Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
If we follow your thoughts on morality, we would also allow crack addicts to buy and use as much crack as they want. Facts and stats may show the behavior is destructive, but, after all, it’s not like they are hurting anyone else…right?
[/quote]

Ahh… but that is a poor analogy. Illegal drugs are harmful in and of themselves. Gayness is NOT harmful. In fact, watching two women have sex is a beautiful thing, in my opinion.

Where does the harm come from gay sex? When they get HIV. How does the HIV happen? Unsafe sex, not caring about the HIV status of partners… dangerous behaviors.

Nobody is saying “let’s encourage the gays to do as much crazy dangerous shit as they want.” Quite the opposite. Promoting gay marriage is promoting a safer gay community. Monogamous couples are WAYYY safer than gays going out and having a different partner every night.

Make sense?

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
I didn’t know you were a lesbian. That would explain why you don’t like the facts presented in this thread.[/quote]

LOL Yeah… I’m a lesbian… with a penis.

And really, your strawmanning of me is getting tedious. I have already said that I like the facts just fine. My problem is with your own erroneous conclusions derived from them.

If you bothered to read some of my other posts about statistics, then you can see that all kinds of kooky shit can happen when you make value judgments about people using demographic statistics.

LOL I’m sure your solution to the AIDS epidemic is something along the lines of “let’s put them all into camps”. :slight_smile:

Dude, if you want to help the problem with HIV, we have to either go around shooting people who have it in the head, or we have to try to reach out to them and help them stop the behaviors which is spreading it. Where we differ in this regard is how and where to draw the distinction of what the dangerous behavior entails.

You guys are using the statistics to make the statement “gayness is bad, mmmkay?” and I am saying “unsafe sex is bad, mmmkay?” The statistics and the common sense lies in my argument, not in yours. It is unsafe sex which spreads the HIV. This is borne out by the fact that some heteros get it from hetero sex. This is not just some strictly gay thing.

Let’s use your heroin addict analogy because I want to hoist you by your own petard…

We can all agree that heroin injection is a bad idea. It makes you sick, and can even kill you. So all the “needle-phobic” people say “Look! heroin addiction goes hand in hand with injecting yourself with drugs… (shudder…shudder) needles, that’s the damn problem here! If it weren’t for the needles and the syringes, that guy couldn’t inject himself with anything!”

But the syringe which delivers the drug isn’t the problem. The problem lies with the drug itself. I see syringes every day at work. I am around them all the time… but folks aren’t shooting themselves up with recreational drugs in the hospital!

Drug injection, while it may not be a 100% natural thing, has good uses. We can’t judge all syringes bad just because a few of them are used to inject heroin.

Hope this helps. :slight_smile:

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So to recap, obesity cannot be compared to homosexuality because:

  1. It has not been show to increase or encourage obesity by getting married.

  2. Homosexuality relates to sex, not eating

  3. Marriage is not being withheld from gays

  4. Allowing the obese to get married does not encourage others to become obese
    [/quote]

Actually you can compare the two and I can easily refute your points.

In response to number 1. Everybody knows that people gain weight after they’re married. I don’t have any stats on that but I think it’s safe to assume that many people do “let themselves go” after marriage.

In response to number 2. Aren’t they both sins? Eating until you’re obese is pretty much the definition of gluttony as I understand it.

In response to number 3. It is.

In response to number 4. You might be right that obese people are not encouraging others. However when they get married they often do something far far worse. They have kids that are twice as likely to be obese.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

The value judgment you are making (gayness itself must be bad due to the statistics) is invalid.[/quote]

How so?

[quote]
Gayness does not cause HIV. [/quote]

Nobody ever said it does.

[quote]
HIV is caused by infection with a virus. The virus is bad. The virus is what is killing people. What the CDC statistics prove beyond the shadow of a doubt is that the gay male population is far more at risk of spreading the virus than the hetero population.[/quote]

That’s the point being made. Gay sex is spreading HIV and other diseases at an alarmingly fast rate.

[quote]
That’s what the stats are for, ZEB.[/quote]

I still can not figure out your point.

[quote]
Nobody is sanctioning getting HIV.[/quote]
Well, that is good news.

[quote]
There needs to be a constant push for safe sex in the gay community, because the stats clearly show that many gay men have the virus and don’t even know it yet. [/quote]

Again Lorisco, this is the same as saying we need to keep supplying clean needles to heroin addicts. It doesn’t get to the root of the problem. It just helps people continue in a destructive behavior.

I am sorry that you are unable to see the relationship between HIV and gay sex, but it does exist. I think you have been blinded because, as an admited lesbian, you participate in gay sex.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
If we follow your thoughts on morality, we would also allow crack addicts to buy and use as much crack as they want. Facts and stats may show the behavior is destructive, but, after all, it’s not like they are hurting anyone else…right?

