The W
Views: 99910786
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.10.14 0451
The W - Current Events & Politics - Rick "The Dick" Santorum (Page 2)
This thread has 116 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(2070 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (78 total)
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3032 days
Last activity: 246 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Grimis
    The concept of homosexuality disgusts and repulses me. But I'm not going to tell somebody else who has made that decision that they can't.


You can make that distinction. I can make that distinction. A United States Senator, on the other hand, sees no problems with legislating morality at the expense of individual privacy. An odd stance, for someone who's from a party that traditionally campaigns to REDUCE the role of the government in people's lives.

In the words of Opus the Penguin, "Why does this all make me itch?"






"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if I知 going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2543 days
Last activity: 646 days
#22 Posted on
    Originally posted by AWArulz


    Incest is generally illegal because of the Health issues related to close relatives having kids, not the morality ones (although, again, that kicks in). Same for Bigamy and other stuff.



Is incest (between consenting adults) actually illegal? Icky, yes, and unhealthy, and a bad idea, etc., but are the acts themselves illegal? I know that incestuous marriages are illegal, but have the states bothered to make incest acts illegal?

I don't recall ever hearing of a prosecution. Adultery and Sodomy prosecutions are rare, but they do happen. And I'd guess that an incest prosecution, if it occurred would get some play on the news.

It probably doesn't have any bearing on the argument either way, but I was wondering if it's possible that this has gone unlegislated against for the same reason Queen Victoria didn't outlaw lesbianism - she couldn't believe it existed.

Edit: Turns out that Tenessee has these laws, and has used them. Looking into other states

Edit: Felony in 48 states. Misdemeanor in Virginia. No laws regarding (adult, consensual)incest in Rhode Island.

(edited by Mr. Heat Miser on 25.4.03 1818)

(edited by Mr. Heat Miser on 26.4.03 1700)

-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1314 days
Last activity: 80 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#23 Posted on
HMMM

This is a tough issue all together. On one hand, he is very likely a homophobe, but on the other, I see nothing at all wrong about his statement. First off- sodomy is more than "gay sex," it is any sex that involves any act beyond standard, missionary-style sex. Yes, it is ridiculous that is illegal.

From a Supreme Court Standpoint, however, this is a very tough issue. If the Supreme Court declares that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on the basis of a right to privacy (which is really nonexistant), then that does open the floodgates to questioning every sexual law we have. You can't marry your sister. You can't have sex with minors. You can't have sex with animals. Any ruling that declares any sexual act in the privacy of your own home OK is a godsend to NAMBLA....

I agree that the Sodomy laws should be tossed out, but I do not think that is something the Supreme Court should handle, because any ruling they make could open a big can of worms. The individual states should take the responsibility upon themselves.

And I personally do NOT feel that a person who finds homosexual sex to be sinful is necessarily evil. There are many who feel that Homosexuality is a natural occurance, but the act of homosexual sex is morally wrong. They do not say you should "turn straight," rather, remain chaste for your life. Many do not agree with this, but part of being open minded is accepting that others have different viewpoints.


(edited by Pool-Boy on 25.4.03 1328)



Still on the Shelf #5
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3032 days
Last activity: 246 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    If the Supreme Court declares that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on the basis of a right to privacy (which is really nonexistant), then that does open the floodgates to questioning every sexual law we have. You can't marry your sister. You can't have sex with minors. You can't have sex with animals. Any ruling that declares any sexual act in the privacy of your own home OK is a godsend to NAMBLA...


But that's not what's at stake here at all. Finish the sentence properly: it's "Any sexual act in the privacy of your own home... that's conducted with the informed consent of all involved."

Sex with minors is covered under rape laws ("statutory rape"), as minors are considered to be incapable of providing informed consent. This includes whether or not you're related to the minor or not, so both incest-minded relatives and NAMBLA will have to remain disappointed.

Sex with animals? An animal is no more capable of providing intelligent sexual consent than a minor, and significantly less capable than most minors. (I've met some pretty stupid minors in my day.) Cruelty-to-animals statutes are a starting point for this, but I doubt anyone would argue about separate laws covering this specific point.

