New nation? (I think not)

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

What's really disgusting is the fact that if a homosexual says he can't imagine a "straight" relationship, and he finds the very thought of straight sex repulsive, he's just speaking out, or defending his way of life. But if a straight man says the same thing about a homosexual relationship, he's a bigot or a homophobe. The problem is, everyone's scared to death to say what they think, because of being judged or branded a racist, bigot, etc, by people who can't stop screaming about how we shouldn't brand people or judge them. Everyone wants to be soooo PC. Or they want to appear that way, at least. You never hear about anything they actually do to help these people they supposedly champion the causes of, other than run their mouths. I want to see some of you people march in a gay pride parade in downtown San Fransico. Better yet, I want you to build a f**king float, and stand on it, if you're so gung-ho. That won't happen though, because that requires some form of personal sacrifice. That wouldn't be convenient. It's only convenient to defend people when you have the annonimity of the internet.

How would you know I've never marched at one of the gay rights parades? you don't. And to tell you the truth, I've shown my support for gay rights in real life too, not just on the internet. I've even had death threats due to this. So no offense, but blow it out your ass.

 

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

And I assume your refernence to "entering a foreign country and trying to tell them how to do things, and then abusing their population in all manner of outrageous acts" is pointed at the United States. Because as everyone knows, our biggest allies in the Iraq war, the UK, or British EMPIRE, has never done anything like that. There wouldn't even be a f**king United States if not for the UK's greed, so that comparison is pretty empty, and further pointless and off topic.

The point is, America seperated from the British Empire to escapre "tyranny" and establish a better, more peaceful nation, I think all we did was just become a new empire. And the UK has done a lot to change their ways.

 

kthnxbai.

 

 

 

also, I don't believe I've ever heard a gay person call straight sex disgusting or repulsive, usually they're more open minded. Though I do suppose it could happen, after all they are human too.

[The_One]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

What's really disgusting is the fact that if a homosexual says he can't imagine a "straight" relationship, and he finds the very thought of straight sex repulsive, he's just speaking out, or defending his way of life. But if a straight man says the same thing about a homosexual relationship, he's a bigot or a homophobe. The problem is, everyone's scared to death to say what they think, because of being judged or branded a racist, bigot, etc, by people who can't stop screaming about how we shouldn't brand people or judge them. Everyone wants to be soooo PC. Or they want to appear that way, at least. You never hear about anything they actually do to help these people they supposedly champion the causes of, other than run their mouths. I want to see some of you people march in a gay pride parade in downtown San Fransico. Better yet, I want you to build a f**king float, and stand on it, if you're so gung-ho. That won't happen though, because that requires some form of personal sacrifice. That wouldn't be convenient. It's only convenient to defend people when you have the annonimity of the internet.

 

Well, getting to San Fransisco would be a little problematic given my geographical and financial position. And as Sith said, how the hell do you know I don't stand up for gay rights in the "real world"? You don't have a clue about who I am, or what I do; so don't go round judging people based on a few lines of text. For your personal information I am one of the few to defend homosexuals or other groups subject to prejudices within society. Clearly, because I am granted the "annonimity of the internet" I am forbidden from standing up for those not present to defend themselves. I mean, you seem to be doing your part in sticking up for the other side; do you go to anti-gay marches, per chance? Certainly, if you didn't, you wouldn't be qualified to enter this discussion either, which would render the whole affair redundant.

 

And I assume your refernence to "entering a foreign country and trying to tell them how to do things, and then abusing their population in all manner of outrageous acts" is pointed at the United States. Because as everyone knows, our biggest allies in the Iraq war, the UK, or British EMPIRE, has never done anything like that. There wouldn't even be a f**king United States if not for the UK's greed, so that comparison is pretty empty, and further pointless and off topic.