Ahh… but that is a poor analogy. [/quote]
How so?

[quote]
Illegal drugs are harmful in and of themselves. Gayness is NOT harmful. [/quote]
No one here has said gayness is harmful. But, gay sex is both risky and harmful taken as a whole.

[quote]
In fact, watching two women have sex is a beautiful thing, in my opinion.[/quote]
Opinions about beauty differ. I myself think being with my wife is a beautiful thing, but I don’t see beauty in watching two other people do what they do sexually, regardless of the sex of the individuals.

[quote]
Where does the harm come from gay sex? When they get HIV. How does the HIV happen? Unsafe sex, not caring about the HIV status of partners… dangerous behaviors.[/quote]
That statistics I have seen would seem to strongly support that the gay lifestyle is unsafe, dangerous, and a huge spreader of HIV.

[quote]
Nobody is saying “let’s encourage the gays to do as much crazy dangerous shit as they want.” Quite the opposite. Promoting gay marriage is promoting a safer gay community. [/quote]
Or, it is telling people, in particular children, that it is OK to be involved in gay activities.

[quote]
Monogamous couples are WAYYY safer than gays going out and having a different partner every night.[/quote]
Agreed. But, gays taken on the whole tend to take on multiple partners. You are much more likely to find that monogamy in a heterosexual marriage.

Again with the heroin scenario, cleaner needles makes shooting up easier and safer to do, but it doesn’t make the population of heroin users a safer population.

I thought the debate here was on gay marriage, not gayness itself. I understand that as a lesbian, you will defend gayness to your dying breath. But, your defense of gay marriage is very weak.

I

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
I didn’t know you were a lesbian. That would explain why you don’t like the facts presented in this thread.

LOL Yeah… I’m a lesbian… with a penis.[/quote]

I’m sorry. Your response about “licking pussy” and your unwavering (yet illogical) defense of gay marriage led me to believe that you were a lesbian. Please strike any prior lesbian comments.

[quote]
And really, your strawmanning of me is getting tedious. I have already said that I like the facts just fine. My problem is with your own erroneous conclusions derived from them. [/quote]

The majority of the country does not see my conclusion derived from these facts as erroneous. What is your bias?

[quote]
If you bothered to read some of my other posts about statistics, then you can see that all kinds of kooky shit can happen when you make value judgments about people using demographic statistics. [/quote]
It’s been a long thread. I have not read every post. Forgive me, but I know you have not as well.

I never said that. Where do you come up with these ideas.

[quote]
Dude, if you want to help the problem with HIV, we have to either go around shooting people who have it in the head, or we have to try to reach out to them and help them stop the behaviors which is spreading it. Where we differ in this regard is how and where to draw the distinction of what the dangerous behavior entails.[/quote]
It would seem we definitely view gay sex differently. I believe gay sex is risky, dangerous, and destructive. Obviously, you don’t.

[quote]

You guys are using the statistics to make the statement “gayness is bad, mmmkay?” [/quote]
Again, your logic is flawed. I never said gayness is bad. You keep saying it.

[quote]
and I am saying “unsafe sex is bad, mmmkay?” [/quote]
I agree.

[quote]
The statistics and the common sense lies in my argument, not in yours. It is unsafe sex which spreads the HIV. This is borne out by the fact that some heteros get it from hetero sex. This is not just some strictly gay thing.

Remember the heroin addict scenario - cleaner needles doesn’t not make the behavior better.

Let’s use your heroin addict analogy because I want to hoist you by your own petard…

We can all agree that heroin injection is a bad idea. It makes you sick, and can even kill you. [/quote]
Interesting. You see that heroin as an addiction can make you sick and kill you, but you fail to see that gay sex can make you sick and kill you. Hmmm.

[quote]
So all the “needle-phobic” people say “Look! heroin addiction goes hand in hand with injecting yourself with drugs… (shudder…shudder) needles, that’s the damn problem here! If it weren’t for the needles and the syringes, that guy couldn’t inject himself with anything!”[/quote]
Your ideas have been kind of wacky so far…are you suggesting castration?

[quote]

But the syringe which delivers the drug isn’t the problem. The problem lies with the drug itself.[/quote]
If this analogy holds true, the “drug” is “gay sex”.

[quote]
I see syringes every day at work. I am around them all the time… but folks aren’t shooting themselves up with recreational drugs in the hospital!

Drug injection, while it may not be a 100% natural thing, has good uses. We can’t judge all syringes bad just because a few of them are used to inject heroin.[/quote]
The analogy was between heroin use and gay sex. Both are risky. Again, you missed the point.