There is a clear public health interest in the prohibition of consensual adult incest, in that the risk of birth defects among incestual parents is many levels of magnitude higher than among non-related parents. Oddly, this is one area where homosexual couples don't have any worries.

Now examine the Texas sodomy law that's at stake here. If the Supreme Court rules that two consenting, non-related adults (of any gender) should not be prohibited from engaging in sexual acts in private, how exactly does that dismantle laws that cover NONCONSENSUAL sexual acts?



    And I personally do NOT feel that a person who finds homosexual sex to be sinful is necessarily evil.


Whether something is "evil" or not is not what's being decided. "Evil" is an individual value judgement, not a point of law.

And if the question has arisen as to whether discriminatory laws (such as the Texas law, which specifically discriminates against homosexuals) are Constitutional or not, who has the jurisdiction to rule on that, if not the Supreme Court?




"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if I知 going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3474 days
Last activity: 3468 days
#25 Posted on
"Sex with minors is covered under rape laws ("statutory rape"), as minors are considered to be incapable of providing informed consent. This includes whether or not you're related to the minor or not, so both incest-minded relatives and NAMBLA will have to remain disappointed."

But why should they have to stay disappointed? Why couldn't one argue that the a particular minor *is* consenting and *does* have the mental wherewithal to consent to sex? After all, are not kids in America today getting more "mature" as time goes on? You see, this is something that almost all homosexual advocates fail to come to grips with: once you cross that line of one man, one woman, what reason can you possibly give to draw it someplace else? Like it or not, some new person or group can build an "argument" for acceptance of their "lifestyle" just as easily.

With that said, I agree with the Wiener above who said that these laws are almost never enforced. Personally, I can't at this moment see the value in keeping a law on the books that is never enforced. Maybe I'll change my position on that, but if the pro-homosexuals want to get rid of sodomy laws, I really don't care. But just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and as others have been pointing out, it doesn't make it a very healthy thing to do either.

DMC




"Sex would be extremely difficult in a DeLorean, though. You'd have to be a real acrobat."

- Playboy May 1981
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2543 days
Last activity: 646 days
#26 Posted on

    Originally posted by DMC
    "Sex with minors is covered under rape laws ("statutory rape"), as minors are considered to be incapable of providing informed consent. This includes whether or not you're related to the minor or not, so both incest-minded relatives and NAMBLA will have to remain disappointed."

    But why should they have to stay disappointed? Why couldn't one argue that the a particular minor *is* consenting and *does* have the mental wherewithal to consent to sex? After all, are not kids in America today getting more "mature" as time goes on? You see, this is something that almost all homosexual advocates fail to come to grips with: once you cross that line of one man, one woman, what reason can you possibly give to draw it someplace else?



That might be true, if we didn't draw the distinction that minors aren't fully capable individuals ALL OVER the place. They can't vote, can't drive, can't make legal decisions on their own, can't decide whether to drink or not on their own, not legally allowed to smoke or rent porn, not able to make decisions regarding sexual consent, must attend school, can't join the army, can't work a job like everyone else, etc, etc, etc.

Drawing the line between adults and minors is really, really easy to do, even if sex can be other than one man, one woman.



-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3032 days
Last activity: 246 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by DMC
    But why should they have to stay disappointed? Why couldn't one argue that a particular minor *is* consenting and *does* have the mental wherewithal to consent to sex? After all, are not kids in America today getting more "mature" as time goes on?


What are you smoking, and why aren't you sharing?

You can't make the argument that a minor is consenting BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS A MINOR. Legal definition and all. Full stop right there.

Can arguments be brought as to what age _constitutes_ being a minor? Sure. That's why the age of consent for sex (and for marriage) differs from state to state, and why it's not necessarily the same as the drinking age, driving age or voting age for a particular place. But sodomy laws, such as the one being questioned, have nothing at all to do with age restrictions; they're _act_ restrictions.

