All of it apparently. I'm asking you what it is about same-sex marriage that bothers people, and the answer you seem to be giving me is that same-sex marriage bothers people because it is illegal. I mean, I could understand if it was illegal because it bothered people and wasn't constitutionally protected. But then I'm still curious as to what it is about same-sex marriage that bothers people such that they outlaw it.
For or Against Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Speedy Boarder
- Start date
littledave
New member
It really does not compute........... 
G
!>_<!geeze!>_<!
Guest
Ya know, if monogomous, life-long, committed relationships between gay men and lesbians were PROMOTED that would RADICALLY cut the number of new STD and HIV transmissions among gay men and lesbians.
Or hasn't that ever crossed your mind?
Come on, it's really simple. Because society does not promote healthy sexual behavior for gay men and lesbians is exactly WHY STD transmission rates are so high.
Gay men in paticular have a "Devil may care" attitude because they see ZERO encouragement to behave any other way.
Damn, it takes an idiot to know that if you don't want your kid to stick his/her finger in a light socket you don't go and point out every socket in the house!
You don't give a person a loaded weapon and say: "Here take this loaded weapon and never pull the trigger."
No, what you do is encourage safe sexual behaviors.
If you want more marraiges to last, encourage more marriages amongst those who really really want them!
If you want to make a real impact on the number of STD transmissions, you encourage monogomous relationships!
If you want your kid to play beautiful music, you give them lessons, not beat them over the head with a guitar and say: "You can't have this, but I expect you to make music and do it without an instrument or a voice."
Or hasn't that ever crossed your mind?
Come on, it's really simple. Because society does not promote healthy sexual behavior for gay men and lesbians is exactly WHY STD transmission rates are so high.
Gay men in paticular have a "Devil may care" attitude because they see ZERO encouragement to behave any other way.
Damn, it takes an idiot to know that if you don't want your kid to stick his/her finger in a light socket you don't go and point out every socket in the house!
You don't give a person a loaded weapon and say: "Here take this loaded weapon and never pull the trigger."
No, what you do is encourage safe sexual behaviors.
If you want more marraiges to last, encourage more marriages amongst those who really really want them!
If you want to make a real impact on the number of STD transmissions, you encourage monogomous relationships!
If you want your kid to play beautiful music, you give them lessons, not beat them over the head with a guitar and say: "You can't have this, but I expect you to make music and do it without an instrument or a voice."
Of course it's crossed my mind. Has the idea that if we rewarded gay marriage it would promote more gay marriages? Society has said that gay marriage isn't a type of union that they want to condone/support.
In your opinion.
And you do that by discouraging unsafe sexual behavior...such as homosexuality. To continue your analogy above, you wouldn't give your child $5 every time they did stick their finger in the socket. You don't reward negative behavior, ditto with homosexuality. You don't reward deviance, IMO.
I could care less what adult gays do with themselves, but don't ask me to support a lifestyle that is fundamentally distasteful to me.
The goal isn't to encourage more marriages amongst anybody. The goal is to increase the stability of houseolRAB with kiRAB so that the kiRAB don't suffer. Promoting gay marriage is like growing a crab apple tree for its fruit.
I do encourage monogomous relationships that are healthy: one man, one woman.
Your right, you give them lessons. Amongst those lessons is that the gay lifestyle is more dangerous to their health than smoking, drinking, etc., and I teach my kiRAB about the dangers of those too.
In your opinion.
And you do that by discouraging unsafe sexual behavior...such as homosexuality. To continue your analogy above, you wouldn't give your child $5 every time they did stick their finger in the socket. You don't reward negative behavior, ditto with homosexuality. You don't reward deviance, IMO.
I could care less what adult gays do with themselves, but don't ask me to support a lifestyle that is fundamentally distasteful to me.
The goal isn't to encourage more marriages amongst anybody. The goal is to increase the stability of houseolRAB with kiRAB so that the kiRAB don't suffer. Promoting gay marriage is like growing a crab apple tree for its fruit.
I do encourage monogomous relationships that are healthy: one man, one woman.
Your right, you give them lessons. Amongst those lessons is that the gay lifestyle is more dangerous to their health than smoking, drinking, etc., and I teach my kiRAB about the dangers of those too.
iimaxdreamerrxx3
New member
Legally everyone of the age of consent should have the right to marry, religiously, it depenRAB on the religion... Catholics don't believe in same sex marriage then don't get married in the Catholic Church... legally if you want to deal with the taxes, the paperwork and inevitable divorce who the hell should stop anyone from getting married?
Lovely Bride
New member
You are probably some kind of zealot, and I always thought that the American Government promotes tolerance, not theocracy, and if this were truly a "Christain Nation" everyone would be a christain like Vatican City, I'm an Atheist and there are many religions here, so I highly doubt this is a christain nation, unless you're saying everyone's here secretly a christain.
Just Believe
New member
And often just as an unthoughtful, irrational reaction to a perceived threat, that many times isn't really a threat.
ShootinStarxx
New member
A simple rubber stamp will solve that problem. After all, it's not like 50% of the future couplings will be gay.
You see, they already have that right.
They should have that right...unless the surviving partner is the parent.
I'm not sure I understand that one. Are you saying that if the dieing patient is lucid, they can rescind the DNR order? It seems that would be the case whether they are gay or not.
Again, I'm not certain who you're claiming has a right to say that the partner can't see the the family. It sounRAB like a couple breaking up and one partner shutting the other out. This happens in regular marriages also. It's called restraining order. If you have legitimate reasons for the restraint, the court gives you the right to refuse access to anyone you please, including your own family members. Gays have the same rights. Is that what you're saying?
Regardless of what you're saying, it makes absolutely no sense to change the definition of marriage. You talk about having to reprint paper forms...that's no problem at all when compared to the redefinition of other worRAB related to the current definition of marriage.
