Daggah

Actually, it isn't just the people who enjoy recreational sex who are too smart for the Religious Reich's propaganda...I'm 20, but I'm not sexually active.

Doesn't stop me from taking a more reasonable, less dogmatic view on sex and pleasure though.

Kimpatsu

Good for you, Daggah, but I recommend getting active immediately.
It's fun.

dk

1. dk: You can say what you want. I have not idea what “this addresses” because all see standing is my comment.
   Jinto: Which does not adress the paragraph it was written in response to.
   dk: Unless you bring the comment forward in the thread I can’t know what you meant to address, so I can’t possibly comment. .
2. dk: Gay people and gay culture are two distinct things, your comment remains a non-sequitur, even when you talk out of the other side of your face, two face.
   Jinto: Oh, ad hominem. How original
   dk: Your comment remains a non-sequitur, there’s nothing ad hominem about syntax or context.
3. Jinto: And make up your mind already, is "gay people" and "gay culture" related or not?
   dk: Related but not equivalent.
4. dk: You have every right to your personal opinion and I’m happy to hear it. I see no evidence that gays culture supports monogamy, and a great deal of evidence that shows gay culture promotes anonymous promiscuity. Unless gays make some effort to clean up their culture I don’t see any reason to think them sincere, and their scandalous history leaves me skeptical. But I’d love to see a honest effort by gays to clean up their communities and culture.
   Jinto: dk, again, make up your mind: are "gay people" and "gay culture" the same thing or not?
   dk: Gay culture values anonymous promiscuous sex, then gay people die from it. Show a little integrity, please.

1. Jinto: Yeah, sure. Go look here. In fact, why don't you look at the rest of the website this time. Meanwhile, let me direct you to the relevant information:
   : 46,000 kids are adopted from public child welfare agencies yearly.
   In the six months between Oct. 1, 1998 and March 31, 1999, 143,000 kids entered foster care.
   Any increase in the former number, no matter how small, will be incredibly useful.
   dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about, Who adopted these kids, married couples, grandparents, foster parents....? What happened to the kids biological parents? How long and $much did it take to adapt these kid? How many failed adoptions were there? These numbers say nothing, tell no story, are disconnected from the issue, and have no context.
2. Jinto: So then are you suggesting that I adopt a child and save him/her from the misfortune of that system? What an excellent idea. Oh wait, you think gay people should be prohibited from adopting. Nevermind.
   dk: I’m saying most kids in the system are unavailable for adoption, most are placed with blood relatives.
3. dk: I submit, empathy hemorrhages from the guilt people feel when they commit themselves to a lie.
   Jinto: So all people with empathy are liars then? Nice ad hominem, you're really getting good at them.
   dk: I meant empathy alone, is not substantial or always positive. For example, a person with great empathy for a dog, might swerve their car swerve to miss the dog, only to kill an entire family in a head on collision.
4. dk: The nuclear family is an archetype that cuts gay marriage out by definition. So you’d have to paraphrase, “There's reason to believe "If the family was stable adoption would be unnecessary." The problem is, the family isn't stable”
   Jinto: Uh... that's what I said.
   dk: No, you misrepresented the gay x-family with the nuclear families.
5. dk: Agree that would be a substantial PGM argument, if you could support it. But I’d respond with stare decisis, abuse of judicial review, judicial legislation, violation of triad checks and balances, and ill defined penumbra. Until the Supreme Courts actually violates the constitution to order gay marriage your argument can’t be supported. This has already been touched upon with Hawaii and Vermont G&L unions
   Jinto: You are arguing now that Gay marriage violates the constitution? Hahahaha... oh wait, you're serious.
   dk: Not only did I argue it, but argued it substantively.
6. Jinto: This is a hyperlink. You click on it to go to the webpage it references.
   dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about, and pointing to this website is a fallacies attempt at misdirection. Please address your responses directly to what I post.

dk: The archetype of Western and Eastern Civilization is the nuclear family. All the other civilizations that ever existed are ruined. Either offer evidence to contradict my statement, or accept it. After you’ve accepted it, then consider its weight, scope magnitude and implications. All the are other civilizations are dead, reduced to relics and ruins. It’s plausible that Western Civilization will be the first and only exception, otherwise we are talking Armageddon. So by the numbers
Jinto: Untrue. Not only is the extended family the standard archetype for the Japanese civilization (a very successful civilization, hell they were actually able to threaten the almighty U.S.), but its actually making a comeback - See here. Nuclear family is an archetype of all civilizations indeed. Next you'll be telling me that the U.S. is a Christian nation.
dk: The extended family follows the form of the nuclear family, get a brain.

