All politicians are somewhat hypocritical if you take their actions out of context... and for the most part if you don't.
That doesn't make love less of a human right, it has no baring on it at all.
As obama said in the linked article of the opening post,
But yet obama signed the ndaa, kills his own citizens with drone strikes, forcing his citizens to buy a protect or pay a fine, but speaks of protecting liberties?
That does not look like a 2 faced or a flat out lying statement?
What have I said in this thread that is homo-phobic?
As obama said in the linked article of the opening post,
But yet obama signed the ndaa, kills his own citizens with drone strikes, forcing his citizens to buy a protect or pay a fine, but speaks of protecting liberties?
That does not look like a 2 faced or a flat out lying statement?
"Homosexuality is a public health issue"
Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men.
"I can make up any number of reasons why the gay lifestyle should be prohibited by law"
I don't understand why some guys are so interested in what other guys do with their penises.
But yet obama signed the ndaa, kills his own citizens with drone strikes, forcing his citizens to buy a protect or pay a fine, but speaks of protecting liberties?
That does not look like a 2 faced or a flat out lying statement?
Per your signature:I do not have trouble with that.
I once sat down and tried to figure out how sexuality could be a danger to Western Civilization and did not come with anything that did not stink of bigotry, ignorance, the inability to mind one's business, and xenophobia.
I have heard some people defend their bigotry based on their religious beliefs but I remember how during the 1960's some people used their religious beliefs to justify their prejudice against Catholics, Jews, and Afro-Americans.
So now you're making this thread about incest?
so how did they handle this problem during neolithic times??
Maybe he honestly believes these things about these separate issues. Pretty incredible how complex and varied one's opinions can be about different issues, eh? Even when those issues can be tangentially related (liberties).
Not "the pursuit of Happiness unless it grosses us out", just "the pursuit of Happiness". This should extend up to the point that you're materially harming or endangering another person or her opportunity to pursue happiness, greatly harming or endangering the society, or unduly harming or endangering the planet.
So now you're making this thread about incest?
What have I said in this thread that is homo-phobic?
I am questioning 2 things:
1, the government should stay out of the bedroom.
On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the Texas same-sex sodomy law, ruling that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. This decision invalidated all state sodomy laws insofar as they applied to noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilians and reversed the Court's 1986 ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld Georgia's sodomy law.
I think there is an absolute answer, I don't think love is relative. With the exception of the very small percentage of the population who are unable to experience love as we understand it. It's an absolute.
Gay men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than non-gay men.
That is straight from the CDC - http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
If any other group of people were 17 times more like to get anything, the CDC would take action.
That was in rebuttal to your drug argument, nothing more.
That's all well and good until you're under the boot of a gov't that says "fuck your love, to the camps with you".
From a conceptual standpoint, there certainly can be "absolute rights", like love...which are relative to the person (or people) who hold those same values. But you're at the mercy of reasonable people and policies to be in agreement about those rights. So there's the concept of rights, and the practical implementation of rights.
Good luck arguing about the inalienable right to love who you please to Uganda.
I just think it should be accepted that all people with the capacity to consent should be able to love each other.
Bipolar men are 60x more lilkely kill themselves than non bipolar men.
If a bipolar man has a child there is a 1 in 4 chance that their child will also have bipolar disorder, if both parents are bipolar that goes up to 1 in 3, does that mean I should be banned from having children? Or the CDC should stop in and ban all mental health people from having children / sex?
This sounds like a freakin' homerun, what is the problem???!!!
Please post source to backup your claim.
Never said I had a problem with gays.
Bipolar disorder results in 9.2 years reduction in expected life span, and as many as one in five patients with bipolar disorder completes suicide. (National Institute of Mental Health)
Children and Adolescents
Bipolar disorder is more likely to affect the children of parents who have the disorder. When one parent has bipolar disorder, the risk to each child is l5 to 30%. When both parents have bipolar disorder, the risk increases to 50 to 75%. (National Institute of Mental Health)
You are going about this all wrong, OP. Think about it....gay sex has a 0% chance of ever leading to or creating:
- Minorities
- Atheists
- Another gay person
- Abortions
- Drug users
This sounds like a freakin' homerun, what is the problem???!!!
Weren't you the one hoarding all those dick pics last week?
http://www.dbsalliance.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_statistics_bipolar_disorder
Slightly higher than the statistics I quoted!
Bipolar men are 60x more lilkely kill themselves than non bipolar men.