Why GAY people should not Marry

[Trippyhippy]

that was not a double negative it was me rewording and not changing the cant to can.

Thus, creating a double negative.

and yes i am aware non-gays can get it too but that is largely in thanks to the gay community.

You are ignorant.

Reason: changed to > too cause i was afraid trippy might get confused

I'm suprised you know the difference.

 

[smalls]

so are u saying the gays were not the major contributor to the spread of aids?

 

[Trippyhippy]

so are u saying the gays were not the major contributor to the spread of aids?

Yeah, I'd say that.

Exposure Route                     Estimated infections per 
                                   10,000 exposures
                                   to an infected source

Blood Transfusion                    9,000
Childbirth                           2,500
Needle-sharing injection drug use       67
Receptive anal intercourse              50
Percutaneous needle stick               30
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse    10
Insertive anal intercourse             6.5
Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse     5
Receptive oral intercourse               1
Insertive oral intercourse             0.5

I'd say that exactly. Not that you would believe me. You are still sticking with urban myths that were perpetuated as far back as 1980. I'd say you are just unwilling to change your narrow little mind.

You stike me as the kind of person that would believe AIDS can spread through casual contact, sexual intercourse with a virgin will cure AIDS, and HIV can infect only homosexual men and drug users, that any act of anal intercourse between gay men can lead to AIDS infection, and that open discussion of homosexuality and HIV in schools will lead to increased rates of homosexuality and AIDS.

It's all misinformation originating from the same place, do you chose to believe part of it, but not all of it?

 

[smalls]

the difference is no one believes any of those any more in fact id say not to many ppl believed some of those ever. most of them are just rumors spread by uninformed ppl who were scared of a new disease. but aids used to be considered a gay disease and that is not a rumor.

 

[Trippyhippy]

the difference is no one believes any of those any more in fact id say not to many ppl believed some of those ever. most of them are just rumors spread by uninformed ppl who were scared of a new disease. but aids used to be considered a gay disease and that is not a rumor.

You are right, it is not a rumor that it used to be considered a gay disease. However it was only considered a "gay disease" by uninformed hatemongers and not people that know what they are talking about. They were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

 

[smalls]

i havent done any extensive research on the subject but im thinking it was considered a gay disease because it was infecting mainly gay ppl. its possible i am wrong but id be willing to bet there is some truth to that.

 

[Trippyhippy]

i havent done any extensive research on the subject but im thinking it was considered a gay disease because it was infecting mainly gay ppl. its possible i am wrong but id be willing to bet there is some truth to that.

Then it's probably best if you just don't open your mouth.

 

[smalls]

i didnt i was typing. and it really wouldnt matter if i did the research because there would be nothing to tell me if the ppl w/ aids were gay or not

 

[Neisan]

:nono: I like lesbians. They don't get all defensive over wondering whether or not you're trying to get in their pants, since they know they don't want to sleep with you.




... Or something like that.

 

[Elemmire]

I find the "because heterosexual couples produce children" one funny cause our planet does NOT need more humans.. it needs less. I think it was worked out that 3 billion is a good number of total humans that this planet can sustain with comfortable living conditions for each human

 

[Jojojo]

This thread ALMOST made it without turning into a flame.

We were totally having a calm discussion, even when people starting saying they believed homosexuality was unnatural we managed to keep it civil--because they were intelligent and respectful with their opinions.

GG smalls.

Edit: Whoa, I just looked at the godhatessweden site. It says that Sweden jailed a minister for preaching against homosexuality...I doubt the credibility of the source, but if that's true, that's really extreme.

 

[Celvantes]

So... by that rational, you don't like lesbians?

Correct, but lesbians make up for it by contributing really nice mental images or else making us grateful that they are off the market (No offense, but I know lesbians who could pass as men without even trying).

On a more serious note, here's a twist on the pedophile argument:

Pedophilia is considered a psycological deviation and is treated with psychological therapy, correct? It's considered a deviation because normal sexual urges steer us towards successful reproduction. Children can't obviously reproduce, so the misplaced sexual attraction would be labled deviant because it's contrary to what is "normal."