1. dk: Fallacious Illicit Major. Gay marriage means a changes in criminal , family courts, and civil law, billions in 401K plans,,,, etc,,,,
   Jinto: Uh... no. You're confusing your paranoia with fact again.
   dk: So you content that gay marriage can be legitimized absent an act of law? Absurd
2. Jinto: No, gays are NOT free to marry like everyone else. That's why we're upset. Geez... you spend 11 pages debating an issue only to say "well, that can already happen, can't it?" I... don't have any idea how you can possibly be this obtuse.
   dk: Follow me hinto, gays can marry like every else, any woman that agrees.
3. dk: Cloning’s illegal and immoral. Gays can’t make babies
   Jinto: Ugh... I give a speech about how the constants of society will remain constant regardless of minor changes, and you completely and utterly miss the point. And by the way: do you automatically assume that anything that goes against the status quo is immoral? Wait a minute, of course you do, how silly of me.
   dk: The logic is fallacious. Interracial Marriage was colloquial not universal. Interracial, interfaith, and inter-cultural marriage take their form and structure from the nuclear family. Gay marriage and inter-specie marriage take other forms altogether, from what I’ve described as the x-family.
4. dk: Really, why not just change you mind on gay marriage, are you afraid?
   Jinto: Can you even respond to one of my arguments without deliberately misinterpreting it?
   dk: My proposition was no more fallacious than yours, and they were both fallacious.
5. dk: First the universal archetype of Civilization has no connection with interracial marriage. Second, Fallacy of the undistributed middle: what people thought about interracial marriage, inter religious marriage, x-national marriage,,,, 75 years ago has no connection to the case (for or) against gay marriage today.
   Jinto: That didn't keep peole from saying it did, just as the fact that universal archetypes have precisely nothing to do with gay marriage doesn't keep you from repeating it over and over again. Second, I'm showing that humanity has had a pattern of refusing to change based on the assumption that since every civilization before has followed a given pattern (whether this premise is actually true in a given situation being beside the point) that that pattern must be followed for civilization to be followed, which is an invalid argument to begin with. But, in addition to this argument being invalid, it has also been empirically falsified in every single case where it has been made throughout history, so why should this invalid argument be true now when it has failed every other time?
   dk: I have no idea in what sense you mean humanity, but to assert a change to group A, justifies a change to group B is unjustified, unless Group A implies Group B. Interracial marriage doesn’t imply same sex marriage; anymore than same sex marriage implies inter-species marriage because the forms are fundamentally different.

dk: What astonishes me is the number of fallacious statements you packed into a single paragraph.
Jinto: What astonishes me is that you can somehow see fallacies in the writings of everyone except yourself. A case of projection, perhaps?
dk: Its not enough to call a foul, you’ve got to explain and tag the foul specifically. Imagine a basketball referee that called a fouls but never explained which player committed the foul. Whin you call a slippery slope foul, then you’re oblige to explain, “A does not necessarily lead to B, C, D,,,”. If you call a non sequitur you’ve got to explain, “statement A is a {truism, tautology or circular} because ......