 

Actually, my "refernence" to "entering a foreign country and trying to tell them how to do things, and then abusing their population in all manner of outrageous acts" was the first thing that came to mind - I could have picked any number of atrocities, sorry I offended you in my choice. If you think I'm some kind of British Patriot, then - yet again - you've got me wrong Freud. Sorry. Incase you hadn't noticed, there is some (questionably) plausible evidence of British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners too, so I wasn't particularly picking on your joyous country. But, hell, if you wanna go there, let's go there! The United States? This is the country where this whole debate is coming from, correct? The issue of gay rights isn't even an issue of significant political debate in this country, neither is abortion for that matter. Your "elected" President has proposed a constitutional amendement which promises to take away rights - I was under the impression that in "the land of the free" all of the constitutional amendments gave people rights (with the possible exception of the 18th, and we saw where that got you) instead of taking them away. I understand how important rights are to you. I mean, you even forgot to put a Bill of Rights in your constitution - clearly way up there on the list of priorities. This is also the country who still had a racially segregated society in the 1960s - even the Soviets mocked you for that. Then, let's not forget the Patriot Act - the absolute epitomy of liberalism, freedom of speech and civil liberties. Sorry, I forgot just how highly the United States valued the rights of its citizens. And now you're planning on taking away gay rights, so much for "the pursuit of happiness."

 

Obviously, in many ways the UK is no better, but at least in the last century our governments haven't gone out of their way to take people's rights away - ok, maybe dear David Blunkett is trying to plug the gap, but even he has limits. I'm f**ked off at the whole world, believe you me, not just the USA - but as the largest power in the world (watch out for China) I really appreciate the standards you're setting. If we all followed your example, well, I don't think words can even describe the pickle we'd be in.

[IG-64]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Patently false. No joke.

 

The genetic distance to rabbits from Homo sapiens is considerably closer than chickens. From H. sapiens to Oryctolagus cuniculus (a species of rabbit) is 33.4%. From H. sapiens to Pan paniscus is 1.7%. The distance from H. sapiens to the order Galliformes (where chickens are) is about a full 3%.

 

To the uneducated eye, 3% might seem small, but within the field of genetics its rather large. These distances were compiled using nucleotide sequencing which you can do on your own at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/

 

Cool, so were closer to rabbits.

[Hiroki]

Well, that explains the rapid breeding we do, then...

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

If a man and a woman, (both virgins, neither are drug using vein tappers, neither have had a blood transfusion, neither were born with AIDS, etc...) have sex, the worse that can happen is the woman becomes pregnant. Now if you have the exact same scenario, but replace the woman with another man, well I don't need to explain the rest, do I?

 

Nope. If a man and a man (both are virgins, neither are drug using vein tappers, neither have had blood transfusion, neither were born with AIDS, etc...) have sex, the worse that could happen is a world with 6 billion + people doesn't end up with 6 billion + 1.

 

The likelihood that either would have fathered children was already being stressed by the sexual orientation of the two.

 

Now the best that could occur is that two people who love one another form a legal union that offers the two the same rights of marriage so that they can share fiscal and health care benefits. That would, in turn, strengthen society, not weaken it, since stable households with duel incomes spend more on capital goods and appliances, pay more taxes, are in better position to adopt children in need of homes, etc., etc.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

How would you know I've never marched at one of the gay rights parades? you don't. And to tell you the truth, I've shown my support for gay rights in real life too, not just on the internet. I've even had death threats due to this. So no offense, but blow it out your ass.

 

You're right, I don't know that you've never marched at a gay parade. But that would've been the oppritune time to say you have, and you didn't. So I guess I DO know, don't I? And no offense taken, chum. So I hope you'll pardon me when I say go f**k yourself.

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

The point is, America seperated from the British Empire to escapre "tyranny" and establish a better, more peaceful nation, I think all we did was just become a new empire. And the UK has done a lot to change their ways.

 

kthnxbai.

 

I agree. Bye.

 

 

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

also, I don't believe I've ever heard a gay person call straight sex disgusting or repulsive, usually they're more open minded. Though I do suppose it could happen, after all they are human too.