I don’t think this helped your cause much. Why did you post this?

[quote]dcb wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So to recap, obesity cannot be compared to homosexuality because:

  1. It has not been show to increase or encourage obesity by getting married.

  2. Homosexuality relates to sex, not eating

  3. Marriage is not being withheld from gays

  4. Allowing the obese to get married does not encourage others to become obese

Actually you can compare the two and I can easily refute your points.

In response to number 1. Everybody knows that people gain weight after they’re married. I don’t have any stats on that but I think it’s safe to assume that many people do “let themselves go” after marriage.

In response to number 2. Aren’t they both sins? Eating until you’re obese is pretty much the definition of gluttony as I understand it.

In response to number 3. It is.

In response to number 4. You might be right that obese people are not encouraging others. However when they get married they often do something far far worse. They have kids that are twice as likely to be obese.[/quote]

Hmmm. Interesting analogy. I would suggest that you start a new thread and see if anyone cares to discuss it.

But, don’t try to hyjack this thread or throw it off course. Especially when you show up 1400 posts after the thread began.

Regards.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Hmmm. Interesting analogy. I would suggest that you start a new thread and see if anyone cares to discuss it.

But, don’t try to hyjack this thread or throw it off course. Especially when you show up 1400 posts after the thread began.

Regards.[/quote]

LOL! Throw this thread off course, are you kidding me?! This thread is all over the place already. I think my analogy helps point out what other things can be done to this society by use of the same logic that’s being applied to gay marriage and therefore helps to clarify the issue in general.

I was going to outline some other groups of people that we could start denying the right to marriage; drug and alcohol abusers, people genetically predisposed to certain diseases…etc. But in deference to you and your request, I’ll not do that. Happy?

After looking back at my original post I see that I made a mistake. It turns out that lesbians do not have a significantly higher rate of disease than the population in general. At least in regard to STD’s. So we can’t deny them the right to marriage based on the detrimental effects of such relationships on the overall health of society. So lesbian marriage should be allowed.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

Okay, let’s do this one more time.[/quote]

I imagine we will do it far more than “one more time.” LOL

It is a judgement on behavior-And that specific behavior causes pain and death!

I agree that having same sex attraction does not cause HIV. I think we are all aboard on this one.

However, acting on that feeling by having homosexual sex does indeed cause pain and death-Reread the statistics. How do these folks show their love (or lust) for one another?

THEY HAVE ANAL SEX–And what happens when two men have anal sex?

BINGO!

And it’s homosexual sex which spreads this dreaded disease, among many others. You see my misguided social liberal friend, the anus and rectum were not designed for sex! And that is THE single most often used method for homosexual men to have sex. Hence, the at the very heart of the sexual part of their relationship is a very, very destructive deed.

This is from the CDC site:

"In general, the person receiving the semen is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the virus to enter the body during anal sex.

However, a person who inserts his penis into an infected partner also is at risk because HIV can enter through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis) or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis."

Do you understand yet lothario? Two ways to get it. The stickee is in as much danger as the sticker. The HIV virus passes from the semen or blood of an infected person to the bloodstream of a partner through a tiny break in the rectal tissue during anal intercourse. We are talking about a microscopic tear-It takes almost nothing to cause this, and in most cases the person does not even feel the tear! Or, the other person can recieve the virus through the head of his penis. Again, no way for him to know.

Now you are getting it my friend. Now you are getting it!

The statistics are plain to see. Homosexual sex is the culprit here. No one is saying that your gay friends are bad. No one is saying that any particular homosexual is bad. It’s all the nasty disease that they spread (AIDS being only the worst of a long list) by inserting their penis in another mans rectum!

But of course there is the dilemma right?

Let’s look at this logically. Men who are attracted to other men have anal sex with them. I think the stat is around 80% in fact. Therefore, you might say that their sexual relationship is about pain and death. As anal sex is dagerous.

Let’s put it another way:

Gay sex = pain and death!

There is no kind way to put it. You read the statistics yourself. They are killing each other and infecting heterosexuals as well.

The act that they base their love on is deadly!

Heterosexual sex makes babies-

Homosexual sex causes pain and death-

(Okay that was an over simplification as you can pass the HIV virus on through hetero sex as well-But it is far less likely than with anal sex. In fact an infected person is 500% less likely to pass the HIV virus on through heterosexual sex than through anal sex

What sort of problem would AIDS be today if there were no homosexuals having anal sex?

Darn near zilch…

And you want to sanction this behavior?

NOOOOOOOO WAYYYYYYYY.

And that is so much bullcrap!

A weak message falling on deaf ears.