1. dk: I have nothing to say about infertility, except the number one cause is stds spread by promiscuous sex
   Jinto: In other words, my hypothesis is correct: you don't actually care about whether a marriage produces children, you just don't like gay marriage because it's gay.
   dk: I have no idea what connects your hypothesis to my statement. I don’t like stds. I think children bless a marriage. Gay marriage is a mockery of marriage. How in the world can such opinions be construed to mean “I don’t care”?
2. dk: I’ve told you several times, gays take other people’s children because gay’s are sterile. Every law that empowers the courts to break the bonds between a mother, father, husband, wife and children without a finding of guilt weakens the nuclear family. Gay marriage fundamentally changes the nuclear family archetype to the xfamily archetype, thus the nuclear family archetype ceases to exist as the basis of law, and the xfamily archetype becomes the basic unit of the nation
   Jinto: Let's do an experiment: imagine a gay person who marries because they actually want to marry, is NOT promiscuous, and does not have or adopt children. My hypothesis is that you will not be capable of imagining such an entity because this conflicts with your stereotype of gay people as fundamentally "bad." Do this for me dk, and don't lie about the result of this experiment either, I really want to see if you are capable of imagining such an entity.
   dk: I imagine the marriage would be a mockery. Experiment all you want, but I don’t fit into homophobic straight jacket. Even if an extra special Gays couple were granted a marriage license, it would still be a mock marriage. Men have undergone "sex change operations" to become a bride. They got married with all the legal trappings. The marriage is called a fraudulent. I don't have to imagine it, it happens.
3. dk: Call it what you want, but keep your hands off my family. You, gays leaders, State & Federal Government have no legitimate power to dissolve the nuclear family. I have a duty to protect the sanctity of my family by any and all means necessary
   Jinto: Further evidence that you are operating from paranoia.
   dk: So you don’t believe gay marriage has a chance of becoming the law of the land? .
4. dk: I didn’t imply anything, except whatever is necessary.
   Jinto: And apparently, you feel threatening to kill those who disagree with your political viewpoints is necessary.
   dk: A response proportional to the threat being posed in my world means justice. Gay marriage posses a eminent and deadly threat to civilization, so I’d call it prudent, even due diligence as opposed to paranoid.
5. dk: I’m afraid of my own rage, its not an emotion easily controlled or directed.
   Jinto: Mental hospital. Now.
   dk: and no matter how strong my desire to protect my family, I’d still be morally obliged to control and direct my urges. I really think gay marriage would culminate in what could can only be described as a civil war. Its a substantive factor.
6. dk: I understand what you want, you want the children of other people, and you want whatever benefits for yourself marriage can bring.
   Jinto: Paranoia
   dk: Given the duplicitous perverted conduct of gays I’d argue for prudence . There’s no doubt this is an emotionally charged issue that humanizes people divisively.

1. dk: Margaret Sanger for one used the term, also a cancerous growth, glob of cells, and a parasite. Dehumanization is nothing more than cutting a group out of one’s moral universe. I can’t understand homosexuality anymore than I can understand someone that sexually abuses a child. I don’t have a problem with homosexuality until they as a group mess with kids. I know this, a father wants his son to be like him in everything he loves where love does no harm.
   Jinto: Get is through your head: homosexuality != pedophilia. Homosexuality is nowhere near pedophilia.
   dk: You’re talking to yourself again, nothing I said relates to pedophilia. Hey, do you think Kinsey’s sexual experiments on prepubescent kids were pedophilia? Why are women pedophile’s rare? Why are women rapists rare? Are their gay rapists? Are there lesbian rapists?
2. dk: I specifically reference post pubescent kids to avoid the pedophilia. . The stories hypothetical, and important to emphasize as hypothetical because such stories breed homophobia. That said it happen more frequently than anyone likes to admit.
   Jinto: In other words, you're making up stories to justify your irational beliefs.
   dk: This whole discussion’s about a hypothetical, gay marriage.
3. Jinto: Dude, I was joking before, but upon reading your last two posts, I really do think that you are suffering from a mental disorder. Now, I can't compel you to see a psychiatrist, but I do ask that you do so voluntarily, for your own sake, and for others.
   dk: I appreciate your concern, but my bailiwick and hostility regards gays marriage, not gay people.

dk

How do you know? Maybe people use them wrong, Maybe the passion overcame them? Maybe they use them for anonymous sex? Maybe they got high and forgot? Whatever the reasons promiscuous sex isn't safe, so "safe sex" is a misnomer. Where the rubber meets the road, stds are spread by promiscuos sex and condoms have nothing to do with it!!!!

I didn't say condoms "can't" prevent stds. Condoms work great in controlled studies, but they don't make sex safe in the real world.

I didn't say recreational sex, but promiscuous sex.

I didn't say anything about religious.

Whay you need to ask yourself Kimpatsu, is why you feel compelled to make fallacious arguments.

I think its because you're committed to a lie.

dk

Promiscuous sex spreads stds, it has nothing to do with religion or condoms. Daggah, you should have learned in school that religous people deserve respect like everyone else. Clearly YOU've been indoctrinated by people hostile to religion. Can you tell even tell me who indoctrinated you?

dk

When are we going to get a rebate on the $30+bill/year spent on stds for the last 20 years. Condoms have made sex safe, Extra Extra Read all about it.

