Since Obama is increasing sin taxes, like cigarettes, how about this?

[glockmail]

Start taxing homosexuality.

[SpidermanTUba]

Start taxing homosexuality.

Are you sure you can afford it?

[glockmail]

Are you sure you can afford it? Why do liberals like you always use gay as an insult?

If gays can't afford it, then they can stop porking each other up the ass.

[SpidermanTUba]

Why do liberals like you always use gay as an insult?

If gays can't afford it, then they can stop porking each other up the ass.


Why do you think I'm insulting anyone? I'm just wondering if you can personally afford the gay tax yourself, and whether or not your partner can afford it.

[The ClayTaurus]

Start taxing homosexuality.Smoking is a sin?

[moderate democrat]

Smoking is a sin?

smoking is purposely self-destructive. homosexuality, on the other hand, is not.

[actsnoblemartin]

:popcorn:

[-Cp]

smoking is purposely self-destructive. homosexuality, on the other hand, is not.

Homosexuality is VERY self-destructive and like smoking, is a choice...

[MtnBiker]

Hmmm, if a person were to ask a Christian preacher for advise on sin, which action would he say is more likely a sin, homosexuality or smoking?

[Jeff]

smoking is purposely self-destructive. homosexuality, on the other hand, is not.

BullS***, yes smoking is bad for the body , but you want me to believe
having another man poke your ass isn't ? Wow you just told your secret, have you ever heard of aids? yes you can get it many ways but one big way is threw homosexuality !!!


Lets forget aids what about all the other STD's you can get, anyone that would even consider a statement like that must have Homo tendency's:poke:

And yes when you drop your draws for another man that is a choice no one makes you do so!!

[-Cp]

Hmmm, if a person were to ask a Christian preacher for advise on sin, which action would he say is more likely a sin, homosexuality or smoking?

Being a Homo for sure..


There's nothing sinful about smoking per se - the bible doesn't even mention smoking.

However, we are instructed to not allow anything (substance, food, etc - ANYTHING) control us other than God..

So if smoking leads to an addiction, then you have a problem being controlled by it.. etc..

[glockmail]

Why do you think I'm insulting anyone? I'm just wondering if you can personally afford the gay tax yourself, and whether or not your partner can afford it. It's a moot point, isn't it? That is, since I enjoy a lifestyle that actually is moral normal and healthy. Since you obviously know that, you're trying to use gay as an insult.

[glockmail]

Smoking is a sin?No it's not, but the euphemism "sin taxes" applies to cigarettes and booze.

[moderate democrat]

BullS***, yes smoking is bad for the body , but you want me to believe
having another man poke your ass isn't ? Wow you just told your secret, have you ever heard of aids? yes you can get it many ways but one big way is threw homosexuality !!!


Lets forget aids what about all the other STD's you can get, anyone that would even consider a statement like that must have Homo tendency's:poke:

And yes when you drop your draws for another man that is a choice no one makes you do so!!

homosexuality does not cause AIDS, unprotected sex with someone who is HIV+ is one way of contracting it, among others. Monogamous homosexual behavior is just as safe as heterosexual monogamous behavior.

[Silver]

homosexuality does not cause AIDS, unprotected sex with someone who is HIV+ is one way of contracting it, among others. Monogamous homosexual behavior is just as safe as heterosexual monogamous behavior.

an abstinence works 100% of the time.....nothing safer...:lol:

[5stringJeff]

Monogamous homosexual behavior is just as safe as heterosexual monogamous behavior.

Except that homosexual behavior, when mentioned in Scripture, is always portrayed as sinful. Heterosexual behavior is not condemned, when done in the bonds of marriage.

[Jeff]

homosexuality does not cause AIDS, unprotected sex with someone who is HIV+ is one way of contracting it, among others. Monogamous homosexual behavior is just as safe as heterosexual monogamous behavior.

And where did this begin?? and is homo sex not considered risky behavior?why is it risky??? Have at it buddy, what you do behind closed doors is your business but don't try and justify it as OK.

[glockmail]

homosexuality does not cause AIDS, unprotected sex with someone who is HIV+ is one way of contracting it, among others. Monogamous homosexual behavior is just as safe as heterosexual monogamous behavior. Wrongo- The wall of the lower rectum is only one cell thick and therefore easily damaged and penetrable to bacteria and viruses, while the vaginal wall is about 40 cells thick and actually designed for sex.

[MtnBiker]

Engaging in risky behavior ought to come with a built in penalty.