Analogy: Pennsylvania (home of Rick Santorum) has strict laws concerning the importation of wines and liquors. Just like sodomy laws, they're rarely enforced for private individuals, but they're there. If those laws are revoked, adult Pennsylvanians would be allowed to buy any kind of alcohol they wish, from wherever they wish, and consume it in the privacy of their own homes. Would this somehow lead to fourteen-year-olds gaining the right in Pennsylvania to drink liquor?




    You see, this is something that almost all homosexual advocates fail to come to grips with: once you cross that line of one man, one woman, what reason can you possibly give to draw it someplace else? Like it or not, some new person or group can build an "argument" for acceptance of their "lifestyle" just as easily.



Once again, I ask -- so what?

What would you restrict to "one man, one woman?" Marriage? (Sodomy concerns sex, not marriage. Whether marriage should be defined as something other than one man + one woman is a separate issue. Dozens of states have legitimized sex outside of marriage; how many have redefined marriage as well?) Sex? (Who are you to decide for ME who I can and cannot invite into my bed?) Specific acts? (Many sodomy laws restrict both hetero and homosexual acts, for married OR unmarried couples. Again, who are you to decide for ME what I can and cannot do WITH those that accept my invitation to my bed?)

If a new person or group tries to build acceptance for a "lifestyle choice"... what, exactly, is wrong with that? Who are they hurting? "Tradition" is not always an inherently good thing. I say, go! Be creative! If you're not hurting anyone else, have fun, and if others like what they see, they might try it, too.

Or is there One True and Pure and Time-Tested Lifestyle that's good enough for all Americans and should be mandated by law?



"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if I知 going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3474 days
Last activity: 3468 days
#28 Posted on
"You can't make the argument that a minor is consenting BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS A MINOR. Legal definition and all. Full stop right there."

"Legal definitions" have not STOPPED advocates of alternative lifestyles before, and I assume they won't in the future. Why should we accept that legal definition of a minor and their inability to have consenting sex? After all, shouldn't society expand its view, evolve and change? Why should you force your moral position about minors on me, you conservative hypocrit?

You see? Perhaps you don't, but I don't know what else to tell you beside that there are already folks who argue for this type of stuff. If you can apply your logic for the legitimization of homosexuality to these situations and tell me why they are *wrong*, I would like to see it.

"What would you restrict to "one man, one woman?" Marriage? (Sodomy concerns sex, not marriage. Whether marriage should be defined as something other than one man + one woman is a separate issue. Dozens of states have legitimized sex outside of marriage; how many have redefined marriage as well?) Sex? (Who are you to decide for ME who I can and cannot invite into my bed?) Specific acts? (Many sodomy laws restrict both hetero and homosexual acts, for married OR unmarried couples. Again, who are you to decide for ME what I can and cannot do WITH those that accept my invitation to my bed?)"

There's the exact logic I'm talking about (there's more of it below). However, I already said I am not for sodomy laws, but I am for not allowing these types of sexual acts and lifestyles which incorporate them to be paraded about society as completely, 100% normal and natural things to do.

"If a new person or group tries to build acceptance for a "lifestyle choice"... what, exactly, is wrong with that? Who are they hurting? "Tradition" is not always an inherently good thing. I say, go! Be creative! If you're not hurting anyone else, have fun, and if others like what they see, they might try it, too."

So *are* you applying this logic now? Which is it--let everything all hang out, or there are certain boundaries in society we should not cross?

DMC

(edited by DMC on 25.4.03 1629)


"Sex would be extremely difficult in a DeLorean, though. You'd have to be a real acrobat."

- Playboy May 1981
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3032 days
Last activity: 246 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by DMC
    So *are* you applying this logic now? Which is it--let everything all hang out, or there are certain boundaries in society we should not cross?


Let everything all hang out, as long as everyone involved gives their consent, and nobody's getting hurt.

According to standards in every state, minors are incapable of giving sexual consent. Once they're old enough, let them make their own decisions.

