===================================================
"Likewise, the surgeon general determined that with or without protection, homosexual anal intercourse practice is just too dangerous and therefore not recommended."
But unprotected heterosexual anal intercourse is perfectly safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lesbians generally do not seek conventional healthcare and therefore are a greater health risk."
As do the poor and working class. Deny their rights!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are many other things to consider as well. For example, over one third of homosexuals are substance abusers. "
Yes, the two are directly related, you see. Much like how Harry Potter leads to Satanism. And consequently, higher literacy rates! See children, reading leads you to the thrall of the Devil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Furthermore, they are more likely to suffer from gender identify confusion."
Catholics are more likely to suffer from Acute Grammatical Failure went confronted with uncomfortable topics like sex between two men.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They are also more likely to have mental health conditions such as eating disorders, personality disorders, paranoia, depression and anxiety."
That has nothing to do with the fact that the media bombards them with experts and religionists trying to convince them that their most primitive emotions will condemn them to Hell, lead to AIDS, demolish families, and destroy America and freedom for all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gay relationships are not sexually exclusive, and therefore yield higher chances of being emotionally destructive."
Is that a rule? If you're in a gay relationship, you aren't allowed to be exclusive? Huh. Maybe my understanding of the word "Gay" differs from yours...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Homosexual males and females alternate roles during sexual activity. There are usually no strict ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ roles,” according to research.17 This merely shows that the homosexual identify is confused."
Again? Well at least you're consistent in your messed up grammar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lesbians experience more “fusion” or “embeddedness” within their primary relationships, which occurs more frequent, and in greater intensity the longer the relationship is."
My Gods, do these people not have editors?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The researchers found that each lesbian partner has no solid sense of self."
Lesbians lack sentience! NOOOOOO!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At the same time, there is a problem of competition in the lesbian relationship. The problem occurs when one partner begins to feel that she has become lost in her partner, again a demonstration of “embeddedness.”"
Are you kidding? You've obviously never listened to the Cure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PZcgi4c5XQ
In fact, using those standards, lesbians are downright healthy compared to Cure fans. At least there's an actual person to be lost in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAr_4Fxe6WI
Yeah, the only thing I got out of that is when lesbians do it, it's unhealthy. When straight people do it, it's romantic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Individuals within the relationships are often confused about their personal role within the relationship. Finally, they are indeed unlike heterosexual relationships for many reasons."
No, that's any relationship. Especially in the modern era. Gender roles are being challenged now that women are entering the work force. Turns out they're good for something besides making babies. Who'da thought?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"From these findings and others, it is clear to see that homosexuals are the diametrically opposite of heterosexuals overall."
Oh, good, you've noticed the obvious. At this point, I've given up poking fun at your grammar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For lesbians, domestic violence will be the highlight within the marriage."
I'm gonna go on a limb here and say that lesbians, as a rule, don't look forward to domestic violence, and probably don't consider it a "highlight" of their relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Aggressive behavior is legendary in homosexuality."
Yeah, I remember hearing about that time Perez Hilton punched that huge rapper guy in the face. Wait...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One study compared 75 self-identified heterosexual women with 55 self-identified lesbians who were demographically similar. Twenty-seven percent of heterosexual women reported abuse by their male partners, while 25% of lesbians reported abuse by their female partners. Statistically this is not significant; however, there is a difference between heterosexual women and homosexual women in how frequent their committed partner physically abused them. As the study showed, the level of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships is as high as it is in heterosexual relationships (statistically), but this doesn’t reveal the real factors involved, one being that when it comes to domestic violence, men are overall more violent than women. Therefore, given the gender factor, the statistics should be a lot lower for female dyads compared to heterosexual ones, but as the study showed, they were not. "
Interesting. This might be the closest thing you've raised to a valid point thus far (without having your sources checked out that is). Except...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Another research project found that violence in lesbian dyads appeared to occur at about the same frequency as violence in heterosexual dyads, but the factors that gave rise to the abuse in lesbian dyads was significantly different."
