Gay Marriage Down in Flames!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
461

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
To argue that gay men have no mental health problems from the diseases in their community is pretty much absurd, IMO. But we’ve heard no discussion from the gay advocates on this thread on the topic I’ve just discussed. Nope. We’ve heard nothing but dismissal and the blame-shifting of the entirety of gay problems onto straights. I’ve got a hard time with that. [/quote]

I haven’t heard a single person argue that the fear of HIV, etc. wasn’t a factor in gay mental health. I also haven’t heard anyone argue that drug abuse and sexual promiscuity among gays would be 100% corrected if gays were given equal rights.

However, I do think eliminating discrimination and granting equal rights would help.

462

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
If you are homosexual, I have no problem with you as a person, to me you are a person and should have access to all the same rights.
[/quote]

That’s all I ask. You’re welcome to the term “marriage” if you think it is exclusively the domain of religion. I disagree on that point, but it’s not a big deal for me.

What I do care about is getting the same federal rights, whatever label you choose to put on the relationship.

463

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Agreed. Gay bashing/violence against gays is all too common.

No, it isn’t. There were only 1500 incidences of violence last year against gays in the US of a population of 300 million. [/quote]

1500 reported. Few gay people report it. You are also not using stats correctly as there are not 300 million gay people in this country now is there? So 1500 (actually reported) is what % of the actual gay population? It’s irrelevant really. It’s less common than it used to be no doubt, but not uncommon in the gay community and if you knew any, they would confirm as much for you.

464

[quote]pat wrote:
Uh, they have the same rights as anybody else, always have. I can’t marry a man either, I just don’t want to. Big deal…There was a ballot initiative, it lost every where it was presented. Tough shit. I have to deal with Obama, that’s my tough shit.[/quote]

Your logic is flawed. People said the same thing back in the days of miscegenation laws:

“Blacks have the same rights as whites. They can marry someone of the same race just as whites can. What they want is SPECIAL RIGHTS, by being able to marry someone of a different race.”

465

[quote]clip11 wrote:
And if two men want to get married, no ones stopping them from having a ceremony. But just because they have a ceremony shouldnt mean the rest of us who are against it should be forced into submission to recognize it.[/quote]

Just like when those damn women wanted to vote and people from different races wanted to marry and bigots like you passed laws to prevent it? “no no, that’s different!” the bigots claim. It’s not…

466

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

Deviancy is in no way the same as ethnicity.[/quote]

And the bigots who said blacks and whites getting married was “deviant”? Were they right also? Personally, I don’t give a rats ass if it’s from birth, a “life choice” or a combo of both. It’s irrelevant. The state has no compelling reason to tell adults what they can do with their body or who they can marry. As long as it does not include animals or children, and or does not prevent others from their own persuit of life, liberty, and happiness, what others do is none of my business. And by “my” I mean the state, society, or moralizing Bible thumpers.

There were laws not long ago that prevented people of different races from getting married. Most people would be disgusted by that today, but it was the social norm then, and a few of those laws are still being used against gay people.(1) Equal Rights is Equal Rights, not just rights for those you agree with or don’t threaten your social norms (which change over time whether you and I like it or not) or go against your religion.

A state altering it’s own Const. to add bigotry to it, is a low point in our nations history and a big step backwards for Equal Rights as promised by the Bill of Rights and Const.

(1) IN 1913 a law was passed in Massachusetts to prevent interracial couples from other parts of the US marrying in the state.

At the time, 30 of 48 states had banned interracial marriage, and a number of states, including Massachusetts, then passed laws that would keep interracial couples from crossing borders to marry in their jurisdiction.
Relationships like this were once prohibited in many US states

Relationships like this were once prohibited in many US states

Thankfully, the archaic marriage law ? a reminder of America?s disgraceful racist past - fell into disuse.
But it was then discovered that the law could be invoked to prevent gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in Massachusetts.

So the House of Representatives yesterday did the right thing and voted, by a huge majority, to scrap it.
The Catholic Church, of course, is outraged.