 

I have heard that said several times, but it's probably only due to the nature of my work. No, I'm not a male prostitute. I work in a forensic center, which is basically a stopping point between jail and prison/freedom for people deemed incompetent to stand trial. So I've met plenty of homosexuals, and even *GASP* physically and verbally defended them from harm. All I was saying, is that while I don't agree with homosexuality, more over the notion that they have no choice, I don't have a problem with people who engage in it THEMSELVES. It's their business. I just wonder why there's the double standard.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by The_One

Well, getting to San Fransisco would be a little problematic given my geographical and financial position. And as Sith said, how the hell do you know I don't stand up for gay rights in the "real world"? You don't have a clue about who I am, or what I do; so don't go round judging people based on a few lines of text. For your personal information I am one of the few to defend homosexuals or other groups subject to prejudices within society. Clearly, because I am granted the "annonimity of the internet" I am forbidden from standing up for those not present to defend themselves. I mean, you seem to be doing your part in sticking up for the other side; do you go to anti-gay marches, per chance? Certainly, if you didn't, you wouldn't be qualified to enter this discussion either, which would render the whole affair redundant.

 

 

Yes, I'm sure you're a regular Malcom X for the gay community. One of the few, indeed. As for sticking up for the other side, here we go again. I AM NOT ANTI GAY. I don't like the idea of two men having sex, but I do not wish to, nor would I ever, harm a gay person because of their sexuality. Not liking something does not make you are"anti"-*insert any word here*. I don't like onions. But would I go so far as to say I'm "anti-onion"? Of course not. I don't rally against people who eat onions or wish them ill. Maybe I worded something poorly, because people seem to be missing my point. I don't have to like homosexuality. And I can't for the life of me figure out why saying that makes me a monster. I never said I didn't like homosexuals themselves. They're people too, as pointed out earlier. Some are cool, some are not. And btw, this discussion was redundant as soon as the the "post new thread" button was pushed.

 

 

Originally posted by The_One

Actually, my "refernence" to "entering a foreign country and trying to tell them how to do things, and then abusing their population in all manner of outrageous acts" was the first thing that came to mind - I could have picked any number of atrocities, sorry I offended you in my choice. If you think I'm some kind of British Patriot, then - yet again - you've got me wrong Freud. Sorry. Incase you hadn't noticed, there is some (questionably) plausible evidence of British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners too, so I wasn't particularly picking on your joyous country. But, hell, if you wanna go there, let's go there! The United States? This is the country where this whole debate is coming from, correct? The issue of gay rights isn't even an issue of significant political debate in this country, neither is abortion for that matter. Your "elected" President has proposed a constitutional amendement which promises to take away rights - I was under the impression that in "the land of the free" all of the constitutional amendments gave people rights (with the possible exception of the 18th, and we saw where that got you) instead of taking them away. I understand how important rights are to you. I mean, you even forgot to put a Bill of Rights in your constitution - clearly way up there on the list of priorities. This is also the country who still had a racially segregated society in the 1960s - even the Soviets mocked you for that. Then, let's not forget the Patriot Act - the absolute epitomy of liberalism, freedom of speech and civil liberties. Sorry, I forgot just how highly the United States valued the rights of its citizens. And now you're planning on taking away gay rights, so much for "the pursuit of happiness."

 

NO! You've discovered my master plan to take away gay rights! And the Soviets mocked me in the 60s? Even before I was born? Wow, word must get around when everyone thinks you're an asshole. And what do the Soviets have? Four? Maybe five black people? And they're mocking someone for segregation? How noble, and comically genius of them. Oh, and I may be wrong but...no Bill of Rights? I'm pretty sure that was written with the Declaration of Independence, before the constitution was written. What that has to do with anything, I'm not really sure. But you brought it up, so maybe you'll understand. I'm just relieved to see you're not a Euro Snoot, going on and on about the Evil Satan America, when you need to be cleaning your own back yard. That was refreshing, to say the least.

 

Originally posted by The_One

Obviously, in many ways the UK is no better, but at least in the last century our governments haven't gone out of their way to take people's rights away - ok, maybe dear David Blunkett is trying to plug the gap, but even he has limits. I'm f**ked off at the whole world, believe you me, not just the USA - but as the largest power in the world (watch out for China) I really appreciate the standards you're setting. If we all followed your example, well, I don't think words can even describe the pickle we'd be in.

