EternalFusion said: Actually, gay men outnumber gay women.There are both homosexual women and homosexual men with homosexual women outnumbering homosexual men yet most your arguments against homosexuality only pertain to homosexual men and completely ignore the existence of homosexual women despite them being the majority. Meaning your arguments don't encompass the whole of homosexuality, just homosexuality among men. It's easier to argue against male homosexuality. Do you feel left out? EternalFusion said: Did you? I don't recall saying a majority of gay men are promiscuous, but the number is considerably higher.Already disproved promiscuity as a majority vs straight men. EternalFusion said: Also because the LGBT subculture is absolutely reprehensible.I don't deny that more people in the LGBT community do drugs but its NOT THE MAJORITY. Once again. And do you even question why more people in the LGBT community do drugs? Its to escape the bull crap if every day life of being mostly unaccepted in communities and people like you telling them they are better off not existing. Now I don't think an individual might be better off not existing, gays have a right to life. But society would definitely do better if homosexuality ceased to exist. Can't say the same for homophobia, because if we can't eradicate homosexuality, then we might still be able to subdue some of the things that come with it. EternalFusion said: I posed a very simple question which you've yet to answer.That question can be used to argue anything. If your answer to my question is yes, then my answer to your question is yes. If you answer no, then my answer is no. If you want me to reassure you of your mindset then you have to reassure me of mine. AKA Lets agree to disagree. Which of your questions? EternalFusion said: Blame it on the homophobia. I like slandering things I don't agree with, or merely pointing out oddities.Fair enough. However your unsolicited name calling of gay men is random slander. No argument here |
| MAL conservatives Please read my new short story. |
| The only problem I have with some gays is this - why do they accentuate and/or emulate feminine qualities? If you're into men... then umm wouldn't you like masculine things? Like bulky muscular guys with an epic beard instead of those spriggy metropolitan gays who have that girlish drawl and get manicures and pedicures every week and shit? |
| [size=200]MAL AVATAR SYSTEM BLOWS |
DerpHole said: The only problem I have with some gays is this - why do they accentuate and/or emulate feminine qualities? If you're into men... then umm wouldn't you like masculine things? Like bulky muscular guys with an epic beard instead of those spriggy metropolitan gays who have that girlish drawl and get manicures and pedicures every week and shit? Theyre closet straights. |
DerpHole said: The only problem I have with some gays is this - why do they accentuate and/or emulate feminine qualities? If you're into men... then umm wouldn't you like masculine things? Like bulky muscular guys with an epic beard instead of those spriggy metropolitan gays who have that girlish drawl and get manicures and pedicures every week and shit? This is close to the Spartan idea that attraction to women is feminine, because women are feminine. i.e., makes no fucking sense |
DerpHole said: I bet you know a lot of gay people.The only problem I have with some gays is this - why do they accentuate and/or emulate feminine qualities? If you're into men... then umm wouldn't you like masculine things? Like bulky muscular guys with an epic beard instead of those spriggy metropolitan gays who have that girlish drawl and get manicures and pedicures every week and shit? |
 |
Azure719 said: Actually, gay men outnumber gay women. It's easier to argue against male homosexuality. Do you feel left out? Where are your sources? I don't think I have seen you provide one source. How do you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously. Exactly, its easier to argue. Its a cop-out when the issue is the whole of gay rights, not just gay mens rights. Do I feel left out? what? Don't bother explaining. Azure719 said: Did you? I don't recall saying a majority of gay men are promiscuous, but the number is considerably higher. The number isn't higher. However the percent may be (There is a difference). Still not majority. Sources for this " considerable" amount would be nice. Azure719 said: Also because the LGBT subculture is absolutely reprehensible. Now I don't think an individual might be better off not existing, gays have a right to life. But society would definitely do better if homosexuality ceased to exist. Can't say the same for homophobia, because if we can't eradicate homosexuality, then we might still be able to subdue some of the things that come with it. Purely subjective opinion in denial if underlying factors that cause an issue in the LGBT community. I can say that society would be better off without homophobia, because there is nothing that needs subduing. Once