Dad and erstwhile straight guy)
I still have a mancrush for Ralph though (that luxurious wooly coat drives all the gauchos wild, don’t it?)
February 18th, 2009 at 8:20 pmHmmm…in researching noteworthy gays in the political field, here’s something I found:
First Century — Year 98
TRAJAN, one of the most beloved of Roman emperors, begins his reign. Trajan was well known for his homosexuality and fondness for young males. This was used to advantage by the king of Edessa, Abgarus, who, after incurring the anger of Trajan for some misdeed, sent his handsome young son to make his apologies, thereby obtaining pardon.
Wow — who knew?
February 18th, 2009 at 8:22 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
Nice catch!
February 18th, 2009 at 8:23 pmMolly’s right. Western Civilization owes it all to a pretty gay batch of people.
(and I’m a little suspicious of how Mary Magdelene was the only girl in Jesus’ crew)
February 18th, 2009 at 8:25 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
hee hee…
February 18th, 2009 at 8:26 pmRepublican Councilman Says
February 18th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
I guess man and beast should be able to intimately love each other, as well. I guess that we can just live in this world without restrictions.
__________________________________________________________
That same tired argument was used just scant decades ago as justification against interracial marriage. Today, many interracial couples are happily married and this has not caused human/barnyard animal couples to line up at the JP.
Do you have any other lame arguments?
February 18th, 2009 at 8:26 pmHe has them all, Molly. (bulk-pack from Costco)
February 18th, 2009 at 8:27 pmtombaker Says:
Molly’s right. Western Civilization owes it all to a pretty gay batch of people.
(and I’m a little suspicious of how Mary Magdelene was the only girl in Jesus’ crew)
Mary was actually Joe, but he was always going around saying “I want to be called Mary”. Someone redacting the books of the bible dropped the he in reference to ‘Mary’ sometime in the first century CE. Monty Python got it historically correct.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:31 pmLtdan says: MUSIC DOES NOT COUNT YOU STUPID LIB! MUSIC, ART, AND POETRY ARE ALL LUXURIES! THEY ARENT NEEDED!
Life isn’t worth living without them.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:31 pmYeah wiley—-They should pay taxes.Mormons need to be exposed–they have so much money and increasing power. A hate filled bunch of fake “nice” white shirts trying to make everyone Mormon.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:34 pmlivelongandprosper Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 8:35 pm‘Why are you always on about women, Stan?’
Republicans are just lost. When you have nothing to offer society except fear and hatred what good are you? NONE!
February 18th, 2009 at 8:36 pmButtars was most probably abused on his missionary trip, in the Morman tabernacle or something really sick or he wouldn’t be so angry and hateful.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:36 pm“Not that there’s anything wrong with that…”
Seriously.
Mr. Buttars needs to stop thinking with his little head.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:36 pmThanks livelong – guess that pretty well confirms my suspicions re that cabal of semites, though without at least one token gal in the group, they certainly weren’t ready for a night on the town.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:36 pmDoes Butters sound a bit like Larry Craig; you know the republican from Poka-fella Idaho?
February 18th, 2009 at 8:37 pmthey’re cousins nofltwlt, just like everyone else in Utah and Idaho.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:37 pmactually kasinca–he was probably rejected and now he’s pissed
February 18th, 2009 at 8:38 pmbelac Says:
livelongandprosper Says:
‘Why are you always on about women, Stan?’
I haven’t had a Monty fix for a while. Saturday is now booked.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:38 pmComing to this argument late, so perhaps it has been addressed, but can someone please explain to me HOW homosexuality is a threat to anyone, our culture, or our nation? Please, someone explain that? By what mechanism will it destroy any or all of these things? What steps will occur in this process? How has it been happening to this point? What can we expect next? Cause I just don’t see it. No matter how I contort my brain to conjure the ugliness I suspect is required to think such things, I can’t do it. So, if someone could explain it, I would appreciate it.
I won’t be holding my breath waiting for a response.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:38 pmThese types always ‘doth protest too much’. He must have some twink in his closet somewhere.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:38 pmMUSIC DOES NOT COUNT YOU STUPID LIB! MUSIC, ART, AND POETRY ARE ALL LUXURIES! THEY ARENT NEEDED!
It counts for me as I make a living that way.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:40 pmAnd pay taxes.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:40 pmtbone – we don’t know either – the guys who were going to explain it to us took off.
i got the impression it had to do with wrestling vs. not wrestling, or fixing truck engines – have to confess I’m still lost on the subject.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:40 pmwhere’d darryl go? my viagra’s kicking in and i’m back to introduce him to the “love we dare not name”
February 18th, 2009 at 8:40 pmI really get offended when people suggest that the dirt bags like Butters may be a repressed gay. Don’t blame him on us! He is simply a closed-minded heterosexual with non-repressed bigotry. The bugger remark is proof positive of what a foul neanderthal he is.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:40 pm“HOW homosexuality is a threat to anyone, our culture, or our nation? Please, someone explain that? By what mechanism will it destroy any or all of these things?”
because if you allow gays and lesbians to file jointly on income taxes, irresponsible breaders like darryl will have to kick in their fair share to educate their little geniuses.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:42 pm194 – my apologies, becasue I did suggest that. I’ll try to be more mindful of the distinction.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:47 pmtbone:
February 18th, 2009 at 8:49 pmthe answer is that people like him need to surround themselves with people that believe exactly as they do. they are threatened by anyone that isn’t in lockstep. the only way they can maintain is to denounce anything that isn’t theirs. Do you know that the Mormon church baptized Holocaust victims poshumously. Yeah –they think everyone must be Mormon.
and much like darryl and dan, drudge hasn’t has sex with another human in 25 years.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:52 pmDo you know that the Mormon church baptized Holocaust victims poshumously. Yeah –they think everyone must be Mormon.
Mormons amaze me. Here we have a group of people that believe crap that is nonsense AND this crap is less than 200 years old! The first mormon dude was a shyster, clearly documented.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:53 pmTo answer LTDan: all non-artists….
Republicans:
Mark Foley
Larry Craig
Ted Haggard
Bob Allen
Glenn Murphy, Jr.
Mary Cheney
and these people:
Edward II of England
February 18th, 2009 at 8:56 pmRussell Grant
Warren Goldfarb
G.H. Hardy
Kate Hutton
John Maynard Keynes
Leonardo da Vinci
Alexander the Great
livelong – you’d better have your special underpants on if you’re going to go ’round saying things like that!!
February 18th, 2009 at 8:56 pmWhat sort of dude finds gold stuff under a rock and then loses it? Even if this shit wasn’t made up, it would still be a stupid religion…
February 18th, 2009 at 8:58 pmIt’s the slippery slope T-bone. Someone indulges a rogue desire in the locker room and the next thing you know they’ll be banging the parakeet. If you can’t see how this will tear apart the very fabric of society, I don’t know what to tell you.
We probably have no idea how much energy it takes these busybody right wingers to keep from coming completely unglued.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:06 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
Trajan was well known for his homosexuality and fondness for young males.
Wow — who knew?
_____________
Ummm… a certain ex-troll whose name shall not be mentioned?
February 18th, 2009 at 9:16 pmMormons= another fake religion
February 18th, 2009 at 9:16 pmrandomchaos–true — this fake religion is rich, powerful and flexing their muscles. btw–Harry Reid is a Mormon
February 18th, 2009 at 9:27 pmThanks for the responses. I got a good laugh out of them to be sure. I think Wiley hit it on the head with the slippery slope. If you let your guard down for one second, next thing you know, you’ll be attracted to the nearest warm body- man, woman or beast.
It really does seem like these religious nuts want everyone to live like the proverbial ostrich. Can’t be around gays because you’ll sodomize in an instant, can’t legalize prostitution because that is a temptation, can’t dance because we might want to lambada,can’t think because you might realize everything you’ve been told is a bunch of sh*t.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:36 pmLTdan Says:
Gays don’t even contribute to society. Name one gay person that actually accomplished something worth while? All these weirdos do is spread disease and cry all day. They are lucky we don’t treat them like Iran does.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I’ve got one for you LTdan.
Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin von Steuben
There was a reason he was around to train Washington’s army. He had fled Europe because he was gay.
I’m sure you’re proud to ba an American, LTDan (though I personally don’t think you’re a very good one), but if there’s one person you MUST thank for the fact that you are an American, it’s gay man. Dreal with it.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:46 pmLt, do you get upset during Christmastime?
Do you get angry when people help each other?
February 18th, 2009 at 10:01 pm“…a few people and me our(sic) creating an initiative to take back the rainbow…”
WTF? Where do you get the idea that the rainbow was ever yours in the first place, Daryll?
And BTW, you and Dan probably aren’t aware that the first wrestlers did so in the nude. Go ahead, think about that.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:03 pmWayne S.
Amazing and informative. Thank you. This is the kind of stuff needs to be pushed in “thier” faces. I am astounded by the so-called “Righteous” and the hate and dis-regard of other humans they proudly proclaim. Why can’t they just admit it is Part of what makes us humans. We are not all wired the same. What right do they have to oppress ones that are different?
I am going on more than I usually do.(subject matter effect I guess) I will stop here for now.
Again, Wayne good one.
RC
February 18th, 2009 at 10:03 pmWayne comes in to deliver the BAM!
Jane follows with a KAPOW!
Tag Team Masters. (humbly bowing as he retreats to shadows)
Keep it up!
February 18th, 2009 at 10:06 pmRepublican Councilman Says:
LTDAN, you are right on the mark about homosexuals. It is equivalent to a disease that must be cured. Only through God’s saving grace can they be release of this indecency. This is the reason why a few people and me our creating an initiative to take back the rainbow and restore the true definition of the term “gay”, which means happy.
(R) Daryll – Future Whitley Co. Councilman.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
You mean this Bible isn’t what I think it is?
February 18th, 2009 at 10:18 pmWoah Wayne. 777 scriptures? Dunno, looks a little supicious.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:27 pm666 is the mark of the Beast. No?
777 is the mark of Hesus maybe?
I am so confused.
Republican (not-even-close-to-being-a) Councilman Says:
This is the reason why a few people and me our creating an initiative to take back the rainbow
BTW, what right do you have to make any claims on the rainbow? Rainbows are hardly even mentioned in the Bible, despite the fact that conditions in Palestine make rainbows very common. So what are you taking it back to?
February 18th, 2009 at 10:30 pmThe greatest threat to America is a corrupt financial system that leeches off the taxpayers
February 18th, 2009 at 10:44 pmRandomChaos Says:
Wayne comes in to deliver the BAM!
Jane follows with a KAPOW!
Tag Team Masters. (humbly bowing as he retreats to shadows)
Keep it up!
February 18th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Thanks, RC! (blushing modestly)
February 18th, 2009 at 10:57 pmWhat the h_ll, I am enticed to this thread b/c the topic is one I like to argue about and NOTHING!
What are you folks arguing about? What is the point? … someone MAKE a point that I can latch onto!
February 18th, 2009 at 11:01 pmTim Vaculik Says:
What the h_ll, I am enticed to this thread b/c the topic is one I like to argue about and NOTHING!
What are you folks arguing about? What is the point? … someone MAKE a point that I can latch onto!
February 18th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Homophobia is stupid. Is that a topic to which you can add to the discussion?
February 18th, 2009 at 11:11 pmWayne,
That’s a start. Define homophobia…
February 18th, 2009 at 11:13 pmWell, Mr. Vaculik, if you don’t know what the definition of homophobia is, then I guess you can’t add anything to the discussion. Go read a dictionary and come back later.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:17 pmSo, if I’m not afraid of homosexuals, have them as friends and acquaintances, don’t believe in discrimination against anyone YET I disagree with the notion of gay “marriage”, how can I be labeled a so-called “homophobe?” Do I deserve the label simply due to the fact I have a deeply held conviction about marriage?
February 18th, 2009 at 11:23 pmskip the fussin’ Tim – let’s make out.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:26 pmWell, Tim. Wouldn’t not letting them be married be discrimination? Why can’t homosexuals get married, Tim?
February 18th, 2009 at 11:28 pmYou see, I am perfectly aware of how the label of “homophobe” is wielded like a bludgeon against anyone who has the temerity to disagree!
“Progressives” my a$$. So-called enlightened, liberal thinkers my A$$! Many of you are nothing more than vanguards of the new “world order” wherein the people that disagree with you will be purged!
Fascists.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:28 pmTim’s exploring the fascinating territory somewhere between bigotry and homophobia.
And that makes me want to make out with him.
But I haven’t shaved in a few days…
February 18th, 2009 at 11:28 pmalpuz3,
Marriage has never been a “civil right”, that’s why. Marriage is a social institution that only society as a whole has a right to define.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:29 pmawesome. Not the answer I was expecting, but still awesome all around.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:29 pmDictionary, Tim, dictionary! Please tell us how we’re fascists? Do you know what a fascist is?
February 18th, 2009 at 11:29 pmdon’t be offended, we treat the flat-earthers the same way for the same reason…..what’s that…oh, you’re a flat-earther too……figures.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:32 pmalpuz3,
You posed a valid question. In fact, it is the central issue.
It may very well come to pass someday that society’s definition of marriage changes. This type of fundamental change cannot be forced or it will never happen.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:34 pmFreddie Mercury and many other great contributors to society are dead because of homophobes like rayguy…..raygun’s a republican ya know…
February 18th, 2009 at 11:35 pmWe were also helping LTdan understand the many, many contributions of gay people to our way of life. And we were asking Councilman-Wannabe Daryll what claim he and his friends have on rainbows and the word “gay”. Care to talk about those issues, Tim?
February 18th, 2009 at 11:35 pmIt can only be forced…..how do you think the civil rights cause came to pass?
February 18th, 2009 at 11:37 pmTim Vaculik Says:
alpuz3,
You posed a valid question. In fact, it is the central issue.
It may very well come to pass someday that society’s definition of marriage changes. This type of fundamental change cannot be forced or it will never happen.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Actually, Tim, that’s exactly how it works. The People force their government to change archaic laws and move into the 21st Century, instead of living in 1st Century Jerusalem.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:38 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Marriage has never been a “civil right”, that’s why.
____________
Sorry, Tim, but we went thru this one before, and you lost that time too…
Even conservative Constitutional scholars acknowledge this…
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/jan/31/00013/
Let’s unpack that. First, the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to marry. Although it does not mention this right explicitly, the Fourteenth Amendment does prohibit states from abridging “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” or denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court has long understood this broad language to protect any right that is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
February 18th, 2009 at 11:38 pmSorry, but there is no comparison between the unconstitutional treatment of Blacks that spurred the civil rights movement with that of the homosexual “movement.”
It is insulting to even pose such a linkage. Talk to some of your Black friends if you doubt what I say.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:38 pmAre you sure about that, Tim. Because if we take a little stroll through history, you may just be proven wrong.
Also, Tim. Are you sure it’s being “forced” upon society? Would you believe it if I suggested just the opposite. What would you say if I said that not allowing homosexuals to be married was being “forced upon society?
February 18th, 2009 at 11:40 pmRHF,
Sorry, but once again you have your facts all screwed up! Go read your history, then come back here and tell me which political party was responsible for the discriminatory laws passed in the South!
February 18th, 2009 at 11:41 pmTim Vaculik, you clearly don’t have anyone that you know, are related to, or care deeply about that is gay. You couldn’t make such an ignorant statement.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:41 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Sorry, but there is no comparison between the unconstitutional treatment of Blacks that spurred the civil rights movement with that of the homosexual “movement.”
You mean, other than the fact that the exact same arguments against interracial marriage are being used to fight same-sex marriage? I guess there isn’t any other comparison. But that’s why we bring it up, because we’re hearing the same, stupid, ignorant arguments against gay marriage that were used to deny blacks the legal right to marry whites.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:41 pmLet’s revisit that quote from the American Conservative Magazine, Tim…
I don’t see anything in there about the “life, liberty, and property” bidness that expicitly states, “And this don’t apply to you stinkin’ gays, because some of us just don’t like you!”
February 18th, 2009 at 11:41 pmtrivial bunk…..of course there are black homophobes…
talk to all of them, then get back to us.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:42 pmWayne,
You make my point exactly – the people have the right to make a change. Society as a whole.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:42 pmvaculicker just likes to play games…..the sad part is he doesn’t really care about anything except sucking vacuum.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:43 pmTim,
Enough with the “which political party” did what shit! We’ve explained many, many times that it wasn’t the party, but the ideology that kept blacks down. And back when this was going on, the Conservatives (the ones with your political leanings) controlled the Democratic Party.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:43 pmFred,
That is a ridiculous statement you just made. C’mon, man. You obviously don’t get out much…
February 18th, 2009 at 11:44 pmRHF,
Not so. And may I say, a pathetic attempt on your part to obfuscate the real culprits on the old South – DEMOCRATS.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:45 pmWayne,
Nonsense. It is simply untrue to lay the blame for discrimination at the feet of conservative ideology. Your assertion isn’t supported by the facts or history.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:47 pmAnd we want to force the government to move us into the 21st century, Tim. Anti-homosexual laws are archaic and need to be abolished.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:47 pmfunny coming from you…..I’ve never heard you make a statement yet that wasn’t ridiculous…….
