Chicago Bans, and Gets Sued

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I’m not really sure that the state not recongnizing gay marriage is equal to, or comparable to, enslaving people.[/quote]

That’s because it isn’t. Not even remotely. State not recognizing, arranging, ordering, and promoting a private and individual relationship? Well, we keep hearing how it’s a private expression of an individual’s rights…So, it’s only appropriate that the government not recognize it. It’s a private act without critical and irreplaceable implications for society as a whole. The government is presently treating it as a private expression, by not recognizing it.

Compare that to slavery? Give me a break.[/quote]

That comparison is so blatantly offensive I am offended and I am not even black. It’s not even the same game much less ball park. I wonder why the NAACP doesn’t jump down their throats for making these ridiculous comparison.[/quote]
Why? Why does it only have something to do with blacks? The word slavery does not equal black. Slavery as an institution has existed for centuries and was not restricted to blacks. Athens was a democracy and they had slavery. The majority didn’t vote to end it. [/quote]

The recent example of slavery is black slavery. It’s not a sensitive issue in greece 2000 years later. You’re comparing the plight of an enslaved person, one regarded as less than a person as the same as two dudes getting married? You seriously don’t think people should be called out on that?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? [/quote]

Well, yes, of course. Do you want more tax payers or more consumers? Higher educated people, or less? A bigger labor force, or a bigger prison population. Society has a vested interest.
[/quote]

Gays fit into the favorable categories you just mentioned more so than the average population. I’m glad we can finally agree that children raised in those households will statistically be better for society.[/quote]

Gays don’t have children as an inherent part of their nature. Not in homosexual relationships. Most definitely not in intact homes. The state has no interest in promoting it. The birds and bees of nature assures us the reproductive sexes will have children as a fact of life. When they do, and they do in large numbers, it is best in orderly, intact homes. Sorry, homoesexual relationships don’t deserve anymore recognition than a friendship. It isn’t special, wonderful, or in anyway important to society at large. If it vanished tomorrow, it’d be like a gnat farting in the wind. There is no rationale for the state to elevate homosexuality above friendships. That’s bigotry.
[/quote]

So if certain races statistically provided less than ideal homes for children would you argue that the government should not recognize their marriage?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? While we are at it they should probably handle our healthcare too, since they know whats best for us and all. After all, the smallest unit capable of raising children should have health insurance, sick or dead people suck at raising children.[/quote]

So now you’re anti-state recognized marriage? Just wondering if this painful shoe-horning of the individual mandate, which actively punishes for not having health insurance (as opposed to not punishing for not being married), into the conversation is honest, or are you simply grasping at straws. Are you advocating the libertarian position, or not? No homosexual marriage, because no marriages AT ALL? Yes, or no? Are you advocating the unraveling of all state recognized marriages? Or, are you flinging poo? We’re getting this straightened out right now, as I will not debate poo-flingers.[/quote]

Advocating gay marriage be included in current state recognized marriages. No government recognized marriage at all would eventually have the same end result but that’s never going to happen so the first route is easier and will happen eventually regardless of my personal opinion on it.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So if certain races statistically provided less than ideal homes for children would you argue that the government should not recognize their marriage?
[/quote]

Intact homes, with both biological parents are superior, regardless of race. If I’m concerned about the education levels, incarceration rates, and ability to moves up in socio-economic status, I’d PROMOTE marriage more in those communities…The reality of broken homes (especially missing fathers) is already reflected in negative statistical outcomes for certain communities. You have it completely backwards.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Advocating gay marriage be included in current state recognized marriages. No government recognized marriage at all would eventually have the same end result but that’s never going to happen so the first route is easier and will happen eventually regardless of my personal opinion on it.[/quote]

Then stop pretending to be a libertarian, then not, then pretending to be a libertarian again. Argue honest, or not at all.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Advocating gay marriage be included in current state recognized marriages. No government recognized marriage at all would eventually have the same end result but that’s never going to happen so the first route is easier and will happen eventually regardless of my personal opinion on it.[/quote]

