Have you completely snapped, DR?


Since when do homosexual relationships bear the burden of tuberculosis, typhoid fever any other disease suffered by a third world country? I've seen generalizations before, but you're going off the deep end on this one.
CDC on Tuberculosis
CDC and Typhoid Fever
travmed.com/African disease risk analysis

Edited to add: I've supplied a few links for TB, typhoid fever and some other common diseases associated with third world countries. Nowhere have I seen anything to indicate that homosexuals are any more carriers and transmitters of these diseases than heterosexuals... especially in the case of tuberculosis (one of those mentioned by name) which is spread through the air for christ's sake.
Why are there sterile couples who get married then? Why do some physically incapable of sex, much less sexual reproduction, get married? I believe this has already been countered and yet you continue to introduce it. Marriage is not simply about welfare between mother and child and clearly not simply about the need to reproduce. Marriage can exist without these things and reproduction can occur just fine without any man made institutions -- it does so quite often.
We've seen your research...
Nobody is PUSHING a homosexual's way of life on you anymore than heterosexuals are pushing theirs on you. They said interracial relationships would tear at the moral fabric of our society too, I believe. You make the connection.

As for your rant about adoption, what in blazes are you talking about? Are you saying because gay people can adopt and one of the biological parents can take it away later, homosexuals can't create a family environment including children? There's nothing more to stop a biological parent from intervening there than with a heterosexual couple. And for that matter there's nothing to say there would be any intervention in the first place.
We've discussed thta families are not simply to serve as baby factories but it's a GOOD thing reproduction rates are declining, DR. It's encouraged throughout the world. We would like to avoid a little thing called overpopulation. Just because people aren't spitting out as many babies as you might like doesn't mean it's a bad thing. And as we've already discussed, not allowing homosexual marriages is not going to turn the homosexual community straight. They still are not going to reproduce and you're still going to be left with the same declining birthrates here and abroad. Your argument of homosexual marriages posing a threat to the species is ABSURD.
overpopulation.org
They don't just choose not to be part of that equation, they are denied that privelege. You seem hung up on your weak research that homosexuality is a choice, so I'm not sure I can get you to understand that homosexuals have no more choice in the matter than a black child years ago choosing to sit at the back of a bus, or a woman choosing not to vote. He couldn't help what color his skin was, and she couldn't help what was in her panties, anymore than homosexuals can their sexuality. Denying homosexual marriages is discriminating, plain and simple.

A few points, DR:

• fourteen times more money is spent on cancer research in the US than on AIDS research
  
• there are eighty-seven separate studies which have concluded that children of single parents and children with two same-sex parents are more stable than children with one male and one female parent
  
• our birthrate could drop to 0.7 percent and global population would still be increasing
  
• 73% of divorced men are also guilty of abusing their wives and children - and none of them can hug their sons

Oh - did I forget to include any support for the above statistics? That's because I just made them up. Unless and until you provide some sort of support for your myriad claims, Rocker, we will all have to assume the same about your last posting. One can say "I've done the research" as frequently as one likes. Without any proof, the phrase is meaningless - as is your last posting - in its entirety.

You state that "gay people should not be allowed to marry, because gay relationships are NOT ok". Very well, I counter that with "gay people should be allowed to marry, because gay relationships are okay". I presented my "evidence" in boldface - I guess my "research" is more serious than yours. You are welcome to your opinions, however bizarre, but that is all they are: one guy's bizarre opinions. Come back with some foundation for your arguments, DR, then we'll talk.

DR, DR, DR. *sigh* The reason there is a decline in the percentage of children born every year is quite simple and has NOTHING to do with morals, sexual persuasion or sexual impotence ....well, maybe in your case. (I'm joking! )

The reason for the decline in the birth rate in America and other developed countries is because the QUALITY OF LIFE HAS IMPROVED. Examples: Sanitation, vaccines,inoculations and penicillin. The Industrial Revolution, along with various medical research in every aspect of human health. You see, their was once a time in human history where a family would HAVE to have several childeren to ensure that their genes would be passed on. We weren't advanced enough to know that taking a bath daily was actually good for your health. Infants and childrens death was alarmingly high barely 100 years ago. The rapid advances in medicine and technology in the past decade is the reason for this decline, which as stated before is a GOOD thing, or we'll have to start populating the MOON before too long!
Actually having one to two children in a family unit is healthier for the child. He\She can receive more attention from the parents AND with the cost of living so high, it is actually economically prudent to have a smaller family. Take into consideration college funds, retirement, and lets not forget just trying to survive financially!