February 18th, 2009 at 11:47 pmTim Vaculik Says:
… the people have the right to make a change. Society as a whole.
__________
How do you define “the society as a whole”, Timmy?
BTW, what’s your learned reply to my post about marriage and the 14th Amendment? Are you avoiding it?
February 18th, 2009 at 11:47 pmTim! Please address this response to your post:
Well, what do you think?
February 18th, 2009 at 11:49 pmvaculips in a nutshell:
February 18th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
another good description of vaculips:
Gosh tim, guess you’re not as smart as you think you are.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:50 pmAnyone who tries to make an argument about which political party was responsible for what, without acknowledging the prevailing ideology of that party at that particular time (liberal versus conservative), is too ignorant to be discussing political history, let alone trying to say things like “which political party was responsible for the discriminatory laws passed in the South”.
Go away, Tim. Learn something, so you can back up your comments with facts.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:51 pmSee….
February 18th, 2009 at 11:51 pmalpuz3,
I would say that you are wrong. It is clear that a majority of Americans strongly believe in preserving marriage as only being between a man and a woman. This is also plainly evident in every election where the choice is put on the ballot.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:52 pmFred,
If I need a therapist, I’ll go look in the Yellow Pages. Bite me!
February 18th, 2009 at 11:55 pmWhile conveniently avoiding the fact that it is on the ballot more and more often, even when the republicans were in control and it has gained ground each time being defeated onlyh in the reddist of red states……
facts don’t survive in a vaculous…..
February 18th, 2009 at 11:56 pmI wonder… do right-wingers really think they make a strong point when they bring up the racist past of the Democratic Party?
They never seem to acknowledge that the racial demographics of the parties underwent a radical sift in the 1960s, what with Kennedy and Johnson pushing civil rights against the wishes of their southern contingent, and Nixon exploiting that divide with his “Southern Strategy” in 1968.
They never seem to acknowledge that this shift of positions on civil rights and racial equality turned the South from a Democratic stonghold in the early part of the century to the center of Republican influence it is today.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:56 pmAww vacumous, don’t get all irritible, we’re just having a friendly discussion without your participation of course….stop whining and get us some more chips.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:57 pmprove the harm it would cause Tim, and you’ll have a case.
otherwise you don’t.
it’s really that simple.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:58 pmTim Vaculik Says:
I would say that you are wrong. It is clear that a majority of Americans strongly believe in preserving marriage as only being between a man and a woman.
____________
But that view is being forced on a minority. That’s why we have civil rights. That’s what the 14th Amendment is about… and the Equal Protection Clause…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States’ professed commitment to the proposition that “all men are created equal”[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.
That’s one of the reasons some judges are appointed rather than elected.
______________
http://lawandcourts.wordpress.com/2007/09/08/judicial-selection-method-smackdown-appointed-vs-elected-judges/
Conventional wisdom holds that appointed judges are superior to elected judges because appointed judges are less vulnerable to political pressure.
______________
I suspect California’s Prop 8 will lose at the Constitutional level due to the Equal Rights thingy… and that’s why judges are protected against retaliation by angry majorities…
And in Ca, it’s going to be interesting to see what happens to the Mormon Church and its tax exempt status after it poured so much money into an election…
February 18th, 2009 at 11:59 pmRHF,
You have a very thick skull, my friend. Again, there is simply no valid argument for comparing the very real discrimination Blacks endured due to an IMMUTABLE characteristic of their humanity, with that of homosexuals.
Now some will argue that being homosexual is something you are born with and have no control over, but at this point in time it doesn’t appear to be the case.
Are you stating that it is a fact that homosexuals have no control over their own sexuality? Are we born hetero or homo and that’s it?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:00 amCan’t help trying to help you vaccuuie boy. You seem to be flailing about quite a bit…..maybe if you just tried……just tried to make sense it could be different for ya. You know, you could be included in real conversations.
As long as you act like a child you will be treated like a child……it’s your call.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:00 amBy your standards, Timmeh, civil rights legislation would never have become law of the land, nor would Brown v Board of Education.
Had any measure proposing equal rights for blacks been put on a ballot in the south in the 1960s, it would have gone down to a crushing defeat. I’m not even sure it would pass today.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:00 amwell-put ralph – you know you drive me wild with those thoroughly rational, factually supported, and grammatically correct posts, you sexy beast.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:01 amStop dodging vac and answer the questions……you’re not playing dodge ball here ya know.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:02 amsettle down, tombaker. I saw you asking Timmeh to make out with you earlier. I’m a little put off.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:02 amMaybe to you it’s “clear”, but to me, I have my doubts. In fact, Aren’t there States that have legalized same sex marriages?
Wasn’t there a huge movement, orchestrated by a certain religious organization against same sex marriages recently?
See, Tim…I don’t see a large movement for same sex marriage. I see people of the same sex who want to get married and a weird obstacle of organizations that for some strange reason are against it.
Why? Tim… why do these people feel so threatened by people of the same sex wanting to be married?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:02 amTim Vaculik Says:
Now some will argue that being homosexual is something you are born with and have no control over, but at this point in time it doesn’t appear to be the case.
__________
Sorry, Timmy, but that is just silly. Whatever the root cause of homosexuality, whether genetics or social conditioning or WHATEVER, you CANNOT make that claim as a statement of fact.
Care to go back to your comment about marriage not being a basic right?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:03 amanswering a question with a question is a little childs game….one tim hasn’t outgrown…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:04 amFred Says:
… you’re not playing dodge ball here ya know.
___________
Actually, that’s ALL he’s doing…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:04 amRHF,
As much as you rail against it, facts are facts. The majority of Americans when confronted with a choice to amend their state constitutions do so – on the side of preserving traditional marriage.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:05 amRHF,
You’re pretty adept at dodging questions yourself.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:06 amHey tim, here’s a question I’m betting you won’t answer:
At some time in your life did you meet a man that you thought was pretty? Even if it was just a fleeting thought…..be honest.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:07 amI’m not so sure this is true, Tim.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:07 amRHF,
So, if being homosexual is an immutable characteristic; one that a person can be born with just like the color of their skin, why isn’t this enumerated in the civil rights laws of our country, hmmmmmm?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:07 amAnd had that been the only option — a ballot measure — in Virginia forty-five years ago, a white man could not have married a black woman nor vice versa.
Care to argue that this is justified as well?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:08 amit’s basic forensics.
tim, an educated fella, ought to know this.
if you want something to be outlawed, or remain outlawed, you must prove the harm.
if you don’t, the other side wins, every time.
tim, thus far, has failed to demonstrate harm.
he, therefore, gets the “L” by his name. (and likely no better than a C in his debate class)
QED – make out with me Tim – I can feel your hotness through the intertubes.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:08 amBut you see, just because you said it don’t make it a fact……
You’ll learn how it works when you mature a little more.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:08 amyeah RHF – why does the Constitution fail to mention DNA??
huh??
February 19th, 2009 at 12:09 amNotice how he dances and dodges, yet never answers your questions? I think he’s a pretty ballerina.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:10 amMy point exactly….how much evidence do you guys need. This guy aint interested in a discussion…..
why treat him like he is?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:13 amWow, Fred — you really think so?
Naw… you’re just being nice to Timmeh, aren’t ya?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:14 amTim Vaculik Says:
The majority of Americans when confronted with a choice to amend their state constitutions do so – on the side of preserving traditional marriage.
______________
Marriage as an institution is thousands of years old, Timmy. It has been many different things at different times and in different cultures.
This concept of “traditional marriage” is only a few hundred years old.
And let’s go back to that inconvenient 14th Amendment thingy and marriage as a civil right protected by the Constitution. I’d suspect this whole issue will end up in the SCOTUS sooner or later.
Federal law does supercede state law, Timmy.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:15 ami just want to treat him like the hot piece of manflesh he is.
who knows, maybe it’d lead to something and we could settle down in a cute cottage in Massachussetts someday…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:15 amhey guys – gotta run – Eric Cantor just stopped by to make out, and we’ve gotta git’r done before my wife gets home.
peace out
viva che
February 19th, 2009 at 12:17 amFred,
Well, yes I can answer that. Some of the folks here won’t be capable of understanding my answer, though.
Let me put it this way. Like anyone else that is human, man or woman, I could be tempted to indulge in sexual activity with someone of the same sex. HOWEVER, I would never act upon it. Why? Because I am simply not capable of doing something that I believe to be morally wrong. It’s the same as if I were tempted to cheat on my wife. Tempted, you bet! Act upon it – NEVER.
So you see, it isn’t about the nature of the temptation; it’s how we respond to it and deal with it. That’s what defines the moral vs. the immoral.
So if you have no moral objections to having sex with someone of the same gender, more power to you! Just don’t get the notion that it is therefor right to codify this into law.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:18 amFred Says:
why treat him like he is?
__________
it’s not so much about whether Timmy can or will answer the hard questions, Fred.
It’s about how we choose to comport ourselves.
We need to be convincing in our arguments, and dignified…
Psssssssssst… psssssssssssst…
***cough***
(thru clenched teeth…)
Care for one, Fred?
HEY… Vaculik… Yer a DOODY HEAD!
Hah! That’ll show ‘em!
February 19th, 2009 at 12:18 amI gotta tell ya, this really hurt my feelings. Timie just doesn’t understand how sensitive I am…
All I did was point out his MO from previous threads:
and this little obvious gem:
Anyone see anything wrong with my logic?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:19 amtombaker you’re just a tease.
You come here and get Timmeh all hopped up and now we gotta deal with his smoldering libido when you leave.
I’m gonna go put on a bulky sweater.
Don’t you be gettin’ ay ideas, Timmeh. My wife’s in the next room.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:19 amWell, folks, looks to me like Timmeh’s saying he has been tempted to suck c*ck now and then, and he decided against it ONLY because God told him not to, even though he really wanted to.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:21 amWell, it’s been refreshing as usual to come here for a delightful late evening repartee, but I do need my sleep.
RHF, you can give your caps lock a much needed rest now…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:22 amFred,
Told ya some just can’t comprehend… they haven’t the proper frame of reference after all.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:23 amWho was it, Timmeh? Whose c*ck did you want to suck?
Was it the older neighbor boy when you were a kid?
Your camp counselor?
Your college roommate?
You can tell us.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:24 amTim Vaculik Says:
Let me put it this way. Like anyone else that is human, man or woman, I could be tempted to indulge in sexual activity with someone of the same sex. HOWEVER, I would never act upon it.
__________
Ooooooooo… Timmy… did you just admit what I think you did?
__________
Why? Because I am simply not capable of doing something that I believe to be morally wrong. It’s the same as if I were tempted to cheat on my wife. Tempted, you bet! Act upon it – NEVER.
___________
So… you’re real issue is because “it would be seen as wrong”???
By who??? And you’ve NEVER done anything that could be construed as Morally Wrong?
Never broke the speed limit? Never told a little white lie? Never secretly stared at an anonymous woman’s breasts and thought “Hubbahubbahubba” to yourself?
NEVER????
__________
So you see, it isn’t about the nature of the temptation; it’s how we respond to it and deal with it. That’s what defines the moral vs. the immoral.
___________
So you’re basically saying the Botch Admin was morally wrong… ’cause they sure told some whoppin’ big lies, Timmy!
____________
So if you have no moral objections to having sex with someone of the same gender, more power to you! Just don’t get the notion that it is therefor right to codify this into law.
____________
Codify “sex” into law? That doesn’t make any sense.
Marriage is a bout a lot more than just sex.
Property. Custody. Visitation rights. Taxes.
You need to think this thru a little better, Timmy.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:24 amThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
I don’t know tros, someone intentionally, repeatedly insults my intelligence, I lose patience with them. It’s different when they are truly a child. I expect it and they are feeling thier way into adulthood…..timmy, not so much. It’s just insulting and deserves nothing in return.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:25 amI bet it was a guitarist in a rock band that you and your girlfriend saw in a club, right? Later that night, when you were banging her, you pictured the guitar player underneath you instead?
It’s okay to feel that way, Timmeh. God doesn’t hate you.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:26 amralph the wonder llama Says:
Well, folks, looks to me like Timmeh’s saying he has been tempted to suck c*ck now and then, and he decided against it ONLY because God told him not to, even though he really wanted to.
___________
That’s my take on Timmy’s comment too, ralph.
I noticed Timmy wouldn’t own up to his comment about marriage not being a civil right fro nuttin’, ralphie. Why do you think he did that?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:27 amWell, you surprised me. I never thought you would admit to your obvious to all except yourself latent homosexual tendencies……good for ya. That’s the first step.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:28 amFred Says:
It’s just insulting and deserves nothing in return.
_________
Geez, fred… do you REALLY think I was being polite to Timmy?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:28 amWhat grand mythological madness is this? Taking back the rainbow?! How inspiring! I’m going to re-valorize the number 13, and tomorrow
THE MOON!
February 19th, 2009 at 12:29 amoh man… *awesome*
February 19th, 2009 at 12:29 amralph the wonder llama Says:
I bet it was a guitarist in a rock band that you and your girlfriend saw in a club, right? Later that night, when you were banging her, you pictured the guitar player underneath you instead?
________
I don’t know, ralphie… I’d suspect that Timmy is more the beneficiary of any reach arounds in his fantasies…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:29 amClearly, Timmeh has faced moments when he wanted to suck c*ck or take it in the back door, because he says he CHOSE not to.
And we all know that a choice is not meaningful if one of the options does not appeal to you. Then it’s not a choice.
So that option must have appealed to Timmeh.
This is a breakthrough. Now let’s see if we can get Timmeh to open up a it further; who was it who tempted him so?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:30 am(I know, TRoS, but I figure Timmeh would want to look like a Top. So I’ll play to his ego.)
February 19th, 2009 at 12:32 amralph the wonder llama Says:
You can tell us.
_________
Geez, ralph… how about a little sensitivity here?
Timmy’s prolly feeling a bit vulnerable right now.
He’s Coming Out…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:32 amTimmeh, please, try to provide a frame of reference for those of us who can’t comprehend your lifestyle choice.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:33 amI’m pushing him too fast?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:33 amI know timmy won’t answer questions but surely even he will have to admit after tonight that not everything is black and white as he would have us believe.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:34 amralph,
I shouldn’t, but I’ll indulge you just this once…
I’ve never been attracted to anyone of the same gender. It’s just that I understand how people CAN be attracted to others of the same gender. I can see how the attraction works and yes, I could be tempted. As I’ve stated, however I would never act upon such temptations for exactly the same reasons I would never cheat on my wife.
I can visualize the experience of being with another Woman; I could be tempted. So what? Temptations are part of our everyday lives. Do we act on all of them? No.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:35 amralph the wonder llama Says:
This is a breakthrough. Now let’s see if we can get Timmeh to open up a it further; who was it who tempted him so?
___________
Ever notice that Dawg is almost Gawd spelled backwards???
Gawd, ralph… I love yer killer instinct, honed to a razor-sharp edge by countless hours of professional-grade Whack-A-Troll™ here at TP.
And there goes poor, poor Timmy, yelping off into the distance, bereft of his, uh, how shall we say, “manhood”…
Poor li’l feller… I feel for him… no, really, I do…
heh… well, he’ll be hittin’ that high C easier now, that’s for sure.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:38 amTim Vaculik Says:
It’s just that I understand how people CAN be attracted to others of the same gender.
____________
“Not that idea has ever occurred to me, see… I… I just understand how OTHERS could feel such things…”
February 19th, 2009 at 12:40 amralph the wonder llama Says:
I’m pushing him too fast?
______________
Hell no…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:40 amThen you didn’t CHOOSE not to have sex with them.
It was never an option.
COULD BE, but haven’t been tempted, is what you’re saying.
That sounds like an in-born preference to me. Doesn’t sound like you chose anything. It sounds like you followed your innate sexual identity, which happened to focus on the opposite sex.
So your insistence that it is a choice has nothing to do with your own experience. Your experience has been one of being attracted to women. Now imagine that you had to choose NOT to be attracted to women. Could you do it?
I’m not talking about choosing not to have sex with them. I’m talking about choosing not to be ATTRACTED to them. Could you choose that?
