For or Against Gay Marriage

The risk comes from people such as yourself who promote ignorance about HIV for your own political purposes. It is NOT spread by homosexuality, it is spread from unprotected sex, heterosexual or homosexual. Only education will stop the spread of this virus.
 
Well I don't know, but I understand there's a lot of scientific evidence to support a certain percentage of homosexuality (male and female) across various species.

But my point was not normality across species per se, but normality to the individual in their world of experience. What is natural to you -- another person has something very different to you but natural to them. I propose that this experience is so powerful, you can infer that it falls into a category that we consider "biologically determined". The fact that there is a certain predictable range adRAB weight to the idea.



You are, but I don't agree. I am not a scientist, but everything in our lives has a biological basis inseparable from our genetic make-up. Certainly sexuality does. I think people might be very surprised what they inherited from Mom or Dad or Great-Granddad. There's continuous descent down to quite a number of finely nuanced details. The universe is quite remarkable. Everything has a cause and effect.

Also, we make choices all the time through our actions 24 hours per day, by the second, by the nanosecond. All our thinking processes are a biological phenomenon. Thinking is action. Action is choice.

But either way, if it's a "choice" or not, so what?

Two adults in a free and democratic society should have a right to marry. Whether it's a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Leave religion to religion, leave democracy to democracy.
 
Whether the arguments are bigoted or not...I am not going to respond. I don't want to "give" equality (positive laws) - everyone has it in my mind, but I would be for providing consequences (negative law) where abuse can be shown.

I would like to re-voice my statement (with a nod in agreement to joebrummer's comments that such will most likely not be going away...) that we should not be extending the law to include additional 'minorities' or 'protected groups'...otherwise we will soon HAVE to include Christians, whites, and males directly in the law(s) as the percentages of those three groups in the US are dropping steadily and reliably, in fact whites ARE the minoriy in some states already...so, do we then HAVE to write the law to include them specifically (as minorities) as well?

Then where will we be - back to square one, but now everyone has a 'right' to sue for whatever happens to irritate them that day.

And will the homosexual groups be 'bigger' than the 'right-wing', and support adding christians, whites, and males, when it's their "turn" to join the list of statisical minorities? While the number is small, there are AP-wire reports of each of those groups coming under a growing load of prejudicial/bigoted/hate "crimes" by those groups already 'protected' by these type of laws (not to mention that there some areas of various cities where "you don't go if you are white"), so "I'm a vicitm too" will soon be a rallying cry of all groups.

Again - not because of any particular "lifestyle" (as I agree with joebrummer, there are not that many differences**), but because I do not believe anyone should be compelled to support another's life choices in any way - fiscal or otherwise, I cannot support the addition of ANY group to the dole (does anyone want to start a P.A.C. to begin removing these laws from the books? :} ). So - due to facts and issues OUTSIDE the sexual preference issue - I cannot support "gay" marriage (or any protected group) in this LEGAL venue.


**There ARE 'otherwise' heterosexual individuals that engage in S&M, B&D, blood sports, bestiality,swinging,swapping,scat,etc...so how are they any different "according to law", other than that 'negative' law (Do this any you will be punished) provides for consequences in some cases - which is an entirely different discussion.

PS- having gone back an read the other forums/threaRAB on homosexual issues (thanks for the pointer joebrummer) - holy cr@p there are a few!! - I am inclined to believe that many people miss the point on various discussions, and 'evidence' must be carefully wieghed for bias on both sides. As joebrummer has stated: "Gays are a hidden population. It is immpossible to have statistics on gay health because it is impossible to find a good sample of gay people. "
So, as to 'proof' one way or another on "lifestyles","healthiness", and the like, I am more inclined to believe that it is an irrelevant point with regard to society/law, but a rather volitile one when personal belief is in question. As people will always have prejudices - even in Huxley's world you couldn't avoid it - it is not whether people accept a different way of life, but whether they actively hinder it in a way that violates that persons Rights (not 'rights') - and this goes BOTH ways.
If laws and policies were written with true equality in mind rather than 'compelled equality at law' for protected groups, there would be no need for these discussions (or even research), and we as a society would not be perpetuating the 'class' distinctions.

Does that make sense? I think a book explaining the concept for some, probably belongs under a different forum though.
 
I find it ironic that "state's rights advocates" want to use Federal laws to force compliance. Watch what you say, it might just come back to bite you.