Then stop pretending to be a libertarian, then not, then pretending to be a libertarian again. Argue honest, or not at all.
[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what I am in this case, the libertarian option is just NOT going to happen. The reality is that legalizing gay marriage OR getting rid of all marriage will eventually have the exact same outcome which will be non-libertarian.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Advocating gay marriage be included in current state recognized marriages. No government recognized marriage at all would eventually have the same end result but that’s never going to happen so the first route is easier and will happen eventually regardless of my personal opinion on it.[/quote]

Then stop pretending to be a libertarian, then not, then pretending to be a libertarian again. Argue honest, or not at all.
[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what I am in this case, the libertarian option is just NOT going to happen. The reality is that legalizing gay marriage OR getting rid of all marriage will eventually have the exact same outcome which will be non-libertarian.[/quote]

So you’re claiming that opening the door to homosexuals will open the door to polyamorous relationships of any number and gender arrangement. And, even for non-intimate arrangements of any shape or size? Because that’s what you just said…

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Advocating gay marriage be included in current state recognized marriages. No government recognized marriage at all would eventually have the same end result but that’s never going to happen so the first route is easier and will happen eventually regardless of my personal opinion on it.[/quote]

Then stop pretending to be a libertarian, then not, then pretending to be a libertarian again. Argue honest, or not at all.
[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what I am in this case, the libertarian option is just NOT going to happen. The reality is that legalizing gay marriage OR getting rid of all marriage will eventually have the exact same outcome which will be non-libertarian.[/quote]

So you’re claiming that opening the door to homosexuals will open the door to polyamorous relationships of any number and gender arrangement. And, even for non-intimate arrangements of any shape or size? Because that’s what you just said…
[/quote]

If enough people want it, but I don’t think that is the case. The slippery slope argument doesn’t work here for many reasons. If you want to play that game then traditional marriage is a bad too, after all its opening doors for all sorts of weird stuff, like gay marriage which is now legal in 6-8 states.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
If enough people want it, but I don’t think that is the case. The slippery slope argument doesn’t work here for many reasons.[/quote]

No, I’m sorry, but not so fast. You say it doesn’t work, but immediately prior you outright said that both would lead to the same outcomes. So, do you believe what your said, or not?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
If enough people want it, but I don’t think that is the case. The slippery slope argument doesn’t work here for many reasons.[/quote]

No, I’m sorry, but not so fast. You say it doesn’t work, but immediately prior you outright said that both would lead to the same outcomes. So, do you believe what your said, or not?
[/quote]

If we did away with government recognized marriage as a means to solve this debate, there would just be a series of benefits that would make their way in our system for 2 people living together, in 50 years it would just be marriage under a different name. It’s just a slower moving version of legalizing gay marriage right now.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
If enough people want it, but I don’t think that is the case. The slippery slope argument doesn’t work here for many reasons.[/quote]

No, I’m sorry, but not so fast. You say it doesn’t work, but immediately prior you outright said that both would lead to the same outcomes. So, do you believe what your said, or not?
[/quote]

If we did away with government recognized marriage as a means to solve this debate, there would just be a series of benefits that would make their way in our system for 2 people living together, in 50 years it would just be marriage under a different name. It’s just a slower moving version of legalizing gay marriage right now.[/quote]

What? The premise is that there isn’t any such benefit for any state promoted arrangement. That’s the point of the doing away with marriage. All relationships would be equal, because none would be promoted. Seriously, enough. Do you, or do you not believe they will have the same outcomes. Do you believe opening up state recognized marriage will open it up to any and all imaginative arrangements between consenting adults, equalizing every and all imaginative arrangement between consenting adults, as the non-state recognized position would? Yes or no.

If we’re going to continue to converse, you’re going to give me YOUR honest arguments, positions, and what you honestly think in general. You’re not going to flip-flop libertarian/progressive on me, and then make claims you may or may not actually believe. I’ve got better things to do. Same outcomes or not, yes or no?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do you believe opening up state recognized marriage will open it up to any and all imaginative arrangements between consenting adults, equalizing every and all imaginative arrangement between consenting adults, as the non-state recognized position would? Yes or no.
[/quote]

I am not sure what you are implying by “opening up state recognized marriage”, just arguing to include gay marriage, not to open up for arbitrary marriages.