Pedophiles are treated by clinical psychology, aren't they? So why then is pedophilia a psychosis and homosexuality not? Or, is it the other way around - should pedophilia, bestiality, etc be lumped into the same category as homosexuality, i.e. something people are born with that is untreatable?

My interest in psychology is (obviously) that of an amateur - if anyone here has formal training, I'd like to hear the "official" position on the issue.

If we as a society are going to draft law on the issue, we should really know the cause. More time and effort should be put into settling the "nature vs. nurture" debate once and for all, and it should be the homosexual community leading that charge. If it's nurture - the issue becomes a thousand times more complex. If it's nature, or even if it's a combination of both, but nature is still a part of it, than the answer is simple: being gay is no different than being black or being short or anything that you're born into. Equal rights are a must in that case.

 

[Darkdante]

That's the way it should be, not the way it is.

Not really sure what your getting at with that statement. If a gay man marrys a woman he does not get the same rights as any other person who is married?

How is it? Explain.

Canada and Spain are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though South Africa is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws. Other nations all have residency requirements that apply to same-sex marriage that do not apply to opposite-sex marriage.

I only speak about America. I have no clue about marriage laws of other countries, but appreciate the information.

In the United States, there are at least 1,138 federal laws "in which marital status is a factor." A denial of rights or benefits without substantive due process, assert the proponents of same-sex marriage, directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides for equal protection of all citizens. For instance, a heterosexual US citizen who marries a foreign partner immediately qualifies to bring that person to the United States, while long-term gay and lesbian binational partners who have spent decades together are denied the same rights, forcing foreign gay partners to seek expensive temporary employer or school-sponsored visas or face separation.

Here comes the point where we argue that Marriage is between a man and a woman. But that what the whole point of where you quoted me was about. Its about a person who marries the opposite sex.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not here, so I'm going to assume you are not. The rules should be changed to protect the rights of the minorities. There isn't much more to it than that.

K. This is gonnna be a hard one bare with me.

They have the same rights as everyone else does.

However special rules can be "created", to give special rights to minorities that other people do not have. But trying to include same-sex couples into marriage is like trying to say your a minority and now demand land from an indian reservation. They could get land for you someplace, but it would not be right to give you land from the reservation because it was not made for "you". They could "create" a reservation espeically for you with your own set of special rights attached to them. Like creating a "civil union", you actually could call it anything you like.

But you could not simply include yourself into an already established "interpersonal relationship with the government" simply because you wanted to have what hetersexual couples have been awarded by the government. If i"m a person of mixed race, say "I'm now a minority", I can't just run on an Indian reservation and say "I want land here" and expect the same rights the indians have. New rights, and new lands will have to be decided for me.

Marriage was created for 2 people that love each other, and sexual preferance was never an issue untill massive amounts of homosexuals started coming out of the closet. Now, people wish to exclude them from marriage in order to suppress their rights as human beings.

Do you truely believe your government would give you all these benefits simply because you "love" someone? How about sex? You beleive your government simply gives out all those benefits for "pleasure"? Our governments knew of arranged marriages long ago and they never gawked about those. There's something much more here that I know a smart guy like you is aware of but is deliberatly leaving out of the picture.

And stop being so melodramatic.

I don't think you are a homophobe. I think you have a very hard time seeing other peoples point of view.

I have no problem seeing your point of view. Are you talking about Uzor?

I could maybe understand what you were saying if the Death rate was higher than the birthrate, but it isn't.

So your saying we should wait until the shit hits the fan? Then worry about it. We'd be the opposite of China. Tax credits to impregnate every female possible?

It is normal to love another human being, and that's all these people homosexual people are doing.

I love my pet dog, thats normal, its not normal to hate my pet dog is it? What does that got to do with him asking if Homosexuality is normal? Just because I love my pet dog does not mean I have bestiality with my pet dog.