again, baseless subjective argument. Azure719 said: I posed a very simple question which you've yet to answer. I posted a lot of stuff that you have selectively chosen not to address. If you want me to fully engage you, fully engage me also But because I am so nice and wonderful, I will address your question. The answer is YES, and NO. Yes because then homophobia wouldn't exist and all the wonderful straight people could live happily ever after and no one would have to live a hard time thanks to people like you telling them they are better off not existing. NO because there is nothing inherently detrimental to societies when it comes to homosexuality. NO because it is a further stepping stone in the advancement of civil rights and social understanding, and acceptance. NO because people need to adopt more often to give children good homes to live in. NO because the world is already over populated. NO because a world without homosexuality is a fantasy world. Due to your cherry-picking and fallacious arguments and blatant refusal to acknowledge fact based evidence , I no longer find you a suitable debate partner and will not be replying to anything else you have to say on this thread. Been thrilling |
kamensentai said: mclovinballz said: I've never really cared, let the fruitcakes get married. This should basically be the end-all answer. Though could someone summarize what's been going on in this thread? I'm too lazy to read through the entire thing, but it seems like this thread has popcorn-worthy arguments. |
| And I mean that in the most sexually painful way possible. |
Red_Keys said: DerpHole said: I bet you know a lot of gay people.The only problem I have with some gays is this - why do they accentuate and/or emulate feminine qualities? If you're into men... then umm wouldn't you like masculine things? Like bulky muscular guys with an epic beard instead of those spriggy metropolitan gays who have that girlish drawl and get manicures and pedicures every week and shit? What's that supposed to mean lol. Just remarking on certain types of gay people I've seen. It's rather contradictory for them to strive for feminine traits. |
| [size=200]MAL AVATAR SYSTEM BLOWS |
EternalFusion said: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310132/Where are your sources? I don't think I have seen you provide one source. How do you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously. Homosexuality has been shown repeatedly to occur more frequently among men than in women: 1.4% versus 0.4% for past 5 years in ACSF Investigators (1992); 1.2% versus 0.8% in Dickson et al. (2003); 4.1% versus 2.2% for past 5 years in Laumann et al. (1994); and 6.2% versus 3.6% (United States), 4.5% versus 2.1% (United Kingdom), and 10.7% versus 3.3% (France) since age 15 in Sell, Wells, and Wypij (1995). Interestingly, in men, homosexuality is more common than is bisexuality whereas, in women, bisexuality is more common than is homosexuality (e.g., Chandra et al., 2011; Egan, Edelman, & Sherrill, 2008). EternalFusion said: You knew exactly what I meant though. According to this, the majority are quite promiscuous.The number isn't higher. However the percent may be (There is a difference). Still not majority. Sources for this " considerable" amount would be nice. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/247525210_A_comparative_demographic_and_sexual_profile_of_older_homosexually_active_men EternalFusion said: Sure, it's my subjective opinion that less disease and a less divided society is a good thing.Purely subjective opinion in denial if underlying factors that cause an issue in the LGBT community. I can say that society would be better off without homophobia, because there is nothing that needs subduing. Once again, baseless subjective argument. EternalFusion said: Cherry-picking? More like replying to the stuff that's relevant. What fallacies have I committed? What facts have I not acknowledged?Due to your cherry-picking and fallacious arguments and blatant refusal to acknowledge fact based evidence , I no longer find you a suitable debate partner and will not be replying to anything else you have to say on this thread. |
| MAL conservatives Please read my new short story. |
| @kitsune0 You did not disprove any of my arguments, thus, you have declared your own loss in this argument. @Azure Surveys from 1995 and 1994? And surveys from 1984 saying that mostly men have paraphiliac tendencies? That already proves it's bull. Your second link does not say anything about how much they involve themselves in sexual acts and with how many partners, unless the full text says otherwise but I cannot look into it. Did you notice how a high number of those individuals have children and are married though? Quite interesting how you shot yourself in the foot there. "Less disease", you still haven't proven the idea that homosexuals are more prone to HIV or diseases and a "less divided society" is your opinion, I think you should read my earlier analogy, if your foot has a small laceration, you don't get rid of the whole foot, but you try to take care of the wound. Red herring, just because fallacy (because you do not provide any proof of your claims), willful ignorance (you do not acknowledge most arguments), improbable hypothesis (for this whole bs you're writing), etc. You also contradict yourself a lot. Homosexuality was accepted in the Ancient history, I don't know what them being slaves (which was actually pretty common at the time), prostitutes or entertainers has to do with anything. |
