Aditi Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 52% of respondents are in a relationship IIRC, 52% is a majority,am I right? Relationships lasting less than a year - 11%, hardly reflects "promiscuity". A more recent (2006-2007) study reveals: What is your current same-sex relationship status? - 46% of Males and 58% Females self identify being “Partnered” - 6% of Males and 9% Females self identify that they are “Civil Union/Civil registration/Married - 11% of the Males and 21% of Females report that their current same-sex relationship is between 4 -7 years Stats can be used to defend my point of view too :winky:
Rajiv Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Don't argue with Aditi about relationships and stats She is getting married soon, she has done her homework :yay:
Predator_05 Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 IIRC, 52% is a majority,am I right? Relationships lasting less than a year - 11%, hardly reflects "promiscuity". A more recent (2006-2007) study reveals: Are you being serious ? You are really getting desperate now, which is what i expected. Read them again - just 29% of gays have had relationships that lasted 10+ years. Remember, we're talking about marriage - which if i am not mistaken, is a long-lasting commitment to create the conditions for raising kids in. You, of all people, should know that by now. Promiscuity doesn't have to be some random anal fisting every week with different people in the toilet of some gay bar. You are missing the point completely, and deliberately, in my opinion. Your recent statistics do absolutely nothing to validate your point, in fact they just support my argument. What you are saying is that a mere 31% of gays committed to a relationship ranging from 4 to 7 years. Do you realise how pitifully low that number is ? If that isn't a clear indicator of the promiscuous tendencies of gays, what is ? The fact is that gays are just naturally inclined to ***** themselves off every now and then. Would your gay buddies last at least 10 years in a marriage ? Keep posting, every post you make, you show me how ignorant gay-lovers really are.
Zap_Brannigan Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Obviously the stats are skewed since most of the world does not recognize same sex marriages. Even if it wasnt, who are we to tell them wht they can or cannot do. Everyone should have equal rights.
Predator_05 Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Obviously the stats are skewed since most of the world does not recognize same sex marriages. Even if it wasnt' date=' who are we to tell them wht they can or cannot do. Everyone should have equal rights.[/quote'] Can you tell me what the % of married people within the gay community in states like California or Massachuesetts is ? Same sex marriage is legal in European countries like Holland and in parts of Scandinavia (ie; Sweden), but studies show that only a small fraction of gays in those countries get married. Surprise, surprise
Aditi Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 :haha::haha::haha: You can keep your homophobic rants to yourself. You are the desperate narrow-minded and emotional one here, taking all the trouble going through gay and lesbian websites trolling for statistics. Statistics can be manipulated to suit anyone's arguments, you should know that. It is, after all, MY opinion that I am stating. There are two sides to every issue. You might be incensed that gays are getting allowed to get married and adopt kids, but it's happening whether you like it or not. Who are you to presume what people should and should not do, what they should and should not think? Who are you to presume what I am thinking and feeling? You know absolutely nothing about me. You don't even interact with the very people that you call 'disease ridden', and you have the nerve to call us 'ignorant'? I'd walk a mile in someone else's shoes before judging them. Promiscuity doesn't have to be some random anal fisting every week with different people in the toilet of some gay bar. You are missing the point completely, and deliberately, in my opinion. Give us all a 'clear' definition of promiscuity then, if you think you know so much better than us. You can keep posting too, for it is you everyone will be laughing at, not me.
Predator_05 Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 :haha::haha::haha: You can keep your homophobic rants to yourself. You are the desperate narrow-minded and emotional one here, taking all the trouble going through gay and lesbian websites trolling for statistics. It is, after all, MY opinion that I am stating. There are two sides to every issue.. Hardly, it takes me 10 minutes at most to find my stats. You haven't been able to make a single argument convincing enough for me to change my mind LMAO. Now that i've proven to you beyond doubt that 1) Most gays are bursting at the seams with STDs and 2) Gays are incapable of having lengthy relationships, with valid evidence (including even your OWN affirmations) - you have nothing else left to say but the usual vague responses "well, it's just my opinion..." and "there are two sides..." etc. Way to make the gay nation proud...:haha:
triam Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Hardly, it takes me 10 minutes at most to find my stats. You haven't been able to make a single argument convincing enough for me to change my mind LMAO. Now that i've proven to you beyond doubt that 1) Most gays are bursting at the seams with STDs and 2) Gays are incapable of having lengthy relationships, with valid evidence (including even your OWN affirmations) - you have nothing else left to say but the usual vague responses "well, it's just my opinion..." and "there are two sides..." etc. Way to make the gay nation proud...:haha: Why are we looking at gays as a group?? look at individuals. In the US 70% of the federal populations are blacks, so should we go around and arrest all blacks and imprison them stating, statistically you are prone to go to prison?? If that argument is illogical yours is too. Even if one gay couple will stay together, they should not be stopped by any government organization or entity.
Lurker Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Gays are still considered a black mark right' date=' I mean u can see this thread so if someone is born gay , a person who disses them cannot really feel like em, just like a man cannot see the world through womans eyes[/quote'] I know I know Rajeev. I was giggling at your inadvertent line - I really don't have any objections to gays as such, coz I don't know how they actually feel inside. Yeah I know dirty mind and all that.