No. We don’t choose to whom we are attracted. Some of us are born to be attracted to our own sex. They can’t choose otherwise anymore than you can.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:40 amMore dancing but ok, why do you think God made us that way?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:42 amJeebus, there’s some awesome troll whacking on this thread.
**standing ovation**
February 19th, 2009 at 12:43 amAs I expected, some of you are hopelessly confused by my answer.
I am not being prevented from satisfying homosexual tendencies because I think it’s wrong. I have a deeply held moral conviction that it IS wrong and therefore I would never engage in that sort of behavior – even if tempted! BIG difference. Get it?
I am simply acknowledging that everyone is tempted. To deny this would be hypocritical.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:43 amRalph,
Excellent point at #353 I’d love to discuss, but I really have to go.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:46 amralph the wonder llama Says:
That sounds like an in-born preference to me. Doesn’t sound like you chose anything. It sounds like you followed your innate sexual identity, which happened to focus on the opposite sex.
___________
I dunno ’bout THAT one, ralph. Seems Timmy pretty much admitted getting certain… “feelings’… but just didn’t act on them…
___________
So your insistence that it is a choice has nothing to do with your own experience. Your experience has been one of being attracted to women. Now imagine that you had to choose NOT to be attracted to women. Could you do it?
I’m not talking about choosing not to have sex with them. I’m talking about choosing not to be ATTRACTED to them. Could you choose that?
No. We don’t choose to whom we are attracted. Some of us are born to be attracted to our own sex. They can’t choose otherwise anymore than you can.
________________
Sniff… sniff… what a beautiful sediment, ralph…
“You don’t choose love… love chooses you”…
And if I’m not mistaken, the ole “man on man” kinda love did wink at Timmy and he apparently looked back…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:46 amOk guys, this is the first time I’ve ever seen anything resembling honesty from Timmy. Let’s let him talk about it now that he’s actually speaking for himself and not for the overall agenda of defeating liberalism…..
Just as there is something evil in all of us, there is also something good in all of us…..may be suppressed but it’s there.
How about it Timmy, is this issue really as black and white as you implied earlier?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:47 amTim Vaculik Says:
Excellent point at #353 I’d love to discuss, but I really have to go.
____________
Hot “date”, Timmy?
Come on… you can tell us… we’re your friends. Really… For sure…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:48 amI’m sorry, but didn’t you just say that you have NEVER been tempted?
Make up your mind.
This would be much less confusing for you if you left “moral convictions” out of it.
Simply put, you insisted that homosexuality is a choice.
Let’s make this simpler still: we’re not talking about the choice to have gay sex or not. We’re talking about sexual identity — the innate drive to share another’s body and spirit that drives mankind (and all animals) to procreate.
You admitted that you have never been sexually attracted to another of your sex.
Thus you never CHOSE not to be with a man, because it was never an option for you. You never even had to face the moral implications, so that’s a cop-out. If you’re telling the truth (and there’s no reason to think otherwise) then you never had to make that moral choice because you never were tempted to make (what you see as) an immoral choice — homosexuality.
Flatly put, you were born that way, as are most humans.
Some are born with different sexual wiring. They can’t choose to be attracted to the opposite sex any more than you can choose to be attracted to your own.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:53 amman, tombaker is going to be pissed when he sees what he missed……
February 19th, 2009 at 12:53 amTim Vaculik Says:
As I expected, some of you are hopelessly confused by my answer.
____________
I don’t know about that “confused” part, Timmy.
Gut cramps from laughing… yes. Confused? Aaaaaah… I don’t think so…
____________
I am not being prevented from satisfying homosexual tendencies because I think it’s wrong. I have a deeply held moral conviction that it IS wrong and therefore I would never engage in that sort of behavior – even if tempted! BIG difference. Get it?
______________
Get it? More… than… you’ll EVER… know…
Shorter Timmy: I don’t Suck winnie because I think it’s wrong, even though the thought has occurred to me… I don’t do it because I KNOW it’s wrong, even though a boy do have “urges” from time to time…
February 19th, 2009 at 1:03 amGeez… I need a hit after that…
Pssssssssssst… psssssssssst…
***cough… cough…***
(thru clenched teeth…)
Anybody else? I’d offer Timmy one, but I don’t want to get his cooties…
February 19th, 2009 at 1:06 amFred Says:
man, tombaker is going to be pissed when he sees what he missed……
____________
Well, geez… didn’t anyone get it on tape?
February 19th, 2009 at 1:07 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
Ralph, I disagree. There’s PLENTY of REASONS to NOT BELIEVE TIM in him saying he had NEVER BEEN TEMPTED. If he hadn’t been TEMPTED he’d NEVER KNOW that he COULD BE TEMPTED and would never CONCEIVE it was POSSIBLE. Sorry, but TIMMEH PROTESTEST TOO MUCHETH. He’s a TOTAL CLOSET CASE that BUSTED HIMSELF!
____________
EXACTLY, rhf… EXACTLY!!!!
February 19th, 2009 at 1:10 amI agree with Zooey, uncompromised Troll bashing.
His name now rings true.
Tim SUCKS and LICKS
February 19th, 2009 at 1:11 amIs it just me… or …
If a politician is going to go on a vehemently anit-gay crusade, shouldn’t he change his name from BUTTARS to something… ah… less suggestive?
February 19th, 2009 at 1:12 amTROS, I don’t know but apparently timmy is now one of the greatest threats to America according to Buttars……
February 19th, 2009 at 1:17 amFred Says:
TROS, I don’t know but apparently timmy is now one of the greatest threats to America according to Buttars……
___________
Tis true, Fred… tis true…
On the other hand… or perhaps I should say… IN the other hand, he’s gonna make so many new friends if he ever comes to SF!
February 19th, 2009 at 1:19 amBush was a terrorist and had been the greatest threat to America.
http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/12/george-w-bush-is-terrorist.html
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
ONLINE, ANTI-BUSH, EDUCATIONAL, SCHOLASTIC RESEARCH: LISTING OF MAJOR ISSUES
http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2009/01/online-anti-
February 19th, 2009 at 1:36 ambush-educational-scholastic.html
The Pentagon says the greatest threats to the US in the near future come from the economic collapse (caused by conservatives) and global climate change (ignored by conservatives).
Who knows more about what they are talking about? The Pentagon or Mr. Butthead? Who has more reason to lie?
February 19th, 2009 at 1:46 amThat reminds me—I read that it is still okay to engage in sex as you get older. But you should change to low cholesterol margarine!
February 19th, 2009 at 1:50 amKeith Says:
That reminds me—I read that it is still okay to engage in sex as you get older. But you should change to low cholesterol margarine!
_________
Hehe… that brings to mind an old joke I heard back around the time “Last Tango in Paris” came out…. involving the infamous “butter” scene…
“If Marlon had gotten a-hold of a stick of margarine instead of butter at that moment, would a crown have appeared on his head, accompanied by that Dat-dada-dat-DA!”???
February 19th, 2009 at 2:02 amKeith Says:
Who has more reason to lie?
____________
Well… having been both witness and participant to and on this thread tonight, I’d be puttin’ my money on Timmy!
February 19th, 2009 at 2:04 amTimmy & Mr. Llama, I was wired from birth to be a heterosexual, it was most definitely NOT a choice. I was in love with a girl in the third grade. It had nothing to do with my teachers, or ministers, or what books I read, or what movies I saw, or how muy parents raised me, or what music I heard (Little Richard). It was due to genes and maybe a high level of testosterone.
I have had fine homosexual friends, but did not feel sexually or emotionally attrated to them.
The very vast number of scientists and sociologists agree with me. They don’t just have opinion or anecdotes—they have scientific studies.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:06 amTROS, I liked Last Tango (brando is the greatest), but that one scene was a little too much for me.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:08 amI remember Maria Schneider’s famous line:
February 19th, 2009 at 2:15 am“I can’t believe it’s not butter!”
RandomChaos Says:
Mormons= another fake religion
As opposed to “real religions.”
Fake religion — redundant
February 19th, 2009 at 2:24 amReal religion — oxymoron
Another pic of a rethug who looks constipated. This one reminds me of Jeff Dunham’s character Walter the Curmudgeon–only Walter is FUNNY.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:34 am.
P R E S E R V E
M A R R I A G E
O U T L A W
D I V O R C E !
.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:35 amMAX-1, that NY State Muslim tv producer would agree with you.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:40 amButtheaders says: I believe that you will destroy the foundation of American society, because I believe the cornerstone of it is a man and a woman, the family.
Yep. It’s right there in the Prologue of the Declaration of Independence, Senator Smutters:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men-and-women-who-are-married-to-the-opposite-sex are created equal; that only men-and-women-etc-who-then-form-families are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, as long as that happiness occurs only to men and women who are married to members of the opposite sex and who have children so that they become families.
And there is is again in the preamble to the Constitution: “We, the married-to-the-opposite-sex people of the United States of America. . . ”
I feel so much better now that I’ve seen the truth and patriotism in your prologue to the American Taliban’s Manifesto.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:54 amRepublican Councilman Says: You just can’t understand that homosexuality is irresponsible behavior.
Right again, RCRRDARRYL–instead of practicing such irresponsible behavior, folks should abuse their children, desert their wives/husbands/children, encourage war, slander anyone who disagrees with them, organize hate campaigns, join the KKK, model a “Christianity” that repels potential Christians who want nothing to do with the “god” being modeled, prevent sex education in schools so that children will have children. . . those “behaviors” are all SO “responsible.”
February 19th, 2009 at 3:05 amralph the wonder llama Says:
Why do right-wingers immediately jump to bestiality when given half a chance? It’s almost like they’re looking for permission or something.
Ya ever hear of a concept called “consenting adults”, Councilman?
Of course he has heard of the concept, except that whenever he hears the word “adult,” he’s always eagerly awaiting the “-ery” that so excites him. And he also believes in consenting sheep.
To paraphrase an old tag-line from Cal Poly SLO, the cuntselman should be wearing a shirt with his home town [have to call it X; cannot recall it just now] and the following motto emblazened boldly: “X. Where the men are men, and the sheep are nervous.”
February 19th, 2009 at 3:11 amBozo The Neoclown Says: as a gay man, i say most respectfully to chris buttars:
FCUK OFF
As the late, highly progressive, and brilliantly witty Molly Ivins used to say, “Good on you!”
February 19th, 2009 at 3:22 amPolitical aides. Karl Rove and Terry Dolan are both that way.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:25 amGod has placed term limits on life specifically to remove evil mother-fckrs like this from our society.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:29 amChris Buttars is a liar. Proof:
http://ethingtoneric.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/lie/
February 19th, 2009 at 3:50 amTim Vaculik Says:
RHF,
So, if being homosexual is an immutable characteristic; one that a person can be born with just like the color of their skin, why isn’t this enumerated in the civil rights laws of our country, hmmmmmm?
Why weren’t women allowed to vote? why weren’t Black Americans allowed to vote? Why was slavery allowed for so long?
why? because the CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS OF THE LAND HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED YET. We still have a few civil rights laws to go.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:56 amGays are not the greatest threat to America. Washington politicians are. Gays marrying is ridiculous. The majority of Americans are against it. Even in the states where it is legal, it had to be forced on the people by the judiciary. It was a mental disorder until recently, so I go along with that and it isn’t any different than incest, poligamy or other arrangements we’ve outlawed concerning marriage. The average lifespan of a homosexual in America is 55 years, 53 years in countries where gays can marry. Gays are 45 TIMES more likely to contrat HIV/AIDS than the general population and 4000% more likely to contract anal cancer. That makes it a public health issue of greater concern than smoking. We have PSA’s for kids to not smoke, maybe it’s time for PSA’s about being gay. Do we want to encourage smoking in our young? No? Then why aren’t we discouraging homosexuality in our young? After all, smokers can get life insurance at a greater premium if they’ve battled cancer. Gays who have HIV/AIDS can’t.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:05 amChasemonster, he’s put a greater term limit on gay life expectancy.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:06 ammorning drew3rd>
February 19th, 2009 at 7:17 amWhere we pulling these stats from? Oh I thought the scary “freedom haters” were the biggest threat? So you think that Washington politicians are a greater threat? Is that what I am to understand?
You know anyone that can take away your freedom. Washington politicians have handcuffed this great people.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:19 amDbad, don’t be so simple. BTW, if you can’t google, that’s not my fault. Why are TPer’s so lazy as to not do their own research?
February 19th, 2009 at 7:19 am#401 – drew3rd Says:
———————————————————-
“BTW, if you can’t google, that’s not my fault. Why are TPer’s so lazy as to not do their own research?”
Translation: drew3rd got the info from a web-site that has no scientific basis in fact, and cannot be bothered to support his assertions in any wah, shape or form.
Just as many “scientists” who used stacked studies to support their prejudices (Paul Cameron is a perfect example), drew3rd is using his dislike for gay people to drive his agenda against granting equal rights to all Americans.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:39 am#394 – chasemonster Says:
——————————————————–
“God has placed term limits on life specifically to remove evil mother-fckrs like this from our society.”
I wan’t aware that Utah’s state Republican senators had a term limit placed on their life span. It would be interesting to see the source for your assertion.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:42 amthe “d” is lowercase. Sorry to squash you “data” there drew3rd. I’ll be happy to look at your source though if you’d like to share it
February 19th, 2009 at 7:42 amWashington politicians have handcuffed this great people.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:45 am—
How so?
The odds are greatly in Chris “Butt-Head” Buttars favor that he is is a self-loathing,bigoted,child molesting,closeted gay!
February 19th, 2009 at 7:57 amSomeone previously wanted to know the names of any gays or lesbians who had contributed anything important to civilization, discounting “artists”. If he has not already been mentioned I would like to propose the name of
Mr. Allen Turing, father of the modern computer.
Without whose contribution we all would be getting ink all over ourselves at the very least, and have a very LONG message thread conversation. Too bad his enemies “outed” him and he felt compelled to commit suicide rather than go to prison for being gay.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:57 amTuring didn’t kill himself to avoid prison. He plead guilty and submitted himself to re-education therapy. He lived as an open homosexual. His decision to kill himself was more likely related to being removed from fighting commies in an intelligence post he had due to his conviction. It is a sad tale, but his death had very little to do with his homosexuality. It was mainly do to his unhappiness with his loss of a prized career and inability to move on.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:12 amI suppose I could ask for a source to support this alledged fact but I doubt we’d get one.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:16 amOh hell! Make that ALAN Turing. Sorry!
February 19th, 2009 at 8:18 amDrew,
February 19th, 2009 at 8:22 amhe was shadowed relentlessly with the threat of prison. He submitted to “re-education” which is a nice euphemism for chemo-castration to avoid prison. I have no doubt that contant threat of being jailed for his sexual behavior, actual or potential, and the surveillance he was under by government thugs, along with the chemo-castration drove him to suicide. I believe that was a greater motivation for his death moreso than even a major setback setback in his career.
Man! I’m having a hard time typing on this tiny little laptop keyboard!
February 19th, 2009 at 8:23 amdbadass says:
“I suppose I could ask for a source to support this alledged fact but I doubt we’d get one.”
“alleged fact”? Try reading a biography of him. But I’m not convinced you’d find that “factual” enough for you.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:27 amHere’s to all th lazy TPer’s. I’m sure you won’t be citing websites that have agendas to refute this either.
HIV Disease Shortens Life Expectancy of Gay Men by up to 20 Years
Reuters (07/15/97)
——————————————————————————-
Abstract: A mortality analysis of homosexual males indicates that gay men in Vancouver, British Columbia, have a life expectancy eight to 20 years shorter than non-gay men in the same area. The researchers note in the International Journal of Epidemiology that if the trend continues, “we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.” The study was led by Dr. Robert S. Hogg, whose group collected vital statistics from 1987 to 1992 and assessed mortality rates based on 3 percent, 6 percent, and 9 percent prevalence rates of homosexual and bisexual men. “Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871,” Hogg said.
And for those of you who believe this has all been “discredited”
June 09, 2005
Homosexual life expectancy and the gay agenda
Mike Bates
A press release from the Family Research Institute this week announces a study that purportedly “provides additional evidence that the practice of homosexuality, with its attendant lifestyle, shortens the life of practitioners by about 20 years.” This is the sort of news that will absolutely, positively make some people less than gay.
Titled “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS,” study results will appear in the journal Psychological Reports. The president of the Family Research Institute, Paul Cameron, led the project.
The latest report builds on an earlier one in which Dr. Cameron examined deaths reported in homosexual publications, tracked the ages of the deceased and averaged the results. The life expectancy of a male homosexual, it was determined, was in the early 40s.
Those results have been cited by some conservative commentators. They’ve also been widely derided by those on the other side.
I think some skepticism is justified. The methodology is flawed because the sample population isn’t representative. Most likely, the publications reviewed disproportionately report the deaths of out-of-the-closet homosexuals who were active in the gay rights movement and very possibly died of AIDS.