ImmahnoobJul 27, 2014 1:36 PM
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: And 2011, 2008.Surveys from 1995 and 1994? Immahnoob said: Are you going to contest the fact that anal sex increases the risk for infections?"Less disease", you still haven't proven the idea that homosexuals are more prone to HIV or diseases Immahnoob said: Tops were accepted, while unmanly bottoms were second class citizens. That's what's interesting.Homosexuality was accepted in the Ancient history, I don't know what them being slaves (which was actually pretty common at the time), prostitutes or entertainers has to do with anything. |
| MAL conservatives Please read my new short story. |
| I'm not even sure where I stand regarding the homosexuality debate. In my life I can (and do) get along just fine with people who are ok or not ok with gay marriage. I think that both the left and the right make it a much bigger deal than it actually is. Though I think that the left is far more melodramatic about it. A homosexual couple living together that is not being recognized by the state or some religious groups with the specific word "marriage" isn't worth all the drama, time, and money that Western society has already wasted on this so called "issue". We've got much more pressing issues to deal with like the ecological crisis, poverty, the shitty economy, etc. Hell, one has to wonder if the government should even have anything to do with marriage anyway. |
| Salmon is delicious. |
| For it, honestly I don't care what you are... gay, straight, bi, an alien.. whatever. JUST DON'T BE A DICK! |
 |
| Who cares? |
 |
Aggra-Dearheart said: Who cares? As long as it doesn't turn out like the putrid Third-Wave Feminism, I don't really have anything bad to say about ___ Rights movements. |
| I'm pretty into vaginas. Dicks are pretty cool too. Someone, please admit me into your support group. I neeed heeelp with this, and I care so fucking much what some politician or hang-on thinks about it. 'Cause, you know, I'm that utterly devoid of a spine or any kind of will of my own. Pleeaaase, government and Oprah and Ellen deGeneres, please validate me, because I'm such a worthless fucking pussy that I can't live with myself otherwise. Someone please form a support group and exploit me as hard as you can in order to feel virtuous and special and hopefully make yourself look like a good person and a social martyr. Glad I could exist in order to facilitate that for you. |
Aggra-DearheartJul 27, 2014 9:23 PM
|
mullhollanddrive said: Azure719 said: How were these kind of statistics collected? Sexuality is something that would be very difficult to gather accurate statistics of for various reasons, one being homophobia and people generally not disclosing their sexualities if they are not straight. Another being compulsory heterosexuality which means that sometimes people don't always realize they are in fact gay or bisexual because heterosexuality is pushed on them by society, not to mention strongly affects women in particular because of sexism. Which can also explain why there are less women who identify as gay in this study. I also imagine bisexual men are less likely to openly admit they are bisexual compared to bisexual women because they probably see it as contrary to "masculinity". Basically this is a study of people who identify with a certain sexuality and is hardly reliable evidence as to why you think there are more gay men than gay women and somehow feel gay women should be disregarded from any conversation on gay rights. Also wondering why you're disregarding bisexual people from it as well. Except that youre not gay if you dont fuck people of your gender, just like youre not a murderer if you only think about killing people and havent actually killed one. Lets be practical here and not throw around with stupid sentimentalism. Gay is who either admits to being gay or commits gay acts. All other than that is simply speculation and not useful to the discussion. |
