Gay Marriage Defeated In NY and NJ

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]brnforce wrote:

I would like to see that study to see what the “monogamous relationship” means.[/quote]

" study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, â?¦found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their â??monogamousâ?? relationship. â?? McWhorter-Sember Today3"

" recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-½ years on average â?? even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex â??marriages.â?? The study of young Dutch homosexual men by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, published in May in the journal AIDSâ?¦found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships. â?? Washington Times4"

I could probably site at least 50 more studies which demonstrate the same type of behavior but you get the idea.

That’s the hope isn’t it? But the reality says something quite different. The information that I’ve read demonstrates that marriage does not have such an effect on homosexual unions regardless of what you call them.

“In a recent Dutch survey, the average length of a ‘committed’ homosexual partnership was only 1.5 years. In the mentioned survey of nearly 8,000 gays, 71% of relationships did not last 8 years. Furthermore, violence among homosexual partnerships is two to three times as common as in heterosexual relationships. Such an environment does not provide the stability required for raising children. Former homosexual Stephen Bennett who is married to his wife and has two children states: 'Granting homosexuals the right to marry or adopt children is deliberately creating dysfunctional families.”

I understand that t’s popular to call anyone pointing to the facts a hater. In reality I hate no one and certainly no class of people. That I would even have to say those words in a debate where I have only given facts speaks more about how far the society has moved and the strategy of those who defend this.

Think about it before you post again, does someone pointing out certain facts mean that they are hateful? Before I accuse anyone of hating anything I’d need more proof. But I do understand that screaming “homophobia” or “hater” is sometimes the best defense regarding yoru side of this debate, But none the less still disappointing.

It’s not the fact that they feel ostracized. As I’ve pointed out homosexual marriage has been legal for years in the Netherlands and they still have the highest rate of emotional disorders.
I wish it were that easy, but it’s not.

Yes, of course you do :wink:

And I feel that you are part of the problem. Giving an alcoholic a can of beer and telling them that it’s okay is not going to help them. You seem to be an enabler and we know that enablers are not really helping by closing their eyes and saying everything is fine. A very high rate of homosexuals are dying each year from AIDS, suicide and other very avoidable problems, what are you doing about it? Do you hate them?

42

[quote]brnforce wrote:

I do agree that this bill is NOT just about marriage and that it is a play for money. I do not agree with some of it, but I do think that 2 gay people married should get the same benefits that 2 straight people married should get. If you don’t want to pay those benefits to a gay couple, then don’t pay straight married couples those benefits either. It’s hypocritical otherwise IMO.[/quote]

No, it can be a simple matter of believing a return is coming to me (as a hypothetical employer) for the extra benefits in one type of case and I do well by paying it, and believing no return is coming to me in another type of case.

If I have say 100 men in my company married to women and 100 “married” to other men, and 100 single men, I probably will be correct in predicting that a higher percentage of the 100 men married to women will be ones that will go above and beyond for the company when need be than will be the case for the 200 of other types of men. You can’t know for any single case, but statistically this is true.

Ditto for prospective hires.

If I need to pay more for the married men because other companies do so (for their own self-interest) and I get this benefit, but I don’t expect this benefit from men not married to women, then I am being harmed by being forced to pay them that as well just because YOU and some others think it’s “fair.”

Just as a thought experiment: did you really think employers offered this extra benefit for persons fitting into the same job classification (where a company has some uniformity in the pay structure) out of sheer niceness? No: it is for commercial reasons that they believe make sense for them. They certainly don’t have to offer the benefit to anyone, except perhaps – I am not sure – in some states, and perhaps will have to under Pelosi/Reidcare.

After all, the Constitution empowers the Federal Government to forbid a man from hiring another man unless he provides health insurance meeting government specs for that man’s family, don’cha know.

43

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]brnforce wrote:

I do agree that this bill is NOT just about marriage and that it is a play for money. I do not agree with some of it, but I do think that 2 gay people married should get the same benefits that 2 straight people married should get. If you don’t want to pay those benefits to a gay couple, then don’t pay straight married couples those benefits either. It’s hypocritical otherwise IMO.[/quote]

No, it can be a simple matter of believing a return is coming to me (as a hypothetical employer) for the extra benefits in one type of case and I do well by paying it, and believing no return is coming to me in another type of case.

If I have say 100 men in my company married to women and 100 “married” to other men, and 100 single men, I probably will be correct in predicting that a higher percentage of the 100 men married to women will be ones that will go above and beyond for the company when need be than will be the case for the 200 of other types of men. You can’t know for any single case, but statistically this is true.