We have been hearing this line of malarky for 20 years. Since Rock Hudson died in 1985 social liberals have been screaming about homosexuals using condoms during anal sex.

Well look at the statistics lothario! It’s been 20 years and there are more AIDS cases not less.

Just look at the statistics again:

2003 there were 749,887 cases of AIDS. Of that figure 503,305 of them were related to men having sex with men! And might I add that homosexuals/bisexuals account for only about 5% of the entire population!

Are all the condoms breaking? Or, are they just not using them? You tell me why this disasterous epidemic has not only not been stopped, but has grown!

Here’s why:

HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS HAVE ANAL SEX-AND ANAL SEX PASSES ALONG THE HIV VIRUS FASTER THAN ANY OTHER METHOD ACCORDING TO THE LATEST AND BEST STATISTICS

Thank you once again for seeing my point! You are coming along lothario.

No one is saying that gay people are evil and are purposely passing along this virus.

They don’t know that they have it! Perhaps they are not aware of that tiny tear that they recieved in their rectum from the previous nights roll in the hay.

But then guess what they do? They pass it along by having more “gay sex.” Statistics furhter show that gay men are promiscuious!

All the elements are there for this to contiue on and grow to an even worse problem.

A BAD ACTION IS PUNISHED BY A BAD RESULT!

Please tell me what other activity that you would promote that causes so much pain and death?

Kids playing with guns?

Jumping off a low level peak without a bungee cord?

Driving down a one way street the wrong way during rush hour?

Come on lothario what other activity is so dammed important people need to risk their lives and the lives of others to do?

And one more important point-Unlike (some) of the risky behaviors listed above. AIDS and other STD’s spread to people who are not participating in anal sex!

What gives homosexuals the right to not only kill themselves but infect others as well. (I know they don’t know they are killing people, but neither does that little kid who might play with a gun0

In other words innocent people also die because some men just have to stick their penis inside another mans anus.

There is no separating gay sex from the spread of HIV as the sexual relationship is what spreads HIV!

DUH!

1+1=2

END OF STORY

[quote]dcb wrote:

I was going to outline some other groups of people that we could start denying the right to marriage; drug and alcohol abusers, people genetically predisposed to certain diseases…etc. But in deference to you and your request, I’ll not do that. Happy?[/quote]

Your “there are other dangerous groups out there” argument has no merit whatsoever. As there is a fatal flaw in your thinking.

Currently we are trying to PREVENT obestity. drug abuse and alcoholism not promote them by government acceptance.

SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

[quote]It turns out that lesbians do not have a significantly higher rate of disease than the population in general. At least in regard to STD’s. So we can’t deny them the right to marriage based on the detrimental effects of such relationships on the overall health of society. So lesbian marriage should be allowed.
[/quote]

Sorry, but it turns out that you are very, very wrong:

"Studies have found that smoking rates are higher among gay and lesbian adolescents compared to the general population. Smoking as a teen increases the risk of becoming an adult smoker. We know that about 90 percent of adult smokers started smoking as teens.

Depression and Anxiety. Many factors cause depression and anxiety among all women. Studies show that lesbian and bisexual women report higher rates of depression and anxiety than heterosexual women do.

Lesbian women may be at a higher risk for uterine, breast, cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers because of the health profiles listed above. However, more research is needed. In addition, these reasons may contribute to this risk:
Lesbians have traditionally been less likely to bear children. Hormones released during pregnancy and breastfeeding are believed to protect women against breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers.

Lesbians have higher rates of alcohol use, poor nutrition, and obesity.

These factors may increase the risk of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers, and other cancers.
Lesbians are less likely to visit a doctor or nurse for routine screenings, such as a Pap, which can prevent or detect cervical cancer. The viruses that cause most cervical cancer can be sexually transmitted between women.

For reasons that are unclear, BV (Bacterial vaginosis) is more common in lesbian and bisexual women than heterosexual women, and frequently occurs in both members of lesbian couples. BV happens when the normal bacteria in the vagina get out of balance. Over half of affected women have a vaginal discharge with a fishy odor or vaginal itching. If left untreated, BV can increase a woman?s chances of getting other STDs such as HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and pelvic inflammatory disease.

Genital herpes and the human papillomavirus (HPV) are more likely to be transmitted between women than HIV is because they can be transmitted by skin-to-skin, genital-to-genital, or mouth-to-genital contact.

In addition, because these viruses are not curable and stay in the body, a woman could acquire herpes or HPV from a male partner and later pass it on to a female partner. Case studies and recent research support this possibility. As HPV can lead to cervical cancer, lesbians and bisexual women need Pap tests on a regular basis, just as heterosexual women do.

