1480: You must have a hot cousin....:rotfl:

Warhawk: Yes it is as it illustrates an un-natural sex act that cripples the human body.....:hmm:

Brad: Uh? Get a life and an education. You are in the little leagues still...:know:

Un-natural act however you are already assuming that anal sex is being performed. You can not assume anything in a relationship. Therefore, it is not a legitimate argument IMO. Furthermore, male and female perform the un-natural act. So, were does this place them? :hmm:

Come on, get out to the mall. Get out of that shelter.

Well "Brad", you seem to have a severe misunderstanding in human sexuality and well most other related topics that would require higher education to debate rather than this "Mall" mentality you prescribe. I do not have to join them to know them. You obviously gravitate toward that philosophy. Also, by golly you are right not all anal sex is limited to gay men, however 99% of those that have corrective surgery are gay men, so statistically speaking what would that tell you. So to have an educated opinion on this whole matter IYO is to be sheltered? Uh? Let's see where do I begin...Born In SF, I have gay relatives for that matter and we discuss these points without resorting to the "Mall" word. Been around the world a few times, been married, raised kids, have higher education with real world experience. Ah, yes and forgot the most sterling prize and I do boast it, real submariner for a decade...So if you think that is being sheltered let's hear what you have seen and done that makes you squirm because I have arrived at a different polar opinion that what you have??? All the points I have made are indicators that I feel make a case that homosexuality is not an Indigenous process, therefore it can and should not be defined the same as a heterosexual relationship. Son, all you have to do is look around and see the human race. We are here because of heterosexual relationships. From that very simple observation one can conclude that homosexuality does not support the wheel of life. This in no way means that gay people are substandard and should be treated in any ill mannered way. But to define 5000 years of recorded history pertaining to marriage and have it hijacked is just not acceptable to me.

OK! Only if you take me to a movie and buy popcorn...Ooops, that sounds a bit....never mind:D

[quote=Frame57]Definitely they are using it for their agenda. Gays do not marry or want to marry to have a family as nature dictates, they cannot unless they adopt. So it is just a slick way for them to manipulate the system and rape the tax payer for benefits. It will burden companies and the social security system further. /quote]

I don't follow your reasoning. If all of these gays who want to get married to eachother were 'straight' they'd be marrying someone anyway and 'raping the taxpayer for benefits'. So what difference would it make???:hmm:

Does anybody here really think that the left-wing Barney Frank nuts would be up in arms if Obama chose a Muslim to conduct his swearing-in? I mean, Islam is far more harsh towards gays than Rick Warren...

Make no mistake ... this isn't because of an issue with gays. This is an issue with Christianity.

And, Barney Frank is one of the biggest idiots in American political history.

[quote=Kapt Z]There is no doubt that AIDS has not gone away and is endemic as ever. It has higher rates of killing gay men in particular. Gay men in particular want to have spousal rights such as employee health care and then could qualify for spousal SSI benefits (SDI as well). I realize AIDS affects hemophiliacs and drug abusers as well, so no need to bring that up. For those of you who stated that anal sex in not relevant, that is precisely how gay men get AIDS as well as anal prolapse. So the tax burden will fall mainy of the social security funds and Medical funding.

It is not equating it with it, but that lifestyle amongst gay men perform that act to a far greater degree that heterosexuals. Would you agree to that Mikhayl...?

[quote=Frame57]AID is a hetersexual problem as well. AIDS is transmitted by bodily fluid containing blood. Small vessels in the skin break and sexual contact in any form cause this to happen. Anal sex is not precisely how gay men get AIDS in all cases. It is passed vaginally between heterosexuals. Anal sex is about as relavent as the cost of tea in China.

[quote=AVGWarhawk]I am sure that if you looked into it, you would find that statistically the AIDS problem by far affects gay men than any other other group. Plus again I will say that I know it affects others...Can we not try to put someone in a box...When i make a point it does not axiomatically mean that only one group is mentioned, but that statistically one group can and does portray the illustration with greater magnitude. I will agree with you that no, not all gay men get AIDS that way, but, most do...

[quote=Frame57]Even so, AIDS happens with homo/hetersexuals. Can you provide me the statistics?

AVG, I think anyone knows this to be true. The SF Chronicle used to write often of this topic in relation to the SF bath houses, but stopped due to pressure from the gay community. SF General has a ward exclusivly for AIDS patients. I work there often and cannot photograph all the dying/treated men there and 99% of them are indeed gay men. I am sure some internet site will have the stats, but it may take some time to find.

It took 2 seconds to find. 70% of new AIDS cases are men. 30% are women. Now, the point is, AIDS affects everyone so anal sex has nothing to do with marriage rights. In fact, how did the discussion of AIDS even start. Mute point.

OK, I found the CDC stats for 2006 and out of the reported cases 17,465 of all AIDS cases were gay men. 3,016 were drug users and the list demises according to risk categories after that.

Relevency to the topic??? You are kidding right? I believe my points all have been directed to being a behavioral issue, which started with rebuttals of why gays should not be grouped with the historical definition of marriage. I think the many topics discussed prove the point to the naysayers...