Ditto for prospective hires.

If I need to pay more for the married men because other companies do so (for their own self-interest) and I get this benefit, but I don’t expect this benefit from men not married to women, then I am being harmed by being forced to pay them that as well just because YOU and some others think it’s “fair.”

Just as a thought experiment: did you really think employers offered this extra benefit for persons fitting into the same job classification (where a company has some uniformity in the pay structure) out of sheer niceness? No: it is for commercial reasons that they believe make sense for them. They certainly don’t have to offer the benefit to anyone, except perhaps – I am not sure – in some states, and perhaps will have to under Pelosi/Reidcare.

After all, the Constitution empowers the Federal Government to forbid a man from hiring another man unless he provides health insurance meeting government specs for that man’s family, don’cha know.[/quote]

Don’t you think that that is a bit prejudicial? You are saying that simply being married (man/woman) makes an employee work harder. Maybe that is the case on average, but in all of my experiences that was not the case. It all came down to the individual’s work ethic and abilities, not their marital status. I’m not saying you are wrong, for I have not worked with a lot more people than I have worked with :). I do believe that it is not the place of the government to meddle in this, it is the responsibility of the company’s owner. If a person believes that it is unfair they can go to court to PROVE that it was unfair.

44

[quote]ZEB wrote: a lot of garbage
[/quote]

Again, there is a difference both legally and mentally between marriage and “committed relationship”.

To address the violence:

As I stated earlier, the atmosphere for homosexual men in the past 20 years or so has been very negative and violent. Going through this causes a lot of emotional problems for a vast majority of people as a whole. People that are used to being oppressed (as homosexuals were in the past) tend to lash out.

You and people like you are creating this situation and then condemning them for it.

The AIDS claims are foolish too. Africa has an exceedingly large percentage of the AIDS cases on this planet. Yet the percentage of homosexuals in Africa is smaller than in America. AIDS does not equal gay. AIDS is all over the place and has almost nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.

EDIT to add:
The constant comparison to alcoholism is due to the fact that you believe that there is something wrong with homosexuals. I do not.

45

[quote]brnforce wrote:

As I stated earlier, the atmosphere for homosexual men in the past 20 years or so has been very negative and violent. Going through this causes a lot of emotional problems for a vast majority of people as a whole. People that are used to being oppressed (as homosexuals were in the past) tend to lash out.[/quote]

And I reminded you that in the Netherlands there is full acceptance of homosexual activity. In fact, accepted to the point where homosexual marriage has been allowed for many years. Yet, there is still a very high rate of emotional issues among homosexuals. I know you don’t like reading this as it doesn’t fit your politically correct view point, however there it is, it’s real address it.

I’ve done nothing but point out the facts and you’ve done nothing but post that I’m a hater. I oppress no one, but you enable some very bad behavior that harms people, how does that make you feel?

Foolish only to those with fingers planted firmly in their ears and running around the room saying “la la la la I can’t hear you”.

The following is from the governments own Centers For Disease Control web site:

“MSM (Men who have sex with men) account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated
532,000 total persons).”

“MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have
declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM
has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.”

“A study of MSM in five U.S. cities found extremely high levels of infection among MSM, and many of those infected did not know it.”

http://www.cdc.gov/NCHHSTP/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

I hope that your political correctness does not dissuade you from clicking on the site and actually gaining some real information.

Do you realize that you cannot refute the facts that I’ve presented regarding the US by claiming that Africa has an HIV problem and there are less homosexuals? You do know that don’t you?

Anyway, it seems that the growing population of homosexuals in Africa want a voice:

Gay Movement Gathers Momentum In Africa & Arab WorldGay Movement Gathers Momentum In Africa & Arab WorldBringing News and Opinions to the PeopleBarbados Underground

Yet if there were no homosexual activity there would be no HIV epidemic in the US. Again, look at the CDC facts don’t just listen to those who think and act a certain way because it is politically correct to do so. Open your eyes do your own studies, your a big boy learn to think for yourself, can you?

You have proven that you are able to call someone names on the Internet, not such difficult thing to do. I now challenge you to prove me wrong with actual facts. Forget the name calling and do some research. Stop imagining that your ideas are correct because you’ve heard them so many times coming from various places.

You are indeed wrong and posting back that I’m a hater or have posted garbage is not sufficient to prove me wrong.

Try again.