Gay marriage or homosexuals in general play no part in the decline of the child birth rate in this country or any country. I'm sorry but you are wrong.

[/QUOTE]

DR, where in the hell do you get your information???? I checked with the CDC and that's not what their studies suggest. As a matter of fact, approximately 47-50% of all HIV/AIDS cases are hetero related, whether by way of sex, IV drug use, hemophilia, transfusions, etc. So, hetero relationships are equally wrong. They are a drain on our society because of the overwhelming medical problems assiciated with their behavior, according to your AIDS argument! 50% of HIV/AIDS cases worldwide are female. Therefore, the we must apply your argument to women too.



Exactly what does this have to do with anything? Genetics or choice, I have never understood the debate. Why is it that if I CHOOSE to be gay, then it is OK to discriminate, harass, abuse, and not afford to me the liberties and protections guaranteed to ALL in this country.



At one time in the nation slavery was a tradtional value It was just as much a social institution as it was an economic one. For the South, the numer of slaves one owned defined one's social status, as well as wealth. How dare the slaves apply the Constituion to themselves! Just who did they think they were pushing their choice of freedom on the South'S traditional value of slavery. This undermined the complete moral fabric of Southern society.



I have a family, I have reproduced, there are 5 children. We are doing our part to see to it that the species survives. May WE get married?



Says who? Offer definitive proof, please. Not supposition and conjecture. BTW, "tradition" is not definitive proof.

To be fair, Abs, the claim that TB and other "Third World" diseases are on the increase is almost right - they are relatively more common among HIV+ and AIDS patients because the nature of HIV infection reduces the effectiveness of the immune system.

However, it doesn't support DR's case, as HIV victims are also more likely to get colds, flu, measles, cold sores, veruccas, warts - ANY kind of infection that would normally be resisted by the immune system.

And DR, your doom and gloom statistics on population depletion and 95% of AIDS patients being homosexual only apply to the USA. Nothing to do with the species breeding itself into obsolescense, unless you have evidence to suggest that Americans are a different species form the rest of us. And in most of sub-Saharan Africa, HIV infection approaches 30% of the population.

Given that the disease is thought to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa, what makes you think that the trend in infection there will not be repeated in the USA in 10-15 years' time? After all, in the mid to late 80s when AIDS was first identified, only gay men and IV users were infected, and now we know (from your stats, assuming they are right) that 5% of current AIDS patients are heterosexual and non-drug users.

Plus, AIDS can take 10-15 years to develop in an HIV+ patient, so by only considering current AIDS patients, you're looking at the trend in infectivity from 10-15 years ago, not what is going on today. If you're sexually active, and you haven't had three consecutive negative HIV tests, YOU could have HIV.

But all this is utterly irrelevant to whether gay men and women should be allowed to marry. Most church teaching will bar them from church weddings, but there is no real reason not to ENCOURAGE them to marry in civil ceremonies, since, according to you, most of their problems are caused by their "choice" to be promiscuous.

"...people turn that way because they just like it."

You know, I don't get that assertion, at all. Maybe there's a few confused nuts like Anne Heche who "go gay" because it's the trendy thing to do, but for all the gays and lesbians I know they don't wake up one morning and say, "Gee, I just feel like being gay today."

Yeah, who wouldn't want to be despised because of whom they go to bed with? Who wouldn't want to be called a faggot or a dyke or get beat up by some homophobe? Who wouldn't want to be fired or harassed on their job because they have a rainbow flag bumper sticker on their car?

People don't "go gay." They are gay and there's nothing they can do about it anymore than I can do something about the color of my skin.

DR I'm at my wit's end with you. Take a close look at your last post. Does it in any way relate to the posts made after your previous effort? No. It just repeats what you said with even less substantiation. If you want to participate in this discussion you'll have to do more than just repeat yourself.

Dayton's claim wasn't simply that tuberculosis, typhoid fever or other prevalent third world diseases were on the rise, Julian. His claim was that we have these diseases simply because of homosexual sex. There is absolutely no substantiation of this, and most of those I've looked at are either a result of poor sanitation, contaminated food or drink, or transmission through insects. As I've already mentioned, tuberculosis is transmitted through the air even, clearly not the product of sex practices deviating from vaginal penetration.

I say it that way because homosexual sex practices aren't limited to homosexual couples, lest we forget strong heterosexual inclinations for oral or anal sex, in which case homosexuals would have been no more responsible for these than heterosexuals.