I love my brother. Simply because I love my brother should that be cause for me to get all the benefits of married people? Ok so if not love what then?

And yes, there most certainly is a such thing as homosexual marraige, just not in the United States.

How nice. Unfortunately we live in the United States and I don't think they define it Homosexual Marriage where Uzor lives.

If I didn't know you better, from that last paragraph, I'd guess you were a republican.

You say that like it matters to me. Just because I'm a Bush hater and like Clinton does not automatically make me one or the other.

What about when black and white people felt like they should be included with intreracial marriage? That worked out just fine. You really need to try and put yourself in the shoes of the people whose view you do not understand.

Thats race, race is who you are. Just because your white, black, japanese, chinese, whatever, your still a man or a woman, and entitled to marriage, everyman and woman is regardless of sexual preference, but only to the opposite sex. Who or what you have sex with is your preference, if you want to marry a person of same sex, thats a different situation, so you need a different solution.

I understand thier point of view, that does not mean I would bend to thier every will or change my understanding without a complete explanation, and I have never seen one yet.

I actually used to be on the other side of this argument recently. My sister is gay. It was however explained to me in such a way to make me change sides. This has nothing to do with me being a homophobe, gay hater, etc.... It has to do with what marriage is, what is always has been, and what gay people are trying to do, when they should be doing something else.

 

[Halifirien]

They have the same rights as everyone else does. ... However special rules can be "created", to give special rights to minorities that other people do not have.

It's a rhetorical dodge to make it look like gays are getting "special rights." Yes, technically gay people have access to marriage; the reality is it doesn't do them a bit of good if they're barred from marrying each other simply because they're of the same sex. We may as well go back to arranged marriages if you're going to argue we should be happy we can marry people we don't want to.

By your logic, changing the law wouldn't grant special rights because heterosexual couples would also have access to same-sex marriage. Do you think heterosexuals would be comforted by that fact? I doubt it. I think they wouldn't care and wouldn't use that option, the same way gay guys don't care that they can marry women if they really want to. It may be a "right," but it's pretty fucking useless.

 

[Darkdante]

In all fairness, you took Uzor's original statement out of context. He defined the context using the wrong -by definition- word. Many people use normal as saying okay to occur, or to happen.


By normal he implied a natural connotation to the word. Also, another definition of normal is:
2. Biology Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.

I think that was more of what he meant by his use of normal. I do see what you're saying about it not being a widely accepted social "norm," but that was not the original context that was intended by Uzor, which was the reason you made the statement about politically correct not equating normal.

And while a norm defines a socially acceptable idea or action, it doesn't make that action absolute. There are people who respect same-sex/homosexual/gay relationships and those who don't care about it. While its the most socially acceptable alternative to be straight, it doesn't make it abhorable to be gay. Social norms change. Normal isn't a constant. Normal can change, by definition since a society can grow and develop new ideals over time. Natural, nature risen, can't really change. If it naturally occurs, theres nothing that can be done to change it aside from artificial alternatives that by nature would be considered destructive. (IE: sex change surgery, plastic surgery, etc)

Perhaps the discussion isn't occuring because it isn't a social norm, but maybe because it is trying to evolve toward becoming a socially accepted thought..

I believe you can let Uzor speak for himself.

I dosen't sound like he was talking about the physiology of a homosexual human being. Because he used the word Homosexuality which is a behavior.

Which is what I was reffering to. I think everyone knows a gay person has the same biology as everyone else which is normal. I don't think Uzor would argue that, correct me if I"m wrong.

 

[Darkdante]

It's a rhetorical dodge to make it look like gays are getting "special rights." Yes, technically gay people have access to marriage; the reality is it doesn't do them a bit of good if they're barred from marrying each other simply because they're of the same sex. We may as well go back to arranged marriages if you're going to argue we should be happy we can marry people we don't want to.

By your logic, changing the law wouldn't grant special rights because heterosexual couples would also have access to same-sex marriage. Do you think heterosexuals would be comforted by that fact? I doubt it. I think they wouldn't care and wouldn't use that option, the same way gay guys don't care that they can marry women if they really want to. It may be a "right," but it's pretty fucking useless.