Kimpatsu

What a load of rubbish. Where did you study medicine?
Oh, you didn't... you're not interested in fact, just your dogma.
Yes they do.
Promiscuity is great fun. You should try it. Then maybe you'd shed your anal retentive crap.
You didn't need to. Your arguments gave you away.
Such as? Cite one example. Just one. Go on, I dare you.

dk

dk: The psychological term for promiscuous sex,,, is Risky Sexual Behavior (RSB). see http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...=UTF-8</a></a> ;

More to the point, the CDC says, “Resurgent Risk Behaviors, Increased STD Rates: Researchers at the conference released several new studies confirming reports of increased STD risk behaviors and infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) in certain U.S. cities. Several researchers noted that STD increases among MSM might be due to increased risky sexual behavior following the success of anti-retroviral therapy for treating HIV/AIDS and the perception that HIV is no longer a serious problem. Many researchers also called for new and effective approaches to prevent STDs among MSM. Following are summaries of key studies presented at the conference:”- Resurgent Risk Behaviors, Increased STD Rates -

dk: I didn't say condoms "can't" prevent stds. Condoms work great in controlled studies, but they don't make sex safe in the real world.
Kimpatsu: Yes they do.
dk: I friend once approached me with a sobering question, “Why don’t people use condoms”. I told him, “It’s like most drunk drivers, sober they can't drive drunk, but when they drink the impulse to drive sometimes overwhelms them. ”.

dk: I didn't say recreational sex, but promiscuous sex.
Kimpatsu: Promiscuity is great fun. You should try it. Then maybe you'd shed your anal retentive crap.
dk: Some people swear driving high, intravenous drug use and promiscuous sex are great fun. But they are assholes you don’t want teaching your kids about driving drunk, drugs, or sex.

dk: I didn't say anything about religious.
Kimpatsu: You didn't need to. Your arguments gave you away.
dk: You mean like big noses give kikes away or dark skin gives niggers away. .

dk: What you need to ask yourself Kimpatsu, is why you feel compelled to make fallacious arguments.
Kimpatsu: I think its because you're committed to a lie.
Such as? Cite one example. Just one. Go on, I dare you.
dk: One.... You’re committed to the glory of promiscuous sex under the auspices of “safe sex” doctrines.

Salmon of Doubt

dk, I have some questions I would like you to answer.

When you talk about someone 'messing' with kids, or with your family, what do you mean by it? Are you talking only about paedophilia, or adoption as well? Because, I got to tell you, gay people are not going to lead a raid on your house and try to steal your children. And gay marriage is not going to devalue your family, unless you yourself value your own family for all the wrong reasons. Feel free to personally dislike the idea of gay families, but it has no bearing on your own family. Gay people adopt kids who have been abandoned by their own families, and have nowhere else to go. Unless you put your kids up for adoption, gays will have nothing to do with them! "Wanting the children of other people" is an emotionally laden statement that has nothing to do with the reality. do you condem straight couples who adopt for wanting other people's children?

Could you please answer me why it is you feel your family is threatened by gay people adopting children and getting married? Without reference to people stealing your children or paedophilia please, as we have already pointed out that it is totally seperate from homosexuality.

Are you afraid that someone will make your child gay?

I also would like to to answer a question you must have overlooked before about lesbians: Why are you less vocal on this subject? Is this because there is no disease record to condemn us with? No biblical verses? Or that you feel no personal disgust at the idea?

And incidentally, condoms do work in real life, when the sex education is there to back them up. See studies on the Netherlands and other European countries for further evidence. Condoms fail when abstinence is preached at the same time, as people don't know how to use them, or thre is social stigma attached to their use.

As for cutting paternal or maternal bonds, gay marriage no more does this than single parenting. Therefore if single parenting is legal, there is no grounds for forcing gay marriage to remain illegal on those grounds.

and yguy...
Ok, so maybe you don't hate me. But you do advocate denying me rights that you currently enjoy. Advocacy of that kind of discrimination indicates to me that even if you don't hate me as a person, you do hate one of the groups I belong to, otherwise you would support my rights. And if you hate one of the groups I am part of, that I didn't choose to be, I'm sure you can understand why I see that hate extending to myself as a person.

Not at all, you helped us out a lot. But that doesn't mean it has any bearing whatsoever on things today. What pisses me off is not that America supported us, but that Americans today use it to try and make us feel guilty for not supporting everything they say and do. There's no point to it, and it doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Well actually, what it implies is that I am trying to be honest. I can't categorically deny an emotion that has been pointed out to me that I might be unaware of. I can say it with a high degree of certainty though.

Oh, sorry, I was talking about my straight friends.

The issue is not over whether we can hide or not, it's whether we should have to. Keeping gay marriage illegal is no less discrimination as making black marriage or interracial marriage illegal. Society did not crumble when blacks could vote, marry, whatever, and I see no reason why it should crumble now. You are just avoiding the issue with this statement.

Daggah

Screw it. The flaws in dk's logic are obvious to anyone with at least half of their brain cells functioning. I'm not going to continue this.