Because HIV and AIDS patients are left more vulnerable to diseases ranging from tuberculosis to the common flu does not mean that they or their sexual practices are in any way responsible for these diseases existing in our society or the toll these diseases take on the heterosexual population.

While I'm taking the time to post again...Some of the most prevalent forms of Cancer can also be prevented.
Skin cancer
Lung cancer
Heterosexuals only account for 5% of AIDS where and according to who? I believe both Lemontrail and Julian have addressed this topic already, and the information I have found (through the CDC) certainly doesn't support your claim that heterosexuals only account for 5% of AIDS cases.

(Strumming fingers on desk) DR must be doing more research...

Constructive posts, please.

Actually, lesbians are the least likely to be exposed to HIV from their sexual practices.

Actually, TB was almost eradicated in the United States long ago. Now, due to infections of the immunocompromised, it is on the rise. HIV doesn't kill by itself. What kills is the pathogenesis from resulting opportunistic infection (which include almost every disease known to man). DR was correct about that one.

Hugo was also correct, though. Lesbians have the 'safest' sex practices, if we choose to turn the discussion into an issue of 'whose sex practices are the most culpable for the spread of disease'.

Actually, my OS went belly up and I had to rebuild my computer. But yes, I have been doing a little more research. It seems that I have the burden of verifying my source's sources (just having sources isn't enough for this debate). Not that I think that will make any difference.
But if I find something to add to the debate (instead of the "I'm right-you're wrong" arguments), I will be back to take on everybody wanting a shot at my opinions.

Sorry to hear about your OS - there's been a lot of that going around this week.


I think you may have misunderstood. In your last post, you did not provide a single link to any source, depite the fact that you seemed to be making authoritative references left, right, and center. No one is attempting to burden you with anything more than providing a link to where you got your information.


Speaking for myself, you are welcome to your opinions, however dubious I may find them. What I'd like "a shot at" is the sources which apparently form the foundation of your opinion. If you have none and are speaking entirely from personal prejudice - well, there's no addressing that, really, much beyond "I'm right-you're wrong" (though I'd make that simply "We disagree"). So: if you have nothing to support your prejudices, fine - we're done here.

To be fair, if gay marriage is made legal, people of all sexual preferences, incest, sadists, ect. will all ask for these same rights, are we prepared to give those rights to them?

CP

Well it's legal here and in other places and as far as I know groups of those people haven't asked for the same rights.

Not yet, but I can easily see this happening in America, we can't make sex political, it isn't.

CP

If it's not political then there should be no government involvement in sex practices.

We've covered this all before, Pat. I might suggest you and anybody else wishing to discuss it further read through the previous posts and take into account the arguments already made regarding that aspect. I believe you and anybody else with similar questions should find the answers there, Pat

Edited to add quote: Other responses were made as I typed out my own...

Common sense dictates that some sexual practices be illeagal UJ. And Abs, well, what happens if an incestual group wants to be able to be married they'll say "if gay people can, why can't we?" then what?

CP

What "common sense" might that be? The sexual practices in question for this debate are the sexual practices of consenting adults. Between consentual adults, what sexual practices do you feel should be illegal and why?

You already asked that question, Pat. I'm tired of having to rehash arguments with you. I told you it's already been presented in this thread. You can read back through the postings and find what my response and the response of others were if you are so concerned about it.

While I disagree with what pro-gay marriage individuals said then, I won't beat a dead horse, plain and simple, someone already said it, I think, the gov't has no business in the bedroom of others, in their privacy, okay, however, by making gay marriage legal, it is no longer a private matter.

CP

Marriage is already legal, Pat. Does that mean I should have a say in what you or your parents do in the bedroom after you are married? Should I and the rest of the public have a say if a heterosexually married couple engages in otherwise homosexual acts such as anal or oral sex?

I meant gay marriage. And no of course not, I never said that gay people shouldn't be able to engage in homosexual acts, I said, that marriage probably isn't the best idea.

CP

Care to explain at length why it isn't a good idea, Pat? Your random snips and short comments provide us no conclusive insight into your opinions on this matter or others. Take some time and explain in detail what your opposition and argument against gay marriage is for us.

Marriage is a religious establishment, whether gay people like it or not. Now, being gay goes against most, if not all religions, so, how do you allow a sacreligious act to be justified by a religious occurence such as marriage?

CP

If that's the case, than why should the government recognize marriages at all? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for marriages to be recognized solely by the church?

