|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 52 of 293:
| 
Dec 5 20:47 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 53 of 293:
|
Dec 5 20:55 UTC 2003 |
Wow. How come I never get spam advertising videos of *that*?
|
klg
|
|
response 54 of 293:
|
Dec 5 20:55 UTC 2003 |
So what figures have you to present, Mr. gull?
re: "#49 (johnnie): Sorry, klg, but the idea that gays in committed
relationships are significantly more promiscuous than their "single"
brethren makes no sense whatsoever"
What, then, would it mean to be in a "committed relationship" if not
exclusivity?? (Call us old-fashioned.)
|
gull
|
|
response 55 of 293:
|
Dec 5 22:10 UTC 2003 |
Okay, taking a closer look at resp:38.
First off, MassNews appears to be a right-wing news site. This is about
as credible as me quoting Michael Moore to support an argument. The
fact that this was an "exclusive to MassNews" instead of a story from a
mainstream source should be a big warning sign right from the start.
Your second quote does not give the sample size or how the sample was
gathered. That makes the numbers meaningless. Obviously the writer
wants to imply that there were only 156 gay couples in lasting
relationships in the entire known universe, but in reality we don't
know. No percentage is given, either. Is that 312 people (156 * 2) out
of 500? 1000? 10,000? The information is suspiciously lacking, probably
because it doesn't support the writer's argument.
The third quote from the article that you cite, from the gay magazine
Genre, also does not give any information about how the sample was
taken. If it was a sample of their readership, that's unlikely to be
representative; your sexual orientation has to be a pretty big part of
your lifestyle before you start subscribing to magazines about it.
Also, the article does not support your suggestion that the "115
contacts" were with different people. It says "the average number of
homosexual contacts per person." While the article writer clearly wants
us to assume that this implies 115 different people, nothing in the
quote supports that conclusion. It's hardly shocking that someone in a
committed relationship would have more sex than someone who is single --
especially given the note later in the article that the average Canadian
has sex ("sexual contacts", if you will) 102 times per year. That
suggests that homosexuals in committed relationships are having 12% more
sex than average, hardly shocking.
|
richard
|
|
response 56 of 293:
|
Dec 6 02:48 UTC 2003 |
#34 is exactly right. I think klg is not a conservative, because he is overly
concerned with legislating other people's lives and telling other people what
they can and cannot do. That makes klg more like a communist than a true
conservative. klg doesn't want people to lead their own lives, because only
klg KNOWS what is right for their personal lives. Gays and lesbians who are
in love and have made a life commitment to someone else, shouldn't be allowed
to get married-- in klg's view-- because klg knows better how to lead their
lives than they do. Sheesh.
|
twenex
|
|
response 57 of 293:
|
Dec 6 10:10 UTC 2003 |
Figures != truth. HMG (Her Majesty's Government)
currently estimates that *upto* five thousand
people a year die from "superbugs" contracted
whilst in hospital which are resistant to
antibiotics. Independent research suggest the
number may be closer to *at least* twenty
thousand. Since HMG also claims that the *total*
number of people who are infected with superbugs
is 100,000 a year, unless the independent
statistics have higher figures on the total
number of infections (i.e. those who are infected
and die, and those who are infected but
recover), that's eithe one hell of a discrepancy,
or one hell of a large proportion of the total
*and* a large discrepancy.
(The discrepancy arises because the methods of
recrding death certificates are not sufficiently
rigorous to record every case of death which was
*not* the direct result of infection with a
superbug, but where such infection was a
contributing factor. Thus HMG's figurtes are in
fact extrapolited from US Govt. statistics,
adjusting for demographicsd and population size.)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 58 of 293:
|
Dec 6 18:53 UTC 2003 |
("Figures don't lie, but liars figure.")
|
klg
|
|
response 59 of 293:
|
Dec 7 03:43 UTC 2003 |
Yes, Mr. gull. The (gay) people who conducted the studies actually
want to make homosexuals look bad. Makes sense to us!
Mr. richard,
Watch your blood pressure (and please either use a dictionary or cease
using terms that, quite obviously, you do not understand)! We have no
desire for governmental control of how homosexcuals wish to conduct
their personal lives. But, quite obviously, since marriage is
commonly known as a relationship between two people of different
sexes, then people of the same sex cannot marry each other. We have
no desire to change a definition for a social institution that has
been effective and useful for thousands of years. (Which, we would
think, is the definition of conservative.)
regards,
klg
|
lk
|
|
response 60 of 293:
|
Dec 7 06:30 UTC 2003 |
I strongly suspect that the "surveys" referenced were as scientific as
web polls. Vote early, vote often, and tell us whatever fancy you wish.