What penalty should be force on people engaged in risky sex, of any kind?

What penalty should be force on a person that chooses to have an abortion? It is obvious that person engaged in risky behavior with unwanted consequences.

[Kathianne]

What penalty should be force on people engaged in risky sex, of any kind?

What penalty should be force on a person that chooses to have an abortion? It is obvious that person engaged in risky behavior with unwanted consequences.

The concept is nonsense. We agree.

[Sitarro]

homosexuality does not cause AIDS, unprotected sex with someone who is HIV+ is one way of contracting it, among others. Monogamous homosexual behavior is just as safe as heterosexual monogamous behavior.

The homo lifestyle has been very successful at spreading the HIV virus. Because the asshole isn't designed to allow penetration, it's designed to hold crap in, copulation causes tearing which gives an opening for the virus to enter the body........ HIV101. Add the FACT that a huge amount of homosexuals enjoy multiple partners in bathhouses and anywhere else they can find to act like animals in heat, a lot of tearing occurs. Many are mentally incapable of logical thought and actually enjoy the "rush" of sex without protection with infected individuals. I have had friends that were homosexual, I worked with them 12 years ago, they are ALL dead now........ they were 30 somethings when I worked with them!

Yes there are some in committed relationships but their definition of commitment can vary wildly from most heterosexuals. The one couple that I knew had been together for 10 years, they would have an argument and would go screw a couple of other guys to feel better........ they are both together......... they were buried in the same plot.

Pretend all you want in an effort to show a "progressive" stance, the facts don't back up your naive beliefs. An older homosexual, over 60, is a rare thing.

[glockmail]

T... An older homosexual, over 60, is a rare thing. In that case we need to tax them at a high rate to get the money now, before they go belly-up.

[The ClayTaurus]

No it's not, but the euphemism "sin taxes" applies to cigarettes and booze.So the connection is what, then? That homosexuality is similarly not a sin, but should be taxed under a "sin tax" like cigarettes and booze?

Perhaps you mean vice taxes?

[glockmail]

So the connection is what, then? That homosexuality is similarly not a sin, but should be taxed under a "sin tax" like cigarettes and booze?

Perhaps you mean vice taxes?
You can call it that if you want, but the phrase "sin tax" is very common and I prefer it.

[The ClayTaurus]

You can call it that if you want, but the phrase "sin tax" is very common and I prefer it.So the connection is... what... again?

[glockmail]

So the connection is... what... again?
Unhealthy, unnecessary habits.

[The ClayTaurus]

Unhealthy, unnecessary habits.It's debatable, at best, if it's unhealthy.

[glockmail]

It's debatable, at best, if it's unhealthy.
Wrongo- The wall of the lower rectum is only one cell thick and therefore easily damaged and penetrable to bacteria and viruses, while the vaginal wall is about 40 cells thick and actually designed for sex.

But if you insist on doing this dirty habit, by all means go for it.

[actsnoblemartin]

we are not going to change anyone's mind as to whether homosexuality is immoral or not.

as to whether its healthy, almost any sex act without a condom is potentially dangerous, and can spread std's including aids.

[actsnoblemartin]

yes the anus is not meant for sex, but with condoms, and lube, trauma can be lessened to the anus

[actsnoblemartin]

the real question is, why should the government make laws telling two consenting adults what they can and cant do in the privacy of their own bedroom

[actsnoblemartin]

Except that homosexual behavior, when mentioned in Scripture, is always portrayed as sinful. Heterosexual behavior is not condemned, when done in the bonds of marriage.

but you can only live YOUR life not others lives by scripture

[actsnoblemartin]

if people want to engage in behavior, whether through anal sex (homosexual behavior) or vaginal sex.

both can cause aids, even if their not causing aids at the same level

are we supposed to save people from themselves?

do you really think being gay can be cured, as if homosexuality itself, not the sex, but the attraction is a choice.

just a curious question from a straight male

[5stringJeff]

the real question is, why should the government make laws telling two consenting adults what they can and cant do in the privacy of their own bedroom


but you can only live YOUR life not others lives by scripture

I'm not advocating for the government to tell people that they can't engage in homosexual acts. That still doesn't make it moral, and I still maintain the right to call it immoral.