Because, the state needs to know who's related to who, and how.

CP

What happens if you're not religious? Is it now suddenly, ever so wrong and terrible for atheists to get married? God forbid that such a thing should happen! I'd say that a pretty huge chunk of the world's population don't really view it so much as an act of religion, so much as an act of love. So, if two gay individuals are in love, why shouldn't they get married?

Bean brings up a good point about atheists (or even those of other faiths) choosing to get married. Marriage is actually not a religious establishment so much as a cultural establishment. It has been found in various cultures throughout the centuries with and without religion, with those religious societies having considerable differences amongst them.

And, Pat, the government can rely on records other than marital contracts to keep track of who is related to who.

Because gay marriages as stated before, make homosexuality public, thereby demanding acceptance, and frankly, you don't have to accept homosexuality.

CP

Homosexuality is already public with or without legalized marriage, Pat. And neither I or anybody else has to accept heterosexuality or a heterosexual couple just because they are married. There were some people who made the same arguments as you in regards to interracial relationships and marriage years ago, Pat. We have interracial marriages and despite the fact there are still many people in society (arguably centered in the south) who still refuse to accept either interracial relationships or marriages.

Marriage would not force society at large to accept homosexuality. In fact, homosexual marriages are already legal abroad in foreign nations. That does not mean, however, that every citizen in each of those countries accepts the practice of homosexuality as being morally acceptable. The only way marriage would force you to accept anything, Pat, is if you based your entire foundation of morality in the single institution of marriage.

How wouldn't legalization of gay marriage incourage acceptance, "the gov't said it's okay, so it must be right."

CP

Incest is a sexual act between an adult and a minor and is an abhorrent misuse of trust. To say that homosexuality and incest are categorized together is lewd. ANY decent person that would want to LEGALIZE child molestation (i presume that's what "ect." is referring too) or incest would not be associated with the homosexual community or an advocate for homosexual rights. Why do you continuously insist on including those deplorable acts with the gay community?

Is this the last act of a desperate person who now has to resort to defaming the decent homosexuals of America? That, in all honesty, your only semi-valid reason for disliking the gay community is misinterpreted faith based propaganda and blatant hatred? Now don't get me wrong, I believe in the Lamb of God but right wing extremists seem to me to manipulate the scriptures for their own political means.

Do you feel legalizing gay marriage would be demanding acceptance or merely encouraging acceptance, Pat? Make up your mind. Just because the government says something is right doesn't force the public at large to accept that it is right. If that were true there would be nobody challenging the rights of homosexuals to marry, for marijuana to be legalized, for capital punishment to be abolished, etc. The government is not the end all be all, and legalizing gay marriages would do nothing to force or demand society further accept homosexuals.

Edited to add: Perhaps a better question to be asking is whether or not you feel legalizing homosexual marriages would be forcing you to accept homosexuality, Pat? Would you feel somehow obligated to view homosexuality any differently just because the state recognized a union between a same sex couple seeking to be monogamous with one another? If the answer is no then your argument doesn't hold water.

Recognition of life partners for insurance and inheritance purposes aside, I believe that gay marriage should be recognized because it would encourage faithfulness between partners and decrease promiscuity.

And those are good things.

Maybe you didn't understand what I said, I said that if one group with different sexual preferences is able to marry, then other groups will want to be able to get married. No where did I say that incet and homosexuality are linked. Your last paragraph is both slighly insulting, and it makes little to know sense. If you read the rest of the thread, you will notice that I was being very open minded about this, even defending the arguements of pro-gay marriage people, so am I desperate? Far from it, and so far the only defaming that is going around here is you defaming me. I neither hate gays nor am I using faith as an excuse. I am not a right wing extremist. So maybe you should try to understand what I am saying before insulting me.

As for Abs, whether it be demanding or encouraging, it is forcing an ideal on others, and that's not good. Frankly, I and others would no dout take homosexuality more seriously, and may accept it spiritualy if marriage were legal for homosexuals, and I don't want to. Don't get me wrong, I do not dislike gay people. I have a lot of respect for them enduring what they have to endure, but that doesn't mean I think that they should be able to get married.

CP

By putting resectable gays in the same category as people who commit incest and child molestation is an insult to us. You're drawing a conclusion, that homosexual marriage will lead to the tolerance of the before mentioned.

I said it will lead to a group of people with other sexual preferences wanting the same rights, and we can't give them the same rights. I'm linking the two based only by the fact that they have different sexual preferences than most people, I didn't come close to linking them in any other way.