Is it really that complicated? Allowing adults to do as they please in the privacy of their own homes will not suddenly motivate states to give my six-year-old niece the legal right to drink, smoke, drive, rent porn, vote, run for public office, quit school, have sex with fifty-year-old men, give Red Rockets to neighborhood dogs and ask Mommy for a little brother that she can make out with.



    However, I already said I am not for sodomy laws, but I am for not allowing these types of sexual acts and lifestyles which incorporate them to be paraded about society as completely, 100% normal and natural things to do.


Ah. Some lifestyles are more equal than others, I see.

I'll bite. What restrictions would YOU put upon the "parading about" of these deviant sexual menaces to society, to maintain your delusion that what's "normal" for you is what should be "normal" for everyone else?



"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if I知 going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3474 days
Last activity: 3468 days
#30 Posted on
Oops, sorry...I guess you can't delete posts and start over anymore.

"I'll bite. What restrictions would YOU put upon the "parading about" of these deviant sexual menaces to society, to maintain your delusion that what's "normal" for you is what should be "normal" for everyone else?"

I would not allow for any type of marriage rights for same-sex couples. And I think there are many in this country who agree with that. It has nothing to do with what is normal for me. It has to do with religious standards which I feel can be argued for in another time and place. Nevertheless, I do feel one can build a "secular" case that homosexuality is unnatural and inherently unhealthy. To make it "morally wrong," one would have to smuggle in religious arguments, which I am not attempting to do at this point.

DMC


(edited by DMC on 25.4.03 1719)


"Sex would be extremely difficult in a DeLorean, though. You'd have to be a real acrobat."

- Playboy May 1981
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1268 days
Last activity: 1065 days
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by DMC
    I would not allow for any type of marriage rights for same-sex couples.

What may surprise some people is that I do. Why? Because same-sex long term couples should have the same responsibilities opposite sex couples do in terms of seperation(property, kids, etc.)




godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3904 days
Last activity: 3850 days
#32 Posted on
it doesn't make it a very healthy thing to do either.

...uh...

...you do realize that gay sex isn't particularly unhealthy in any way, right?
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3032 days
Last activity: 246 days
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by DMC
    I would not allow for any type of marriage rights for same-sex couples. And I think there are many in this country who agree with that. It has nothing to do with what is normal for me. It has to do with religious standards which I feel can be argued for in another time and place. Nevertheless, I do feel one can build a "secular" case that homosexuality is unnatural and inherently unhealthy. To make it "morally wrong," one would have to smuggle in religious arguments, which I am not attempting to do at this point.


I'd ask you to elaborate on that secular case, but I don't want to turn this into more of a pissing contest than it's already been. I'm interested in your point of view, but neither of us will convert the other and I think we can leave it at that.

My one quibble with your marriage stance is this: you do not have to be religious in any way, shape or form to get married. A Justice of the Peace or an Elvis impersonator in Vegas will do nicely for those who, like myself, have a healthy disdain for organized religion in general. Not that I have a problem with those who _do_ infuse religious faith into their vows and relationship, but it's not my cup of tea. Marriage, at the most basic level, is about mutual commitment.

Can two men or two women build bonds of commitment between them that are as strong as those between a man and a woman? I definitely think so, and thus fully support gay marriages (or "civil unions," if that phrasing plays better in Peoria.) But as both of us have said, that's a different issue than the one that set Santorum off. When gays still have to fight to merely SLEEP TOGETHER in some states, marriage rights are a long way away from general tolerance. Pity, that.




"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if I知 going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3904 days
Last activity: 3850 days
#34 Posted on
Nevertheless, I do feel one can build a "secular" case that homosexuality is unnatural and inherently unhealthy.

I'd reeeeeally like to see you try.
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3474 days
Last activity: 3468 days
#35 Posted on
"I'd ask you to elaborate on that secular case, but I don't want to turn this into more of a pissing contest than it's already been. I'm interested in your point of view, but neither of us will convert the other and I think we can leave it at that."