Aditi Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Why are we looking at gays as a group?? look at individuals. Because there are myopic individuals deliberately refusing to, reducing gays to a mere statistic because they cannot interact with them as human beings. You cannot change the mind of a confirmed bigot, and they have nothing to 'prove' to me. Homosexuality crosses the boundaries of every demographic. Sex. Race. Income. Occupation. Language. Education. Age. Religion. Anybody can be gay - your boss, your coworker, the first-baseman on your softball team, your doctor, your child's first-grade teacher, your rabbi, your police chief, your beer buddy, your uncle, your favorite rock star, your congressman, the guy who mows your lawn, your investment advisor, your golf partner, your tennis coach, your favorite author, your waiter, your attorney...ANYBODY. If two people love each other, I believe they deserve the right to be married. And yes, just like it was arrogantly stated earlier in this thread, that is MY opinion, so if you don't like it, don't effing reply :haha:.
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Because there are myopic individuals deliberately refusing to, reducing gays to a mere statistic because they cannot interact with them as human beings. You cannot change the mind of a confirmed bigot, and they have nothing to 'prove' to me. Homosexuality crosses the boundaries of every demographic. Sex. Race. Income. Occupation. Language. Education. Age. Religion. Anybody can be gay - your boss, your coworker, the first-baseman on your softball team, your doctor, your child's first-grade teacher, your rabbi, your police chief, your beer buddy, your uncle, your favorite rock star, your congressman, the guy who mows your lawn, your investment advisor, your golf partner, your tennis coach, your favorite author, your waiter, your attorney...ANYBODY. If two people love each other, I believe they deserve the right to be married. And yes, just like it was arrogantly stated earlier in this thread, that is MY opinion, so if you don't like it, don't effing reply :haha:. oh snap!!! It will take time though... while europe leads the world in universality and equality, some renegade cities in the united states are bucking the old archaic opinions and while it is unlikely that same sex marriages will be legalized soon, the opposition is being eroded steadily and surely. as for cretins like predator, well they have always been around. there was a time when they were the dominant force in the world, the policy makers and the arbitrators of the nations; but then they were pushed by a rising minority, and then pushed some more into the minority and soon enough they will be the lune who stands outside the local deli screaming and shouting that the world is about to end because two men (or two women) in love with each other wish to consummate their relationship by forming a bond of love and emotion.
fineleg Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 THX has a knack for saying it :thumbs_up: cretins :hysterical:
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 THX has a knack for saying it :thumbs_up: cretins :hysterical: i am currently inspired by a paraguayan beauty (damn! she is hot!)
sandtest Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 How is it against nature if animals exihibit the same tendencies? I missed your post. Your arguement giving animal's perceivd "tendencies" as justification for nature is flawed! reason is very simple for any layman to understand. Nature has given different organs for different purposes, misusing of any of these organs for the purpose other than intended is GOING AGAINST NATURE!! Simple as that! If Gayism was natural, then nature must have provided both male and female reproductive Organs within single Human body. However it is NOT the case at least in Human. Even a fifth grader can tell that the anal cavity is ONLY for discharging excreta of human digestive system --- It is a proven fact SCIENTIFICALLY. Therefore inserting any object inside anal cavity with intention of sexual pleasure or viewing anal sex as an alternative to vaginal penetration is GOING AGAINST NATURE. That is why I said, Hypocricy of Environmentalists is apalling because at one place they will cry foul that Human is going against nature while at the other place they will become Hyper Liberals and run "Pride" parades on streets in the name of Gayism. Whatte shame. Cooking food is going against nature, having cows milk is against nature, there is no entity called Nature, can anybody define what are the rules of Mother NAture? Another flawed arguement without understanding the actual context! Cooking food or milking a cow is NOT going against nature, but ADAPTING to nature or utilizing natural resources while maintaining PERFECT Harmony with nature or Symbiosis with nature or whatever term you can use from english dictionary.. In Hindi it is called "paryaavaran ke saath Anukoolan" and once again great ancient civilization of Bharat have been doing this since Vedic period of ancient India. For example, why Milking a cow is Not against the nature is beacuse -- at least in Sanatan Dharma it is strictly not allowed to milk a Cow without ensuring proper food and nutrition for her. It is proven fact that a cow's mamary gland can produce milk which far exceeds the requirement for her calfs. It's not far nothing that ancient India refers cows as "Kamdhenu" -- a source for plenty. So human has used cow for their benefit without going against nature or cause any harm to cow. In fact by keeping cow as pet and providing best nutrition to them for their survival human has exhibited a great example of harmony with nature. Moreover, human extracts milk from cow from the natural body organ of cow--intended for that purpose. How that is going against nature? clearly a desperate attempt of Hyper-Liberals to justify an unnatural condition of Gayism etc.