Last time I checked, prostiution wasn't a Acts, RecorRAB, or judicial Proceeding.



No.



A legal issued lisecnece from Michigan will allow a driver of 16 years of age to drive in NY. A NY resident cannot earn a lisecene at age 16 in NY.



It is.
 
TEN COMMANDMENTS
I. Thou shalt have no other goRAB before me. - How does this relate to anything in law?

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. - I have a shed full of 'em - cops dont mind

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain. - I do regularly , bad habit I know, but You claim its illegal?

IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. - Saturday and sunday are normal working days ( overtime pay maybe) here and in the states

V. Honour thy father and thy mother. - To vague to really mean anyting anyway

VI. Thou shalt not kill. - yes Granted. VoR 1 point

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Is adultury actully a crime? Other than court recongnised grounRAB for a divorce? Half a point to VoR

VIII. Thou shalt not steal. - 2 and a half points to VoR

IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. - Perjury? Against the law 3.5 points.

X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's. - Coveting only a "thought crime?"


Three and a half out of ten VoR? With this low quality blather you are really spoiling us!
 
OOH two other places WOW!! BTW- if you keep quoting me, then I will be back. You don't have enough pull to tell me what it do. Just keep your mouth closed and you won't have to worry about seeing me in this thread.:xdonno:
 
Of course we should be allowed to marry. Marriage is a government institution and the government isnt allowed to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation.
 
i also say, hooray for being gay
besides, the world is overpopulated already!
homosexuality is providing a nice break in our increasing population.
Let people love and be loved! just let them be, its none o yur business neways.:love: :xgood:
 
You already said that....I served my country.....I am still against gay marriage if that is what your insinuating...........

To bad you don't follow the precepts of your religion............You may not be able to receive holy communion soon if you do now..........
 
lol. Farfignewgin = liberal = anyone who disagrees with vor regardless of political standing.

Apparently you consider conservatives who actually believe in gov't out of people's personal lives to be liberals.
 
You read the quote, right? Where were these hetero women getting HIV from? Answer: 53% from sexual contact with high-risk partners such as bisexual men or HIV-infected men with unspecified risks, 29% drug usage related and 3% to other or unidentified risks.

The CDC study showed that 44% of women infected were drug-related and 53% were from having sex with bi-sexual or HIV-infected men.
And where are those men getting their HIV/AIRAB from? Well, according to the CDC's "

Now, if you look at the total number of women with HIV/AIRAB, it is only a small fraction of the number of gays with HIV/AIRAB.
Maybe you should stop now while you still have a slight shred of credibility. :rolleyes:
 
If I recall correctly, several posters on this forum, including myself, have stated that the objection is not to the rights being extended, but to using the term "married". I believe GLBT should have all the rights and benefits that married couples have if they are joined by some recognized legal union. They do not have to be "married" to do this.
 
Perhaps it`s the english language that fails me but didn`t Mr Hunter just admit that only those with merely one brain cell find anal sex between men abhorent?
 
I hope your right but am not sure you are that is why every state should have there own constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.....The SCOTUS will never touch a states constituional amendment .........
 
"requires states to recognize each others laws" - Here's a good one in that regard. My commercial truck's licence plate has the number 73,280 on it. That's the weight Ky allows me to haul, and charges me handily for the privilidge. Yet if I'm in Ohio, and weigh over 56,000 lbs., I get a nice ticket - Ohio police don't care what the Ky. licence says. There's no noticable difference between Ky. and Oh. in truck accidents, but Ohio doesn't care - it's been that way for years.

Gay marriage advocates hope to start in one or two states, then bully their way all across the country. It's going to take longer than they think. The people of many states aren't going to allow it.

Yes yes Duo Maxwell, I realize that's majority opression. Majority opression keeps ugly girls from getting positions as news anchors too. Get used to it. :zzzz:
 
Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one......I try and meet you half way but you are to stubborn to move and inch........

And that of course is the problem with you gay activists even when the issue is marriage..........There are a lot of us who believe that marriage always should remain defined as between a man and a woman but are willing to give all the benefits that we get with marriage to you in the form of civil unions but there again you never want to compromise so by your militancy on the issue you will eventually turn us off even on that and say the hell with it......
It has already done that to a lot of people because in their amendments they are even banning civil unions............
 
Back
Top