Well, since you and Godking are both seemingly interested in this, let's investigate it for a bit. First off, male homosexual sex (and sodomy in general) *is* inherently an unnatural act. By this I do not mean that it does not occur in nature, but that it is effectively abberant. Quite frankly, the penis was not meant to be inserted into the anus. Even lesbian feminists like Camile Paglia in *Vamps and Tramps* admit that homosexual sex is clearly *not natural*, meaning that it violates obvious laws of nature, not just that some people consider it in such a way. Her point is that she still has a right to do it; and on that, I totally agree with her as well.

Second, the types of tissue damage and possibilities for infection are enormous, and medical professionals who have treated gay men at clinics have testified to this. I'm not the only one in this thread who agrees: AWArulz said "I think the senator was saying, basically, sodomy is generaly a health issue (and you can look it up: The incidence of health issues related to sodomy sexual relations is much, much higher than non-sodomy sexual relations) and so it joins those other things." Naturally, we could look into this further if you like.

The issue is not are homosexuals the only ones who engage in these types of practices. Clearly the answer is no. The question is, "Are such things *typical* of homosexual men and their sexual practices?" The answer to that is yes. There are other areas to consider, including the fact that homosexuals statistically have more sexual partners over their lifetime than the average heterosexual. But all of the above are major reasons for why I believe society should not embrace such a thing, either by accepting it as completely natural and normal, or by offering marriage privileges to those who seek to legitimize abberant behavior.

DMC




"Sex would be extremely difficult in a DeLorean, though. You'd have to be a real acrobat."

- Playboy May 1981
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2543 days
Last activity: 646 days
#36 Posted on
For the sake of argument, let's say, OK - so anal is unnatural. (I don't think it's that cut and dried, but I'll run with it for now). LOTS of things considered acceptable by society are 'unnatural': sitting at a desk all day, staying up all night, air travel, figure skating, pro wrestling, toungue piercings, all you can eat buffets, processed cheese food, anal sex. As you seem to admit yourself, unnatural doesn't really have anything to do with it.

The same goes for unhealthy things. Unhealthy things are legal and sanctioned by governments: Liquor licences, cigarettes (taxed, therefore implicitly sanctioned), boxing, etc., etc.

If sodomy is legal, I don't see any grounds for disallowing gay marriage BECAUSE sodomy is a behaviour typical of gay men. (And this is an argument against female homosexual marriage in what way?)

Regarding the number of partners argument - wouldn't that be an argument in favour of allowing gay marriage - to help foster commitment and end the promiscuity? Or should we disallow marriage for all people, since there are slutty straight folks out there too?

Now - this sounds like I'm in favour of recognizing gay marriage, right?

Nope.

I'd favour the government getting out of the marriage business altogether. Churches can marry whoever they want, or not. Let people form and register domestic units w. the government that consist of whatever they please, and tax them like a married couple.

And that's from a happily married guy.



-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3474 days
Last activity: 3468 days
#37 Posted on
"For the sake of argument, let's say, OK - so anal is unnatural. (I don't think it's that cut and dried, but I'll run with it for now). LOTS of things considered acceptable by society are 'unnatural': sitting at a desk all day, staying up all night, air travel, figure skating, pro wrestling, toungue piercings, all you can eat buffets, processed cheese food, anal sex."

This is the typical objection. However, it fails to consider that one could argue that people shouldn't do some of those things as well; other things like air travel are not "natural" in a larger sense but they do not involve a fundamental *misuse* and abuse of the human body. Again, "natural" here is being defined in terms of biological functioning.

"If sodomy is legal, I don't see any grounds for disallowing gay marriage BECAUSE sodomy is a behaviour typical of gay men."

Sodomy laws should have nothing to do with this. What I am saying is that society should not *go out of its way to put a stamp of approval* on a lifestyle that is inherently unnatural, unhealthy and dangerous. You may not be able to legislate against people doing the practice if they choose, but you should not give it any kind of legitimacy either. Overthrowing our long-standing norms involving the concept of human marriage would qualify as giving homosexuality such legitimacy, as far as I can tell.