Azure719 said: Immahnoob said: And 2011, 2008.Surveys from 1995 and 1994? You can't read, can you? Maybe you should check the parentheses next time. Are you going to contest the fact that anal sex increases the risk for infections? Uhm, no? Unprotected anal sex like any unprotected sex (even vaginal, durr) can give you diseases, and guess what, not all homosexuals actually have anal sex. Tops were accepted, while unmanly bottoms were second class citizens. That's what's interesting. "unmanly bottoms", funnily enough, the tops could have been homosexual too, and manliness has really nothing to do with homosexuality or anything. You did not even continue the promiscuity argument (Which was bull anyway, but who cares), it seems you have no other bullshit to write about it. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Uhm, no? Unprotected anal sex like any unprotected sex (even vaginal, durr) can give you diseases, and guess what, not all homosexuals actually have anal sex. Actually anal sex does raise the risk of catching a disease. If one of the people is infected, the risk of catching said disease from highest to lowest is as follows: Anal > vaginal > oral. Its something I learned a few years ago in school, and no I do not live in a very christian country, neither was the teacher or school christian or anti gay. |
| The truth is, the chances are quite low that you get any STD even if you are unprotected, another truth is that STDs are curable, are not as common as you think they are, and the third and final truth is that gay sex does not necessarily include anal sex. The "risk increase" you're talking about is because of the small lacerations that could happen during anal sex, but these can also happen during vaginal. And let's not forget that fluid exchange can be done through other ways other than blood exchange (considering ejaculation, and the usual fluids). |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: So you admit there's an increased risk? Then we have nothing to discuss here. Vaginal sex can also lead to infections of course (no shit, Sherlock), but the risk isn't as high.Uhm, no? Immahnoob said: But the bottoms were considered unmanly, second class citizens. It all depended on what role the person took."unmanly bottoms", funnily enough, the tops could have been homosexual too, and manliness has really nothing to do with homosexuality or anything. Immahnoob said: I submitted a source which supports my statement, but you're free to dismiss that as well for some bullshit reason.You did not even continue the promiscuity argument (Which was bull anyway, but who cares), it seems you have no other bullshit to write about it. Immahnoob said: I've included bisexuals into my argument, stop lying.Basically this is a study of people who identify with a certain sexuality and is hardly reliable evidence as to why you think there are more gay men than gay women and somehow feel gay women should be disregarded from any conversation on gay rights. Also wondering why you're disregarding bisexual people from it as well. |
| MAL conservatives Please read my new short story. |
baki502 said: This is a joke right? Are you suggesting that it is impossible to have a sexual orientation unless you've actually had sex? Like, virgins don't have a sexual orientation?Except that youre not gay if you dont fuck people of your gender, just like youre not a murderer if you only think about killing people and havent actually killed one. Lets be practical here and not throw around with stupid sentimentalism. Gay is who either admits to being gay or commits gay acts. All other than that is simply speculation and not useful to the discussion. Voluntary response bias (which is what mullhollanddrive was describing) is a very real thing, and anybody who's had an introductory statistics class should be able to point it out in a heartbeat. |
|
JD2411 said: Go be a shit troll somewhere else.Red_Keys said: did you read his post?This is a joke right? Are you suggesting that it is impossible to have a sexual orientation unless you've actually had sex? Like, virgins don't have a sexual orientation? |
|
Red_Keys said: JD2411 said: Go be a shit troll somewhere else.did you read his post? He is right tough. A virgin still knows what his sexual orientation is because he knows what he is attracted to. And if he doesnt then he doesnt have an sexual orientation yet. Might be asexual who knows or just too bloody dumb. Maybe admits to being gay was worded wrong. Knowing is enough. But something like "gays that dont know they are gay yet" doesnt exist. As long as they dont know they are gay or dont commit gay acts they simply arent. |
baki502 said: No, he is not.Red_Keys said: Go be a shit troll somewhere else. He is right tough. A virgin still knows what his sexual orientation is because he knows what he is attracted to. And if he doesnt then he doesnt have an sexual orientation yet. Might be asexual who knows or just too bloody dumb. Maybe admits to being gay was worded wrong. Knowing is enough. But something like "gays that dont know they are gay yet" doesnt exist. As long as they dont know they are gay or dont commit gay acts they simply arent. Being in the closet is a thing. Being sexually repressed is a thing. Being dishonest is a thing. Being ignorant of anything other than heterosexuality because of cultural bias is a thing. Voluntary response bias is a thing. Your post in response to mullhollanddrive's post is quite possibly one of the most unintelligent things I have ever read on this site. I sincerely hope it was a joke. |