46

[quote]brnforce wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]brnforce wrote:

I do agree that this bill is NOT just about marriage and that it is a play for money. I do not agree with some of it, but I do think that 2 gay people married should get the same benefits that 2 straight people married should get. If you don’t want to pay those benefits to a gay couple, then don’t pay straight married couples those benefits either. It’s hypocritical otherwise IMO.[/quote]

No, it can be a simple matter of believing a return is coming to me (as a hypothetical employer) for the extra benefits in one type of case and I do well by paying it, and believing no return is coming to me in another type of case.

If I have say 100 men in my company married to women and 100 “married” to other men, and 100 single men, I probably will be correct in predicting that a higher percentage of the 100 men married to women will be ones that will go above and beyond for the company when need be than will be the case for the 200 of other types of men. You can’t know for any single case, but statistically this is true.

Ditto for prospective hires.

If I need to pay more for the married men because other companies do so (for their own self-interest) and I get this benefit, but I don’t expect this benefit from men not married to women, then I am being harmed by being forced to pay them that as well just because YOU and some others think it’s “fair.”

Just as a thought experiment: did you really think employers offered this extra benefit for persons fitting into the same job classification (where a company has some uniformity in the pay structure) out of sheer niceness? No: it is for commercial reasons that they believe make sense for them. They certainly don’t have to offer the benefit to anyone, except perhaps – I am not sure – in some states, and perhaps will have to under Pelosi/Reidcare.

After all, the Constitution empowers the Federal Government to forbid a man from hiring another man unless he provides health insurance meeting government specs for that man’s family, don’cha know.[/quote]

Don’t you think that that is a bit prejudicial? You are saying that simply being married (man/woman) makes an employee work harder. Maybe that is the case on average,[/quote]

  1. That is all it takes, to be true on average
  2. Even if the employer’s opinion of this is wrong, do you deny him the freedom to have a wrong opinion and pay some people more out of his own error as to what is good for him, the employer?
47

Hold the press! Men have a large appetite for sex?

48

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Hold the press! Men have a large appetite for sex?[/quote]

No. They just have the large acceptance and encouragement of society minus the possible collateral damage of his body being deformed for 9 months.

49

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Hold the press! Men have a large appetite for sex?[/quote]

No. They just have the large acceptance and encouragement of society minus the possible collateral damage of his body being deformed for 9 months.
[/quote]

Sex is being used as a means to control us. Morals originate in the concept of heterosexual monogomy. And the LAST thing our beloved leaders want is a bunch of angry hetero males defending their families.

Gay males, having no children, will of course not fight to the death to protect their children.

Our leaders want us fat (hence all the fast food joints) and childless. Lean hungry warriors who’re pissed at having their children enslaved by debt? No!!!

50

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Hold the press! Men have a large appetite for sex?[/quote]

No. They just have the large acceptance and encouragement of society minus the possible collateral damage of his body being deformed for 9 months.
[/quote]

Sex is being used as a means to control us. Morals originate in the concept of heterosexual monogomy. And the LAST thing our beloved leaders want is a bunch of angry hetero males defending their families.

Gay males, having no children, will of course not fight to the death to protect their children.

Our leaders want us fat (hence all the fast food joints) and childless. Lean hungry warriors who’re pissed at having their children enslaved by debt? No!!!
[/quote]

I agree with the essence of your statement, HH.
I am not a feminist nor a sexist.
I love men and though I have no problem leading, if I were to have a husband in my life he would be the pilot and I would be his co-pilot.
This is the only arrangement that creates for a harmonious co-existence.
I have always known exactly what I wanted in a partnership and what arrangement would contribute to my growth as an even stronger woman. Any thing less would just break me, not make me.

Gay men and women may maintain that both partners are ‘equal’ in the arrangement but when you put the relationship under the microscope someone is wearing the pants.

51

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Sex is being used as a means to control us. Morals originate in the concept of heterosexual monogomy. And the LAST thing our beloved leaders want is a bunch of angry hetero males defending their families.

Gay males, having no children, will of course not fight to the death to protect their children.

Our leaders want us fat (hence all the fast food joints) and childless. Lean hungry warriors who’re pissed at having their children enslaved by debt? No!!!
[/quote]

Consider the possibility that a world saturated by sex might be preferable to a world of dutiful procreation.

It’s only natural that we are preoccupied by the essential urge of life, even if it sometimes makes us flippant. Those who achieve orgasm are less motivated to affect their greater atmosphere, because they’ve already attained satisfaction on their own terms. This allows rulers to rule somewhat more freely.

However, there is an important distinction between being distracted and being controlled.

From 1984:

It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own which was outside the Party’s control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war-fever and leader-worship. The way she put it was:

‘When you make love you’re using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don’t give a damn for anything. They can’t bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour. If you’re happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three-Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?’