Female homosexual marriage should not be allowed for similar arguments of them being unnatural and illegitimate for society. Simply because it may be true that lesbian relationships may be more healthy physically than male homosexual realtionships is not enough to make it natural and normal.

DMC



"Sex would be extremely difficult in a DeLorean, though. You'd have to be a real acrobat."

- Playboy May 1981
Cerebus
Scrapple








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.74
How exactly is a non-male/female marriage bad for society? What's so wrong with two people who are deeply in love with one another and want to spend the rest of thier lives together in wedded bliss?

For one thing, it is far more likely for heterosexual marriages to end in divorce then it is for homosexual marriages. Isn't divorce bad? When same sex partners want children, they truely WANT children, hetero couples who accidently become pregnant don't want kids and these babies are then either aborted or put up for adoption. Which is very sad for our society because of all the unwanted kids that are already out there.

I personally could care less about all this, cause I certainly don't care about marriage ever again, but why are some of you so strongly against same sex marriage. What's the big deal, you know. If two people love each other, why shouldn't they be allowed to get married?



Cerebus: Barbarian, Prime Minister, Pope, Perfect House Guest.

"Graft is as necessary as throwing up when you drink too much."
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3904 days
Last activity: 3850 days
#39 Posted on
Wow. You really don't know jack about this.

First off, male homosexual sex (and sodomy in general) *is* inherently an unnatural act. By this I do not mean that it does not occur in nature

That's a really clever syllogism there, because god knows there's tons and tons of biological evidence to show that homosexuality not only exists throughout nature, but also is kind of a self-programmed population control device. Which would make it entirely natural.

Quite frankly, the penis was not meant to be inserted into the anus.

Just as frankly, the male anus is undeniably a pleasure center. You stimulate the prostate gland, it's like the sexual equivalent of crack for a guy. That's a given.

Second, the types of tissue damage and possibilities for infection are enormous, and medical professionals who have treated gay men at clinics have testified to this.

This is quite true.

That having been said, tissue damage in standard vaginal sex is actually fairly common. Any gynecologist can tell you that. It's simply that the vagina heals more quickly than the anus - which doesn't stop heterosexual STD transmission to be overall much higher than homosexual STD transmission. It's just that the homosexual STD grab bag tends to be more lethal overall - HIV, hep C and syphilis.

Note that none of these are exclusive to homosexuals, and indeed with the exception of HIV are far more prevalent on a per capita basis among heterosexuals than homosexuals (and the heterosexual community also has to deal with chlamydia, gonorrhea and herpes, just for starters). And HIV is only more prevalent among the gay community because it spread there first - since 1988, the spread of HIV has actually been highest in heterosexual women.

I'm not the only one in this thread who agrees: AWArulz said "I think the senator was saying, basically, sodomy is generaly a health issue (and you can look it up: The incidence of health issues related to sodomy sexual relations is much, much higher than non-sodomy sexual relations) and so it joins those other things."

"Sodomy sexual relations" is a polite phrasing for "gay sex diseases", as there's never been a really extensive survey of heterosexual buttfuckers. Kindly have the balls to say what you mean.

And just saying "well, per capita there's a lot more deadly STDs among gays" is the classic case of lies and damned statistics. Of course there are more deadly STDs among gays then there are straights - gay communities tend to be tightly knit and concentrated in urban centers. It's a lot easier to get an STD in New York City than it is in Chickenfeed, Montana.

The question is, "Are such things *typical* of homosexual men and their sexual practices?" The answer to that is yes.

Actually, the answer to that is no. According to the New Kinsey study (as opposed to the 1948 one), less than half of all homosexuals engage in anal sex on a regular basis. (Even the 1948 study determined that only 59 percent of homosexuals did.)

Straight people tend to assume that gay sex = buttfucking, largely because straight people tend to automatically assume penetration as the logical concluding step of sex. Gay people, however, not being straight people, have recognized that penetration isn't really necessary when the natural orifice to be penetrated isn't present.