 

The difference between you and I, other than the obvious ones (I'm smart, attractive, funny etc...j/k) is that I'm not trying to be so self important as to try and "set standards" or have someone "follow my example". I form my own ideas, and do not have the want or need to appear PC, or have my opinions approved by the public at large. And I also don't wish for anyone to subscribe to my way of thinking, or even take it all that seriously. That doesn't make my ideas better than yours, just different. This is an internet chat board. We're not changing the world here, Ghandi.

 

In closing, I'd like to say a final time, that while I don't like the idea of two men having sex, I do not hate homosexuals. Hate is a pretty strong word, which I usually reserve for important things in my life, such as onions on a cheeseburger. Telling me that you think I that I have to like the idea of men having sex with each other, or I'm a hate mongerer, IMHO, proves who is really doing the judging here.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Nope. If a man and a man (both are virgins, neither are drug using vein tappers, neither have had blood transfusion, neither were born with AIDS, etc...) have sex, the worse that could happen is a world with 6 billion + people doesn't end up with 6 billion + 1.

 

I agree, that is cool. The world is overpopulated, and I'm not excluding myself or you from the count. But are you saying that two men engaging in penis-anal penetration will not result in the possibility of an HIV infection in one or both of them? Because I would think that would be the worst that could happen. Maybe I'm wrong. It's happened before.

[SkinWalker]

Two men who have had the identical sex lives and lifestyles of the heterosexual couple you mentioned would not be at risk of HIV infection. They simply wouldn't have been exposed to the virus. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more or less promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts, therefore the risks of sexually transmitted contagion would be typically the same between populations.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Two men who have had the identical sex lives and lifestyles of the heterosexual couple you mentioned would not be at risk of HIV infection. They simply wouldn't have been exposed to the virus. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more or less promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts, therefore the risks of sexually transmitted contagion would be typically the same between populations.

 

So having sex with a man will not create the virus alone?! Holy Crap! I may have to rethink this whole gay thing and come on out (j/k). Where did you come up with this?

 

Oh, and btw I never said I thought gays were any more or less promiscuous. Just want to make my words clear.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

Oh, and btw I never said I thought gays were any more or less promiscuous. Just want to make my words clear.

 

What you said was:

 

If a man and a woman, (both virgins, neither are drug using vein tappers, neither have had a blood transfusion, neither were born with AIDS, etc...) have sex, the worse that can happen is the woman becomes pregnant. Now if you have the exact same scenario, but replace the woman with another man, well I don't need to explain the rest, do I?

 

My reply above was in regard to this.

[The_One]

I'm about to go into school, so I'll offer a proper reply later, but am I correct in assuming that the AIDS virus started because some guy had intercourse with a monkey? That doesn't have anything to with gays now, does it?

 

I may be completely wrong, but the fact is that AIDS exists in millions of people from all kinds of different sexual orientations. If gays didn't have sex, it's not like the virus is going to disappear over night. And besides, the current plans in the USA are designed to stop gay marriage, they haven't tried to stop gay sex yet

[CapNColostomy]

I'm not asking about or trying to debate the origins of HIV or the AIDS virus. What I'm asking is a simple yes or no question. No profanities, or smartass attitudes are needed. Yes. Or No. Is it possible for two gay men to give themselves HIV, who have not done anything other than have sex with each other ie shared needles, recieved blood, etc? Enlighten me, because maybe I've always read and been told wrong. And obviously if gays stop having sex, the virus won't go away overnight. If EVERYONE stopped having sex, the virus wouldn't go away overnight. That's not my point. Jeez.

[GonkH8er]

Originally posted by The_One

I'm about to go into school, so I'll offer a proper reply later, but am I correct in assuming that the AIDS virus started because some guy had intercourse with a monkey? That doesn't have anything to with gays now, does it?

 

I may be completely wrong, but the fact is that AIDS exists in millions of people from all kinds of different sexual orientations. If gays didn't have sex, it's not like the virus is going to disappear over night. And besides, the current plans in the USA are designed to stop gay marriage, they haven't tried to stop gay sex yet

 

HIV isnt just an STD... its transmitted through pretty much all bodily fluids. Drink a litre of saliva from someone with HIV and youll probably get it.