Excluding the deaths of people not covered in publications targeted to gays leaves too many gaps. Extrapolating the numbers leads to skewed results.
Dr. Cameron says that his newest findings closely correlate to statistics compiled by the Centers for Disease Control. Even if true, his report will be ridiculed as vicious, homophobic propaganda.
It’s not that there haven’t been other studies concluding that homosexuals tend to die earlier. It’s just that the subject is so emotionally charged that merely bringing it up is accepted in some quarters as irrefutable evidence of bigotry.
In 1997, the International Journal of Epidemiology carried an article with the excitingly provocative title, “Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men.”
Just in case you misplaced your copy, I’ll mention that half a dozen scholars scrutinized vital statistics for several years from a large Canadian city. Their finding: Life expectancy at age 20 for gay or bisexual men was 8 to 20 years less than that for all men.
Those figures aren’t remarkable, knowing what we do about the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS among homosexuals. What was notable is what happened four years after the publication of the article.
The six authors wrote a letter to the editor of the publication in which their work originally appeared. They were displeased because — you guessed it — homophobic groups were using their data to intimate homosexual practices were somehow self-destructive.
Tut, tut, things have changed dramatically, they now said. Medical advances have reduced the number of deaths due to AIDS. The actuarial tables used to estimate life expectancy for a gay or bisexual man should be the same as those used for all other males.
Interestingly, their letter included little supporting scientific documentation. This differed greatly from their 1997 analysis, which was chockfull of statistics, graphs, footnotes and references.
Do your own research. I keep hearing how none of this is true and that gay men live just as long as anyone else. show me the data. OOOPPSSSYYY!! There isn’t any. so reams of data that give insurance companies the right to deny you coverage if you are HIV/AIDS positive, but nothing to take them to court over. THINK people!!!!
February 19th, 2009 at 8:29 amKassandra, he was convicted and chose treatment over prison. His security clearance was revoked and he was miserable about it. He lived an openly gay life from his homosexual discovery until his death. He wasn’t hounded and then killed himself to avert prison!
February 19th, 2009 at 8:33 amTo give some context to the atmosphere in which Alan Turing (Father of the Modern Electronic Computer) lived in oppression for his homosexuality: within a couple of short years of Turing’s suicide, the famed pianist and comedian Liberace felt compelled to fight libel charges of homosexuality made against him, in an English court (which he won amazingly). Homosexuality was a JAILABLE offense and it destroyed England’s greatest living playwrite during his lifetime, Oscar Wilde.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:35 amSo I do believe Turing’s suicide had more to do with his oppressed homosexuality than it did with his career setback.
BTW, Estrogen treatments and Chemo-castration are two entirely different things. I’ve never had either, but if I had to choose….
February 19th, 2009 at 8:36 amWhat I mean is Turin was subjected to Estrogen treatments, not chemo-castration. Your agenda is showing.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:36 amSocieties in which homosexuality is embraced, Amsterdam, create more risk for homosexuals. Being a homosexual in America is less dangerous than more accomodating societies. Your welcome.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:40 amFrom one online Turing biography:
February 19th, 2009 at 8:45 am“But since 1948, the conditions of the Cold War, and the alliance with the United States, meant that known homosexuals had become ineligible for security clearance.” Erego Turing’s truncated career!
ANY homosexual act was a legal crime! He was continually aware that had he been arrested again for his sexual behavior, he’s go to JAIL! That his career setback was in fact directly BECAUSE of his homosexual arrest and threatened JAIL, could not have helped matters!
I cannot see how one can deny the obvious effect on Turing’s suicide his homosexuality and the contemporary legal prohibitions had on his fatal decision. Was there a pending jail sentence awaiting him at the moment of his suicide? I actually don’t know. But I would presume he was on PROBATION since his death was only 2 years after his arrest for HOMOSEXUALITY. And yes, he was under surveillance.
My “agenda”???
Your paranoia from too much time spent on a messgae thread is showing. Buh bye!
(and because I want the last word…I equate estrogen treatments for men with chemical castration. I am no physician but I consider the chemical intervention to stop a man’s libido as chemical castration.)
THE POINT IS ALAN TURING CONTRIBUTED A GREAT DEAL TO SOCIETY AND ANYONE WHO THINKS GAYS AND LESBIANS DO NOT CONTRIBUTE IS A FOOL.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:48 amNow…buh bye!
This Family Research Institute?
Link
LOL! Go away, Drew… you nasty little goofball.
If you decide to stay – which I know you will – try to stay on topic.
goofball.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:49 amHey goofball, he lived an openly gay life from then on. He acepted his punishment, estrogen treatments not chemical castration, which he chose and went on and killed himself because his whole life revolved around him and what he wanted. Whaaahh, I’m going home. Just for the record. Gays who kill themselves or die from AIDS are notr heroes, they are victims of their own actions by their own hands.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:50 amalpuz, I threw that in to trap you. They cited CDC numbers and the original report which you failed to mention. Can you say, “I have a homosexual agenda”?
February 19th, 2009 at 8:51 ambuh bye! Goofy…
February 19th, 2009 at 8:52 amAhh, alpuz got owned, and now he’s going to take his ball and go home.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:52 amLOL!
Drew, changed the subject again….you have to stay on topic, and not your topic you nasty little thing you.
Goofball.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:56 amLeft handed people have shorter lifespans. Now about the claim made in #419…
February 19th, 2009 at 9:00 amI keep hearing how none of this is true and that gay men live just as long as anyone else.
—–
February 19th, 2009 at 9:05 amWhere do you keep hearing this?
I still don’t see the data presented in #397 confirmed in the links to a few old studies which I would have to look more closely at to see if they are free of bias. Did you make a claim and then go out and try to find some related info to support that claim? See I was looking for the primary source. You know the one where the numbers in 397 come from
Can you say, “I have a homosexual agenda”?
February 19th, 2009 at 9:08 am—
drew3rd has ahomosexual agenda.
He doesn’t like them….
Actually Hussein, you are wrong. Smokers have a greater life expectancy than gays. That’s why I agree with some of what State senator Buttars has to say. I believe gays should have the rights of survivorship and medical access. I believe that this will amke Utah the only state that doesn’t grant those rights. I am not for gays being able to marry or adopt children. I’m not for singles adopting children either, BTW. Rights to property and those inherent bundle of rights should not be infringed for any reason.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:09 amTypical lefty loonie bogeymanning. I like homosexuals. They are kiling themselves by their behaviors. I like children. Do I hate them because I don’t want them smoking or drinking? Am I a bigot because I support 18/21 laws? Of course not. If you weren’t so compromised, intellectually, you would accept the fact that gays are killing themselves. You have no trouble seeing it with smokers and alcoholics, why the blind spot for gays? This is something Buttars and I agree on. The other stuff is crazy.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:12 amAnd here it is for all you folks who can’t google. Smokers live 3.64 fewer years than non-smokers. Nottingham Centre for Risk and Insurance Studies.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:18 amPeople who smoke have shorter lifespans and have the largest impact on health care costs in the U.S.
—
February 19th, 2009 at 9:20 amI don’t read any comparison to gay lifespans in this comment. Was an assumption made. If so that seems sort intellectually compromised
You lnow? The guys that provide insurance actuary tables for the entire planet. Unfortunately, because it is illegal for insurance companies to ask somebody if they’re gay, we will never get Nottingham’s definitive work on gays. It may well turn out that it is only an 8 year difference versu the typically understood 15-20.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:20 amlol! is this nasty little goofball related to one Mr Doughy Pantload?
February 19th, 2009 at 9:21 amActually I am more interested in knowing how Washington politicians are the biggest threat to the nation and how they have handguffed a great people. That sort of got left behind
February 19th, 2009 at 9:26 amdrew3rd Says:
It was a mental disorder until recently
Recently??? Not since 1972 or 1973.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder, however does remain in the DSM.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:34 amIt has been said that the life expectancy of Left handed people is also 9 years shorter than that of right handed people. We should probably outlaw left handedness as well. Oh wait, that was based on a flawed study in 1980. Hmmm. I wonder if other studies might have flawed data.
I also wonder if life expectancy in gay people include those gay people who have their lives shortened for them by brutal beatings/killings (like Matthew Shepard, Kitty Genovese, or Sakia Gunn for example)?
February 19th, 2009 at 9:37 amI don’t think social conservatives should be allowed to marry.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:37 amAll in favor, say “aye”.
I’d to revisit this post. Drew?
Please elaborate on this, you nasty little goofball.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:42 amThe party of “less” government sure spends an inordinate amount of time thinking about, and trying to regulate, the sex others are having. Start the coutdown to ol’ butterbutt getting some sh**house sex.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:42 amcountdown
February 19th, 2009 at 9:43 amPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Narcissistic Personality Disorder, however does remain in the DSM.
___________
What about “bat sh*t crazy”???
February 19th, 2009 at 9:55 amTROS, unfortunately, no. That reminds me, though, that the first psychologist I trained under use to be an Air Force psychologist and one of the “diagnoses” they had unofficially was “PPP” for “piss poor protoplasm”.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:58 amPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
TROS, unfortunately, no.
______________
No? Then how do you account for someone like Michelle Bachmann?
February 19th, 2009 at 10:04 amPoor “Doctor” Paul Cameron and his discredited and refuted studies.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/NewRepublic100394_pietrzyk.html
“So who is Paul Cameron? Not the dispassionate, respected analyst that these boosters would have you believe. Cameron is chairman of the Family Research Institute (FRI), an arch-right Washington think tank that counts neanderthal GOP Representative Robert Dornan of California among its national advisory board members. Cameron himself is also a demonizer of gays: several times he has proposed the tattooing and quarantining of AIDS patients and the extermination of male homosexuals. Most important, he is the architect of unreliable “surveys” that purport to show strains of violence and depravity in gay life.”
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
“On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that “Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists” by the APA Board of Directors.5 Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website, claiming that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership. Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron’s claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.”
February 19th, 2009 at 10:23 amI went and looked up some of the “studies” that drew3rd suggested that liberals google. As a person who spent a good deal of time actually doing science for a living, I tend to get a little suspect when religious groups commission “studies” using science.
Especially since most religious organizations tend to refute evolution as a viable scientific theory, I am always a little dubious when “studies” come out “proving” this or that scientifically… usually because they start with the conclusion that they wish to achieve and work backward from there.
For example, religious groups continue to spread the false “study” that women who have an abortion are at increased risk of breast cancer/cervical cancer/depression/etc.
So far, I cannot find an independent scientific group that has investigated claims that homosexuality results in decreased life-span. Maybe it is out there, but I haven’t found it yet. Only “studies” appearing to have originated from religious groups.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:24 amThe problem, with this particular troll, is that it’s been poisoned by flawed data. His “statistics”, though not sourced, appear to be the work of the Family Research Council and it’s sole “scientist” Paul Cameron. Though, to be fair, the FRC does claim that Kirk Cameron (the Left Behind actor, friend/partner of Ray Comfort, and general batsh!t fundy) as a scientist but he’s no more a scientist than the average kitchen appliance. Neither is the thoroughly discredited Paul. In fact, the only mention of him that isn’t debunking him, is his own “work”.
Anyway. Paul Cameron does actually have a couple of degrees from accredited, though still Christian, universities. However, he’s been stripped of his credentials by every legitimate group he’s ever been affiliated with. Why? Because he makes up “data” to support his religious preconceptions. He’s a fraud, a cheat and a bald-faced liar. Which explains his place of honor among trolls.
BTW. Choosing a religion is, by anyone’s definition, a choice. Why should a choice of a particular religious lifestyle enjoy special legal status and protection? Until you moronic lovers of Jebus can prove religion is not a “lifestyle choice”? I would be very careful about how you use the term lifestyle choice. You wouldn’t want to have to defend whether your choice is a right, or see your favorite preacher go bankrupt paying back taxes, would you?
February 19th, 2009 at 10:27 amdrew3rd Says:
“It was a mental disorder until recently”
And inter-racial marriages were illegal “until recently”. 45 years ago, many states still had miscegenation laws. Funny how the US has grown out of that particular prejuice.
When you look at the views of most Americans, 20 years ago 90+ percent of the population did not support same-sex mrriage. Now that the percentage of Americans supporting equal marriage rights is rising, and the percentage of those in opposition is falling, it won’t be too long before equal marriage rights will be extended to all Americans.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:28 amDemocrat Soldier Says:
Beat me by one freakin minute.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:29 amSoldier, you didn’t just compare being black to being gay? Wow, you need to rethink that one.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:35 amSoldier, I direct you to post 424 to answer your Paul Cameron boorishness.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:37 am#457 – pete Says:
——————————————————-
“Beat me by one freakin minute.”
Yeah, I tend to respond to prejudiced views with data that has not been successfully refuted by anyone, as of yet. ;-)
Then again, I don’t consider my opinions to be irrefutable, like many prejudiced people seem to think about their own views. I’m keeping an open mind to what others claim, and have yet to presented with a reliable source for the ultra-radical ideas espoused by those who wish to keep gay people as third-class Americans.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:39 amNo, moronic troll. You need to realize that civil rights apply to all, or everyone suffers. As for an examination of American marriage laws, one can’t have the discussion without considering the former legal ban to marriages of mixed race.
And if you want to cite religious pseudoscience? Be prepared to have it thrown back in your face. Especially when one cites the work of a group who’s only “scientists” are a pathological liar and “Dr.” Kirk (Left Behind) Cameron.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:41 amGee liberty, I didn’t know that the CDC or the journal of epidemiology were right-wing Christian organs? Glad you cleared that up. I guess we can all quit worrying about that whole smoking/lung cancer connection the right-wing Christain CDC keeps warning us about. Keep your head in the sand. I’ll keep being the voice of rational thought. If hugging gays wasn’t your first knee-jerk reaction, you might actually learn that gays take incredible risks with their sexual preference.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:44 am#459 – drew3rd
I direct you to the following to prove that “Dr” Paul Cameron has been fully and completely discredited by allowing his prejudice to drive the results of his “studies”.
“www.apa.org/journals/features/ccp733477.pdf”
“www.familyresearchinst.org/NewRepublic100394_pietrzyk.html”
Comparing black people to gay people is not a very good argument, but comparing the laws against marriage for one group CAN be compared to arguments against another group being denied similar equal rights.
Black people are not dis-inherited and thrown out by their black families when they are told by their children that they now realize they are black. Gay people have never been sold or murdered by “owners”. Gay people have only been murdered by “straight” people who are incapable of controlling their actions when they find out someone is gay.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:45 amDrew is equating AIDS death numbers with gay death numbers. This is a false trail right there. AIDS isn’t a “gay” disease, ya know. Some of your fringers like to equate it that way, though.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:47 am“Quote mining”. Look it up, stupid troll, you may learn something. Nah! Those who cite religious pseudoscience are incapable of learning. Carry on.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:48 am#464 – Bluedahlia Says:
—————————————————–
“Drew is equating AIDS death numbers with gay death numbers. This is a false trail right there. AIDS isn’t a “gay” disease, ya know. Some of your fringers like to equate it that way, though.”
They make false assumptions to support their prejudices.
The majority of people with HIV/AIDS is primarily among hetersexuals, except for the US and Canada. God must hate foreign heterosexuals. ;-)
Lesbians are much less likely to contract HIV/AIDS, so God must love lesbians more than heterosexuals, to use their refuted “argument”. ;-)
February 19th, 2009 at 10:50 amAgain, Journal of Epidemiology and the CDC folks. Not exactly agenda driven in most instances. They are typically referred as reliable scientific entities. Now, they said gays are at risk of not growing old, specifically, that 20 year old gay men have a 50% chance of dying by 40. I didn’t do anything that has a 50% chance of killing me during the 20-40 period of my life. That’s why I made it. If you were truly as dispassionate and irefutable evidence motivated as you claim, you’d throw away your gay glasses and ask a few more questions. One being, why am I mindlessly supporting something that is so obviously dangerous to people I profess to care about.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:50 amBTW, stupid troll. Paul Cameron has been thoroughly discredited for misrepresenting data taken from sources like the CDC. His “findings” do not match with the actual data he lifts, generally from a study unrelated to his area of “research”, and he’s been constantly censured by every body he’s tried to affiliate himself with.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:53 amdrew3rd
February 19th, 2009 at 10:54 amMay I please have your primary source for the statistics you sited in #397? Thanks in advance
Also might you comment on #443? Thanks again
Guys, I trapped you with Cameron. I knew you wouldn’t read the rest of the report by the CDC and the Journal of Epidemiology. You clowns need to get off the Cameron thing. He trapped your agendized minds into parroting the party line on unconditional support for all things gay. Gotcha!!!