Yes, some gay people like penetration. There are just as many who prefer oral sex only, or any number of other things to get off. How do you suggest dealing with that?

other things like air travel are not "natural" in a larger sense but they do not involve a fundamental *misuse* and abuse of the human body.

Smoking? Alcohol use? Professional wrestling?

Overthrowing our long-standing norms

Homoexuality has been present in human society since at least the Stone Age, and recognized as a valid part of the human community for most of it. Homosexual sex was not only common but indeed an accepted part of manhood in ancient Greece, Rome, and Persia, among (many, many) other societies. A homosexual marriage rite existed within the Catholic Church until the early 1500s. (Interestingly, homosexual marriages were the only marriages that were uniformly allowed within churches at the time, because most heterosexual marriages that could afford a proper church service were typically "sealing the deal" for alliances or land deals, and therefore were considered impure and had to be performed outside of the church - whereas any homosexual marriage was obviously purely for love because there were no practical benefits.)

It wasn't until the Puritan uprisings that anybody really cared about homosexuality in a negative light, and that Puritanism that is the core of America - which has always been more homophobic than most nations - is about three hundred and fifty years old, which is a tiny chunk of human history.

"Long-standing norms", indeed.

Female homosexual marriage should not be allowed for similar arguments of them being unnatural and illegitimate for society.

Oh, this oughta be good. What do lesbians do exactly that makes them unnatural, by your (extremely stupid and erratic) definition? Do you refuse to go down on women? Because that would explain a lot about you.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1314 days
Last activity: 80 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#40 Posted on
The whole issue of "Gay sex being unnatural" is completely false. Of course it is natural. Homosexuality has been documented to occur in each and every mammalian species. Human are mammals, therefore it is reasonable to assume that we will have our share of homosexuals. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A NATURAL OCCURANCE.

Is it normal? Not by any means The whole purpose of sex is to reproduce. Any pleasure we derive from it is simply natures means of making certain we do it to survive as a species. As homosexuals desire to mate with a same sex-partner, it can be argued from a scientific perspective that they are defective.

So does that mean we make it illegal for them to have sex? No... we don't prohibit other "defective" people from living out their lives- we allow those with poor vision to wear glasses, we allow people with no legs to move around on wheelchairs... The point is that we do not damn members of our society for not having every part of their body work exactly how it was designed. It is not civilized.

So why should anyone care that two men want to have sex, or two women, for that matter? In terms of health, lesbian women experience a lower occurance of STDs than any portion of the population. Gay men have recently been surpassed by straight couples in that area, as condom use during sex has become an absolute must in that community. To paraphrase a gay man I know- he did not like even watching PORN in which the actors were not using condoms, because that was like a "death sentance" in this day and age. And if you link AIDS specifically with Homosexuals, you should tkae a hard look at Africa and tell me if all of those people agree with your opinion.

That being said, I STILL do not think this is an issue for the Supreme Court. All of the arguments that say that incest and molestation and beastiality would still be illegal basically fail to point out that these are all things based in law too, and if the judgement of the Supreme Court expands the meaning of the 4th Ammendment (I believe that is the unlawful search one) to basically guarantee a right to privacy in your home, that opens the door to claim that ANYTHING done in the privacy of your own home is not only legal, but protected under the Consititution.

Should we get rid of the law? yes. But the State should take some responsibility for it and revoke the damned thing themselves. In this case, I do not trust the Supreme Court to execute a rational and well thought out judgement, in the fervor of making a potentially historic ruling.







Still on the Shelf #5
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: The Junk Food Wars in England
Next thread: Well, this can't be good
Previous thread: More Stupid PETA Tricks
(2070 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I don't know man- reading something about a guy who was too dense to clean up his act after getting pummeled by the cops is REAL damned stupid... Maybe you are not reading enough ;).
- Pool-Boy, A Fool and his Money (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Rick "The Dick" Santorum (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.162 seconds.