Yay, contradictions!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Given their history, gay men will not stay in monogamous relationships and therefore are not good candidates for marriage. "
Neither do politicians or rockstars. Should we deny them the right to marry?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that was fun. I'm not going to waste my time searching through their research, because quite honestly it isn't worth the time or effort. I really don't care all of that is true. Nor will I dignify this by offering any counter-links (besides the Cure, though I already feel bad for including them in this charade). At the end of the day, its still a fundamental right and an attempt by the state to emphasize one religion over another. What will they do if I decide to hold a religious, non-legal ceremony for a homosexual couple? What are they going to do, stop me? Are legal benefits the only thing they care about? Can't the so-called "negative consequences" of "homosexual marriage" occur just with two homosexuals in a relationship? Are we going to ban homosexuality? Hah! Good luck with that.
Part two is an awesome video. I recommend watching it once before reading. It's called "Why Gay Marriage Is Impossible." Which makes me wonder how the countries which do allow gay marriage are doing it...
"Likewise, the surgeon general determined that with or without protection, homosexual anal intercourse practice is just too dangerous and therefore not recommended."
But unprotected heterosexual anal intercourse is perfectly safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lesbians generally do not seek conventional healthcare and therefore are a greater health risk."
As do the poor and working class. Deny their rights!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are many other things to consider as well. For example, over one third of homosexuals are substance abusers. "
Yes, the two are directly related, you see. Much like how Harry Potter leads to Satanism. And consequently, higher literacy rates! See children, reading leads you to the thrall of the Devil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Furthermore, they are more likely to suffer from gender identify confusion."
Catholics are more likely to suffer from Acute Grammatical Failure went confronted with uncomfortable topics like sex between two men.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They are also more likely to have mental health conditions such as eating disorders, personality disorders, paranoia, depression and anxiety."
That has nothing to do with the fact that the media bombards them with experts and religionists trying to convince them that their most primitive emotions will condemn them to Hell, lead to AIDS, demolish families, and destroy America and freedom for all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gay relationships are not sexually exclusive, and therefore yield higher chances of being emotionally destructive."
Is that a rule? If you're in a gay relationship, you aren't allowed to be exclusive? Huh. Maybe my understanding of the word "Gay" differs from yours...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Homosexual males and females alternate roles during sexual activity. There are usually no strict ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ roles,” according to research.17 This merely shows that the homosexual identify is confused."
Again? Well at least you're consistent in your messed up grammar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lesbians experience more “fusion” or “embeddedness” within their primary relationships, which occurs more frequent, and in greater intensity the longer the relationship is."
My Gods, do these people not have editors?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The researchers found that each lesbian partner has no solid sense of self."
Lesbians lack sentience! NOOOOOO!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At the same time, there is a problem of competition in the lesbian relationship. The problem occurs when one partner begins to feel that she has become lost in her partner, again a demonstration of “embeddedness.”"
Are you kidding? You've obviously never listened to the Cure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PZcgi4c5XQ
In fact, using those standards, lesbians are downright healthy compared to Cure fans. At least there's an actual person to be lost in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAr_4Fxe6WI
Yeah, the only thing I got out of that is when lesbians do it, it's unhealthy. When straight people do it, it's romantic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Individuals within the relationships are often confused about their personal role within the relationship. Finally, they are indeed unlike heterosexual relationships for many reasons."
No, that's any relationship. Especially in the modern era. Gender roles are being challenged now that women are entering the work force. Turns out they're good for something besides making babies. Who'da thought?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"From these findings and others, it is clear to see that homosexuals are the diametrically opposite of heterosexuals overall."
Oh, good, you've noticed the obvious. At this point, I've given up poking fun at your grammar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For lesbians, domestic violence will be the highlight within the marriage."
I'm gonna go on a limb here and say that lesbians, as a rule, don't look forward to domestic violence, and probably don't consider it a "highlight" of their relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Aggressive behavior is legendary in homosexuality."
Yeah, I remember hearing about that time Perez Hilton punched that huge rapper guy in the face. Wait...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One study compared 75 self-identified heterosexual women with 55 self-identified lesbians who were demographically similar. Twenty-seven percent of heterosexual women reported abuse by their male partners, while 25% of lesbians reported abuse by their female partners. Statistically this is not significant; however, there is a difference between heterosexual women and homosexual women in how frequent their committed partner physically abused them. As the study showed, the level of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships is as high as it is in heterosexual relationships (statistically), but this doesn’t reveal the real factors involved, one being that when it comes to domestic violence, men are overall more violent than women. Therefore, given the gender factor, the statistics should be a lot lower for female dyads compared to heterosexual ones, but as the study showed, they were not. "
Interesting. This might be the closest thing you've raised to a valid point thus far (without having your sources checked out that is). Except...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Another research project found that violence in lesbian dyads appeared to occur at about the same frequency as violence in heterosexual dyads, but the factors that gave rise to the abuse in lesbian dyads was significantly different."