February 19th, 2009 at 10:56 amAh yes. The famous “they’ll be dead by 40″ finding. Those 20 year-olds were not taken from the gay community at large. They were taken from a sub-group of those who had unprotected sex, in areas with large HIV infection rates, before the mechanism for infection was known. That particular study was flawed when it was made, has been discarded by more recent workers in the field, and never made any prediction about the gay community at large. The only people still citing it are religious crackpots like Cameron.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:59 amDbad, you lazy bum. Go to the CDC’s website. They have numbers for4 2005. I also point you to the largest study ever done, the Journal of Epidemiology’s study of 1998. Too bad gay crusaders shut these fine scientists down. Funny how getting to root of this issue isn’t really all that important to the gay agenda. I’d want to know definitively.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:00 amdrew3rd could you please provide me with your link? I’d like to read for myself, thanks. And If you are only speaking about AIDS data, heterosexuals are the fastest growing population contracting this disease. In the 80’s the data was quite different.
So far, I can only find info like this:
To the best of my knowledge, there have been no serious studies that reveal any difference in average age of death between heterosexual and homosexual persons. But that does not mean that such a difference does not exist. — Timothy Kincaid July 11th, 2008
February 19th, 2009 at 11:00 amPete, who’s reaching now? It was all 20 year old gay men. Read the study, stop making crap up.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:01 amDbad, you lazy bum. Go to the CDC’s website. They have numbers for4 2005. I also point you to the largest study ever done, the Journal of Epidemiology’s study of 1998.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:04 am—
So you are saying that The numbers presented in #397 will be found there? Is that correct drew3rd? If I do not find those numbers there will you acknowledge that? Yes or No?
Liberty, you are a fraud. Hetero’s who use intravenous drugs are. Careful of twisting in the wind, Lover of Omission. Gay men still make up 71% of all HIV carriers, relatively unchanged over the past 10 years.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:04 amBtw drew3rd… The “d” is lowercase
February 19th, 2009 at 11:04 amOne being, why am I mindlessly supporting something that is so obviously dangerous to people I profess to care about.
Your using 20 year old discredited studies… that extrapolate from AIDs statistics in the 80’s- a unique time, before education, prevention, etc.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:04 amLike Wasila, today…
Also, We’re trying to make it less dangerous by confronting the bigots like yourself and Buttars…
LOL!
Say what, drew. Please elaborate on this last post.
Gay crusaders are shutting the fine scientists down?
You really are a nasty little goofball.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:05 amI posted the Journal’s numbers above. Try to follow the thread, man!
February 19th, 2009 at 11:05 amI can’t believe that refusing to lok at the CDC numbers and the Journal of Epidemiology study passes for Progress here. Maybe we should change the blog to Think Congress.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:07 amNo again, stupid troll.
You have been provided a set of “statistics” that don’t make realistic predictions and have long since been discarded by current workers in the field. These “statistics” have been cherry-picked by those with the agendas. Of course, had you bothered to check the latest data from the CDC or Journal of Epidemiology you wouldn’t be able to use them to further your agenda.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:08 amc’mon man!
February 19th, 2009 at 11:09 amI’m starting to warm up to this whole passive/aggressive thing.
Thanks, drew!
you nasty little goofball…
February 19th, 2009 at 11:10 amdrew3rd Says:Gotcha!!!
Oh, so you’re a joke then?
Even if we accept your premise that gay males have a higher mortality rate than straight males, that doesn’t get around the whole choice argument… in which case, you made a reasoned and rational decision to be attracted to females after examining the ‘CDC’ statistics????
I don’t buy it…
You are a joke.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:11 amHey drew3rd:
February 19th, 2009 at 11:12 amWe have a little problem. The statistics you mentioned in #397 don’t seem to be at the CDC site. Care to explain this? Maybe you could copy and paste the exact location in case I missed it. Either that or you could just say that isn’t where they came from. I have plenty of time and I am sure you do not wish to look at all fraudulent
Thanks. It is a big site. I could have missed it
Does anyone see where the CDC number of AIDS deaths are highest from 20-40? They fall off exponentially thereafter. This is the period in which most people contract and die of AIDS. The Journal of Epidemiology study tells us why, the CDC numbers show us in raw data. You are most likely to die of HIV/AIDS as a young man. The Journal of Epidemiology points out that your risk is greatest as a gay man. Everyone got that? I did make a mistake. The numbers aren’t from 2005, they are from 2007. Sorry.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:15 amExactly, Pete.
drew points to a site that has this mission statement:
a site that plucks information to meet its agenda. On said site, goofy plucks more information that backs up his argument that homosexuals should not “choose” to be homosexuals because they are basically killing themselves if they do. With this argument he’s takes the position that he is in fact saving the homosexuals from themselves. So… if you disagree w/ this plucked information you are wearing “gay glasses” and have homosexual agenda, therefor assisting them in…what I’m guessing is…suicide.
huh? …at least I think that’s what he’s trying to say…?
The one thing I do know for sure after reading drew’s posts for last day or so is…
The nasty little goofball is one huge plucker.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:21 amand where are the #397 numbers coming from? Is this another mistake. Please just cut and paste their source. Thanks
February 19th, 2009 at 11:23 amTable 8 of the CDC’s HIV/AIDS page. It states that 562,793 people died of AIDS from 2003 thru 2007. That’s 140,698.25 per year. When you couple that with the Journal’s findings, it’s staggering. How many gays are in America, 5 million? These are enormous numbers.
Of male adults and adolescents you get these numbers
Total 274,184
February 19th, 2009 at 11:25 amMale to Male 112,068
M2M and Inj 25,860
High Risk (Bi)
Your problem, stupid troll, is credibility. Once one quotes sources like the FRC, AIG, Paul Cameron, Kent Hovind etc. one has lost credibility. And, I might add, that attempting to make an irrelevant point doesn’t help.
The fact is that cancer patients can legally marry just like those with diabetes or other chronic, or even fatal, diseases. IV drug users, with every blood-born pathogen known to man, may marry. People get legally married on their deathbeds.
So? Even if your cherry-picked “statistics” supported a genuine claim that monogamous, committed, homosexuals are doomed to die young (a claim that doesn’t stand up) there is still no reason to deny them marriage rights. And it certainly can’t support a claim that homosexuals are a threat to public health.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:26 amOops, I’m sorry drew3rd… it appears pete has destroyed your argument… don’t worry, it wasn’t much of one in the first place…
February 19th, 2009 at 11:28 amdrew3rd all I am asking for is a link so that we can be on the same page. I have not called you a fraud or any other name. I am truly interested in your position. I am genuinely curious about your assertions. So please do not call me names.
But. I like to do my own research. If I go to the CDC website (Which I did) and search for “homosexuality and lifespan” I get nothing. No studies done. Although, to be fair, the CDC doesn’t do “studies” only records infectious diseases occurrences.
I didn’t realize that you are specifically talking about AIDs. If that is the case, then we must take into account those gays that have a monogamous relationship to those of heterosexual couples with monogamous relationships vs. heterosexuals and homosexuals that lead promiscuous lives. Don’t you think?
February 19th, 2009 at 11:30 amdrew3rd:
February 19th, 2009 at 11:32 amI don’t mean to be a jerk but until I see an explaination for 397, I will follow you endlessly ala khan till you do. Wouldn’t it be easier just to gget it over with? It goes to your credibility. All you need do is show the primaryu source from which you extracted these data. I have a hunch there is a reason you are avoiding this
Sorry, those numbers are all screwed up, here they are.
Transmission category
Male adult or adolescent
Male-to-male sexual contact 274,184
Male-to-male sexual contact/w injection drug use 42,551
High-risk heterosexual contact (Bi) 25,860
Injection drug use 112,068
Other 728
Subtotal 463,392
Gay sexual contact accounts for 342,595 deaths over this period ‘03-’07. Notice the ever mentioned spread to innocents, 728. The journal had gay AIDS deaths at 71% of the total. Well within a statistical margin of error.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:33 amThat’s 67% of all deaths.
If I go to the CDC website (Which I did) and search for “homosexuality and lifespan” I get nothing.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:34 am—
Odd I had the same problem. Same when I searched the CDC site for “gay male lifespan in nations with gay marriage”.
Drew doesn’t know how to post a link. heh That’s funny
February 19th, 2009 at 11:36 amCut an paste is as good as it gets.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:37 amOr maybe it’s just pretending so his “facts” can’t be fact checked….
February 19th, 2009 at 11:38 amDbad, the Journal of Epidemiology states the life span, the CDC numbers support their findings. Go to the CDC website, leftclick on Diseases, Left click again on HIV/AIDS and go down the list until you find Cases of HIV/AIDS, Left click Table 8. Voila, you are there. Or you can see post 495.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:38 amhow does the info posted at 495 get me to lifespan in countries with legal gay marriage 53 as posted in 397?
February 19th, 2009 at 11:40 amActually, I hate to link stuff because I hate lazy people. Here you go you internet wizards.
//http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2007report/table8.htm”>
February 19th, 2009 at 11:42 amThat’s not a link
February 19th, 2009 at 11:43 amHoly Crap! Did you see this, drew3rd?
Region of residence
Northeast 183,292
Midwest 56,137
South 206,654
West 116,710
Almost half of the AIDS deaths were in the South!! We need to start encouraging people to MOVE!!!
It just makes sense…
February 19th, 2009 at 11:43 amCut and paste monkey
February 19th, 2009 at 11:43 amalso drew3rd?
February 19th, 2009 at 11:44 amHigh risk hetero contact is nowhere defined as (bi) on that table… sorry.
Okay drew3rd tell me where to go from here to find the stats you posted in #397
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2007report/default.htm
thanks
February 19th, 2009 at 11:44 amBtw Drew3rd you are correct in this: outside of sub-Saharan Africa, there does not appear to be an increase in Heterosexual AIDs. (except among sex workers and drug addicts)
February 19th, 2009 at 11:46 amI have to admit that I have not kept up with this new data. My apologies for my mis-statement.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2007report/default.htm
February 19th, 2009 at 11:46 amThis is a Link
February 19th, 2009 at 11:47 amIt’s good for letting people see the same data you are seeing quickly so the discussion doesn’t get derailed by false claims. You can see the usefulness, eh?
Shoot sorry drew3rd. I can’t get the link pasted. The problem remains that I see thats but known which correspond directly with those sighted in 397 which is the post we have been discussing. I realize you have your hands full defending other statements I just need 397 dealt with so we can move on
February 19th, 2009 at 11:48 amAlso drew3rd, you are aware the the numbers you posted are cumulative since the beginning of the epidemic, right?
Not the period ‘03-’07 as you indicated… read the table, or failing that add the numbers…
February 19th, 2009 at 11:52 amdrew3rd:
Maybe this would be easier. Which table on that cdc page should I open to find the statistcis you noted in the post I have copied below? I might also note that your post that we are discussing was about “gays” not those individuals who are HIV positive. I look forward to resolving this matter so we can all be sure that you are an honest person with intellectual integrity
Thanks in advance
drew3rd Says:
——————————————————————————–
Gays are not the greatest threat to America. Washington politicians are. Gays marrying is ridiculous. The majority of Americans are against it. Even in the states where it is legal, it had to be forced on the people by the judiciary. It was a mental disorder until recently, so I go along with that and it isn’t any different than incest, poligamy or other arrangements we’ve outlawed concerning marriage. The average lifespan of a homosexual in America is 55 years, 53 years in countries where gays can marry. Gays are 45 TIMES more likely to contrat HIV/AIDS than the general population and 4000% more likely to contract anal cancer. That makes it a public health issue of greater concern than smoking. We have PSA’s for kids to not smoke, maybe it’s time for PSA’s about being gay. Do we want to encourage smoking in our young? No? Then why aren’t we discouraging homosexuality in our young? After all, smokers can get life insurance at a greater premium if they’ve battled cancer. Gays who have HIV/AIDS can’t.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:55 amdrewel3rd strawmen are all on fire.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:56 amHere is the link to the Journal’s findings. Lazy Bums.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf“>
February 19th, 2009 at 11:56 amBelac, follow the link, you might hurt yourself otherwise. The findings are based on years ‘03-’07.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:57 amHere is the link to the Journal’s findings. Lazy Bums.
Okay, that’s a link to a discredited study from 1997 that extrapolated the numbers from the early 80’s out into the future and learned that if nothing changed that infection rates would be astronomical…
February 19th, 2009 at 11:59 amExcept that with the Sex Education Republicans rail against those infection rates come down… read the table you posted…
lazy bum.
Posting a link so that others can see what you are talking about is just common courtesy. It does not necessarily mean that others are lazy and cannot do their own research. But it does shorten the time it takes to make your point.
Btw. I cannot get a hit at the Journal of Epidemiology for “Homosexuality and Lifespan”.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:00 pmBelac, follow the link, you might hurt yourself otherwise. The findings are based on years ‘03-’07.
See those little letters next to the table’s information?
They’re footnotes, helpful for understanding what the table says… let me help…
Cumulative a
a From the beginning of the epidemic through 2007.
did that hurt? jerk…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:01 pmLTdan Says:
Gays don’t even contribute to society. Name one gay person that actually accomplished something worth while?
That’s all we have to do?
Come up with one?
Lets see here;
Elton John , Freddie Mercury (Queen), Barny Franks, Liberace; Ellen Dejenoris, Johnny Versace ….shall I keep going???
Just becuase you like sticking your head up a Pie Hole (keep mouth closed)doen’t mean the rest of us ignor what the reality is in this world.
Idiot!!!
February 19th, 2009 at 12:01 pmI can see that none of you wants to deal with the data. “hey, you need to keep the data coming buddy, don’t get derailed, We need to be TOLD”. The problem remains, gay sex is an enormous public health issue vis-a-vis HIV/AIDS. Be blind. While I’m linking stuff you could easily find yourself I’ve been handling clients and responding to reasonable questions. Get in gear you lazy people. Start bringing ME the data that shows there is no difference between gays and straights. Should be easy enough. Oh, I forgot, there is no supporting data for your claims. All you can do is say that the CDC numbers aren’t right and The OXFORD Journal of Epidemiology is a right wing Christian organ.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:02 pmWait… let me bold it for you…
a From the beginning of the epidemic through 2007.
lazy, lazy, lazy.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:03 pmSo Belac, only 400,000 people have died of AIDS since 1982? Well, hey, I stand corrected. Why that’s only 20,000 per year. Well what are we all worked up for. AIDS doesn’t need any funding, it’s no big deal.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:05 pmHold on there, drue. I called you a nasty little goofball, and I stick by it. You nasty little goofball.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:06 pmdre3rd:
This is the last time I ask before declaring you a liar and a fraud. Explain #510. I will rub this into you until you are forced into a name change. Let’s go and cut the BS like this
“I can see that none of you wants to deal with the data.”
I have asked you to simply show a source since 7:17 am.
I think all that read this place see what is going on here.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:06 pmStart bringing ME the data that shows there is no difference between gays and straights.
Why the hell should anyone do anything for you? That’s pretty arrogant of you. You come HERE and tell us what to do? Wow just wow. It’s not our life’s goal to educate an ignorant man who doesn’t want to learn. That’s just pointless.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:07 pmOH, you were using the International Journal of Epidemiology , see, I was looking under the AMERICAN Journal…
Links really do help to make your point…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:07 pmSo Belac, 67% of all AIDS deaths haven’t been because of gay sex?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:08 pmSpoken like a true loser BlueDahlia
February 19th, 2009 at 12:08 pmdrew3rd… that’s what your table from the CDC says…
If you can’t read it it’s not my fault.
Your conclusions about funding are your own, and as such, wrong…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:09 pmdrewel3rd you are good at asking questions (mostly based on a variety of logical fallacies), but you are short on answering questions from others.
You are not holding a discourse, and are not supporting your arguments. In particualr you do not continue dicussions that others try to have with you — you simply avoid that and ask more ridiculous questions.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:09 pmIs drew3rd avoiding me?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:11 pmYour done drew3rd. Might as well start thinking of that new monniker.
So Belac, 67% of all AIDS deaths haven’t been because of gay sex?
So drew3rd, 50% of all AIDS death haven’ been because the person lived in the South?
Boy, oversimplification makes my head hurt…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:12 pm67% of all AIDS deaths haven’t been because of gay sex?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:12 pmNo scientist would word anything like that. They would say it is indeed not true.
For the same reason you can’t say all smokers who die do so because of the tobacco industry. Go to college and learn how to think and reason.
drewel3rd’s MO:
The posting has no relevance to the purpose of the forum which is a discussion about a specific issue. The difficulty the Poster has with relevance shows also from the contents of his or her message. Poster uses this forum to ventilate unsubstantiated political messages. This is rather inappropriate since he or she does not intend to answer the question. Instead, it uses the question as a vehicle to influence or impress an assumed gullible audience.