I was saying non-state recognition would result in marriage under a different name, all arguments still apply to both equally but for one you would just use a different word besides “marriage”.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do you believe opening up state recognized marriage will open it up to any and all imaginative arrangements between consenting adults, equalizing every and all imaginative arrangement between consenting adults, as the non-state recognized position would? Yes or no.
[/quote]

I am not sure what you are implying by “opening up state recognized marriage”, just arguing to include gay marriage, not to open up for arbitrary marriages.

I was saying non-state recognition would result in marriage under a different name, all arguments still apply to both equally but for one you would just use a different word besides “marriage”.[/quote]

Take care.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? [/quote]

Well, yes, of course. Do you want more tax payers or more consumers? Higher educated people, or less? A bigger labor force, or a bigger prison population. Society has a vested interest.
[/quote]

Gays fit into the favorable categories you just mentioned more so than the average population. I’m glad we can finally agree that children raised in those households will statistically be better for society.[/quote]

Gays don’t have children as an inherent part of their nature. Not in homosexual relationships. Most definitely not in intact homes. The state has no interest in promoting it. The birds and bees of nature assures us the reproductive sexes will have children as a fact of life. When they do, and they do in large numbers, it is best in orderly, intact homes. Sorry, homoesexual relationships don’t deserve anymore recognition than a friendship. It isn’t special, wonderful, or in anyway important to society at large. If it vanished tomorrow, it’d be like a gnat farting in the wind. There is no rationale for the state to elevate homosexuality above friendships. That’s bigotry.
[/quote]

So if certain races statistically provided less than ideal homes for children would you argue that the government should not recognize their marriage?
[/quote]

I think your underlying point is a good one to look deeper into. Currently, the state acknowledges the marriage of a man and woman. The request is to have the state recognize a same -sex union as the same as that of a man and a woman.
What about the gay union makes it the same as a male/ famale marriage? Forget the love part, love isn’t part of the issue. Lot’s of married people don’t love each other, that doesn’t unmarry them.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? [/quote]

Well, yes, of course. Do you want more tax payers or more consumers? Higher educated people, or less? A bigger labor force, or a bigger prison population. Society has a vested interest.
[/quote]

Gays fit into the favorable categories you just mentioned more so than the average population. I’m glad we can finally agree that children raised in those households will statistically be better for society.[/quote]

Documentation?[/quote]

What part exactly? I thought it should be pretty obvious.[/quote]

The part where you say that gays fit into the favorable categories more so than the average pop. And children will statistically be better for society when raised by gay parents.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? [/quote]

Well, yes, of course. Do you want more tax payers or more consumers? Higher educated people, or less? A bigger labor force, or a bigger prison population. Society has a vested interest.
[/quote]

Gays fit into the favorable categories you just mentioned more so than the average population. I’m glad we can finally agree that children raised in those households will statistically be better for society.[/quote]

Documentation?[/quote]

What part exactly? I thought it should be pretty obvious.[/quote]

The part where you say that gays fit into the favorable categories more so than the average pop. And children will statistically be better for society when raised by gay parents.[/quote]

Statistically gays are more educated, make more money and not in prison as much as everyone else. I don’t see how any of those 3 traits would not result in better child raising than the opposite traits.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? [/quote]

Well, yes, of course. Do you want more tax payers or more consumers? Higher educated people, or less? A bigger labor force, or a bigger prison population. Society has a vested interest.
[/quote]

Gays fit into the favorable categories you just mentioned more so than the average population. I’m glad we can finally agree that children raised in those households will statistically be better for society.[/quote]

Documentation?[/quote]

What part exactly? I thought it should be pretty obvious.[/quote]

The part where you say that gays fit into the favorable categories more so than the average pop. And children will statistically be better for society when raised by gay parents.[/quote]

Statistically gays are more educated, make more money and not in prison as much as everyone else. I don’t see how any of those 3 traits would not result in better child raising than the opposite traits.[/quote]

You already made claims to that affect. That’s why I asked for documentation the first time. Am I supposed to take your claims as true just because you said they are true?

