Why GAY people should not Marry

My mom's co-worker, whom I knew personally, and only found out after she had died, had AIDS. Up until I was about eleven, my mom worked closely with people who had AIDS, including Mariah Carey's older sister (we live on Long Island). Well anyway, my mom's co-worker was one of the nicest people I knew, she used to take me out and let me hang out with her daughter. When I was in High School, I found out that she had slit her wrists in the bathtub. My mom told me she never told me her co-worker had AIDS because she wanted me to treat her as a regular human being, not as someone with a disease. Her husband was sleeping around and gave her HIV. How loving.


'Cause only gay people get AIDS.
 
no one ever said only gay ppl get aids.

No, but you are saying that the majority of HIV infections is due to gay people, which is a flat out lie. You even said yourself that you haven't done any research on so you really just need to shut up. Your logic is based on a giant misconception in the 1980's, and nobody agrees with you.
 
i also said there is no research on weather or not ppl w/ aids were gay or not. there is really no way you can know if its a misconception or not
 
i also said there is no research on weather or not ppl w/ aids were gay or not. there is really no way you can know if its a misconception or not

I'm sure you spent a lot of time reading medical journals before you made that statement.
 
I guarantee that the homosexuals of this post will partially think that I'm a black sheep but here goes my opinions anyways.

First off, congrats to everyone who has read this thread for keeping it as civil and open minded without flamebaiting as far as it has gone, aside from 1 or 2 bad apples. It makes me happy that people can openly discuss this!

Secondly, gay marriage is a difficult subject for me. I'm constantly preaching that other people should not throw their business into other people's faces. Now, when I think of marriages, I think of churches, priests, and all that jazz. Personally, I'd prefer a civil union, but worded differently that has the same things as a marriage because I don't want to try to impede on the church's marriage. I could be wrong, and probably am, but that's the way that I see marriage. Frankly, I'd rather have my own ceremony and enjoy a commitment instead of a marriage, mainly because I do not particuraly like any of the religions out there.

However, I still will propose to the one I love, and have some sort of ceremony equivalent to marriage when the time comes (hell, I think it's gonna be real soon. :3 ) I'll do the best I can to be with him and love him like any normal marriage goes!

Anywho, I'll post more when I get home. Work is a callin'
 
I am so happy this thread did not become a Famewar.

As long as i have the same rights that is fine. Call it civil union or whatever just give me the same dam rights .
 
Heck, we could even accommodate (some) Mormons in this: "marry" as many people as you want, but you're only going to be "civilly united" to one in the eyes of the law.

1.) Lol

2.) Polygamy is almost non-existent in the LDS church, as the church hierarchy issued a manifesto against it and excommunicates members found to be involved in polygamy. While there are still polygamists in the U.S., they generally use the Mormon church as a justification for their behavior despite being shunned by the community.

Latter Day Saints (they don't like to be called Mormons) are pretty weird (although not much weirder than Christians, if you think about it objectively) but the notion that they or even a subset of them practice polygamy is basically false. It's a stereotype from 100 years ago.

The sacred underwear thing is true though. They're called "temple garments".

I found all this out while researching a role for a Neil LaBute script.
 
I am so happy this thread did not become a Famewar.

As long as i have the same rights that is fine. Call it civil union or whatever just give me the same dam rights .

like it has been said before u do have the same rights strait ppl cant marry the same sex either. hence equal rights
 
I'm sure you spent a lot of time reading medical journals before you made that statement.

so did the doctors ask every patient that came in w/ aids weather or not they were gay then document it? because if they didnt that info would not be in a medical journal.
 
you dont get do you...

I am Gay which means i am attracted to the same sex. I love my partner of almost 4 years. Would u want me to end it and then marry a girl and say yeap i have equal rights.

Its like when black people were slaves "ok u want to have = rights then u need to be White"
 
1.) Yeah, I know - got some good friends who are Mormon. While (imo) the dogma of their religion is strange, I've yet to see a religious group (including my own) do a better job of living by the values they espouse.

2.) There was a time when polygamy was the norm, even outside of Mormonism and there are some cultures today where it is still the norm. Though why a man would want multiple wives when most guys can't keep *one* happy is beyond me...

3.) My point was that civil unions for all would be a good way to establish universal equality under the law without trampling some people's ideas about the institution of marriage. Make the legal ramifications of marriage fall under the term "civil union" and leave the term "marriage" to the various religious institutions. About the only thing that would suffer would be the statues regarding "common law" marriages, but most of those are outdated anyway.

Oh, and smalls, writing like a 10 year old doesn't help your case. Capitalization and proper grammar go a long way towards making someone sound intelligent, though in your case, I don't think anything could save the idiocy that spews from your mouth. Do us a favor and shut the hell up.
 
Last edited:
Meh, in my mind marriage is one less thing for the homosexual community to worry about. Why not ask the government to cut off an arm? It would probably be less painful.