[The ClayTaurus]

Wrongo- The wall of the lower rectum is only one cell thick and therefore easily damaged and penetrable to bacteria and viruses, while the vaginal wall is about 40 cells thick and actually designed for sex.Anal sex is not a requirement of homosexuality.
But if you insist on doing this dirty habit, by all means go for it.
Why do liberals like you always use gay as an insult?Oh hypocrisy, how I love thee.

[actsnoblemartin]

who said you cant call it immoral?

I never did.

I fight for your right to have your opinion, whether i agree or not.

thats freedom


I'm not advocating for the government to tell people that they can't engage in homosexual acts. That still doesn't make it moral, and I still maintain the right to call it immoral.

[glockmail]

Anal sex is not a requirement of homosexuality.Oh hypocrisy, how I love thee. What percentage of gay males don't then? If its significant then don't tax that portion. *shrug*

No hypocrisy here, as I'm not liberal. :slap:

[The ClayTaurus]

What percentage of gay males don't then? If its significant then don't tax that portion. *shrug*You'll have to tax anyone who has anal sex, not just homosexuals.
No hypocrisy here, as I'm not liberal. :slap:I suppose you're correct. Replace "hypocrisy" with "baseless personal attack."

[glockmail]

You'll have to tax anyone who has anal sex, not just homosexuals.I suppose you're correct. Replace "hypocrisy" with "baseless personal attack." If that was workable, then yes. Howsoever I'd suspect that most sodomites would simply lie on the tax form. Easier just to tax all male queers, since the vast majority of them engage in this unhealthy practice.

No personal attack by me, since you're the one who considers anal sex debatably healthy. If you think that it is, then by all means, knock yourself out.

[The ClayTaurus]

If that was workable, then yes. Howsoever I'd suspect that most sodomites would simply lie on the tax form. Easier just to tax all male queers, since the vast majority of them engage in this unhealthy practice.How would you know?
No personal attack by me, since you're the one who considers anal sex debatably healthy. If you think that it is, then by all means, knock yourself out.I never said anything about the healthiness of anal sex. I certainly never alluded towards any personal predisposition towards the activity or the lifestyle in general. But I understand that you assuming both makes your argument easier to make.

[glockmail]

How would you know? I read. Current estimates are that 85% push shit.


I never said anything about the healthiness of anal sex..... Are you sure?:

It's debatable, at best, if it's unhealthy.

[The ClayTaurus]

I read. Current estimates are that 85% push shit.You read what?
Are you sure?:Absolutely. Try adding comprehension to your reading skillset. It will help clear up your confusion on this issue.

[glockmail]

You read what?

Absolutely. Try adding comprehension to your reading skillset. It will help clear up your confusion on this issue.

Books, reports, articles.

Perhaps you could explain yourself more clearly then.

[The ClayTaurus]

Books, reports, articles.All conveniently unverifiable.
Perhaps you could explain yourself more clearly then.Absolutely.
You claimed homosexuality was unhealthy.
I remarked that claim was debatable at best.
You then tried to switch from homosexuality to anal sex, to which I informed you one did not require the other.
You then claimed I thought anal sex was healthy, at which point I reminded you that I never said such a thing
You then displayed your confusion by reverting back to my original post in response to your claim of homosexuality being unhealthy as somehow proof that I had, which is both illogical and incorrect.

Does this help?

[glockmail]

All conveniently unverifiable.

Absolutely.
You claimed homosexuality was unhealthy.
I remarked that claim was debatable at best.
You then tried to switch from homosexuality to anal sex, to which I informed you one did not require the other.
You then claimed I thought anal sex was healthy, at which point I reminded you that I never said such a thing
You then displayed your confusion by reverting back to my original post in response to your claim of homosexuality being unhealthy as somehow proof that I had, which is both illogical and incorrect.

Does this help?
Perhaps you should start reading your own books, reports and articles then, so that you too, can know the facts.

My argument relies on the fact that most male queers push shit, and pushing shit is unhealthy. Therefore their queerness is unhealthy. Does that help you?

[The ClayTaurus]

Perhaps you should start reading your own books, reports and articles then, so that you too, can know the facts. Perhaps you can link me to where you found such numbers.Perhaps, but then again I'm not making claims that I can't back up with reputable sources.
My argument relies on the fact that most male queers push shit, and pushing shit is unhealthy. Therefore their queerness is unhealthy. Does that help you?Not any more than your original post did. If you want to baselessly claim that most male homosexuals practice anal sex, fine. If you want to tell everyone you "read it in a book," fine. If you expect rational people to give any credence to your argument, you're going to need to let them verify the objectiveness of your sources. The fact that you continue to avoid doing so (as well as shift the arguments and loosely insult me) is somewhat telling.