Aditi Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 So human has used cow for their benefit without going against nature or cause any harm to cow. So going by that logic, slaughtering the same cow and grinding it up to make hamburgers, to be consumed by humans whose bodies are not even designed to eat it is a perfectly acceptable and 'natural' thing to do.
sandtest Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 So going by that logic' date= slaughtering the same cow and grinding it up to make hamburgers, to be consumed by humans whose bodies are not even designed to eat it is a perfectly acceptable and 'natural' thing to do. I don't think you are going by same logic! first there is a sea difference between milking a cow and slaughtering a cow. In order to milk a cow, you are NOT causing any harm to cow. In fact to milk her, you have to first keep a cow as a pet, nourish her, provide good nutrition to her in the form of grass, grains, leaves etc., and then when cow has produced a calf, you are milking her that too only the excess milk which is produced by mamary gland of cow for her calf and as I said it is proven fact that if a Cow is nourished properly the mamary of a cow can produce amount of milk which will far exceed the requirement for her calf. In a way by providing food, shelter etc. to a cow and in exchange taking excess milk human is helping that animal without causing any harm to her. So in fact milking a pet cow is living in perfect harmony with nature or utilizing mother nature for benefit of mankind without causing any harm to nature. Slaughtering a cow is going directly against nature, beacuse as a human with evolved ''intelligence", we know that we have no right to take away the life of another harmless animal, when we can survive without causing harm. That is why any killing is often referred as "unnatural" death, simply because it is NOT natural. Anyway, Sanatan Dharma of Hinduism, Jainism and many similiar Indic philosophies abhor killing of living beings, because in great ancient civilization of Bharat, this fertile land had produced plenty of food grains to sustain her population, so people were hardly forced to look for animal as a source of food unless it was for fun hunting in case of royal rulers etc. On contrary in ancient western and arab world it was a different scenario, they basically hunt/fish for food and survive, hence their religious scriptures which came at much later stage authorize killing. Basically some parts of all scriptures reflect the conditions, environment, culture and customs prevailing at that time of society IMHO.
Aditi Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Then if killing an animal is not natural, and humans consuming it is not natural, is it acceptable? The very same people who argue that homosexuality is 'not natural' are perfectly happy eating their steaks, chops and burgers made by slaughtering animals, which has been admitted by you as 'NOT natural' (This may not apply to you personally, you can be a vegetarian for all I know). In this day and age, hunting animals and killing them for survival is not necessary. Is that not hypocritical?
triam Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 I missed your post. Your arguement giving animal's perceivd "tendencies" as justification for nature is flawed! reason is very simple for any layman to understand. Are you saying that animals do not exihibit homosexuality? if they do are they acting against nature? "Nature has given different organs for different purposes, misusing of any of these organs for the purpose other than intended is GOING AGAINST NATURE!! Simple as that!" do you agree that we keep evolving? that there are organs in our body which currently serve no purpose? "Cooking food or milking a cow is NOT going against nature, but ADAPTING to nature or utilizing natural resources while maintaining PERFECT Harmony with nature or Symbiosis with nature or whatever term you can use from english dictionary.." Define adapting to nature while maintaining Perfect Harmony, human beings have always created havoc in nature, extinct species, decreasing forests etc etc, how is this perfect harmony I fail to understand, furthermore nature evolves all the time species have become extinct through no fault of anybody else but for completely natural reasons like evolution etc, so how does one go about what is natural and what is unnatural?
sandtest Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Then if killing an animal is not natural, and humans consuming it is not natural, is it acceptable? The very same people who argue that homosexuality is 'not natural' are perfectly happy eating their steaks, chops and burgers made by slaughtering animals, which has been admitted by you as 'NOT natural' (This may not apply to you personally, you can be a vegetarian for all I know). In this day and age, hunting animals and killing them for survival is not necessary. Is that not hypocritical? I agree, it is hypocritical. You can't consume meat and then abhor Gayism in same breath. that's my opinion. Of course it will vary with the views and convenience of others.
sandtest Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Are you saying that animals do not exihibit homosexuality? if they do are they acting against nature? "Nature has given different organs for different purposes, misusing of any of these organs for the purpose other than intended is GOING AGAINST NATURE!! Simple as that!" do you agree that we keep evolving? that there are organs in our body which currently serve no purpose? "Cooking food or milking a cow is NOT going against nature, but ADAPTING to nature or utilizing natural resources while maintaining PERFECT Harmony with nature or Symbiosis with nature or whatever term you can use from english dictionary.." Define adapting to nature while maintaining Perfect Harmony, human beings have always created havoc in nature, extinct species, decreasing forests etc etc, how is this perfect harmony I fail to understand, furthermore nature evolves all the time species have become extinct through no fault of anybody else but for completely natural reasons like evolution etc, so how does one go about what is natural and what is unnatural? Well in that case a simple p-sec response can answer this --- "two wrongs don't make one right". agree, knowingly or unknowingly Human has caused great harm to nature...But then why cause further harm to our self by runing Gay pride Parades and chest thumping about going against nature, when it is proven that Human has yet not been given organs by nature which Gays falsely percieve as sexual organs. Since you first brought the arguement of Milkking Cow as veiled justification for gayism, hence I pointed that milking cow is adapting rather going against nature since cow is milked from the organ which is provided by nature to produce milk.
Recommended Posts