You’re patetic drewel..
February 19th, 2009 at 12:13 pmButtars is correct in equating gays to alcoholics, I added smokers. They are involved in self destructive behavior. The data proves it. If you don’t like the data, you have some soul searching to do. I refuse to be bullied into thinking gay sex is just like hetero sex. It is dangerous, it provides a 50% chance for young men of 20 to die by their 40th birthday and that is compelling enough stuff for me. We each have to decide what amount of risk we are willing to accept. since smokers live 3.64 years fewer than their non-smoking counterparts, I understand their reticence to quit. Dropping you r life expectancty by 15-20 years seems a bit more bothersome to me. I guess that makes me a big chicken. I’ll live, pun intended.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:14 pmFrom a Canadian on the subject of drewel’s fear of becoming a homosexual:
Our country ( Canada ) has passed laws allowing gay marraige. Hang on one sec,….let me look out the window and see if our society is coming apart…back in one sec…
Ok , this is what I can tell you,……our dollar is strong….no mortgage problem here ( gays pay there mortgage), our banks have plenty of money ….. Everyone has health care (single payer)….not that many people are mad, we as a nation of 32million only had 520 murders for 2007…. women get 9 months for maternity leave….government subsidizes 75 % of higher education…..Our marijuana has recieved the gold cup in Amsterdam…. Everyone is happy!!!! Geez, I did not realize how bad we have it…..We’re socialist and everyone has the same rights….I guess were dammed . I knew we shouldn’t of allowed gays to marry.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:14 pmLet me see if I understand drue’s position.
Gay couples should not be allowed to marry because according to data gay sex is an “enormous public health issue”.
So, by not allowing gay marriage we would be saving lives?
Is that what you’re trying to say, drue?
You nasty little goofball.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:16 pmFred, maybe you should go back and take a look at the data that has been provided. Oddly, no one has provided data that refutesd the CDC or the Journal of Epidemiology’s findings.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:16 pmI refuse to be bullied into thinking gay sex is just like hetero sex. It is dangerous
February 19th, 2009 at 12:16 pmNO. It is as dangerous as any type of unprotected sex. Orientation has nothing to do with it.
and I refuse to tolerate people making stuff up as they go along while claiming an intellect. You have been show to be a fraud. Live with it drew3rd. Next time you will think twice before making up numbers
February 19th, 2009 at 12:16 pmWhat I’m saying is gay sex is a public health issue and now we are supposed to normalize it? Peer pressure does change behavior. Where were you when the smoking jihadists got rolling?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:16 pmIt is dangerous, it provides a 50% chance for young men of 20 to die by their 40th birthday and that is compelling enough stuff for me
Again, this ’study’ has been discredited and is ridiculous…
When will you admit that the CDC chart didn’t say what you said it did?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:18 pmcomeon drew3rd, you protest too much. Admit it, you have some feelings for people of the same sex as you. You have at some point in your life found one person of the same sex attractive, admit it.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:18 pmSo providing peer reviewed studies and CDC numbers make me a fraud? Well, I must be in Castanza’s “opposite world”. what next? “La, La, La, I’m not listening to you Drew. I can’t find reputable data to discredit the CDC so I’m going to call you names”.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:19 pmI thought we were discussing gay marriage, drue. What is your obsession w/ gay sex?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:20 pmShall we play with this ridiculous piece of nonsense next
“The average lifespan of a homosexual in America is 55 years, 53 years in countries where gays can marry.”
February 19th, 2009 at 12:20 pmI’ve read the whole thread, you’re a phony just as I have said. I also think you are a latent homosexual who is scared to death to face that fact.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:20 pmWhat I’m saying is gay sex is a public health issue and now we are supposed to normalize it?
As BlueDahlia pointed out, ‘unprotected sex’ is a health issue and one we are working to confront… we get considerable push-back from the likes of Sen. Buttars and yourself though, why is that?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:20 pmooops, forgot to add…
You nasty little goofball.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:20 pmIt seems drewturd hates just about everybody but himself, and the jury’s still out on that one.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:21 pmThis is a common development, albeit an arrested one, arising from a loathing of his own heritage, and a rather severe identity crisis.
Ciao.
So providing peer reviewed studies and CDC numbers make me a fraud?
No providing data which in no way is correlated to claims mad in this post makes you a fraud and you know it
drew3rd Says:
——————————————————————————–
Gays are not the greatest threat to America. Washington politicians are. Gays marrying is ridiculous. The majority of Americans are against it. Even in the states where it is legal, it had to be forced on the people by the judiciary. It was a mental disorder until recently, so I go along with that and it isn’t any different than incest, poligamy or other arrangements we’ve outlawed concerning marriage. The average lifespan of a homosexual in America is 55 years, 53 years in countries where gays can marry. Gays are 45 TIMES more likely to contrat HIV/AIDS than the general population and 4000% more likely to contract anal cancer. That makes it a public health issue of greater concern than smoking. We have PSA’s for kids to not smoke, maybe it’s time for PSA’s about being gay. Do we want to encourage smoking in our young? No? Then why aren’t we discouraging homosexuality in our young? After all, smokers can get life insurance at a greater premium if they’ve battled cancer. Gays who have HIV/AIDS can’t.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:21 pmThe CDC data doesn’t need to be ‘discredited’ it doesn’t support your conclusions…
you are a fraud and a joke.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:21 pmReally Belac, The CDC chart doesn’t corroborate the Oxford’s study that the gay men are at enormous risk of death between 20 and 40? If anything, they were too conservative, the numbers bear out risk is greatest until 44.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:22 pmplease elaborate on this, drue.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:22 pmIf gay men are going to die younger, this seems all the more reason to allow them to have a better quality of life – by marrying the person they love – rather than damning them according to and solely on the basis of someone else’s brand of religious dogma.
Oh, and drew3rd just likes to argue and changes the topic or goalposts whenever his argument gets a little thin.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:23 pmI don’t think Fraud means what you think it means. I have passed along two unassailable, corrobarating studies and you call me a fraud. They aren’t my studies. You may call Oxford or the CDC frauds, but I am not member of either of these groups. Thus, I cannot be a fraud. Personally, a bunch of people who don’t even know how to google don’t amount to much in the face of such empirical evidence.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:25 pmWhat’s the matter drew, afraid to answer my questions.
How about it, be honest. At some point in your life you met or saw a man that you thought was pretty.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:26 pmReally Belac, The CDC chart doesn’t corroborate the Oxford’s study that the gay men are at enormous risk of death between 20 and 40?
No, it doesn’t… if you could read it you’d understand… 2,961 people died of AIDS in the US between the ages of 20 and 39 in the year 2007… not gay men, but all people… why can’t you understand that you read it wrong and then jumped to an unsupportable conclusion??
February 19th, 2009 at 12:27 pmHe just didn’t realize it was a man that night…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:28 pmDon’t you just love syllogistic logic?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:28 pmPat, if America grants them the right to marry, we will have to let all sorts of crazies marry. Secondly, gay mens lifespans will fall far below what they enjoy now. Using your logic, “why don’t we teach people how to drive drunk, they’re going to kill people anyway, why not give them a bit of peace as they travel life’s road?”. You’re silly.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:28 pmI understand you have passed along studies, drue. What I don’t understand is why?
What do these studies have to do w/ whether or not gay couples should be allowed to marry?
That’s the issue, you thick headed nasty little goofball.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:29 pmdrew3rd says; Pat, if America grants them the right to marry, we will have to let all sorts of crazies marry.
You mean like all those heterosexuals who manage to support a 50% divorce rate?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:29 pmYou know, if you don’t respond to me then everyone will assume that I am right about you.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:30 pmWhen will you admit you were WRONG drew3rd…
drew3rd says:
…The findings are based on years ‘03-’07.
Survey says?
Cumulative a
a From the beginning of the epidemic through 2007.
Your numbers are inflated (you didn’t read the table correctly) and don’t support your position, hence you are a fraud.
Not the CDC or anyone else… you.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:30 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian
If you permit gays to marry the person that they love, then wouldn’t that logically lower their risk of exposure to infectious diseases (like AIDS?) as long as they continued a monogamous relationship and therefore prolong their life?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:30 pmBelac, better look at that table again. It breaks it down into men women and behaviors. Man to Man sexual contact is what it says specifically.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:30 pmif America grants them the right to marry, we will have to let all sorts of crazies marry
Really? Says who? What “crazies” would that be? Please be specific?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:30 pmLOL!!!
you didn’t really go there and then proceed to call everyone else “silly”, did you?
LOL! you freakin’ nasty little goofball!
February 19th, 2009 at 12:31 pmFred, many men are attractive. Now what? I’m supposed to have sex with them? What’s your point?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:31 pmInteresting concept. Let’s drop the fraud deal. Drew3rd is not even a fraud. drew3rd is just a liar as evidenced by the numbers drew3rd made up in the post we have been referencing since 7 this morning. Own it drew3rd. You made those numbers up and no amount of CDC/Oxford dodging is gonna change that.
I will screw with you each and everytime I see you. I own you drew3rd until you can validate those numbers or admit that you are a liar.
Sucks to be you…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:31 pmHey drew3rd, Why won’t you answer my questions? Scared?
Comon, admit it, you dream of sucking off another man and it terrifies you.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:32 pmdrew3rd, sweetheart, I’m going to grant you your conclusions on those studies just for the sake of getting to the real issue. But, my darling, what difference do those studies make? Sure AIDS is terrible. Sure gay (and any other) sex increases the risk of AIDS. But, love, if two gay men without AIDS/HIV commit to each other in marriage and live a monogamous sexual life with each other, there is no risk of AIDS anymore. So, my precious, to protect the lives of gays, we should be encouraging marriage.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:32 pmBlue, what if you decide you love your sibling or first cousin? Are we supposed to let you marry them? If gays can marry with all of the health concerns they raise, what are a few retarded offspring amongst family. Don’t act like gays marrying is just a snature as snow in Buffalo. It’s as odd as kissing your sister. Everyone here does understand that’s wrong, right?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:33 pmdrew3rd Says:
Fred, many men are attractive. Now what? I’m supposed to have sex with them? What’s your point?
______________
uh oh… is Drew going down the same road that poor li’l Timmy Vaculik did last night?
So… Drew… now that you’ve admitted you find some men attractive…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:34 pmThe debate about allowing American citizens to participate in a legal contract regardless of race, religion or gender is a long established legal condition in the US. Lots and lots of legal precedents about denying the right to this exist.
Its only the religious ritie tities who are trying to insert church into state that get excited about it.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:34 pmMy point is that this is not as black and white as you want us to believe it is.
So you have now admitted that you find some other men attractive. What keeps you from having sex with them?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:34 pmPLC — exactly my point @ 564. Good on you!
February 19th, 2009 at 12:35 pmGeez… why don’cha just go for the jugular?
Drew… we’re here for ya, li’l buddy.
No, really… we are.
If you feel a “need” to come clean… mebbe Timmy mentor you…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pmDrew did those studies differentiate who had safe sex and who didn’t? I think you are missing the point here. Like dbadass said, you are a liar and a fraud. There is no redeeming aspect of any of your arguments. I think Engl. 101 teaches the steps to an effective argument with out using circular logic, fallacy, etc. You should see what it all means.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pmBelac, better look at that table again. It breaks it down into men women and behaviors. Man to Man sexual contact is what it says specifically.
Ohh, you’re right… I did read it wrong… turns out that those are numbers for age at diagnosis for all people, guess what?
They are steadily decreasing! Except in teenagers and the elderly… hmmm, the same groups who haven’t received comprehensive sex education.
Could there be a correlation? We need to study it…
See, that’s how you admit you were wrong and also interpret data…
Not jump to conclusions based on raw numbers you obviously don’t understand…
did you admit you read it wrong yet?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pmAh, dbad, your gay. Well I’m sorry I’ve trod your little world. Listen it’s nothing personal. I want gays to live longer. They can’t do that by being gay. They have to change some things. I never said it would be easy, but legalizing gay marriage is the wrong direction.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pmHood, do you wish to marry your sister. Are we denying your RIGHTS? Last I checked, you could will evything you owned to your sister. she can even visit you on your death bed. But I don’t think we need some misguided attempt at giving you SPECIAL RIGHTS so you and sis can tie the knot? Do you?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:39 pmWell no but it does indicate incestuous intentions just as your admitting that you find some men attractive has exposed your latent homsexual tendencies.
You should really come to terms with that. I think a good therapy session would be very healthy for you and maybe help you with your anger problems.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:40 pmActually Blue, those studies are all we have because the gay community doesn’t want a study. Why?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:41 pmall you have to do drew3rd is acknowledge that you made them up. All will be forgiven and you shall be offered a simple life lesson about honor and integrity. You made them up didn’t your drew3rd. See the thing is your personal feeling as to gays is irrelevent to me. It is about manners and honor. Do you wish to be know as someone who lacks honor and integrity? I think not. Just admit your bad choice and it is over.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:42 pmSo drew, when you are looking at these men that you find attractive do you imagine yourself kicking or receiving?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:42 pmBelac, you are reading INTO the study what you want to see. The numbers are solid but they only support Oxford’s findings. They are not an end unto themselves.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:42 pmActually Blue, those studies are all we have because the gay community doesn’t want a study. Why?
Bull… where is the gay opposition to AIDS research?
admit you don’t know how to read a chart yet?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:44 pmDrew, not discussing this with me makes is seem like I am probably right. Can you convince me that I am wrong?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:44 pmcaption…
“drew promised he’d call… I feel so used…”
February 19th, 2009 at 12:45 pmDrew, why are your religious views being forced on me? Do you see me trying to enact laws to make you and yours stop breeding ignorant little fuks like you? No, even though we would arguably have a better society if we could put restrictions on fundamentalism. You wouldn’t be able to handle it if people with our views did like your kind and tried to force what we believe onto you. That’s not us, though and you get the luxury of being the oppressor rather than the oppressed. And if you don’t think that your religious views oppress those of us with differing views, you are stupider than I thought.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:45 pmDbad, if you don’t wish to peruse the two studies I cited, that’s fine. But do not think yourself a profile in courage my friend. Good manners are required when you have been injured. I haven’t, therefore I have nothing to bow and scrape for. Call me a liar, call me a fraud. I have provided data that supports the fact that gays are less likely to see 60 than the general population. Forget about 70. That’s the norm for the rest of the civilized world.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:46 pmBelac, you are reading INTO the study what you want to see. The numbers are solid but they only support Oxford’s findings. They are not an end unto themselves.
The numbers are solid, no doubt.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:47 pmYou have yet to prove how they support a study that projects that if infection rates remain constant then the gay male population will be cut in half by age 65 especially as the numbers point out that infection rates are steadily decreasing in all age groups EXCEPT teenagers and the elderly.
You are no scientist, drew3rd and not even a very good shill…
Gay marriage is not illegal. It is an application to participate in a legal contract, no different than seeking a driver’s license or applying for a loan. This hoohaw about who can apply for a marriage license ranks right up there with the Jim Crow laws.
Anyone who thinks differently, just post how many divorce decrees are issued by a church.
The separation of church and state needs to be enforced here. If religions choose not to ‘bless’ marriages, their choice. The Catholics have had that stand on remarrying divorced members of their church. That is their choice in their church.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:47 pmIf I was this guy’s wife and I wanted a divorce all I would need for grounds are these statements to prove to the Judge that I was afraid for my life . .
Sick guy . .
February 19th, 2009 at 12:47 pmdrew3rd Says:
Pat, if America grants them the right to marry, we will have to let all sorts of crazies marry.
First, homosexuals are not crazy. Second, people with true mental illness already can marry, so can arrogant SOBs such as you. Finally, your slippery slope notion is nonsense.
Secondly, gay mens lifespans will fall far below what they enjoy now.
Only if we accept your illogical logic.
Using your logic, “why don’t we teach people how to drive drunk, they’re going to kill people anyway, why not give them a bit of peace as they travel life’s road?”. You’re silly.
Penalty flag here. A drunk driver endangering nonconcentual others does not equate to a homosexual who MAY endanger himself and/or a concentual other.
Sweetlips, you’ve got nothing but your prejudice and/or your secrets.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:47 pmComon Drew, admit it, all these charts and so called facts are just things you use to shield you from your true feelings.
You have already admitted to having homosexual feelings towards other men.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:47 pmBlue, who’s talking religion. this is a public health debate state senator Buttars raised. I disagreed with some of his points, agreed with others.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:47 pmAll right, I’m done with Whack a Troll today. I have some Chemistry and Pharmacology homework to finish up. Have your frustrating fun, guys!