Cont:

http://www.freethinker.co.uk/2008/07/29/massachusetts-scraps-archaic-racist-law-–-and-the-archaic-catholic-church-of-course-is-furious/

467

[quote]clip11 wrote:
And if two men want to get married, no ones stopping them from having a ceremony. But just because they have a ceremony shouldnt mean the rest of us who are against it should be forced into submission to recognize it.[/quote]

No one is making YOU recognize it. You never have to recognize it. They want the same federal rights afforded to marriage.

468

[quote]WillBrink wrote:
apbt55 wrote:

Deviancy is in no way the same as ethnicity.

And the bigots who said blacks and whites getting married was “deviant”? Were they right also? [/quote]

But…but…it’s different! Those were blacks! race is different! It was wrong for us to discriminate against people because of their race but this is totally different! It’s deviance I tell you, deviance!! DISCRIMINATION 4 GAYS 4 LIFE!!!

469

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
WillBrink wrote:
apbt55 wrote:

Deviancy is in no way the same as ethnicity.

And the bigots who said blacks and whites getting married was “deviant”? Were they right also?

But…but…it’s different! Those were blacks! race is different! It was wrong for us to discriminate against people because of their race but this is totally different! It’s deviance I tell you, deviance!! DISCRIMINATION 4 GAYS 4 LIFE!!![/quote]

God hates smoking, but he loves homosexuals.

470

[quote]Makavali wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
WillBrink wrote:
apbt55 wrote:

Deviancy is in no way the same as ethnicity.

And the bigots who said blacks and whites getting married was “deviant”? Were they right also?

But…but…it’s different! Those were blacks! race is different! It was wrong for us to discriminate against people because of their race but this is totally different! It’s deviance I tell you, deviance!! DISCRIMINATION 4 GAYS 4 LIFE!!!

God hates smoking, but he loves homosexuals.[/quote]

No God loves everyone, he hates sin.

But that is besides the point I know that argument doesn’t work
here.

So you are confusing ethnicity with a sexual deviance. I know it is hard for you to understand but they are two totally different things.

ethnicity is hereditarily passed on, unless you donate sperm or out of disgust knock up some girl to have a child, you can’t do that.

Being homosexual is abnormal, being black, asian, indian, white, isn’t.

Make logical analogous connections if you want to argue points.

471

[quote]forlife wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I don’t know what I think. Still baffles me. I know that neither myself nor any of my straight friends would have sex without a condom no matter how drunk or fucked up.

In addition to the risk of STDs, heterosexuals have one very significant risk that gays don’t have to worry about :slight_smile:

I don’t think lesbians practice nearly as much unsafe sex as gay men do. I see it as more of a testosterone thing than anything else.

Regardless, the issue isn’t gay vs. straight. It is about safe vs. unsafe sex. Gays and straights can both practice safe sex, independent of who they do it with.
[/quote]

Well, I agree. But I do think it’s a valid question to ask whey unsafe sex is more prevalent in gay men. And not homophobic to try to stop it.

472

Give the same rights to single people.

473

[quote]pat wrote:

Uh, they have the same rights as anybody else, always have. I can’t marry a man either, I just don’t want to. [/quote]

Idiot.

474

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Now stave the claim as a minority and the fact that homosexuals think they have the right to the entitlement of marriage but want to force a change in the grounds for the entitlement for that right to be able to be processed.
[/quote]

The entitlement of marriage? Oh, right, heterosexuals are “entitled” to it, but homosexuals aren’t. What exactly gives heterosexuals the “entitlement of marriage”?

Seriously? You’re suggesting that christians are a minority in America? This is flatly… ridiculous. Whatever you’re about to base off of this logic, that christians are a minority in America, is laughable.

Also, I’m no history expert, but I’m pretty sure marriage existed before christianity. Believe it or not the universe didn’t suddenly begin when the bible was written.