I used that word to drive the point home, not to insult you, I used to word so you could understand my point of view.

The way trippy worded it, he seems to think gays already have a right to marry.
Do they?

I'm a realist, I say what I see. Wasn't an insult in any way.

 

[Halifirien]

The way trippy worded it, he seems to think gays already have a right to marry. Do they?

I'm a realist, I say what I see. Wasn't an insult in any way.

No insult taken.

I make it a point of interjecting when the "special rights" argument comes up because it's usually meant to limit the terms of the debate. If gay people simply wanted the right to marry, we wouldn't have protests and amendments and politicians campaigning on their pledges to keep "the gays" in their place, since gay people already have access to marriage. We want to the legal right to marry each other; those two words are the point of the argument.

It's like Loving vs. Virginia, the case that brought down the last laws against interracial marriages. That couple wasn't arguing for marriage since they already had the right; they were arguing for the right to be married to each other.

It's an important distinction that I see a lot of marriage equality opponents intentionally gloss over to confuse the issue.

 

[Winklewil]

Meh, I'm all for gay marriage, so long as it's through the courts or whatever "religion" allows such.

Forcing other religions to adopt gay marriage though, not a fan of.

I got a kick out of the little list though.

- Lec

Nobody has ever, EVER made the argument that any church should be forced to perform or "recognize" a gay marriage. Nobody's going to force the Vatican's representatives here in the States to marry Bob and Steve. Nobody can. Nobody ever even mentioned that.

That's one of the single greatest misconceptions over what this whole thing's about.

The legal status of "being married," however, is something quite different. You don't have to be married by a priest. Government officials serve just as well. In fact, the legal authority of any religious institution to marry two people (in the eyes of Uncle Sam, at least) is something granted by our government. Whether or not it's valid in terms of a person's particular set of Voodoo chants is, has been, and always will be, up to the individual to decide.


A Mormon bishop will never be forced to conduct a gay marriage. Then again, the LDS church having any say whatsoever in whether or not two men marry each other across the street is absolutely absurd.

 

[Direwolf]

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

I always found this funny argument cause homosexuality appears in the animal kingdom.

My stance has always been, if it involves consensual adults and does not cost me money, what the fuck do I care what two+ people do with their lives. My motto, Not My Problem, unless it directly effects me physically or financially I really am cool with just about anything, so long as the actions do not interfere on the rights of other Americans to have the same lifestyle. For foreigners you all meet the Not My Problem category so deal with your own shit.

 

[Zylia]

I believe you can let Uzor speak for himself.

I dosen't sound like he was talking about the physiology of a homosexual human being. Because he used the word Homosexuality which is a behavior.

Which is what I was reffering to. I think everyone knows a gay person has the same biology as everyone else which is normal. I don't think Uzor would argue that, correct me if I"m wrong.

The context of his post, defined that he was talking about homosexuality in a biological-natural setting, saying it was natural in nature - other animals had the same tendencies. Not a societal setting. That's all I meant. It doesn't matter if I'm telling you or he's telling you. Thats what was implied at least from my understanding. Also, while homosexuality can imply a behavior, it can also imply an orientation:

Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

Also, a gay person may have the same biological/physical makeup as a straight person, but there is a chance that there is a variant in his or her genes which makes them attracted to the same-sex or develop differently in some ways. There are studies on a 'gay gene' that may exist. It's a nature vs. nurture arguement that still is being studied.

The scientific findings began in 1991 when Simon LeVay, working at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, found subtle differences in the post-mortem brains of heterosexual and homosexual young men. The cluster of neurons known as INAH 3 in the hypothalamus were reduced in size in homosexual men, much to the same degree that the same group of neurons is reduced in women. This region of the hypothalamus is also commonly thought of as participating in “the regulation of male-typical sexual behavior” (LeVay, 1991). http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/genomics/2002/Pierce/gaygene.htm