|
Red_Keys said: baki502 said: No, he is not.He is right tough. A virgin still knows what his sexual orientation is because he knows what he is attracted to. And if he doesnt then he doesnt have an sexual orientation yet. Might be asexual who knows or just too bloody dumb. Maybe admits to being gay was worded wrong. Knowing is enough. But something like "gays that dont know they are gay yet" doesnt exist. As long as they dont know they are gay or dont commit gay acts they simply arent. Being in the closet is a thing. Being sexually repressed is a thing. Being dishonest is a thing. Being ignorant of anything other than heterosexuality because of cultural bias is a thing. Voluntary response bias is a thing. Your post in response to mullhollanddrive's post is quite possibly one of the most unintelligent things I have ever read on this site. I sincerely hope it was a joke. Its not a joke. I just think nothing of spiritual hokuspokus. Being in the closet is a thing. Yes. Never said otherwise. Its when you know youre gay but you hide it. But when your sexually repressed you are uncounciously repressing what your sexuality could be. Not what your sexuality is currently like. I am a very pragmatic man. Thats why I am not a big fan of theoretical bullshit. Aka he is actually straight but he just doesnt know it yet or the other way around or whatever combination possible. If he isnt aware of being gay then he isnt. Simple as that. It is called sexual orientation. To orient yourself is something you do knowingly. Its not sexual blundering about. |
baki502 said: Except for when you explicitly did.Being in the closet is a thing. Yes. Never said otherwise. baki502 said: You are looking at things from a black and white point of view.But when your sexually repressed you are uncounciously repressing what your sexuality could be. Not what your sexuality is currently like. I am a very pragmatic man. Thats why I am not a big fan of theoretical bullshit. Aka he is actually straight but he just doesnt know it yet or the other way around or whatever combination possible. If he isnt aware of being gay then he isnt. Simple as that. It is called sexual orientation. To orient yourself is something you do knowingly. Its not sexual blundering about. Your sexual orientation is something you are born with. I didn't realize I was bisexual until I learned about the concept of bisexuality, and explored myself sexually. I thought I was straight because I knew I liked girls, and I didn't like just guys, so obviously I wasn't gay. Human concepts of sexuality, the vocabulary associated with it, and the social, personal, and cultural implications of such are only learned if they are actually learned. Also, being in denial is a thing. You do not choose your sexual orientation. It is not a conscious decision. You can be unconscious of it (ignorance is a thing, especially in areas where homophobic ignorance is perpetuated and enforced) and still have it be a part of you. You don't have to know what cancer is to be affected and diagnosed with cancer. |
|
| I'm for it because I want to see more lesbian porn LOL. |
Red_Keys said: baki502 said: Except for when you explicitly did.Being in the closet is a thing. Yes. Never said otherwise. baki502 said: You are looking at things from a black and white point of view.But when your sexually repressed you are uncounciously repressing what your sexuality could be. Not what your sexuality is currently like. I am a very pragmatic man. Thats why I am not a big fan of theoretical bullshit. Aka he is actually straight but he just doesnt know it yet or the other way around or whatever combination possible. If he isnt aware of being gay then he isnt. Simple as that. It is called sexual orientation. To orient yourself is something you do knowingly. Its not sexual blundering about. Your sexual orientation is something you are born with. I didn't realize I was bisexual until I learned about the concept of bisexuality, and explored myself sexually. I thought I was straight because I knew I liked girls, and I didn't like just guys, so obviously I wasn't gay. Human concepts of sexuality, the vocabulary associated with it, and the social, personal, and cultural implications of such are only learned if they are actually learned. Also, being in denial is a thing. You do not choose your sexual orientation. It is not a conscious decision. You can be unconscious of it (ignorance is a thing, especially in areas where homophobic ignorance is perpetuated and enforced) and still have it be a part of you. You don't have to know what cancer is to be affected and diagnosed with cancer. Well I see sexual orientation as something that goes outwards. As in till you reach puberty you dont have one at all. Im not saying it develops in puberty but until then its dormant and just as if it didnt exist. And I take it as such to simplify things. After all you probably forgot the context of the discussion by now. It was about a survey. And for that you simply have to base your study as if those kind of cases didnt exist. The cases you mentioned are useless to a survey. You cant possibly find them out and get their numbers. So better of just taking it as if they didnt exist. Thats why I said I am a pragmatic man. Since you cant do anything with it might as well blend them out. |