February 19th, 2009 at 12:49 pmOne last thing. If this is public health, then YOU need to get your focus off of “teh gay” and start looking at why so many people have unprotected sex. *cough cough abstinence only education…..
February 19th, 2009 at 12:51 pmDrew, avoiding my questions confirm my judgment of you to everyone here.
I understand that living a lie is difficult and you must be overy reactionary towards it in order to avoid the wrath of other latent homosexuals like yourself who loathe themselves and so lash out at everyone that reminds them of who they are…….
It’s safe here, you can admit it and we can move on.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:51 pmSounds like you’re the one having fun, Bluedahlia.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:52 pm:) Later…
But what does that have to do w/ being married, drew? What is the correlation between the studies and gay marriage?
Are you suggesting that because of what’s found in those studies,gay couples who marry will die earlier than those who don’t?
Even if this was true, why do you care? You’re a confused nasty little goofball. That’s for sure…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:52 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says: Penalty flag here. A drunk driver endangering nonconcentual others does not equate to a homosexual who MAY endanger himself and/or a concentual other.
Good point Pat, how about “Let’s teach children to smoke so they can enjoy it longer since they are going to die anyway”.
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says: Sweetlips, you’ve got nothing but your prejudice and/or your secrets.
Predjudice means to pre judge. I didn’t know anything about the life expectancy of gays until 2005. I have pre judged nothing. the data tells me that gays are getting creamed by their own behavior. I don’t support smoking or alcoholism, why would I support gay sex? The word that applies here is consistency. I am, you do not appear to be. Maybe you are for smoking and alcoholism. I don’t know.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:53 pmDrew, we have seen this behavior before. Case in point, Larry Craig. He’s one of your type. A closet homosexual who in public decries the evils of homosexuality.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:53 pmUnprotected sex leads to babies Blue, not AIDS, in heteros. Sorry that never panned out for everyone.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:54 pmFred Says: “It’s safe here, you can admit it and we can move on.”
We won’t say a word to Cap’n Backedup….
February 19th, 2009 at 12:54 pmFred, you’re gay. See post 581 for my heartfelt sentiments.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:55 pmPublic health? AIDS on toilet seats? Gays are fleas on rats spreading the bubonic plague?
And sibling/cousin marriage laws are also driven by religious desire to legislate morality. While I find it creepy you might want to marry your sister (or brother) that is entirely your business.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:55 pmSo are fat people, wanna make that illegal? What does that have to do with you not admitting that your own latent homosexuality is at the root of all of your protests here?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:56 pmdrew3rd, my sweet deluded darling! Please point to ONE place where Buttars suggests a “public health” issue with homosexuality. All I see is religious dogma:
a sexual perversion
They’re mean!
just like the Moslems (the religion to hate)
destroy the foundation of American society
Sweetcheeks, perhaps you can misconstrue Buttars comments as well as you did those studies. Kisses.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:56 pmHood, are you in favor of familial marriage ties? I thought that could only be found on right wing blogs?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:57 pmdrew3rd… how does the CDC data support the Oxford model that was developed to show the impact on the gay population if infection rates remained constant or increased when the CDC data shows infection rates have dropped?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:57 pmThanks.
Fred, don’t get him started on McDonalds. He thinks making people fat is productive.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:58 pmBelac, table 8 deals with morbidity. what table are you looking at?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:59 pmHood, are you ducking your statement? Are you for familial marriage?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:59 pmdrew3rd, marry your pet turtle. It’s your business.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:00 pmUnprotected sex leads to babies Blue, not AIDS, in heteros.
Sorry guys, but did he just say this? Really?
Throw this one back. He is too stupid to live…….
Ok, really leaving. Bah
February 19th, 2009 at 1:00 pmDrew, I addressed it in 582, incest is about as equivilant to homosexuality as your assertion that fat, smokers, and drinkers are the same as homosexuality.
None of your many tangents have led us to believe that you are not a latent homosexual and that your behaviour here is just you acting out like a little child instead of addressing your own mental health problems. Take responsibility, isn’t that what the right says they stand for…
February 19th, 2009 at 1:00 pmUnprotected sex leads to babies Blue, not AIDS, in heteros.
Tell that to all the women infected by this guy…
Scroll down, his name is Steven Thomas. And he’s hetero. And he infected over 100 Finish WOMEN, through unprotected sex… hmm.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:01 pmIn other words, I don’t give a rat’s posterior who anyone chooses to marry….its their business, not mine.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:01 pmUnprotected sex with multiple partners can lead to STDs (including AIDS) in all heterosexuals as well as homosexuals …. Maybe you just need to address the multiple partner issue.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:01 pmSorry guys, gotta go. Got a lunch meeting. Maybe I can pick up around 2 when I get back.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:01 pmMy dear drew3rd, your prejudice is not about gay life expectancy. Your prejudice is about gay sex which, in and of itself, does not cause AIDS/HIV but does spread it, as can heterosexual behavior. Your prejudice is against gay marriage, which you try to justify by looking or manufacturing “data” to make your prejudice appear empathetic and socially responsible. Otherwise, you would support lesbian marriage, since there is much less risk of spreading AIDS/HIV from woman to woman as there is from man to man or man to woman.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:02 pmBelac, table 8 deals with morbidity. what table are you looking at?
drew3rd… look up at the top, see this?
Age at diagnosis (yr)
That lets you know that under that will be a list of ages, and next to them will be numbers indicating the age at diagnosis (yr) by year from which we can get a sense of the infection rate…
February 19th, 2009 at 1:03 pmlazy, lazy, lazy.
Well all I can say about this is that you are the only one for 618 posts in this thread that ever brought it up.
It speaks to your unhealthy mental status that you think it is a logical comparison…..
February 19th, 2009 at 1:03 pmI have provided data that supports the fact that gays are less likely to see 60 than the general population
—-
drew3rd when you get back to your meeting are you going to explain these numbers that you made up? I doubt it becuase you are a liar.
Gays are not the greatest threat to America. Washington politicians are. Gays marrying is ridiculous. The majority of Americans are against it. Even in the states where it is legal, it had to be forced on the people by the judiciary. It was a mental disorder until recently, so I go along with that and it isn’t any different than incest, poligamy or other arrangements we’ve outlawed concerning marriage. The average lifespan of a homosexual in America is 55 years, 53 years in countries where gays can marry. Gays are 45 TIMES more likely to contrat HIV/AIDS than the general population and 4000% more likely to contract anal cancer. That makes it a public health issue of greater concern than smoking. We have PSA’s for kids to not smoke, maybe it’s time for PSA’s about being gay. Do we want to encourage smoking in our young? No? Then why aren’t we discouraging homosexuality in our young? After all, smokers can get life insurance at a greater premium if they’ve battled cancer. Gays who have HIV/AIDS can’t.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:40 pmdrew3rd Says:
Unprotected sex leads to babies Blue, not AIDS, in heteros. Sorry that never panned out for everyone.
_________
WTF? Of course it can lead to AIDS, you idiot.
Ask Magic Johnson. Can you really be THAT stupid?
A bad blood transfusion can lead to AIDS. I’d suggest you ask Arthur Ashe about that, but he’s ALREADY dead.
Why do you think dentists wear rubber gloves these days?
February 19th, 2009 at 1:41 pmFred Says:
It speaks to your unhealthy mental status that you think it is a logical comparison…..
____________
If I’m not mistaken, Fred, and I rarely am… Drew also admitted to occasionally finding men attractive, but being too consumed by guilt, fear, and shame to act on his impulses…
What is it w/ the trolls and their latent homosexuality?
W/ Obama in WH, do they all now feel free to come out of the closet?
February 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pmStill can’t tell the difference between a datum and a conclusion, stupid troll? When an alleged “scientist” cherry-picks data to “prove” a preconception, it’s not science. Plus your “logic” is bizarre.
How about the mountain of data that says 16-25 year-old male drivers are more likely to die in car accidents than any other group. One could argue that men should not be allowed to drive until age 26. Heck, they are @ 3 times as likely to be involved in a fatal accident as a 55 year-old woman. Perhaps cabbies and bus drivers should be limited to 55 year-old women?
The fact of the matter is that young men take more risks than any other single group. Any study that separates young men will show that it’s dangerous to be a young man, regardless of sexuality, socioeconomic factors, race, religion or even nationality. If I wanted to arrive at a conclusion that young males should be incarcerated until they outgrow their “wild streak” the CDC would be among the first sources I would go to for raw numbers.
That’s the kind of things Reichwhiners do. They begin with a conclusion, in this case that homosexuality is a threat to public health, and then find work, from real scientists, that supports their preconceptions. Often the data comes from completely unrelated subjects. Often conflicting data, from related studies, is rejected because it doesn’t support the contention.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:06 pmDrew3rd has also failed to link his supposed ‘health care concerns’ to the marriage issue… if risky behavior is what he wishes to correct wouldn’t he be better served by encouraging monogamous committed relationships of ALL types and, failing that, safe sex practices?
February 19th, 2009 at 2:08 pmThose that fight it the hardest are fighting thier own doubts….it’s hypocricy and it’s unhealthy for them to be in decicion making positions. See Larry Craig.
Funny that of the two most adamnant trolls fighting against homosexuality here that both of them in the end admitted to their own latent tendencies.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:13 pm“I believe in the Constitution being something that was inspired of God. And the way these people are destroying the Constitution is by saying the Constitution is a living document. That means it’s subject to change. But truth don’t change. It does not change, and I won’t accept any of that.”
To my mind this attitude is worse than what he says he believes about gay people. Does he mean that we should not have amended the Constitution since it was ratified? Does he disagree with the specifics of each amendment as being unconstitutional?
This statement IMO is more revealing of this man’s state of mind than any of his idiosyncratic personal beliefs about gays. He does not belong in the Congress!!
February 19th, 2009 at 2:15 pmHow about professional football players? Playing football is clearly, and unequivocally, a choice of lifestyle. They die earlier than the national average. They have alarming divorce rates. ANd, outside the chronically ill who spend endless months in hospitals, they are the most likely group to carry drug-resistant staff infections.
Compared to AIDS or hepatitis, staff infections are ridiculously easy to spread. I think it’s time to outlaw football, and banish former players to Monster Island, for the good of public health.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:33 pmExcellent point pete… who knew what a horrifying menace was quietly huddling in our stadiums…
February 19th, 2009 at 2:40 pmIsn’t Monster Island a peninsula?
February 19th, 2009 at 2:54 pmI’m back. Pete, none of the activities you suggested carry a 50% mortality rate. I never claimed to be a scientist. I am an insurance agent and real estate appraiser. I know about this from the money side. Follow the money. Cancer survivors can get life insurance. HIV infection is a non-qualifier, firget about full-blown AIDS. We use studies like the one provided by Oxford to make that criteria. Smokers get life insurance with a modest premium increase to 70 years of age, after that, the premium goes way up. It is my opinion that the insurance industry wouldn’t cover gay men if we were allowed to investigate their sexual persuasion, again, based on the incredible risks the client would succumb to HIV at anny point between the ages of 20 and 49.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:54 pmHi drew3rd. Where did you get the 4000% thing from
February 19th, 2009 at 2:56 pmHey Republic, maybe you should look at the CDC numbers as well. 728 non man 2 man sexual conatct or intravenous drug related AIDS cases over a 4 year period. I think it’s fair to say that the jump to the hetero community never materialized. That’s less than 200 per year out of 300 million people. More people are bitten by sharks.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:01 pmBREAKING NEWS!!
100% of heterosexuals die! That high mortality rate has led some activists to pressure law makers to ban the heterosexual lifestyle as unsafe.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:02 pmdrew3rd Says:
I never claimed to be a scientist.
Well, there’s at least one truth you have told, then.
I am an insurance agent…Follow the money.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:07 pmI am a psychologist…Follow the empathy.
The Oxford study. If you would read it, you would find that the general population has 1 in 100,000 cases of anal cancer from 300,000,000 people. Gays experience a 35 in 100,000 incidence for a population of roughly 5 million. Amongst the general population (300,000,000) that creates 3,000 who are stricken with this disease. Amongst a gay population of 5 million, that number would be 1,750. Staggering.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:08 pmdrew3rd Says:
More proof that we need single payer healthcare…
February 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pmpeople like drew3rd who cannot read or comprehend a simple table should not be making coverage decisions for the rest of us…
private insurance is a racket run by idiots like drew3rd…
Amongst a gay population of 5 million, that number would be 1,750. Staggering.
If you’d bother to read it you’d know that…
February 19th, 2009 at 3:15 pmThe Oxford study EXTRAPOLATES from a very small data set (Vancouver, B.C.) and also assumes that these trends will remain constant or increase in the larger population… that’s a big assumption and one that was not born out by the trends in the years 1992-2001 when there was still a comprehensive ’safe sex’ education program in place in most parts of the country… While infection rates have been trending up in recent years it’s difficult to say why, it needs study…
Here’s the bottom line for drew3rd: money.
Here’s the bottom line for the rest of us: civil rights.
All the statistics drew3rd has are support for his position. For the rest of us, those statistics, even if accurate, have absolutely NOTHING to do with the social issue of equality.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:15 pmGuys, you cannot discount the danger of being a gay man. Some people love risk. I don’t understand why it is okay to expose yourself to AIDS, anal cancer and a shorter life expectancy, but not okay to smoke. Why do we accept that gays are “no different from the rest of us” when that is demonstrably false. One of you (Hood) suggested incest was fine so you could sustain your gay agenda. This is ludicrous. Trying to destroy me doesn’t change ANY of the data. Gays die younger due to dangerous exposure to HIV/AIDS. Debate all you want. Buttars is a jingoistic fellow but he is right to compare gays and alcoholics from a public health point of view. Look at the Finnish fellow that infected all of those women. Who does that? A rational human being? Infecting women with AIDS is a PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:15 pmBelac, single payer would allow you to decide nothing. At least you get to choose your doctor now, unless you bought into a single payer program (HMO).
February 19th, 2009 at 3:18 pmAnd in Canada… where the ’study’ you cite was done drew3rd over a third of new infection rates since 2000 have been through heterosexual contact and the largest increase in infection rates is among black and aboriginal men, populations which also report significantly lower rates of condom use, hmmm… seems there is a behavior that’s risky that leads to increased incidents of HIV infection… it’s called unsafe sex and it’ll bite ya no matter who you have unsafe sex with…
February 19th, 2009 at 3:19 pmCivil Rights is not the issue, Special Rights is. We are supposed to suspend the better part of reason and allow anyone to marry anything they choose? I am at a blog entitled with something like “Progress” right? If drowning in a sea of stupidity is progress, I’m heading for shore.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:20 pmCheck it out, we’ve pumped this thread to 650+. Strong work TPer’s.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:22 pmBelac, where’s YOUR study? HHHMMMMMM?
February 19th, 2009 at 3:23 pmBelac, single payer would allow you to decide nothing.
Bull… here’s some info from Canada, since we’re talking about it, a single payer country.
citation:
February 19th, 2009 at 3:24 pmhttp://www.pnhp.org/facts/why_the_us_needs_a_single_payer_health_system.php
Belac, where’s YOUR study? HHHMMMMMM?
At the UN WHO… look it up… I know you’re not lazy, but I also know you can’t read it.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:25 pmHere’s some more food for thought from the CDC.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states in a June 2007 report, “HIV/AIDS Among Men Who Have Sex with Men,” that men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 71 percent of adult and adolescent males diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in 2005, thus rendering them ineligible for life insurance coverage at any price. Five to 7 percent of adult and adolescent men identify themselves as MSM, according to the report, so obviously MSM have a much higher risk of contracting the disease — they are anywhere from 32.5 to 46.5 times more likely than other men to be diagnosed. But insurance companies check for the disease, not the behavior.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:27 pmCivil rights IS the issue because there are no “special rights”, only Special Wrongs, limits put on fellow Americans because the majority does not like their “lifestyle” which is nothing more than expressing their God-given attraction to someone and wishing to commit themselves to that person. And gays are PEOPLE, not “things” (as in your, “allow anyone to marry anything they choose”). Right there is the point. We progressives demand that gays have their inalienable right to pursuit of happiness, right to assembly, and right to equal access to all institutions available to any other American PERSON. Insurance industry statistics, be damned. Religious dogma, be damned. Ignorance, be damned. Prejudice, be damned.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:28 pm32.5 TIMES more likely to contract HIV/AIDS Than the typical male.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:28 pmInfecting women with AIDS is a PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE.
We agree.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:29 pmBut I thought you said AIDS couldn’t be spread through heterosexual contact…
you said this:
Unprotected sex leads to babies Blue, not AIDS, in heteros.
That’s just silly.
The only way to deal with it is to encourage safe sex practices… in heterosexuals and homosexuals…
You’re a joke.