Yay, contradictions!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Given their history, gay men will not stay in monogamous relationships and therefore are not good candidates for marriage. "
Neither do politicians or rockstars. Should we deny them the right to marry?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that was fun. I'm not going to waste my time searching through their research, because quite honestly it isn't worth the time or effort. I really don't care all of that is true. Nor will I dignify this by offering any counter-links (besides the Cure, though I already feel bad for including them in this charade). At the end of the day, its still a fundamental right and an attempt by the state to emphasize one religion over another. What will they do if I decide to hold a religious, non-legal ceremony for a homosexual couple? What are they going to do, stop me? Are legal benefits the only thing they care about? Can't the so-called "negative consequences" of "homosexual marriage" occur just with two homosexuals in a relationship? Are we going to ban homosexuality? Hah! Good luck with that.
Part two is an awesome video. I recommend watching it once before reading. It's called "Why Gay Marriage Is Impossible." Which makes me wonder how the countries which do allow gay marriage are doing it...
===================================================
"Hello everyone and welcome to the Vortex, where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed."
Actually your vortex logo was more of a tornado type of vortex, which actually throws things around haphazardly and actually obscures everything that gets sucked up within it because of the massive amounts of detritus it swallows up. And yet, the metaphor is now, probably, more accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"True or false, justice means treating everyone equally? If you answered true, you get the big >.<>Y. The law is "equal" because it is applied to both fairly, so that if the murderer had stolen instead of killed, he would get Y punishment. INEQUALITY is if X penalty is applied to the first person regardless of his crime. It unfairly restricts him and forces him into a punishment mold for something he's not responsible for, judging him as a person rather than judging him for his crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So what is justice? Its giving to each according to his due. It has nothing to do with equality or equal rights."
Ummmm...are you retarded? Equal rights is how we ensure we get what is DUE, as opposed to what is UNDUE. Without equal rights, we can punish and reward anyone for any reason other than what's due to them, or what they deserve. Is punishing someone for being a different race giving them their due? No, but without equal rights, its easy to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Homosexuals CANNOT be married because it is impossible, by nature. There is no such thing as gay marriage. That is why opponents call it 'so-called gay marriage.' "
In terms of "nature," there is no such thing as MARRIAGE. PERIOD. It's an INSTITUTION created BY SOCIETIES. SOCIETIES ARE NOT LIVING ORGANISMS. They are NOT composed of cells and governed by biological CONSTRUCTS. Other animals DO NOT GET MARRIED. Only WE do, when live in GROUPS and have LAWS.
But no, I know exactly where you got this sad line of reasoning. It was a "sacred institution" defined by "God?" And God created "nature?" Those of us that believe not at all in "God" creating "marriage" don't feel the need to be subjected to your spiritual tyranny, please and thanks. I don't believe God created marriage. So there. Next?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And what is it [marriage] about? Sexual union that brings about the next generation."
This just in. The Catholic church wants to ban weddings between infertile couples. Where does this put single parents?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is why every government in every history of the world, even the most simple tribes, regulate marriage. Free love, pairing up with whomever you want for however long you want for essentially whatever reason you want, destroys societies...eventually. A 'do whatever you want' attitude in sexual matters eventually brings societies to their end. Always has. Always will."
Gonna go with "no" on this one. Greece wasn't destroyed because homosexuality was common. It had more to do with the fact that it was a bunch of decentralized city-states with access to very few natural resources, which made it an easy target for invading forces. And despite this, they produced one of the greatest civilizations of all time. We owe modern science to them, including our understanding of physics, rudimentary biology, geometry, and other wonderful mathematical principles. Hell the way we go about learning things is owed to a society run by men who had sex with women and other men and children. Sex had nothing to do with their downfall, and we use their knowledge to this day. The New Testament was first written in Greek!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the western democracies where individual rights are celebrated as the 'highest good possible,' the idea of the 'common good' is obliterated."