Sabylas said: Why would I be against it? You'd have to be a huge douchebag to care about what others do with their life. |
| I'm okay with gay people but the people that preach gay rights I'm against. They're always asking for equal rights but as soon as someone beats their ass they're like " HE BEAT MY ASS CUZ IM GAY". Nah they didn't beat your ass because your gay, they beat your ass because you probably did something to offend them. |
baki502 said: No, I did not forget the context of the discussion.Red_Keys said: Except for when you explicitly did. You are looking at things from a black and white point of view. Your sexual orientation is something you are born with. I didn't realize I was bisexual until I learned about the concept of bisexuality, and explored myself sexually. I thought I was straight because I knew I liked girls, and I didn't like just guys, so obviously I wasn't gay. Human concepts of sexuality, the vocabulary associated with it, and the social, personal, and cultural implications of such are only learned if they are actually learned. Also, being in denial is a thing. You do not choose your sexual orientation. It is not a conscious decision. You can be unconscious of it (ignorance is a thing, especially in areas where homophobic ignorance is perpetuated and enforced) and still have it be a part of you. You don't have to know what cancer is to be affected and diagnosed with cancer. Well I see sexual orientation as something that goes outwards. As in till you reach puberty you dont have one at all. Im not saying it develops in puberty but until then its dormant and just as if it didnt exist. And I take it as such to simplify things. After all you probably forgot the context of the discussion by now. It was about a survey. And for that you simply have to base your study as if those kind of cases didnt exist. The cases you mentioned are useless to a survey. You cant possibly find them out and get their numbers. So better of just taking it as if they didnt exist. Thats why I said I am a pragmatic man. Since you cant do anything with it might as well blend them out. This is all about the study, as any study surrounding the topic of sexual orientation would be, suffering from response bias. You denied that because "Except that youre not gay if you dont fuck people of your gender". And I explained why that is absolute horse shit. You should read up on response bias. It is an actual statistical term. Ignoring the possibility of statistical biases means your data is shit. This is statistics 101. |
|
Azure719 said: Immahnoob said: So you admit there's an increased risk? Then we have nothing to discuss here. Vaginal sex can also lead to infections of course (no shit, Sherlock), but the risk isn't as high.Uhm, no? Actually no, I do not believe that it's an increased risk, I only said what people think happens and why is it an increased risk, and even if there is an increased risk, it does not help your argument as of why homosexuals should not have rights (your primary argument), because I can give you a shitload of examples of "increased risks" that are accepted but can be a lot more bad considering your "logic". But the bottoms were considered unmanly, second class citizens. It all depended on what role the person took. And that's irrelevant, when homosexuality itself was accepted, it's called hypocrisy and ignorance. I submitted a source which supports my statement, but you're free to dismiss that as well for some bullshit reason. No, your source has nothing to do with your argument, it does not speak of promiscuity at all. I've included bisexuals into my argument, stop lying. No, you haven't, you never mentioned bisexuals once in all these posts here, and don't quote like shit, thanks. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Im straight and for it. I don't understand that even today there are those who are dense enough to be against it. usually for some idiotic reason which they can't really explain. I usually hear the excuse "Im against it because it is not what god intended" that or some other BS excuse. And when it comes to it being socially acceptable/Legal to get married as a gay couple and such, I don't think there should even be a discussion about whether or not it should legal, nor about being socially acceptable.. But unfortunately some people are just so narrow minded. But yeah I'm for it all the way! |