HEY LOTHARIO DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS BEAUTIFUL?

"Our research group at the University of Washington is studying a common cause of vaginitis: bacterial vaginosis (also called “BV”). Lesbian and bisexual women may be more likely to have BV than straight women. BV is an infection of the vagina that can cause abnormal discharge, odor, and itching. However, BV often exists without causing any of these things, and women may not know they have it. BV can be treated with antibiotics but often comes back.

Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships.

A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[69]

In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.”[70]

"Bradford, J. (2002, July 10). Lesbian and bisexual health: an overview for healthcare providers. Journal Watch Women?s Health [On-line], Available: womens-health.jwatch.org.

Lesbian and bisexual women have higher reported rates of risk for cancer and cardiovascular disease as well as obesity and High rates of human papilloma virus infection."

And this:

Cochran, S.D. et al. (2001 April). Cancer-related risk indicators and preventive screening behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women. American Journal of Public Health. 91 (4); 178-81.

Increased prevalence rates were found in lesbian/bisexual women for obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco use."

And this:

"Fethers, K. et al. (2000, July). Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women. Sexually Transmitted Infections. p. 345.

Women who have sexual relations with women are at significantly higher risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases: BV (bacterial vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors in WSW as compared with controls."

And this:

Frieberg, P. (2001, January 12). Study: Alcohol Use More Prevalent for Lesbians. The Washington Blade. p. 21.
Lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and in larger amounts, than heterosexual women.

Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent)."

THIS IS GETTING TIRESOME

And this:

"Aaron, D.J., Markovic, N., Danielson, M.E., et al. (2001). Behavioral risk factors for disease and preventive health practices among lesbians. American Journal of Public Health. 91 (6): 972-975.

Lesbians were more likely to report cigarette use, alcohol use, and heavy alcohol use."

And this:

Bradford, J. et al. (1994). National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 62: 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.

More than half of lesbians had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed."

And this:

"Diamant, A.L., Wold, C., Sritzer, K., Gelberg, L. (2000, November-December). Health Behaviors, Health Status, and Access to and Use of Health Care. Archives of Family Medicine. 9: 1043-1051.

Lesbians and bisexual women were more likely than heterosexual women to use tobacco products and to report any alcohol consumption, but only lesbians were significantly more likely than heterosexual women to drink heavily."

I have many more statistics but I think my point is well made. While lesbians may have a more normal HIV risk (similar to the hetersexual population) they have many more risks both physically, socially and emotionally!

Did you ever think we might just be better off using our bodies for what God (or nature for you God haters or ahteists) had intened it for?

dcb,

I am personally happy to see you join this debate. You and I did this several months ago in another similar thread. I think you are a very good person who is well intended and I enjoyed our discourse. :slight_smile:

ZEB

Well met again! However you completely ignored my thoughts on denying the obese the right to marriage. What do you think about the stagering loss of life and the degraded quality of life that we are endorsing by allowing these people to marry and procreate. It’s really easy to see that obesity is a much greater and still growing (pun intended) problem in our country than homosexuality is. So why are we allowing people to spread that lifestyle.

Although somewhat less important to me, I would also think that you would be concerned about the sinfulness of the obese. You’re a much better Bible scholar than I, so I know I don’t need to explain glutony to you.

I know that we have to this date allowed obese people to marry. However obesity did not reach monumental proportions until recently. So at no time in history until now have we allowed these unabashed sinners to marry and procreate at such massive levels.

Wasn’t poligamy once legal? It seems that we deemed it as a country to be a bad idea. In my book that was a good decision! There was a bunch of pedophiles out there claiming to be good Christians forcing marriage on young girls. Unfortunately this practice is still not totally wiped out.

I think allowing marriage between the obese should go the way of polygamy. Again, I’m using the exact logic that you use to deny gay people the right of marriage.

As to your stats on higher rates of smoking, depression, etc. among lesbians, you’re correct. I should have been more clear that I was talking specifically about HIV/AIDS. You’re not really going to deny a group of people the right to marry because they smoke more are you? If so, we should ban marriage among smokers as well.

In response to the first part of your post, we are condoning alcoholism, drug abuse etc… by not denying these people the right to marriage. Why? Because married people more often than not have kids. And alcohol/drug abusers are more likely to pass those traits along to their children. Why are we allowing this? The link between a parents obesity, alcohol and drug abuse is MUCH more clearly defined than a gay parents link with their childs sexual orientation.

You may say that my arguments have no merit, but that doesn’t change the fact that they do. You have to face up to the reasons you’ve supplied as to why gay people can’t get married and then apply them to other sinful populations who do much greater damage to our society.