I was dating this girl earlier this year, and I traveled with her to Dayton, Oh, to attend a symbolic ceremony at a gay rights gathering where her mother was getting "married". It was quite the spectacle. Across the street, you had the Nazi protestors (for those that think this is a label, it's not. These jokers were all dressed up in combat gear and had swatchtikas adorning their clothing and bodies). The protestors were fun. I was having so much fun with them, that a Dayton officer threatened that he would have to arrest me if I "kept agitating the animals".

On the other side though, you had a gathering of some of the biggest "flamers" around. Some idiots were stripping down to their gstrings and dancing in the city fountain and all sorts of crazy shit. We are not talking about teenagers or crazy college kids here, these were adults. I felt bad for people like my gf's mother and others that were trying to take it seriously while others were fucking around. Seriously, some of the couples themselves were dressed like hillbillies, and circus performers (again, not a generalization, there was one couple in full makeup, clown costume, shoes and wig).

I kind of thought, how can you expect the majority to take this seriously when you can't even do so yourselves? I felt bad for all of my homosexual friends who carry themselves with dignity, but had to be represented like this.

"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."

This is my problem, I am leaving the country in 2 years so me and my partner can stay together. We have been together for almost 4 years.

So I need to leave the country i was born in and my family. how is this fare, i want to be with my partner so the only way for me to do this i need to leave.

If i was straight that would not be a problem because i can marry my partner and have her stay. But this is not the case

First off, I hate that statistic, vague like a horoscope.

Secondly: tough shit. If you haven't figured it out yet, life isn't "fare". If your partner is your love, great. You have found something that most people don't. You should do whatever it takes to be with that person. That includes the temporary employment or the school visa, and if need be, relocation to another country as you said. In general, a this goes for ALL couples, if you are not more than willing -happy even- to sacrifice in order to be with the one you love, then you probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Flamers should be called heterophobic, because the opposite end of the spectrum is called homophobic. Both state like mad that they are what they are, and act like idiots to prove it.
 
3.) My point was that civil unions for all would be a good way to establish universal equality under the law without trampling some people's ideas about the institution of marriage. Make the legal ramifications of marriage fall under the term "civil union" and leave the term "marriage" to the various religious institutions. About the only thing that would suffer would be the statues regarding "common law" marriages, but most of those are outdated anyway.

I agree, on an intellectual level. A lot of Americans aren't intelligent enough to grok those kind of semantics, though. A lot of Americans aren't educated enough to point to the U.S. on a map. And they all have a vote.

/sigh

You know, I think tolerance is great and all. I'm happy to let everyone live their life however they see fit, so long as they don't violate anyone else's lived. But sometimes I think there should be a basic intelligence requirement for enfranchisement. For example, when registering to vote, the registrar could say "I will give you 10 dollars if you stick your finger in that electric socket. Additionally, Jesus will bless you if you can hold it in there for 10 seconds." Any one who takes some time to think about it does not get to vote.
 
so did the doctors ask every patient that came in w/ aids weather or not they were gay then document it? because if they didnt that info would not be in a medical journal.

In case my sarcasm shot over your head and landed somewhere in the next county, I'm sure your statement about how no research has been done on the correlation between STDs and sexual practices would come as a big surprise to the doctors who have actually been performing that research since AIDS popped up on the radar.
 
I agree, on an intellectual level. A lot of Americans aren't intelligent enough to grok those kind of semantics, though. A lot of Americans aren't educated enough to point to the U.S. on a map. And they all have a vote.

/sigh

You know, I think tolerance is great and all. I'm happy to let everyone live their life however they see fit, so long as they don't violate anyone else's lived. But sometimes I think there should be a basic intelligence requirement for enfranchisement. For example, when registering to vote, the registrar could say "I will give you 10 dollars if you stick your finger in that electric socket. Additionally, Jesus will bless you if you can hold it in there for 10 seconds." Any one who takes some time to think about it does not get to vote.

Hey, if it were up to me, I'd go the Starship Troopers route (the great book, not the piece of shit movie by Mr. RoboCop) and make enfranchisement dependant on military service.

I would submit, however, that true faith requires more intelligence than otherwise. Blind faith, well, we see the results of that in pretty much every religious war going on today. There is a difference, though, and I dislike it when people dismiss religion as the opiate of the (presumably stupid) masses.
 
I agree, on an intellectual level. A lot of Americans aren't intelligent enough to grok those kind of semantics, though. A lot of Americans aren't educated enough to point to the U.S. on a map. And they all have a vote.

i seriously doubt there are any americans of voting age who cant point to the us on a map.
 
ok everyone except miss south carolina can locate the us on a map.
they didnt say the age of the fifth ages 0-18 makes up over a fifth of the population. and i said of voting age.
 
Back
Top