Well, I appreciate you for your honesty and openness in your desire to subjugate me and people who think like me, but this just makes me think you don't actually understand how our country came to be. People don't exist to serve governments, governments exist to serve people. Read John Locke, please. His Two Treatises of Government pretty much explains Western Democratic tradition, as he pretty much developed it as we know it to this day, and his social contract theory pretty much proves you're exceedingly ignorant about the country you live in. Don't want gay marriage? Move. We're not going to undo our glorious history so a religiously-inspired Xtian idiot like you gets to have is way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A simple look around shows what happens once families begin to break down. Emotional suffering of children, financial ruin, on and on..."
Yes. And as we all know, heterosexuals never, EVER create dysfunctional families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When it comes to feeling the consequences of our actions, there's something worth noting, and I call it 'the lag factor.' You know, almost always, if you break a physical law of nature, the consequences are virtually immediate. Jumping off a cliff, consuming poison, sticking your hand in the fire...in each of these cases, a physical law is being violated, and sentence is passed immediately."
Not only is it pretty much impossible to break a law of nature, none of the above-mentioned are laws of nature. The Law of Conservation of Energy is a law of nature. Unless you sticking your hand in a fire creates matter or energy from nothing, you aren't violating anything. You're just an idiot. Jumping off a cliff is not a violation of the laws of nature. Gravity is a law of nature. If you jump off a cliff and get stuck in mid air because gravity stops working, a law is broken. Hitting the ground isn't a "consequence" of breaking "the law." It's the law working itself out. I suddenly understand why your people still think "Intelligent Design" deserves a place in science class.
I also like how you said "almost always." I guess every now and then, laws of nature are actually breakable. Fancy that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But when a moral law..."
Moral law? If you mean this as a natural law, there's no such thing as "natural moral law." Morals are also created by societies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...is violated, there is often a lag between crime and punishment. The adulturer, for example,is rarely caught in the act. The murderer often escapes justice for a prolonged period. And so it is with societies when we collectively make immoral choices there is often a time down the road when its too late, that the consequences finally exact their toll."
*sigh*
I was hoping you didn't actually think morality was something "nature" enforced. But you do. Morals are made by people. In the above-mentioned examples, "justice" is distributed by governments. Murderers don't escape because of some imaginary "lag factor" in nature. Murderers escape because they plan to not get caught, and because humans are human and prone to making mistakes, and because investigation takes time. If you really wanna play this game, I'd like to point out that some of the most characterful, colorful, in-your-face serial killers were never caught, and in fact waved their crimes in front of the police. The Zodiac Killer, Jack the Ripper, and others have all escaped "moral law." These laws don't have any effect on society. We were pals with Josef Stalin during World War II, and the man died peacefully in his sleep. Countries with approved homosexual marriage licenses are doing just fine right now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now, little by little, after a sinister marketing and public relations campaign where homosexual activists have gotten many Americans to see their case a matter of 'justice,'..."
How dare they!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...now, courts and legislatures are beginning to grant their sexual liasons the status of legal marriage. They claim this to be a triumph of individual rights. In truth, no right exists. Many people in society do not have the right to marry as they see fit. Marriage is composed of the foundational elements of 'number' and 'gender.' "
Yeah, pointless argument about how eventually we'll regress back to polygamy and bestiality...
1. I'm sure similar arguments were raised when different-race marriage was a big issue.
http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~jkyser1/histrel.html
2. Unless they want a modified contract, I'd argue the polygamy isn't likely to go. Considering how powerful some of the marriage rights are, being able to disseminate them across large groups of people is not a good thing. Spousal privileges to not inform law enforcement about anything relating to their spouse is not something that should be spread to multiple people. But gender has no effect on this.
3. Bestiality? Uhhh dude...dunno if anyone's told you, but animals have no legal standing to sign contracts in the USA...
4. Incest. Seriously?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And perhaps the loudest talking point of all, none of these unions are begetting the next generation and THAT should be the state's primary concern. In the tiny minority that employ a surrogate mother to carry someone else's child to term-not the couple's child mind you-someone else's child, there are often times legal wranglings between the surrogate mothers and the gays explode."
I refer back to my barren partners argument. Oh, and barren couples often employ the same techniques to end up having children that lesbian couples do, so the problems raised are not standard to homosexual marriages, simply marriages where individuals can't give birth. You really wanna crack down on the rights of those who are biologically incapable of producing children by defect?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And in the cases of children raised by gays, who is looking out for the rights of the child? We cannot speak of an all-encompassing right to marry, but we can certainly speak about a much broader right of a child to be raised in a natural home by a mother and a father. The way nature has ORDAINED it to be."