That was very true, he thought. There was a direct intimate connexion between chastity and political orthodoxy. For how could the fear, the hatred, and the lunatic credulity which the Party needed in its members be kept at the right pitch, except by bottling down some powerful instinct and using it as a driving force? The sex impulse was dangerous to the Party, and the Party had turned it to account.

52

First off, let me say that I’m by no means a gay rights activist. You can call me right wing, conservative, or whatever. I personally don’t believe though that it is any business of the government to dictate who has the right to get married. I don’t personally believe in gay marriage, but this is based on my religious beliefs. When it comes down to it, marriage is the decision of the individuals involved.

53

First off, let me say that I’m by no means a gay rights activist. You can call me right wing, conservative, or whatever. I personally don’t believe though that it is any business of the government to dictate who has the right to get married. I don’t personally believe in gay marriage, but this is based on my religious beliefs. When it comes down to it, marriage is the decision of the individuals involved.

54

First off, let me say that I’m by no means a gay rights activist. You can call me right wing, conservative, or whatever. I personally don’t believe though that it is any business of the government to dictate who has the right to get married. I don’t personally believe in gay marriage, but this is based on my religious beliefs. When it comes down to it, marriage is the decision of the individuals involved.

55

http://www.cdc.gov/...INAL508COMP.pdf

ZEB, looks like you missed out a few points from that study (you saw there was a page 3 right?) as to reasons they found for the increased incidence of HIV amongst gay men:

“Social discrimination and cultural issues: For some MSM, social and economic factors, including homophobia, stigma, and lack of access to health care may increase risk behaviors or be a barrier to receiving HIV prevention services.”

“High prevalence of HIV: The high prevalence of HIV among gay and bisexual men means MSM face a
greater risk of being exposed to infection with each sexual encounter, especially as they get older. For young
black MSM, partnering with older black men (among whom HIV prevalence is high) may also lead to increased risk.”

“Lack of knowledge of HIV status: Studies show that individuals who know they are infected take steps to protect their partners. Yet many MSM are unaware of their status and may unknowingly be transmitting the virus to others. Additionally, some MSM may make false assumptions or have inaccurate information about their partnerâ??s HIV status. It is critical to ensure that sexually active MSM get tested for HIV at least annually, or more frequently as needed”

You kind of have to admit that point two is a bit of a chicken and the egg scenario, but I for one feel that if points one and three were addressed it’s gotta have a positive effect on point two.

And as far as point three is concerned, my guess is that this applies equally to straight people as well. If I had HIV and didn’t know it, you best believe I’d carry on fucking around wherever I got the chance.

56

[quote]HotGymGuy wrote:
http://www.cdc.gov/...INAL508COMP.pdf

ZEB, looks like you missed out a few points from that study (you saw there was a page 3 right?) as to reasons they found for the increased incidence of HIV amongst gay men:

“Social discrimination and cultural issues: For some MSM, social and economic factors, including homophobia, stigma, and lack of access to health care may increase risk behaviors or be a barrier to receiving HIV prevention services.”

“High prevalence of HIV: The high prevalence of HIV among gay and bisexual men means MSM face a
greater risk of being exposed to infection with each sexual encounter, especially as they get older. For young
black MSM, partnering with older black men (among whom HIV prevalence is high) may also lead to increased risk.”

“Lack of knowledge of HIV status: Studies show that individuals who know they are infected take steps to protect their partners. Yet many MSM are unaware of their status and may unknowingly be transmitting the virus to others. Additionally, some MSM may make false assumptions or have inaccurate information about their partnerâ??s HIV status. It is critical to ensure that sexually active MSM get tested for HIV at least annually, or more frequently as needed”

You kind of have to admit that point two is a bit of a chicken and the egg scenario, but I for one feel that if points one and three were addressed it’s gotta have a positive effect on point two.

And as far as point three is concerned, my guess is that this applies equally to straight people as well. If I had HIV and didn’t know it, you best believe I’d carry on fucking around wherever I got the chance.[/quote]

HotGymGuy,

Nice to read a voice of reason every once in a while - expect to be shouted down. Yes, ZEB et al. know about this very well, as I (and others posters) have posted this and similar statements in numerous debates by the CDC before (just go through my post history for sources). It obviously doesn’t fit into the selective perception which is touted as ‘shocking facts’ about MSM here (and are normally based on religious sources when you follow up the links they provide), but the CDC does not ever discourage homosexual relationships on the grounds of health reasons. They in fact in some of their materials encourage people to engage in the gay community, as it has been more successful in bringing the health message (including safer sex) more effectively than other means. But acknowledging this would challenge the stereotypes about the ‘dangers’ of a LGBT orientation and lifestyle and question the moral framework which drives their posts - and which has basically driven most meaningful debate on the topic off the forum. I have to exempt ZEB a little from that last point (only) - I just wanted to make you aware that there are numerous posters here who share a more balanced (and scientific) view on the topic - just because many of us don’t post anymore, doesn’t mean we’re not here.