CP

Where on group is consensual act between adults and the other is a gross misuse of adult trust with a child. Now, I'll agree with you that those other groups would have a field day if they knew that had a chance in hell of legalizing or changing the attitude towards child abuse, but I would be the FIRST to stand right next to you to oppose that from happening. All I'm asking you is to PLEASE quit associating the respectable gay community with those abhorrent acts.

Actually, you are putting limits on incest. It's not necessarily with children. I might want to marry my brother so I can get his better benefits. I'm over 18 and my dad is retired. Maybe I can marry him so he can get covered on my insurance.

My sister has had her tubes tied and can no longer have children. She may divorce her husband. Maybe I can marry my sister so her and her kids have my insurance coverage. Sex with her is ok, because it cannot cause any genetic problems (disclaimer: yuck).

Where does it stop? Or do gays get special priviledges?

As DR said, incest isn't with children, and I'm not going to keep repeating myself, I am not comparing gay people to those who practice incest, stop misconstruing my arguement.

CP

You've GOT to be kidding me?




Again, all I'm asking you is to PLEASE quit associating the respectable gay community with those abhorrent acts.

I think what DR is saying is that why should only gays get have the right to marry, why not other groups who don't have conventional sex. BJ, there is no use to keep going back and forth, I have explained myself numerous times, and frankly I'm not doing it any more, it seems that your only arguement is Please stop comparing the gay community to other groups [abhorrent I believe is your word]. I am not doing this, but hey, that doesn't stop you from accusing me. This is the last time I will explain what I am saying.

The connection that I am making is that both those that are homosexuals and those who are incestual, both do not have conventional sex, I am not calling gay people incestual, or sick, or bad or anything. So please, debate with me, don't repeat the same false statement over and over and over and over again.

CP

Like whom? What kinds of sex do you consider unconventional? All manner of fetishes, BDSM, group sex, etc. are perfectly legal and often practiced between men and women? Do you mean sex between adults and children? Unlike homosexual sex, that's illegal. Ditto for incest. Animals and inanimate objects can't marry for the same reason they can't hold property or exercise any other human rights. Even Scalia - your hero, right? - recognized that striking down a prohibition on homosexual activity left no barrier to gay marriage (according to the quote my wife read to me from yesterday's paper).

So what kinds of "unconventional sex" are you talking about, CP? For what other kind of legal sex are practitioners not already allowed to marry? Seems to me that your appeal to precedent goes in a direction other than you intended.




Get a dictionary. Incest with children is in fact the most common kind.

I am talking about all of those who do not have man+woman sex. As for incest, ummm, without being snappy, and mean about it, you could have just told me, and also, I believe you proved yourself wrong. You said the most common type of incest is with children, meaning there are other types, hmmmm.

CP

Quick intro to set theory, for those who skipped that day in fourth grade. Sets can intersect. There can be things that are only in set A, and things that are only in set B, and things that are in both A and B. The fact that some items can exist in only one set does not imply in any way that all items must exist in only one (i.e. that they are disjoint). There is sex with children, and there is incest, and there is incest with children. As it happens, the intersection is larger than the non-intersecting portion of the "incest" set. Get it?

I am more than willing to debate with you. I'm just asking you politely to stop.



Then what is your problem with the gay community?! Or with us having children? One minute your against us and now you say there's nothing wrong with us? I'm confused here, maybe you're comming around?



What statement are you referring too?

Platypus, I challenge you to try to prove someone wrong without being sardonic, cause frankly, I don't think you can do that. As to what you said, it's possible that those who practice incest with adults will want equal rights that you propose to give to homosexuals. BJ, I don't have a problem with the gay community, however, I feel that by giving gay people the rights that are not given to other groups would be a mistake. Think about it, every sexual group could just ask to be married and politicize sex, all types of sex. That would be ridiculous. The statement I am referring to is the statement that went something like "don't compare incest to homosexualitiy." I have told you several times that that was not my intent.

CP

Why would it be a mistake to promote monogamy in a homosexual relationship? By making gay committed relationships more binding, they would have to adhere to some of the same restrictive laws of divorce that a straight people do. By doing this the percentage of mature homosexuals staying together, discouraging sleeping around and having security in their life would increase. That, to me would give the gay community a better sense of pride in them selves and help de-villinize them to more uninformed straight people.

I don't think that by allowing homosexuals to marry would open the door to other groups to follow suit. I think the VAST majority of the gay and straight community wouldn't want to see them succeed.