Yes this is from a Christian apologetics site, but it is documented and is the best I can do as I am incredibly busy the last few days.

[quote]
Homosexual activity harms no one

by Matt Slick

Saying that homosexual behavior harms no one is not true. The very lifestyle of homosexuality is highly promiscuous and brimming with disease, although pro-homosexuals will try and separate the behavior from related illnesses in their attempt to demonstrate that homosexual behavior doesn’t harm anyone. But the evidence doesn’t support that notion.

Homosexuals more likely to suffer from depression: "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com....the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle...the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual...While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s."(onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614)
Breast Cancer higher among Lesbians: "Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed among women and is the leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States, following cancers of the skin and lung. Recent research has identified risk factors for breast cancer that may differentially affect lesbian and bisexual women, including nulliparity and higher rates of alcohol consumption and overweight, that may place this population at geater [sic] risk than heterosexual women of developing breast cancer." (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=319&E:\ColdFusion9\verity\Data\dummy.txt)

Promiscuity

While it could be argued that two men (or two women) having sexual intercourse with each other and only each other can’t harm anyone else, the fact is that homosexuality is not a “monogomous affair.” The homosexual lifestyle is by nature promiscuous, as the facts demonstrate.

"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101?500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (See more statistics on Promiscuity at http://www.carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity)

To ignore the facts of incredible sexual promiscuity among homosexuals is the admission that the problem exists, and by ignoring it they hope it goes away. Also, to ignore the facts of such promiscuity is dangerous in itself since policies and arguments are made based on facts. To ignore the facts means the policies and arguments are not sound when used to promote the homosexual lifestyle.

Context determines meaning

In defining words, context determines the meaning. Likewise, the context of homosexual acts is equally important. The pro-homosexual community wants to separate the act from the deleterious effects. It is like saying that the behavior of jumping doesn’t harm anyone. Well, that depends. Jumping in your living room shouldn’t harm you, but jumping near the edge of a cliff can. Behaviors always have contexts and homosexual activity is in the context of 1) a redefinition of sexual morals, and 2) its accompanying promiscuity. When you redefine sexual morals in a far more loose manner, consequences follow - such as an increase in promiscuity and disease.

AIDS and Homosexuality

 2% of U.S. population is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection:  "Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections. While CDC estimates that MSM represent only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for the majority (61 percent; 29,300) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Young MSM (ages 13 to 29) were most severely affected, representing more than one quarter of all new HIV infections nationally (27 percent; 12,900 in 2009)."  (Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html)
"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s?.? (Center for Disease Control,  http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm)

If homosexual sexuality does not harm anyone, then why are the statistics for homosexual AIDS percentages so much higher than the heterosexual population? Again, there is a connection between the redefinition of sexual morals, the increase of promiscuity due to that redefinition, and the proliferation of disease due to the promiscuous behavior. As I said earlier, actions always have contexts.

Homosexuality and reduced Lifespan

Gay men lifespan shorter than non gay men: "The life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for men in general. Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657." (Exodus Global Alliance, exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
"In 2007, MSM [Men Sex with Men] were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women." (Center for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm)
Domestic Violence higher among homosexuals: "'the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.'(Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41?59." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Sex of women with women at greater health risk than women with men: "For women, a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of adverse sexual, reproductive, and general health outcomes compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men." (American Journal of Public Health,  ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/1126)

If mere homosexual activity harms no one, then why do gay men have a lifespan that is significantly less than heterosexual men (1 above)? Why is the homosexual man 44 to 86 times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV than heterosexual men (2)? Why is the incidence of domestic violence double that of heterosexual men (3)? Why do lesbian women have greater health risks than heterosexual women (4)?

Conclusion

Since behaviors always have contexts, and rarely have no effect upon anyone else, it is obvious that homosexual behavior is indeed harmful. It is full of promiscuity and its related health risks. The facts speak contrary to the idea that mere homosexual activity harms no one.[/quote] http://carm.org/homosexual-gay-sex-harms-no-one

Back onto topic, Chicago violating first Amendment rights for Chic-fil-A?