So you use… I cant even think of a word for how… wow. You base this on the premise that christians are a minority in america (WRONG), and then that marriage is strictly a christain tradition (WRONG), and then that same sex marriage would be “robbing an entitlement” from anyone (WRONG)… I cant even go on.

This is some of the worst logic I’ve ever read.

Christians didn’t create marriage, heterosexuals have no more “right” to marriage than gays do, just because you don’t want to marry a man doesn’t mean it is fair to tell someone else they cant… can I make this any simpler?

475

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Being homosexual is abnormal, being black, asian, indian, white, isn’t.[/quote]

I’d be inclined to agree if homosexuality had sprung up recently. Call me stupid (because that’s what most conservatives end up doing), but seeing as homosexuals have been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years then I’m going to go ahead and assume they have a purpose.

Who said homosexuality is a sin anyway? Did God actually tell you, or are you reading from a book that was essentially a poor cut and paste job of many other books?

Me and God play poker every Thursday, and he never says anything about it being a sin. The bastard keeps stealing my chairs though.

476

[quote]forlife wrote:
clip11 wrote:
Whether or not gayness is a natural behavior is still in question. Many of those studies that so called “prove” gayness is natural are funded by pro gay groups who are paying for a certain result.

That drum is getting pretty worn out. It is so ridiculous to claim that organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, Surgeon General, American Medical Association, etc. are all funded by gays and so their conclusions based on 30 years of research are worthless.[/quote]

Yes and all of those “studies” have been influenced by political correctness. Thirty years ago, homosexuality was on a list with other mental illnesses such as schizo and bipolar. And just like those two it had appropiate treatment for those who wanted help. But because of pro gay activists it was removed from the list and its not politically correct today to call it what it is…a mental ilness.

Maybe not every single study was funded by gays, but I can bet that every single study was influenced by political correctness.

477

[quote]forlife wrote:
clip11 wrote:
And if two men want to get married, no ones stopping them from having a ceremony. But just because they have a ceremony shouldnt mean the rest of us who are against it should be forced into submission to recognize it.

I couldn’t care less if you recognize it. What I do care about is hospital visitation rights, social security benefits, and the 1,000 other benefits of federal marriage that are denied to gays in our country.[/quote]

On the contrary, I would have to recognize it. How? Well, I do have a social security tax taken out of my check, so some of that would be going to benefit a gay couple. Other taxes I pay (and the majority of US population who are anti-gay marriage) would be going to benefit gay couples. So how can you tell me or anyone else I dont have to recognize gay marriage but I do have to contribute my dollars to support it?

478

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Agreed. Gay bashing/violence against gays is all too common.

No, it isn’t. There were only 1500 incidences of violence last year against gays in the US of a population of 300 million.

One is more than I’m comfortable with.

After I posted my above comment I realized that this is 100% true.

Trying to negate the fact that homosexuals encounter many acts of discrimination on a day to day basis, violent or not, because it’s “only” 1500 in a population of 300 million is a truly ridiculous point to make.[/quote]

I think I know what hes trying to say…if you look at it percentagewise, 1500 is .001% of 300 million thats far less than 1%

479

[quote]clip11 wrote:
On the contrary, I would have to recognize it. How? Well, I do have a social security tax taken out of my check, so some of that would be going to benefit a gay couple. Other taxes I pay (and the majority of US population who are anti-gay marriage) would be going to benefit gay couples. So how can you tell me or anyone else I dont have to recognize gay marriage but I do have to contribute my dollars to support it?[/quote]

You probably do stuff that costs other taxpayers money. Should they pay for that? Gay people pay their taxes too.

Here’s one for you. I don’t recognize organized religion. Why are my taxes being spent in prisons to teach criminals the “way of God” instead of properly rehabilitating them? Why do public hospitals have chapels? Why do prisons have priests?

480

[quote]clip11 wrote:
I think I know what hes trying to say…if you look at it percentagewise, 1500 is .001% of 300 million thats far less than 1%[/quote]

Black people are pretty much a minority. We shouldn’t help them, I don’t consider it to be a very high percentage of the population.