Makkun

PS: Your link didn’t show when I followed it, so I’m reposting it:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

57

Dang, I hate to break up this politically correct love-fest should I have included HIV positive drug users too? Okay, then let’s put it this way. If it were not for homosexuals (2/3rds of all HIV cases) and drug users (1/4 of all HIV cases) there would be no AIDS epidemic, that better? Can we all turn on an episode of Will and Grace and pretend that’s all real now?

As far as education can you think of anywhere in the world where more time and money has been spent than in San Francisco? In fact the 2009 budget request for HIV and AIDS domestic spending is estimated at just over $18 billion. Certainly a large sum but to what end?

Great effort has been spent educating the homosexual population on the obvious dangers of totally unprotected male/male sex? But, does it help? Nope. “45% of gay men in San Francisco are infected with HIV”.

Here’s one of the warnings included in the educational literature:

"FOR SUCKING AND GETTING SUCKED

For maximum protection, use non-lubricated latex condoms without spermicide. If you don’t like the taste, try flavored condoms."

And of course no education program would be complete without this warning:

"FOR RIMMING

Use a barrier like plastic wrap or a dental dam to prevent fecal matter (shit) from getting into your mouth. This can protect you from intestinal parasites and hepatitis A.
Using a barrier may also protect you from herpes."

http://www.managingdesire.org/sfdphoralsex.html

Millions and millions of dollars have been spent trying educate this group of people to no avial. The amount of unprtected sex that most homosexual men have with complete strangers is unbelievable, it’s almost like they’re on a suicide mission. It’s sad indeed.

Furthermore, I’ve posted data on the high rate of unstable emotional health regarding homosexual men in country’s where gay marriage is legal and has been for quite some time. This is not about acceptance, these people need help and not the kind that either of you two are advocating. As I’ve said before you are no more than enablers this is the absolute worst kind of “help” and in fact makes matters much worse.

58

[quote]ZEB wrote:
…
Furthermore, I’ve posted data on the high rate of unstable emotional health regarding homosexual men in country’s where gay marriage is legal and has been for quite some time. This is not about acceptance, these people need help and not the kind that either of you two are advocating. As I’ve said before you are no more than enablers this is the absolute worst kind of “help” and in fact makes matters much worse.

[/quote]

I’m running short of time to get to work, but I just wanted to clarify: Are you classifying homosexuality itself as something that requires help (to turn ‘them’ into good heterosexuals perhaps), or are you referring to this supposed promsicuity and inability to commit to a long-term monogamous relationship?

If it’s the former then there’s not much use my debating with you. If it’s the latter then based on what I’ve seen of my gay and lesbian friends/workmates/family members then I would have to disagree with you also, but at least that still leaves room for debate.

59

[quote]HotGymGuy wrote:

Are you classifying homosexuality itself as something that requires help (to turn ‘them’ into good heterosexuals perhaps),[/quote]

There have been many case studies performed which clearly show that those who seek therapy do in fact change their sexual identification (keep in mind that about 80% of all men who call themselves “gay” have had or continue to have sex with women, they simply “prefer” other men) However, the numbers are not promising at about 30%. But, before you dispaly any sort of mocking tone as you did above (good heterosexuals) no one has yet proven how a person becomes a homosexual. There have been many theories both nurture and nature but no conclusive proof. Therefore, don’t claim that one cannot change their sexual preference because as I stated it has been done in the past.

Ask yourself why homosexuals have such a very high rate of HIV in addition to a high rate of STD’s and a myriad of physical and emotional problems (it’s not because society looks down on them as this occurs in country’s where they can be married). Do you think It might have something to do with their promiscuity?

This is the single most unhealthy group of citizens in the US, far more unhealthy than alcoholics, as a group. To close our eyes to this problem by enabling them, or worse yet to actually give this group special rights would be wrong minded and unhelpful.

60

Ok, it may be true that gays are responsible for most HIV/AIDS cases, but that doesn’t mean they are the only ones that can contract it (See Africa). Anyway, gay relationships and marriages are totally unnatural, but it is not a matter for the government to decide.

Let the government decide that gays can’t get married and then what comes next? Afterall, we let divorcees get remarried and they have very high probabilities of getting divorced again.