[quote]dcb wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Hmmm. Interesting analogy. I would suggest that you start a new thread and see if anyone cares to discuss it.

But, don’t try to hyjack this thread or throw it off course. Especially when you show up 1400 posts after the thread began.

Regards.

LOL! Throw this thread off course, are you kidding me?! This thread is all over the place already. I think my analogy helps point out what other things can be done to this society by use of the same logic that’s being applied to gay marriage and therefore helps to clarify the issue in general. [/quote]
Now it seems you wish to disguise your intentions. Obesity is a subjective argument. I may be 5’ 10’ and 250 lbs, and that would make me obese by all the tables I have seen. But, if thay weight is all muscle, do we still consider it obesity? However, there is no doubt that gay sex is gay sex. It is not subjective.

Your argument is flawed. Try again.

[quote]
I was going to outline some other groups of people that we could start denying the right to marriage; drug and alcohol abusers, people genetically predisposed to certain diseases…etc. But in deference to you and your request, I’ll not do that. Happy? [/quote]

Please name them and put your argument down. I am sure it will not be hard to see your flawed logic again.

[quote]
After looking back at my original post I see that I made a mistake. It turns out that lesbians do not have a significantly higher rate of disease than the population in general. At least in regard to STD’s. So we can’t deny them the right to marriage based on the detrimental effects of such relationships on the overall health of society. So lesbian marriage should be allowed. [/quote]
So, your contention is that we need a lesbian marriage law, but we need to out-law homosexual marriage? Is that correct?

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
There needs to be a constant push for safe sex in the gay community, because the stats clearly show that many gay men have the virus and don’t even know it yet.

Again Lorisco, this is the same as saying we need to keep supplying clean needles to heroin addicts. It doesn’t get to the root of the problem. It just helps people continue in a destructive behavior.
[/quote]

Hey, don’t use my name in vain! I didn’t write that.

[quote]dcb wrote:
ZEB

Well met again! However you completely ignored my thoughts on denying the obese the right to marriage. [/quote]
I answered this. This is a subjective judgment, and does not relate at all to the issue of gay marriage. The argument is flawed.

[quote]
What do you think about the stagering loss of life and the degraded quality of life that we are endorsing by allowing these people to marry and procreate. It’s really easy to see that obesity is a much greater and still growing (pun intended) problem in our country than homosexuality is. So why are we allowing people to spread that lifestyle. [/quote]

Why are we still allowing obesity, or gay sex for that matter are seperate issues. It would be wise to curtail both problems rather than promote them. However, the whole line of questioning is again irrelevant in relation to the gay marriage issue as you are attempting to compare a subjective judgment to an objective fact.

Just curious - Are you now suggesting that only slender heterosexuals and lesbians should marry?

[quote]
Although somewhat less important to me, I would also think that you would be concerned about the sinfulness of the obese. You’re a much better Bible scholar than I, so I know I don’t need to explain glutony to you.[/quote]

This is an attempt to change the subject. We are not talking about sinfulness of the activity. If we were to talk about sin, everyone is found guilty, not just gays or the obese.

Do you have a point? Or at least a point that isn’t flawed?

[quote]
Wasn’t poligamy once legal? It seems that we deemed it as a country to be a bad idea. In my book that was a good decision! There was a bunch of pedophiles out there claiming to be good Christians forcing marriage on young girls. Unfortunately this practice is still not totally wiped out. [/quote]
I don’t think we saw that so much with Christians. You might be thinking of Mormons.

Are you comparing pedophilia with gay marriage? True, there is some large overlap between pedophiles and homosexual males. That might be a good comparison. Study it more and get back to us.

[quote]
I think allowing marriage between the obese should go the way of polygamy. Again, I’m using the exact logic that you use to deny gay people the right of marriage. [/quote]
Again, subjectivity confused with objectivity. You need to find a better example.

[quote]
As to your stats on higher rates of smoking, depression, etc. among lesbians, you’re correct. I should have been more clear that I was talking specifically about HIV/AIDS.[/quote]
That makes it all much better.

[quote]
You’re not really going to deny a group of people the right to marry because they smoke more are you? If so, we should ban marriage among smokers as well. [/quote]

Smoking is not the issue, nor is it the only think associated with gay activity.

Again, this is subjective.

Is anyone here begining to see a theme of flawed logic?

[quote]
Because married people more often than not have kids. [/quote]

Married heterosexuals, I assume you mean.

[quote]
And alcohol/drug abusers are more likely to pass those traits along to their children. Why are we allowing this? [/quote]

I am pretty sure we have laws against drug and alcohol abuse? You may need to research that as well.

[quote]
The link between a parents obesity, alcohol and drug abuse is MUCH more clearly defined than a gay parents link with their childs sexual orientation.