Immahnoob said: Then you're just ignorant, because this is a well-known fact. There's a reason why the majority of people with HIV, are men who have sex with other men. Also, that wasn't my primary argument, please learn to read.Actually no, I do not believe that it's an increased risk, I only said what people think happens and why is it an increased risk, and even if there is an increased risk, it does not help your argument as of why homosexuals should not have rights (your primary argument), because I can give you a shitload of examples of "increased risks" that are accepted but can be a lot more bad considering your "logic". http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5338a1.htm http://www.avert.org/men-who-have-sex-men-msm-hiv-aids.htm Immahnoob said: Where's the hypocrisy? I'd say their view on manliness, and what gave a man status, was pretty consistent.And that's irrelevant, when homosexuality itself was accepted, it's called hypocrisy and ignorance. Immahnoob said: Yes it does.No, your source has nothing to do with your argument, it does not speak of promiscuity at all. Immahnoob said: Yes I have, but it's not my problem if you missed that.No, you haven't, you never mentioned bisexuals once in all these posts here, and don't quote like shit, thanks. |
| MAL conservatives Please read my new short story. |
| I am asexual and still a virgin. I don't need sex to know my orientation. |
Veeex said: Im straight and for it. I don't understand that even today there are those who are dense enough to be against it. usually for some idiotic reason which they can't really explain. I usually hear the excuse "Im against it because it is not what god intended" that or some other BS excuse. And when it comes to it being socially acceptable/Legal to get married as a gay couple and such, I don't think there should even be a discussion about whether or not it should legal, nor about being socially acceptable.. But unfortunately some people are just so narrow minded. But yeah I'm for it all the way! Given your condescending and dismissive attitude your assertion that the other side is narrow-minded comes off as rather ironic. |
| Salmon is delicious. |
Malkshake said: I am asexual and still a virgin. I don't need sex to know my orientation. May I ask you something? How did you figure out that you're asexual? |
| your waifu is shit |
IktIkn said: Malkshake said: I am asexual and still a virgin. I don't need sex to know my orientation. May I ask you something? How did you figure out that you're asexual? He noticed anything sexual doesnt get near him, he repells everthing sexual, therfore he is asexual. |
| I'll state the same policy I've always had on the matter. What two or more consented adults do to themselves and each other behind closed doors is their own business. No lolis, no rape, no animals. Straights, gays, trannies, polygamists, and swingers are perfectly fine. |
 |
Azure719 said: Immahnoob said: Then you're just ignorant, because this is a well-known fact. There's a reason why the majority of people with HIV, are men who have sex with other men. Also, that wasn't my primary argument, please learn to read.Actually no, I do not believe that it's an increased risk, I only said what people think happens and why is it an increased risk, and even if there is an increased risk, it does not help your argument as of why homosexuals should not have rights (your primary argument), because I can give you a shitload of examples of "increased risks" that are accepted but can be a lot more bad considering your "logic". http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5338a1.htm http://www.avert.org/men-who-have-sex-men-msm-hiv-aids.htm I didn't consider that "If homosexuals didn't exist..." argument as your primary argument, sorry. I sometimes have faith in people, so generous of me. Anyway, your first article mentions that only 25% did not use protection, and from those 25% it wasn't clarified how many were homosexuals and how many were heterosexuals. and I've already told you that fissures can happen even during vaginal sex too, so ban vaginal sex or just use protection, your choice. Not to mention that the numbers speak for themselves, homosexuals do not necessarily have anal sex while heterosexuals equal the % with their own anal tendencies with almost the same rate of unprotected sex. And funnily enough, they mention how homophobia actually makes it worse in treating HIV, why? Because of the whole stigma, homosexuals and bisexuals do not check themselves out because of it. http://www.aidsmap.com/Undiagnosed-infections-and-poor-retention-in-care-mean-that-few-US-patients-fully-benefit-from-HIV-treatment/page/2160775/ http://www.aidsmap.com/Undiagnosed-infections-and-poor-retention-in-care-mean-that-few-US-patients-fully-benefit-from-HIV-treatment/page/2160775/ There are other numbers there too. Let's not forget that a lot of people do not get themselves checked (18% in USA). Where's the hypocrisy? I'd say their view on manliness, and what gave a man status, was pretty consistent. Might you be an idiot? It's simple, "receiving" or "giving" does not change your sexuality. They were hypocritical and ignorant because they did not believe the "giver" to be less "manly" (they had no term for "homosexual" but we can assess that they meant that the "less manlier" was the homosexual and the "manly" one was "normal") while they were having "gay sex" (hypocrites). It's quite simple. Yes it does. No, it doesn't, quote that part then. Yes I have, but it's not my problem if you missed that. It actually is, considering you did not mention it, you'll have to actually quote it. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Yes, infection can also spread through vaginal sex, we've already established this.Anyway, your first article mentions that only 25% did not use protection, and from those 25% it wasn't clarified how many were homosexuals and how many were heterosexuals. and I've already told you that fissures can happen even during vaginal sex too, so ban vaginal sex or just use protection, your choice. If fewer men were attracted to other men, then there would be less men having sex with other men. Doesn't this make sense? Immahnoob said: Giving or receiving changed your standing in society, not your sexuality. I honestly don't see how it's hypocritical, it wasn't the fact that you had sex with men that lowered your standing, it was taking it in the ass that did.Might you be an idiot? It's simple, "receiving" or "giving" does not change your sexuality. They were hypocritical and ignorant because they did not believe the "giver" to be less "manly" (they had no term for "homosexual" but we can assess that they meant that the "less manlier" was the homosexual and the "manly" one was "normal") while they were having "gay sex" (hypocrites) Immahnoob said: Yes it does, pay attention to the name of it: ''A comparative demographic and sexual profile of older homosexually active men''No, it doesn't, quote that part then. Numbers of partners/frequency of sex. Not unexpectedly, older men had more male sexual partners in their lifetime than younger men, [chi square] (32 df, n = 2573) = 251.09, p [is less than] .00005, but there were no significant age differences in the number of male sexual partners in the six months prior to interview, [chi square] (20 df, n = 2578) = 28.39, p = .10 (confirming Hypothesis 5). Almost three quarters of the older men had either 1 (28.5%) or between 2-10 (44.9%) partners during the preceding 6 months. For the older men, the modal range for number of male sexual partners ever was 101-500 (21.6%); 2.7% had had sex with 1 partner only; and between 10.2% and 15.7% reported having had sex with the number of partners indicated by each of the following ranges: 2-10, 11-20, 21-50, 51-100, 501-1000, or [is greater than] 1000. Immahnoob said: Considering I did mention it, it really isn't. Just google ''Azure719 bisexuals'' and you'll get there.It actually is, considering you did not mention it, you'll have to actually quote it. |
| MAL conservatives Please read my new short story. |
Exaccus said: "Ur close minded cuz u don't hate fags"Veeex said: Im straight and for it. I don't understand that even today there are those who are dense enough to be against it. usually for some idiotic reason which they can't really explain. I usually hear the excuse "Im against it because it is not what god intended" that or some other BS excuse. And when it comes to it being socially acceptable/Legal to get married as a gay couple and such, I don't think there should even be a discussion about whether or not it should legal, nor about being socially acceptable.. But unfortunately some people are just so narrow minded. But yeah I'm for it all the way! Given your condescending and dismissive attitude your assertion that the other side is narrow-minded comes off as rather ironic. Disapproval of bigotry is not "ironic". It's called not being a shitbag. |
|
| I am for gay marriage. The earth is overpopulated anyways, so we don't need that anymore heterosexual people having sex and producing more children. |
Veeex said: Well, the marriage thing is actually one of the few topics on homosexuality that actually has some merit for discussion. Other than that, the title of this topic basically reads "Are you an asshole?"And when it comes to it being socially acceptable/Legal to get married as a gay couple and such, I don't think there should even be a discussion about whether or not it should legal, nor about being socially acceptable.. But unfortunately some people are just so narrow minded. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » People who leave MAL (finish the thought)IpreferEcchi - 8 hours ago |
3 |
by Zarutaku
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» Do you ever miss old/former online friends?pludel2 - Apr 10 |
35 |
by Spunkert
»»
12 minutes ago |
|
» Top 10 most iconic manga creators objectively rankedAlphaMaleScotty - 4 hours ago |
4 |
by Zarutaku
»»
14 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » How will things look in 40 - 50 years?IpreferEcchi - Apr 7 |
35 |
by Spunkert
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» How much of the world is autisticLenRea - Apr 4 |
48 |
by NubFix
»»
2 hours ago |