Now, if you want to claim we should tax people who have anal sex, because it's dangerous, that's a different argument. I'd expect some sort of a comparison between the rates of unhealthiness (rates of STD infection, etc.) and compare that to smokers (rates of lung cancer, etc.)

I'm willing to bet you're not going to do any of that, though, because it's much easier for you to say "gays are unhealthy" and then put the responsibility on everyone else to prove you wrong, as though you are somehow above the need to substantiate your arguments. And if that's the case, and that's how you wish to debate, that's fine, as it will make responding to you much easier.

[glockmail]

Perhaps, but then again I'm not making claims that I can't back up with reputable sources.Not any more than your original post did. If you want to baselessly claim that most male homosexuals practice anal sex, fine. If you want to tell everyone you "read it in a book," fine. If you expect rational people to give any credence to your argument, you're going to need to let them verify the objectiveness of your sources. The fact that you continue to avoid doing so (as well as shift the arguments and loosely insult me) is somewhat telling.

Now, if you want to claim we should tax people who have anal sex, because it's dangerous, that's a different argument. I'd expect some sort of a comparison between the rates of unhealthiness (rates of STD infection, etc.) and compare that to smokers (rates of lung cancer, etc.)

I'm willing to bet you're not going to do any of that, though, because it's much easier for you to say "gays are unhealthy" and then put the responsibility on everyone else to prove you wrong, as though you are somehow above the need to substantiate your arguments. And if that's the case, and that's how you wish to debate, that's fine, as it will make responding to you much easier.

I don't feel the need to cite sources of common knowledge. Next you'll argue that the world isn't round.

Again, in post 39 I explained why homosexuality should be taxed instead of anal sex.

[The ClayTaurus]

I don't feel the need to cite sources of common knowledge.You're claiming that it's common knowledge that 85% of homosexuals practice anal sex?
Next you'll argue that the world isn't round.In fact, I will not.
Again, in post 39 I explained why homosexuality should be taxed instead of anal sex.Insufficient, since you have not proven that homosexuality itself is unhealthy. You have advocated a discriminatory practice because taxing the underlying motive is too complicated (and doesn't fit your antihomo agenda as nicely).

I encourage you to continue trying, however.

[emmett]

You're claiming that it's common knowledge that 85% of homosexuals practice anal sex?In fact, I will not.Insufficient, since you have not proven that homosexuality itself is unhealthy. You have advocated a discriminatory practice because taxing the underlying motive is too complicated (and doesn't fit your antihomo agenda as nicely).

I encourage you to continue trying, however.


Actually...Homosexuality is considered by the American Medical Association to be "risky" behavior and place an individual at 23 times greater risk of contracting HIV (the disease that causes AIDS) than a Hetrosexual individual. This is also true for IV drug users only the risk is 38 times greater. These modes of behavior, I beg your pardon, WOULD be considered unhealthy.

Taxing a hard working successful American more then a lazy worthless babymaker with no job could be considered descriminatory I would think!

[glockmail]

You're claiming that it's common knowledge that 85% of homosexuals practice anal sex?

In fact, I will not.

Insufficient, since you have not proven that homosexuality itself is unhealthy. You have advocated a discriminatory practice because taxing the underlying motive is too complicated (and doesn't fit your antihomo agenda as nicely).

I encourage you to continue trying, however.

1. Yes.
2. You're learning.
3. Many government tax schemes are like that.

[glockmail]

Actually...Homosexuality is considered by the American Medical Association to be "risky" behavior and place an individual at 23 times greater risk of contracting HIV (the disease that causes AIDS) than a Hetrosexual individual. This is also true for IV drug users only the risk is 38 times greater. These modes of behavior, I beg your pardon, WOULD be considered unhealthy.... Backhanded baby appears to be arguing that gay boys don't push shit, therefore they wouldn't get Anal Intercourse Disease Syndrome.

[The ClayTaurus]

1. Yes.So you would expect as many people who would tell you the world is round to respond with "85%" when you asked what percentage of homosexuals practiced anal sex? Can I avoid having to substantiate something by claiming it's common knowledge, or is that a privilege reserved only for you?
2. You're learning.Every day. The same, unfortunately, does not appear to be true for you.
3. Many government tax schemes are like that."Because they did it" is insufficient justification. This is becoming a common theme for you.