You may say that my arguments have no merit, but that doesn’t change the fact that they do. [/quote]
I have pointed out flaws in ALL of you arguments. It would seem that they do not have merrit.

This whole post is a perfect example of flawed logic coming from an uninformed individual.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
There needs to be a constant push for safe sex in the gay community, because the stats clearly show that many gay men have the virus and don’t even know it yet.

Again Lorisco, this is the same as saying we need to keep supplying clean needles to heroin addicts. It doesn’t get to the root of the problem. It just helps people continue in a destructive behavior.

Hey, don’t use my name in vain! I didn’t write that.

[/quote]

My appologies. It would appear that my pen was moving even quicker than my lightning fast mind.

That was directed to Lothario, the pro-gay marriage activist.

[quote]dcb wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So to recap, obesity cannot be compared to homosexuality because:

  1. It has not been show to increase or encourage obesity by getting married.

  2. Homosexuality relates to sex, not eating

  3. Marriage is not being withheld from gays

  4. Allowing the obese to get married does not encourage others to become obese

Actually you can compare the two and I can easily refute your points.

In response to number 1. Everybody knows that people gain weight after they’re married. I don’t have any stats on that but I think it’s safe to assume that many people do “let themselves go” after marriage.
[/quote]

Obesity is much different than gaining a few pounds. A few extra pounds gained after marriage has not been statistically linked to poor health outcomes. You lumping the two together shows you don’t understand the difference.

I agree they are both sins, but that is not the issue and is not something I have ever presented on this post as a reason gays should not marry. There are plenty of other non-religious fact-based reasons that it is not a good idea. This sounds like you are trying to divert the discussion from the self-destructive lifestyle issue.

That’s your response; “it is”? Wow! Dude, you must have been a terror on you high school debate team!

The fact is that for thousands of years the criteria for marriage has been one man and one woman, not two people. So for gays to marry the criteria would need to be changed.

So here is the fact, pay attention: Nothing is being withheld from gays that is currently available to anyone else. Same sex marriage is not currently available and as such therefore can’t be withheld from anyone because it doesn’t exist. Something that doesn’t currently exist cannot be withheld or given because it doesn’t exist. It has to be created first, then it can be withheld. Do you get it now?

So just like marriage for men and boys, men and animals, men and whatever doesn’t current exist, it can’t be withheld.

[quote]
In response to number 4. You might be right that obese people are not encouraging others. However when they get married they often do something far far worse. They have kids that are twice as likely to be obese.[/quote]

If they are truly obese, that would be correct. However, as we have discovered, there is a big difference between obese and a little overweight. No studies show that people get obese after marriage.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
There needs to be a constant push for safe sex in the gay community, because the stats clearly show that many gay men have the virus and don’t even know it yet.

Again Lorisco, this is the same as saying we need to keep supplying clean needles to heroin addicts. It doesn’t get to the root of the problem. It just helps people continue in a destructive behavior.

Hey, don’t use my name in vain! I didn’t write that.

My appologies. It would appear that my pen was moving even quicker than my lightning fast mind.

That was directed to Lothario, the pro-gay marriage activist.[/quote]

No problem. Just didn’t want to give people the wrong idea.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Why are we still allowing obesity, or gay sex for that matter are seperate issues. It would be wise to curtail both problems rather than promote them. However, the whole line of questioning is again irrelevant in relation to the gay marriage issue as you are attempting to compare a subjective judgment to an objective fact.

Just curious - Are you now suggesting that only slender heterosexuals and lesbians should marry?

This whole post is a perfect example of flawed logic coming from an uninformed individual.
[/quote]

Obesity is subjective? See this link from the CDC. Redirect Page

Now you’re going to say that those with a significant amount of muscle mass (like many on this site, including myself) may qualify as overweight or obese as defined by the BMI, but a simple bodyfat test would take care of those individuals. I’ve conducted thousands of those tests and they take much less time and effort to do than the current blood tests that are required in some states. I’m not complaining about the blood tests, I’m merely pointing out that it would be easy to calculate a BMI and then if there was any question, a follow-up bodyfat test could be performed. I believe the ACSM defines obesity as >25%(male) >30%(female). What’s subjective about that?

Furthermore it seems absurd that you’re saying that gay marriage would harm society yet you’re quibbling about the subjectiveness of obesity. I’ve clearly shown that it’s a massive problem of much greater importance and proportion than homosexuality, yet you seem to think it should be brushed under the carpet.

Furthermore gay sex is not so clearly defined. Who are you, Bill Clinton? :slight_smile: I may have said otherwise before but ZEB provided us with a post a few pages ago that provides some interesting alternatives to the discussion. They weren’t ZEB’s words, so I’m not throwing him under the bus, but he did find an article that suggested broadening the definition of sex as I remember it.