There you go again with your kooky nature God. No, homosexuality is naturally occurring in nature. And considering the number of abusive parents out there in the real world, I'd rather know that a child is in the arms of a loving gay couple rather than being beaten and/or raped by their straight parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No one denies the pain and...differentness...that homosexuals will encounter and struggle with. A compassionate society, and certainly every society can be more compassionate and loving towards all its members, reaches out and helps those in the greatest need, especially when the need is not of their own making."
Logic death. If gays are not responsible for their "differentness" (and your use of that word is what made me want to beat you down with my own two hands) then who do you blame? Your infallible nature-God that made it a law you can't jump off cliffs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest isn't worth mentioning. Fun exercise though.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But when a moral law..."
Moral law? If you mean this as a natural law, there's no such thing as "natural moral law." Morals are also created by societies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...is violated, there is often a lag between crime and punishment. The adulturer, for example,is rarely caught in the act. The murderer often escapes justice for a prolonged period. And so it is with societies when we collectively make immoral choices there is often a time down the road when its too late, that the consequences finally exact their toll."
*sigh*
I was hoping you didn't actually think morality was something "nature" enforced. But you do. Morals are made by people. In the above-mentioned examples, "justice" is distributed by governments. Murderers don't escape because of some imaginary "lag factor" in nature. Murderers escape because they plan to not get caught, and because humans are human and prone to making mistakes, and because investigation takes time. If you really wanna play this game, I'd like to point out that some of the most characterful, colorful, in-your-face serial killers were never caught, and in fact waved their crimes in front of the police. The Zodiac Killer, Jack the Ripper, and others have all escaped "moral law." These laws don't have any effect on society. We were pals with Josef Stalin during World War II, and the man died peacefully in his sleep. Countries with approved homosexual marriage licenses are doing just fine right now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now, little by little, after a sinister marketing and public relations campaign where homosexual activists have gotten many Americans to see their case a matter of 'justice,'..."
How dare they!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...now, courts and legislatures are beginning to grant their sexual liasons the status of legal marriage. They claim this to be a triumph of individual rights. In truth, no right exists. Many people in society do not have the right to marry as they see fit. Marriage is composed of the foundational elements of 'number' and 'gender.' "
Yeah, pointless argument about how eventually we'll regress back to polygamy and bestiality...
1. I'm sure similar arguments were raised when different-race marriage was a big issue.
http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~jkyser1/histrel.html
2. Unless they want a modified contract, I'd argue the polygamy isn't likely to go. Considering how powerful some of the marriage rights are, being able to disseminate them across large groups of people is not a good thing. Spousal privileges to not inform law enforcement about anything relating to their spouse is not something that should be spread to multiple people. But gender has no effect on this.
3. Bestiality? Uhhh dude...dunno if anyone's told you, but animals have no legal standing to sign contracts in the USA...
4. Incest. Seriously?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And perhaps the loudest talking point of all, none of these unions are begetting the next generation and THAT should be the state's primary concern. In the tiny minority that employ a surrogate mother to carry someone else's child to term-not the couple's child mind you-someone else's child, there are often times legal wranglings between the surrogate mothers and the gays explode."
I refer back to my barren partners argument. Oh, and barren couples often employ the same techniques to end up having children that lesbian couples do, so the problems raised are not standard to homosexual marriages, simply marriages where individuals can't give birth. You really wanna crack down on the rights of those who are biologically incapable of producing children by defect?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And in the cases of children raised by gays, who is looking out for the rights of the child? We cannot speak of an all-encompassing right to marry, but we can certainly speak about a much broader right of a child to be raised in a natural home by a mother and a father. The way nature has ORDAINED it to be."
There you go again with your kooky nature God. No, homosexuality is naturally occurring in nature. And considering the number of abusive parents out there in the real world, I'd rather know that a child is in the arms of a loving gay couple rather than being beaten and/or raped by their straight parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No one denies the pain and...differentness...that homosexuals will encounter and struggle with. A compassionate society, and certainly every society can be more compassionate and loving towards all its members, reaches out and helps those in the greatest need, especially when the need is not of their own making."
Logic death. If gays are not responsible for their "differentness" (and your use of that word is what made me want to beat you down with my own two hands) then who do you blame? Your infallible nature-God that made it a law you can't jump off cliffs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest isn't worth mentioning. Fun exercise though.
LOLz, that was a good read man, ever thought of being a journalist?
ReplyDelete