[The ClayTaurus]

Backhanded baby appears to be arguing that gay boys don't push shit, therefore they wouldn't get Anal Intercourse Disease Syndrome.Incorrect. I encourage you to work on your comprehension skills.

[The ClayTaurus]

Actually...Homosexuality is considered by the American Medical Association to be "risky" behavior and place an individual at 23 times greater risk of contracting HIV (the disease that causes AIDS) than a Hetrosexual individual. This is also true for IV drug users only the risk is 38 times greater. These modes of behavior, I beg your pardon, WOULD be considered unhealthy.Sounds interesting. Do you have a link for me to read those numbers myself?
Taxing a hard working successful American more then a lazy worthless babymaker with no job could be considered descriminatory I would think!Unfair, perhaps. But not discriminatory.

[glockmail]

So you would expect as many people who would tell you the world is round to respond with "85%" when you asked what percentage of homosexuals practiced anal sex? Can I avoid having to substantiate something by claiming it's common knowledge, or is that a privilege reserved only for you?

Every day. The same, unfortunately, does not appear to be true for you.

"Because they did it" is insufficient justification. This is becoming a common theme for you.

1. You are attempting to equate the physical world, which is definitive, with human interactions, which is not.
2. Thank you for the insult- debate point for me.
3. Most agree that use taxes are the fairest type of taxation, yet they are never accurate as to use. An example is a gasoline tax, slated to support road construction and maintenance. Yet taxed gasoline is used to run field equipment and generators that never run on roads (and in fact can't legally use that right of way). I'm sorry that you are uncomfortable with this reality.

[glockmail]

Incorrect. I encourage you to work on your comprehension skills.
Argumentum ad hominem- 2nd point for me.

[Jagger]

Argumentum ad hominem- 2nd point for me.

Beat it, you Orwellian torture-sanctioning McCarthyite.

[glockmail]

Beat it, you Orwellian torture-sanctioning McCarthyite. McCarthy was a great American who exposed communism within the US and government.

[The ClayTaurus]

1. You are attempting to equate the physical world, which is definitive, with human interactions, which is not.Actually, it is you who have drawn this comparison, by claiming the 85% number to be common knowledge, as well as by equating my request for sources verifying your 85% claim to me requesting verification of the world being round.
2. Thank you for the insult- debate point for me.Not an insult. Point deducted.
3. Most agree that use taxes are the fairest type of taxation, yet they are never accurate as to use. An example is a gasoline tax, slated to support road construction and maintenance. Yet taxed gasoline is used to run field equipment and generators that never run on roads (and in fact can't legally use that right of way). I'm sorry that you are uncomfortable with this reality.It's not about my comfort level. It's about your insufficient justification. I'm sorry that you are having trouble understanding this.

[The ClayTaurus]

Argumentum ad hominem- 2nd point for me.Incorrect again. 2nd point deducted. I now encourage you to educate yourself on the differences between insults and suggestions based on observation.

[glockmail]

Actually, it is you who have drawn this comparison, by claiming the 85% number to be common knowledge, as well as by equating my request for sources verifying your 85% claim to me requesting verification of the world being round.

Not an insult. Point deducted.

It's not about my comfort level. It's about your insufficient justification. I'm sorry that you are having trouble understanding this.


Incorrect again. 2nd point deducted. I now encourage you to educate yourself on the differences between insults and suggestions based on observation.

1. "Two thirds of gay men have anal sex" http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1114912
2. Sorry but you ain't the judge here. The one that you insulted is.
3. The facts speak for themselves that taxes are routinely poorly targetted.
4. "Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself." [emp mine] http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem Again you have assumed the function of the judge where it is clearly unwarranted.

[The ClayTaurus]

1. "Two thirds of gay men have anal sex" http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1114912So you're admitting your 85% number was purely fictional?
2. Sorry but you ain't the judge here. The one that you insulted is.Except, of course, for when you call me gay, in which case the insulter (you) gets to decide whether or not it's an insult?
3. The facts speak for themselves that taxes are routinely poorly targetted.And yet, your justification of your tax philosophy ("because that's the way it's always been done") is just as lacking. Continue trying, though.
4. "Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself." [emp mine] http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem Again you have assumed the function of the judge where it is clearly unwarranted.I have successfully addressed all of your ideas. I have gone a step further, based on my observations of your inability to do the same, and provided you with constructive feedback. You chose to take that as an insult, even at my insistence that it had no such intention. Based on these facts, your definition simply does not apply.