Atheist acting up again

[JeepJockey]

your logic in preventing gay marriage because of the health risk involved with AIDS is also very flawed in the sense that there is no gay marriage now and AIDS is still on the rise,

Because GAYS keep having fucking ASS orgies because they are immoral douchebags.

The numbers speak for themselves. Only 4% of the US population is GAY yet they make up 46% percent of all AIDS cases. It is a risky, unhealthy lifestyle and I don't think we as a country should support rights for it.

[briansjacobs]

Josh, you claim you are not religous and you also claim that being gay is immoral, where are your morals rooted and who are you to judge others?

your logic in preventing gay marriage because of the health risk involved with AIDS is also very flawed in the sense that there is no gay marriage now and AIDS is still on the rise, there could be a thought process that allowing gay marriage may down the road create more single partner relationships. There are also economic benfits as well.

below is a link to a UCLA study:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/VT%20econ%20impact%20final.pdf

[z31maniac]

This thread is ridiculous. There is so much ignorance, flawed logic and just plain idiocy.

Point it out and rip on people. Otherwise your post is just as lame as this thread. ;)

[BraveUlysses]

It's apparent the Scientology rotted your brain before you got out.

I wonder how much the "Trolling internet threads" class cost him

[TwoJ's]

This thread is ridiculous. There is so much ignorance, flawed logic and just plain idiocy.

[z31maniac]

It's apparent the Scientology rotted your brain before you got out.

[joshh]

You still haven't really connected the dots for me on why legalizing gay marriage will have an influence on the spread of AIDS.

AND you still haven't answered that question I spelled out for you.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself because you have an issue with reading.


Yes I have three times.

[kronus]

All you have are semantics...
I already pointed out the children they might raise and do I have to point out the fact that anyone working on them medically and you brought up blood transfusions. Do we need more or do you want to keep trying to spin my words?

You still haven't really connected the dots for me on why legalizing gay marriage will have an influence on the spread of AIDS.

AND you still haven't answered that question I spelled out for you.

[joshh]

You're attempting to use semantics here. I'm just trying to get you to answer a question I asked you:



in response to a statement you made:




I suppose I should stop with all this "gotcha politics", eh?

You want me to answer that yet again...you got it. It's not that I wouldn't get the right, it's that they already have the right to marry someone....just the opposite sex.
There's no gotcha there.
Reading and understanding aren't your specialty.

[joshh]

Do you know what that sentence means? Because the way you're phrasing it sure sounds like "hanging around gays leaves me at the highest risk factor for AIDS" instead of the actual true statement, which is "gays are at the highest risk factor for AIDS," meaning that if you're not gay, you really don't have to worry.

All you have are semantics...
I already pointed out the children they might raise and do I have to point out the fact that anyone working on them medically and you brought up blood transfusions. Do we need more or do you want to keep trying to spin my words?
But it goes beyond that, as I've already said.

So, if you claim it doesn't hurt "no one else", who does it hurt?

You really haven't been following along. That's YOUR view not mine. As I already explained why they are a risk factor for others.

[kronus]

And you're trying to spin this in what way? That's in reference retard.
Can you actually make a point or are you going to keep trying to use semantics?

You're attempting to use semantics here. I'm just trying to get you to answer a question I asked you:

If gays get the right to marry each other, what special right do they gain that you wouldn't have?

in response to a statement you made:

You can be as gay as you like, I will always be against gays getting special rights over other Americans.

I suppose I should stop with all this "gotcha politics", eh?

[kronus]

It sure doesn't but it does stop them from (as easily) putting the children they raise or want to raise from being around that health risk. Let alone gays are the highest risk factor for AIDS.

Do you know what that sentence means? Because the way you're phrasing it sure sounds like "hanging around gays leaves me at the highest risk factor for AIDS" instead of the actual true statement, which is "gays are at the highest risk factor for AIDS," meaning that if you're not gay, you really don't have to worry.

Also, what does raising children around a health risk like AIDS risk, exactly? Are you familiar with how AIDS is spread?

But then that goes right back to my animals and marriage question that you guys keep running from. It hurts "no one else" right? And the dads and moms question.

So, if you claim it doesn't hurt "no one else", who does it hurt?

[joshh]

Except where you've been saying "they currently have all the same rights we proper Americans do, why do they need more special ones?" for the last few pages. Do you have short-term memory issues?

And you're trying to spin this in what way? That's in reference retard.
Can you actually make a point or are you going to keep trying to use semantics?

[kronus]

I've been saying that for pages genius...
I haven't used any current laws. You did fail High School.

Except where you've been saying "they currently have all the same rights we proper Americans do, why do they need more special ones?" for the last few pages. Do you have short-term memory issues?

[joshh]

There we go. Just accept it, let it all out. Stop using current laws as a crutch for your own beliefs, and stand behind them yourself, like a man with a shred of moral fiber.

I've been saying that for pages genius...
I haven't used any current laws. You did fail High School.