In regard to the issue of only allowing slender people to get married, I’m just following your logic. I took what you and others (in this thread) who are against gay marriage and applied it to other populations. That’s not too much of a leap as I see it. It might be a slippery slope, but it’s one you helped to create.

Lastly, why do you think I’m less informed than you? I have a couple of degrees and years of experience in the field of physiology and psychology. I’ve been a regular reader and semi-regular poster here since about 2000. So I don’t think it’s fair for you to call me uninformed. I didn’t take a shot like that at you did I?

[quote]dcb wrote:
ZEB

Well met again! However you completely ignored my thoughts on denying the obese the right to marriage. What do you think about the stagering loss of life and the degraded quality of life that we are endorsing by allowing these people to marry and procreate. It’s really easy to see that obesity is a much greater and still growing (pun intended) problem in our country than homosexuality is. So why are we allowing people to spread that lifestyle.[/quote]

Why don’t you begin a thread and I will be glad to jump in. This particular thread is about “gay marriage” and it has nothing whatsoever to do with fat people.

Again, we are trying to prevent obesity not encourage it.

We try to prevent all sorts of negative behavior, not promote it. Two people of the opposite sex have always had the right to marry. But then you know this. Any sort of illogical argument that attempts to suggest that taking away the right to marry from fat people is quite silly.

HERE IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO:

You must come up with valid reasons why we should allow gay marriage. Shortr of that you have no legitimate argument!

Yes, fat people, drunk people, people who climb on rocks, short people tall people even those with chicken pocks marry.

But alas gay folks don’t have that right. Do you know why? Because people like yourself cannot come up with one valid reason why they should. :slight_smile:

No actually, you’re not using any logic. Or at least not any good logic. (yawn)

Do you have any reasons yet why gays should be allowed to marry?

Go back and carefully read the list of diseases both emotional and physical that sprout from lesbianism. You will see that it encompasses far more than smoking.

We are fighting against all of the things that you mention, not promoting them. Is your argument really going to be “what’s one more problem for this country?”

Can you not honestly think of one positive, valid argument for gay marriage?

Do you see the reason why 70% of all Americans are against gay marriage?

Can you see now why 17 states have had gay marriage referendums and in all 17 states they were soundly defeated. Some defeated by as much as 77% (see Texas).

Can you now see the validity in scripture which clearly states that homosexual sex is wrong?

Can you now see why we should not change a 5000+ year old institution for about 1% of the population?

Oh my…and a father with a bad temper may pass that along to a child as well.

Why are we allowing that?

You are a silly guy :slight_smile:

You have not given me any valid arguments for gay marriage. Hence I cannot debate them.

Two fat people should not marry bla bla bla…no seriously…

One last attempt:

GIVE ME SOME VALID REASONS WHY GAY PEOPLE SHOULD MARRY.

I would really like just one…

A list of people smoking and drinking and even those who have bad tempers really does not cut it. And …you probably already know that, as you are a smart guy.

I supplied “reasons” to keep the debate going. However, it is not up to my side to give reasons why something should NOT be done.

Otherwise, why not let people marry dogs?

Do I have to give you reasons why this should not take place? Or is it encumbent upon you (if you want people to marry dogs) to explain to me and the rest of society why this SHOULD take place?

THINK

And to date, as you may know (or not), not one person on your side of the argument has yet to supply one valid reason why gays should be allowed to marry.

That goes for this thread and throughout the country. That could be the reason why just about everyone is against it. Yep.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Obesity is much different than gaining a few pounds. A few extra pounds gained after marriage has not been statistically linked to poor health outcomes. You lumping the two together shows you don’t understand the difference. [/quote]

I did state that I didn’t have any statistics on this issue. So if you like we can throw this one out. I do understand the difference though, but thanks for the insult.

No, I’m comparing what you’re saying is a destructive lifestyle with a much greater self-destructive lifestyle. It is you that is trying to divert the discussion. On a site like this one, it’s surprising that you would do this. Your logic regarding gay marriage is clear, and I get it. I’m just saying you could easily apply it to other populations. Why are you so ready to deny gay people certain rights, but allow them to much bigger groups of people who are causing more harm?

[quote]
That’s your response; “it is”? Wow! Dude, you must have been a terror on you high school debate team![/quote]

Another insult. Thanks again. As has been said by others earlier in this thread, when a person starts hurling insults, they’ve lost the debate.

Your first sentence in this quote is the only one that matters because I was only talking about obese people in that paragraph. Judging by your first sentence, you agree with me. So what are you going to do about obese marriage?