He looks like a mean old man, look at his face, he looks like he’s taking a ****. Well you know what I mean. Homosexuality is not a sexual perversion. And everybody goes nuts, because it’s a myth and a stereotype. He needs to get out more and see the world. There are just as many heterosexuals that are perversely sexual, but that’s okay, and they go out and rape cause they can’t get any. Homosexuals are born that way, there is no ‘some truth’, it is complete truth. No one is going to choose to be in love with someone of the same sex and be osctracised by others. Homosexuals are mean? Where does that come from, they’re generally the nicest people and I guess this guy isn’t considered mean. Hmmm. That’s a double standard isn’t it? He believes that homosexuals will destroy the foundation of American Society? No, American Society is already destroyed, too late for that, guys like this made sure of it.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:29 pmYou mean all of the Canadians who have made the Cleveland Clinic one of the finest Hospitals in the world by flocking to it and paying top dollar for top care? That Canadian single payer healthcare system. It’s fine if you don’t need it. Otherwise, go south young Canadian man.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:31 pmBelac, repeat after me. 32.5 TIMES more likely to contract HIV/AIDS Than the typical male.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:32 pmI could gather a bunch of statistics about the number of victims of domestic violence, demonstrating very clearly that married women are at a higher risk of injury than single women. I could use those statistics to push for legislation that bans heterosexual marriage. Well, OK, I can’t because I am not as illogical and uncaring as some.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:32 pmBeachroad, we don’t allow a bunch of nonsense on this thread. You’ll provide the study that proves homosexuals are born homsexual. You’ll also prove that the general population rapes when they don’t get any. we don’t let silly talk go on about things that are anecdotally supported opinions.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:34 pmI could also gather a bunch of statistics that clearly demonstrate that the majority of sexual offenses are male on female. I could use those statistics to push for making heterosexual behavior illegal. Again, I could if I wasn’t rational.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:35 pmLike all those Americans who go to Mexico for their health care?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE3DA1438F934A25753C1A96E948260
or India?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1196429,00.html
February 19th, 2009 at 3:36 pmActually Pat, married women are safer than any other demographic. It’s women who are living with someone, are seperated or have filed for divorce who face the greatest threat.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:36 pmdrew3rd repeat after me… unprotected sex leads to infection, not being gay… educate every one about ’safe sex’ and you’ll see those infection rates go down… like they did in the years 1997-2001…
February 19th, 2009 at 3:38 pmHere’s a study on health care for you drew… if you need help reading it, let me know.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2007/Nov/Toward-Higher-Performance-Health-Systems–Adults-Health-Care-Experiences-in-Seven-Countries–2007.aspx
February 19th, 2009 at 3:41 pmBelac, you know that Mexican care is inferior. Now we’re back to yesterday’s racism thread. You just don’t like America. You need to travel and see how people really live. You will learn that Mexicans receive terrible healthcare. It is some of the worst in the world. I grew up in a border state. I knew people who went to Mexico for dentistry and other minor things. You can’t believe the messes some of them found themselves in. Stop hating America and own up to the fact that to do well in America you have to STRIVE. If you will strive, you will be rewarded. We are a country that rewards effort. There is NO place on the planet like ours. You just want everything to be free, that’s a child’s way. Now you want to encourage more gay death and suffering? Is this tied to hating America too?
February 19th, 2009 at 3:43 pmBelac, you would end up at 666.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:43 pmdrew3rd sez:we don’t let silly talk go on about things that are anecdotally supported opinions.
Hmm… who said that the US had no racism ’cause they’d been to Japan and felt a lot of racism and sexism at a play?
Oh, that was you!
That’s right, no anecdotal evidence allowed!
February 19th, 2009 at 3:44 pmThat’s not fair, I actually like you Belac. You are very intelligent and passionate about your position. I admire that. You don’t engage in namecaling and you don’t accept baloney. I’m guessing you are a man. Regardless, you are a fine person, even if I disagree with you on some issues.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:46 pmWe don’t know the cause of autism. So, apparently, according drew3rd-logic we should assume that those with autism choose their lifestyle. And we should deny them insurance coverage. And we should not let them marry.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:46 pmBelac, you know that Mexican care is inferior.
So you agree that the fact that there are people willing to cross a border for care doesn’t make that care better?
Huh?
Then why did you say this:
You mean all of the Canadians who have made the Cleveland Clinic one of the finest Hospitals in the world by flocking to it and paying top dollar for top care?
And isn’t that more of that anecdotal evidence we hate?
Did you read the study?
February 19th, 2009 at 3:47 pmPointing out your hypocrisy and inconsistencies is unfair?
You don’t know what you are talking about on this issue, or on Holder’s comments yesterday, or on any thread where I’ve seen you comment.
Sorry.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:50 pmBelac, you saved my post from yesterday. Yes it was anecdotal, I was making fun of beachroad for making crazy claims that are false. The truth is, no one knows if gays are born or choose.
As far as those other countries, it is more than anecdotal, it is palpable when you go there. At “Elisabeth”, management told me where to sit because they didn’t want me upsetting their patrons. They then explained the whole women’s special place thing. A lot more than anecdotal. I would go again, however, bigotry didn’t change the fact that I loved the show, specifically, Yami ga Hirogaru. It’s my favorite part. I saw it in Germany as well. It was like an 80’s hair band production. I didn’t like it as well. Probably because I saw the Japanese do it first.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:51 pmI was saying the 666 crack was unfair of ME.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:53 pmdrew3rd, did you read the study?
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/ Content/ Publications/ In-the-Literature/ 2007/ Nov/ Toward-Higher-Performance-Health-Systems–Adults-Health-Care-Experiences-in-Seven-Countries–2007.aspx
February 19th, 2009 at 3:53 pmBelac, the accentuation is on FINEST hospital. That means it is better than others. The Canadiens are coming for the quality and availability. Americans are going to Mexico because it is cheap.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:55 pmThe Canadiens are coming for the quality and availability.
Do you have a study?
February 19th, 2009 at 3:55 pmLink?
‘Cause mine says the opposite.
Gotta go, I have clients in 5 minutes. Catch everyone bright and early tomorrow. Have a Good Evening.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:56 pmdrew3rd Says:
The truth is, no one knows if gays are born or choose.
No, the truth is we do not know what causes homosexuality, which is not the same thing. There are a large group of people who do know that homosexuality is not chosen – the gay population themselves. Regardless, whether chosen or by draw, there is NO justification for denying gays their civil rights.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:58 pmFrom the study’s abstract…
February 19th, 2009 at 3:58 pmThe United States stands out for cost-related access barriers and less-efficient care.
Toronto Star, 09/06/2007 “Canadians Flee to US for Care”
February 19th, 2009 at 3:59 pmDid you read the STUDY?
February 19th, 2009 at 4:00 pmdrew3rd Says:
You are unbelievably stupid and brainwashed drew. National healthcare systems allow you to choose your Doctor. You CHOOSE your dr in Canada, England, France. My GOD you are ignorant. Do you know ANYTHING you werent programmed with by a screechmonkey?
February 19th, 2009 at 4:03 pmToronto Star, 09/06/2007 “Canadians Flee to US for Care”
Both patients in this article attempted to have the Canadian Government cover their cost of care… and were rejected.
They chose the U.S. because they could afford to ‘jump the queue’ and get treatment right away, not because the care was better…
February 19th, 2009 at 4:07 pmsee we ration care based on ability to pay here, like Mexico, not on need, like in Single-Payer systems…
I’ll let you guess which I think is a better system… *hint* the study shows that most agree with me!
Both patients in this article attempted to have the Canadian Government cover their cost of care… and were rejected.
I should clarify- they wanted the Canadian national health care system to pay for their U.S. care AFTER they’d received it.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:08 pmHIV is far from the only medical condition that can disqualify one from health insurance. Many of those former football players can’t get health insurance. Many of those young, male, drivers can’t get auto insurance. Even if being gay meant a 100% chance of catching HIV, medical conditions hardly serve as a, rational, legal barrier to marriage.
Actuarial tables, while useful in determining who pays what for insurance, have no bearing on other science. And, it would be illegal to deny insurance based on sexual preference. Unless a bunch of fundies succeeded in radically changing the Constitution to conform to the Buy-bull.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:14 pmOh btw native american drew3rd, which reservation did you grow up next to and how are Washington politicians the greatest threat to the nation and how have the handcuffed a great people. We never really got those odd thoughts straightened out either…
February 19th, 2009 at 4:16 pmBTW… Toronto Star, 09/06/2007 “Canadians Flee to US for Care”
…is the DEFINITION of anecdotal evidence.
And it STILL doesn’t say what you say it does…
February 19th, 2009 at 4:17 pm…and it never will.
Hey, drew… you are a nasty little goofball. I like your aggressive side better, you passive gives me the freakin’ willies.
What’s with your obsession with gay sex? What does gay sex have to do w/ allowing homosexual couples to marry?
Why are you such a nasty little goofball?
February 19th, 2009 at 4:23 pmThis thread started 22 hours ago! I am proud to be a member of the progressive community here at TP which showed a willingness to continue to keep the issue of civil rights for gays alive and not let the regressive, oppressive people have the last word.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:29 pmbwaaaaahhhaaaaaaaha! LOL! you nasty little goofball. Making crazy claims that are false is what you have been doing all this time.
Dang, boy… you are about as screwed up as any I’ve come across. Com’n give as good ole texas sayin’ for being crazy as a jaybird, drew.
You nasty little goofball.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:43 pmThis little pos still thinks he calls the shots?
In this thread he has proven nothing and admitted that he is an angry disfuntional human being who hypocritically condemns homosexuality while also admitting that he has latent homsexual tendencies……larry craig syndrom.
Yet he has the unmitigated gall to imply that someone here has to prove thier viewpoint??
I am astonished, appalled and offended that this person has gotten away with this.
Drew baby, you have no credibility and no high ground, moral or otherwise from which to dictate what will and will not be accepted as discourse here or anywhere.
You are wrong on this and you will eat it in the end….metaphorically and literally. Wait and see.
February 19th, 2009 at 5:21 pmahhhh, back to this again, goofball? Because someone doesn’t agree w/ your fairy tale about America they “hate” it?
To do well anywhere you have to STRIVE, you freakin’ moron.
Who wants “everything to be free”? Who, did anyone say that at any time here? Please point to it or STFU! I’ll put my money on you doing neither…
you nasty little goofball.
So now are you going to find a way to blame the Unions in this fanciful little fairy tale you’re weaving? Please do..
I can’t wait to come back on here, laugh at your stunning display of arrogance and once again point out to you that,
you, drew…
are a nasty little goofball.
Oh… please explain your obsession w/ what other people do in their own bedrooms, behind their own closed doors. After that I’d really like to know why you personally have such a huge problem with gay marriage.
own it, drew or drop it…
you nasty little goofball.
February 19th, 2009 at 5:22 pmThe odd thing is, this discussion is hardly limited to gay rights. What I find unconscionable is the blatant misrepresentation of science to support a religious belief.
If one wishes to live a religious lifestyle, do it and vote accordingly. But don’t try to manufacture science to support your superstitious beliefs. It just makes non-religious people angry and makes religious people look stupid.
February 19th, 2009 at 5:25 pmdrew the moron wants the right to discriminate against homosexuals and demands WE prove they are born gay to stop him. Drew you nincompoop, if YOU want the right to discriminate it is encumbent on YOU to prove they are NOT born gay. Good luck with that I will patiently wait until Rush tells you what to think before you answer. MORON.
February 19th, 2009 at 5:27 pmdrew3rd has been proven repeatedly to be a liar and has not once answered the legitimate questions addressed to him. He instead has in his trollish manner tried to change the subject when facts were inconvenient for him.
He has been owned in this thread time and time again and is just here to lie and put his lies out in front of everyone here.
He deserves and gets no respect from me.
February 19th, 2009 at 5:28 pmdrew, do you really not know whether or not you chose your sexual orientation? Same for homosexuals. (assuming you are hetero)
February 19th, 2009 at 6:13 pmIt is a shame Sen. Butt-arse has had such a miserable life he would dump on a significant minority, but methinks he protest too much. Someone saw him conferring the other day with Larry Craig — he of the “Wide Stance.” Oh, how those old girls go off!
February 19th, 2009 at 7:18 pmThe American Psychological Association released a Statement on Homosexuality in 1994-JUL. Their first two paragraphs are:
The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.
Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:31 pmRalph,
I’ll pick up where I left off last night.
I am the product of my upbringing, which obviously had cultural, religious and familial components. So, it is no surprise that I turned out the way I did being the progeny of members of the great generation.
Now, consider this. Kids today are being exposed at a very early age to the notion that their sexuality isn’t innate! They are being unduly influenced by radical homosexual activists that have access to them in our public schools.
It is a well known fact that there is a point in a young person’s development where they are UNSURE of their sexuality. There is a point where they could go either way – homosexual or heterosexual.
So, if I were in their place today who knows? I could turn out to be homosexual myself!
The point I’m making is that there are always sexual urges, which are experienced even at very early stages in a young person’s life. I believe it is immoral and unethical to take advantage of children when they are most vulnerable in an attempt to further an agenda. In this case, the agenda of the radical homosexual advocacy groups.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:57 pmThis is one of the greatest paragraphs I have seen posted on the internets. Tell me, Tim… would you do this in a Charlton Heston voice if i arranged the setting?
February 19th, 2009 at 10:27 pmTim Vaculik Says:
My GOD you are ignorant Timmeh. You are also a liar. No such thing is well known. You are a brainwashed moron spouting what you were told to believe and incredibly stupid. What you are a product of is your ignorance and your bigotry. Do something productive go play in traffic moron.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:08 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Yeah, run with that, Tim… who knows?
February 19th, 2009 at 11:11 pmYes, Tim. The “radical homosexual advocacy groups” are taking advantage of the children.
You’re doing this for the kids, and drew is saving homosexuals from themselves. I think I’ve got it.
Do you two share a bunk bed? I haven’t read such hokey horsesh*t since… well never.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:18 pmOK. It took me awhile to remember where I read this, but just in case some people don’t believe the American Psychology Association’s studies…then last April 2008, the National Academy of Sciences of the USA approved a paper on the differences in the PET scans and MRI scans of heterosexual and homosexual brains…
From the article:
“[Neuroscience researchers] (Ivanka Savic and Per Linstrom of the Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden) found that the brains of homosexual men and heterosexual women were more symmetrical than the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women. A similar difference emerged when the researchers looked in particular at the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotional reactions. Heterosexual women and homosexual men had more connections between their right and left amygdala and more connections with other brain regions than did homosexual women and heterosexual men.
Scientists have spent decades looking for brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual people and since the early 1990s have been finding anatomical distinctions in regions associated with sexual behavior. The new study suggests broader brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual men and women, even in regions not linked to sexual attraction.”
And from a neurologist:
Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, said that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in foetal development. BBC news article June 2008
February 19th, 2009 at 11:53 pmThey are being unduly influenced by radical homosexual activists that have access to them in our public schools
February 20th, 2009 at 1:52 am—
spend a lot of time in public school and I haven’t seen this yet. I have seen military recruiters in those school on a monthly basis talking so not so honest shit to the youngster though…
This is symptomatic of a larger issue.
This country had been slowly evolving into that which we have sacrificed countless lives opposing–a militant nation with an agenda driven by religious extremists who promote freedom of thought only so long as it does not conflict with their own ideas. Sound familiar? We had become the enemy.
Ever since the 1960’s, the GOP consistently has been, and will always be, the party of exclusion, the party that attempts to diminish those who look different than themselves, pray to a different deity, or follow a different lifestyle. They are the party that uses fear and hatred as a weapon to intimidate any who do not share their points of view. The GOP offers 20th century solutions to 21st century problems.
It is time for a fresh perspective, a new philosophy of America’s place in the world. It can no longer be us versus them at all costs; the world is far too small for such a narrow-minded point of view.
It is time to embrace those who are different than ourselves and accept them for who they are–it would be the “christian” thing to do. President Obama is the perfect person to lead our nation in this cause and once again transform our nation into a positive, democratic beacon for the rest of the world.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:07 amAmerica will come out of this better than ever.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:45 amTim Vaculik Says:
. . . someone MAKE a point that I can latch onto!
A. The several hundred posts on this thread have been making points–but you obviously have trouble “latching on” to any ideas that require erudite analysis or contemplation of facts rather than opinions.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:23 pmB. You’ve already got that cute little point on your head.
PLC, you have outdone yourself on this thread. Kudos!
February 26th, 2009 at 9:34 pmfine
sikis
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:17 pmporno izle
porno videolar
porn videos
The thread is just huge )) Nevertheless I think I agree with pete. He sounds reasonable enough.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:02 pmAlexa at barbie games