 

There was probably a point where HIV changed from a simian virus to a human virus. It was probably at this point that a hunter was out, killed a monkey, monkey blood touched his blood, maybe through a cut. He then passed it on, etc. Viruses mutate and change all the time. That's why we get new strains of flu all the time.

 

Same thing happened with ebola. Came from monkeys. Now it affects humans.

 

And there's nothing about being gay that makes you more susceptible to the aids virus. The fact that it's more prevalent / more of an issue in the gay community is due to the fact that a lot of gay men choose not to wear condoms, because 1/2 the reason condoms exist doesnt apply to them (you cant have an anal baby).

 

 

Oh, and they have tried to outlaw homosexual intercourse. In fact, sodomy, as it is known, is illegal in a few american states.

[Sivy]

in order to become HIV positive you have to have sex or share blood with someone who already is HIV positive. aids is an illness that developes in someone who's HIV positive.

 

if two people who are HIV negative have sex or share blood then theres no way they can become HIV positive and contract aids.

 

no one knows where the virus came from, 'the man having sex with a monkey' theory is a just a theory.

[GonkH8er]

Originally posted by Siv

in order to become HIV positive you have to have sex or share blood with someone who already is HIV positive. aids is an illness that developes in someone who's HIV positive.

 

if two people who are HIV negative have sex or share blood then theres no way they can become HIV positive and contract aids.

 

no one knows where the virus came from, 'the man having sex with a monkey' theory is a just a theory.

 

There's strong evidence to suggest it orginated in other primates. It's pretty damn obvious it came from the heart of the african jungles anyway.

[Kale Jerre]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

What I'm asking is a simple yes or no question. No profanities, or smartass attitudes are needed. Yes. Or No. Is it possible for two gay men to give themselves HIV, who have not done anything other than have sex with each other ie shared needles, recieved blood, etc?

 

No.

 

 

 

If there has been one positive thing to come out of this thread, it's that SkinWalker will get my write-in vote for President this fall. He's articulate, honest and level-headed (not resorting to f*ck yous, etc. when he disagrees with you), which is more than I can say for any candidate so far.

[Sivy]

Originally posted by GonkH8er

There's strong evidence to suggest it orginated in other primates. It's pretty damn obvious it came from the heart of the african jungles anyway.

 

oh yeah, unless you buy the 'man-made' theory or the 'came from outer space' theory

 

i was just responding to the_one's post...

 

but am I correct in assuming that the AIDS virus started because some guy had intercourse with a monkey?

 

but you posted as i was posting otherwise i would have quoted.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by Kale Jerre

No.

 

Thank you. That was like pulling teeth.

[Astrotoy7]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

....I don't like onions. But would I go so far as to say I'm "anti-onion"? Of course not....

 

damn you ! onion hater ! onions have their rights too.....

 

as for men, I like the idea of buff guys rubbing baby oil into each others abs, is that bad.......

 

mtfbwya

[Kale Jerre]

Originally posted by Astrotoy7

as for men, I like the idea of buff guys rubbing baby oil into each others abs, is that bad.......

 

For many people, yes, this is bad regardless of whether you are a man or a woman since 2 men are touching each other in an intimate fashion.

 

*Spanks Astrotoy7* Oops, that's bad, too.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Astrotoy7

I like the idea of buff guys rubbing baby oil into each others abs, is that bad.......

not at all. *pulls out oil and rubs it on astro. ^_^

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

You're right, I don't know that you've never marched at a gay parade. But that would've been the oppritune time to say you have, and you didn't. So I guess I DO know, don't I?

Well, I wasn't going to lie and say I've been to San Fransisco. But I have participated in local gay pride events, even a few parades, and sit-outs.

[Astrotoy7]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

not at all. *pulls out oil and rubs it on astro. ^_^

 

 

Now, if we could only get the CapN to join in, then we'd get some hot forum ab-rubbing action goin on sailor.....

 

mtfbwya

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Astrotoy7

Now, if we could only get the CapN to join in, then we'd get some hot forum ab-rubbing action goin on sailor.....

 

Oh I see how it is, I make a few comments about how I know Johnny Depp is an attractive man and I get PM's questioning my sanity, but it's okay for you two to oil each other up for man seks.

 

 

Where is the justice?