Brag and exaggerate to your heart's content. And never mind that the
survey was conducted in a porn magazine that is self-selective and not
representative of the gay population....
All of which misses the point. We don't deny marriage to heterosexuals
because some of them lack fidelity. Why should we deny marriage to
homosexuals for that reason?!
|
willcome
|
|
response 61 of 293:
|
Dec 7 07:06 UTC 2003 |
Because they're fags.
|
keesan
|
|
response 62 of 293:
|
Dec 7 15:12 UTC 2003 |
Marriage would not be the first word to change its meaning. Family used to
be the people who lived in your house and worked for you.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 63 of 293:
|
Dec 7 15:57 UTC 2003 |
Quite obviously, since marriage is
commonly known as a relationship between two people of different
sexes, then people of the same sex cannot marry each other
It was equally obvious, once upon a time, that women shouldn't have the
right to vote. That black people shouldn't be allowed to use the same
water fountains as white people, or serve in the same military units as
them.
|
twenex
|
|
response 64 of 293:
|
Dec 7 16:07 UTC 2003 |
Of course, since you don't fall off or lose your balance, the world must be
flat, too.
|
klg
|
|
response 65 of 293:
|
Dec 7 23:22 UTC 2003 |
re: 62. Ahhh. So you understand what we are getting at.
and Mr. jmsaul tries to take us off on tangents.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 66 of 293:
|
Dec 8 01:51 UTC 2003 |
No, I'm pointing out that "it's always been this way, so it's obvious we
shouldn't do it any other way" is a dumb argument.
|
scott
|
|
response 67 of 293:
|
Dec 8 04:15 UTC 2003 |
My favorite take on this argument comes from a very old Doonesbury cartoon:
Clyde (a black male): I heard you're gay.
Andy (a gay male): I heard you're black.
Clyde: Yeah, but that's normal.
Andy: Didn't used to be.
|
bru
|
|
response 68 of 293:
|
Dec 8 04:19 UTC 2003 |
Okay we shouldn't do it that way because marriage is a religious ceremony,
a sacrament, and homosexuality is a sin. as such, they are not entitled to
teh sacraments of CHRISTIAN marriage. If they can find a religion that
sanctions gay relationships, then they should join that religion.
civil relationshios are another matter. If they wish to establish a civil
union, then they should be so allowed. But then you also have to offer said
civil union to other lifestyle choices.
Say cousins, uncles and nieces, mother adn son, father and daughter, cats adn
dogs, as nauseum.
|
scott
|
|
response 69 of 293:
|
Dec 8 04:23 UTC 2003 |
It's been possible to get a completely civil marriage from mayors, ship's
captains, etc., for many many years now. Marriages with all the same legal
rights, responsibilities, privileges, and the same license as a church
marriage.
|
bru
|
|
response 70 of 293:
|
Dec 8 05:13 UTC 2003 |
Note I didn't say Civil Marriage, rather civil union.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 71 of 293:
|
Dec 8 05:19 UTC 2003 |
So if marriage is a religious ceremony, do you think there should be
such a thing as Civil Marriage?
Would you prefer to see the current form civil marriage generalized into
this concept of civil union or would you want to see two separate forms
of civil ceremony maintained, one for marriage and one for unions?
|
lk
|
|
response 72 of 293:
|
Dec 8 09:36 UTC 2003 |
The term "civil marriage" already [um] divorces the term from "religous
marriage" and any divine connotation that may have to some people.
Or would you also argue for "Muslim Unions", too?
If god[s] consider 2 people to be married is between them and their god[s].
What the state considers is an entirely different issue, one which involves
the separation of church and state.
|
bru
|
|
response 73 of 293:
|
Dec 8 13:57 UTC 2003 |
marriage still denotes a man and a woman and does not violate any religious
laws even if it is non-religious in function.
Why do the gay members of this society feel the need to have a union between
them be a "marriage"? Is it not because they want to weaken the bonds, or
expand the borders of what is exceptable to the majority of our citizens?
|
keesan
|
|
response 74 of 293:
|
Dec 8 14:05 UTC 2003 |
Webster: Marriage: 3. an intimate or close union.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 75 of 293:
|
Dec 8 14:10 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 76 of 293:
|
Dec 8 14:12 UTC 2003 |
Like "The marriage of two minds"
That is a good point keesan. By using the word "marriage", I don't
think the religios angle should be implied. After all, a lot of
atheists get married. Just because they don't believe in God doesn't
mean that their marriages are not recognised.
|