You see, they already have that right.
They should have that right...unless the surviving partner is the parent.
I'm not sure I understand that one. Are you saying that if the dieing patient is lucid, they can rescind the DNR order? It seems that would be the case whether they are gay or not.
Again, I'm not certain who you're claiming has a right to say that the partner can't see the the family. It sounRAB like a couple breaking up and one partner shutting the other out. This happens in regular marriages also. It's called restraining order. If you have legitimate reasons for the restraint, the court gives you the right to refuse access to anyone you please, including your own family members. Gays have the same rights. Is that what you're saying?
Regardless of what you're saying, it makes absolutely no sense to change the definition of marriage. You talk about having to reprint paper forms...that's no problem at all when compared to the redefinition of other worRAB related to the current definition of marriage.
Sir Nerdlaroid
New member
I said BEFORE my father's death, and as expected, you slime my late mother with idiot insults.
DOMAs May very well be struck down for denying equal protection that is why you see states scrambling to adopt amendments to ban gay marriage...
Oh and as far a Mass. goes I still think they will eventually adopt and amendment banning gay marriage and all those gays marriage there would be ruled null and void........
Oh and as far a Mass. goes I still think they will eventually adopt and amendment banning gay marriage and all those gays marriage there would be ruled null and void........
rocketgirl
New member
While I'm impressed with the fact that you've read the Bible, didn't you get creamed last time you attempted to use it in support of gay marriage a few months back? Do we need a rematch already? :xangel:
sMILEsmile
New member
DOMA has not been ruled on by the USSC, but I do not disagree that, for now, it is the law of the land.
Roe v. Wade has been ruled on. So has Griswold v. Connecticut. A case like Loving was bound to happen eventually, especially since those states banning interracial marriage made them illegal, and that was a far bigger problem.
Roe v. Wade has been ruled on. So has Griswold v. Connecticut. A case like Loving was bound to happen eventually, especially since those states banning interracial marriage made them illegal, and that was a far bigger problem.
Don't tell the Buddists or the Moslems that.......
Jesus Christ, my God supports only what is right and the murder of innocent babies in the womb without justification is wrong.......You seem to think your God has no problem with that so we can only surmise that we have 2 different GoRAB and on judgment day we will see who was right..........
I can tell you that I condemn any God who says its ok to murder innocent, defenseless babies in the womb without just cause........
Jesus Christ, my God supports only what is right and the murder of innocent babies in the womb without justification is wrong.......You seem to think your God has no problem with that so we can only surmise that we have 2 different GoRAB and on judgment day we will see who was right..........
I can tell you that I condemn any God who says its ok to murder innocent, defenseless babies in the womb without just cause........
From your reference:
As for the statistics on women and AIRAB,
The top means of transmitting HIV amongst women are already illegal, prostitution and illegal drug use. So you were being very disengenuous when you tried to insinuate that normal heterosexual contact with women was a major cause of their increased HIV infection rate. Too bad for you that I make my living working with statitics and facts, not smoke and mirrors.
As for the statistics on women and AIRAB,
The top means of transmitting HIV amongst women are already illegal, prostitution and illegal drug use. So you were being very disengenuous when you tried to insinuate that normal heterosexual contact with women was a major cause of their increased HIV infection rate. Too bad for you that I make my living working with statitics and facts, not smoke and mirrors.
Yes but because of your bias your logic is flawed........
Since you corrected my spelling I will correct yours too.........Its understand not unferstand...........
No one said it would be easy but all those things could be overcome......As I said though this is not really about gay marriage......It is about making people that disagree with you accepting the gay lifestyle as a suitable alternate lifestyle and that will never happen at least not in anyones's life time that posts to this forum..........
Since you corrected my spelling I will correct yours too.........Its understand not unferstand...........
No one said it would be easy but all those things could be overcome......As I said though this is not really about gay marriage......It is about making people that disagree with you accepting the gay lifestyle as a suitable alternate lifestyle and that will never happen at least not in anyones's life time that posts to this forum..........
You are scapegoating gays(by the way msm are not necessarily gay). If heterosexuals want to stem HIV/AIRAB they should practice protected sex and eliminate the single biggest risk factor, which is unprotected sex. The same thing applies gays. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it doesn't matter who rubbed the lamp.
The CDC also cites poverty as a risk factor, and states African Americans are at higher risk.
You can't say, as I believe you have tried to previously, that homosexuality causes HIV in the same way that smoking causes lung cancer. There is a direct link between smoking itself and lung cancer. HIV is a sexually transmitted virus. Homosexuality is not the way HIV is transmitted. Sex itself is the way HIV is transmitted, in the same way that smoking causes lung cancer.
The CDC also cites poverty as a risk factor, and states African Americans are at higher risk.
You can't say, as I believe you have tried to previously, that homosexuality causes HIV in the same way that smoking causes lung cancer. There is a direct link between smoking itself and lung cancer. HIV is a sexually transmitted virus. Homosexuality is not the way HIV is transmitted. Sex itself is the way HIV is transmitted, in the same way that smoking causes lung cancer.
i am not familar with the full faith and credit clause which requires states to recognize each other's laws, can you direct me as to where it is in the bill of rights, so i can educate myself?
also is there a limit as to whitch laws are to be recinised? would pot be liegal in navada if i had a CA Rx? what about consealed carry of a hand gun? i know of huge varences of what states will allow under there laws, ans that if it is legal in Indiana, i can and will be busted for it over in Ill.
also is there a limit as to whitch laws are to be recinised? would pot be liegal in navada if i had a CA Rx? what about consealed carry of a hand gun? i know of huge varences of what states will allow under there laws, ans that if it is legal in Indiana, i can and will be busted for it over in Ill.