Gay Marriage Defeated In NY and NJ

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

Mangusrah, yes, my first sentence there was an atrocity, but it does seem to me that it can be puzzled out.

My key point on this is that the argument for these proposed “gay marriage” laws either invariably or almost invariably couch the matter in terms of supposedly opening to gays the possibility of having a relationship with each other that they want but now can’t have.

Which is utterly not true. Two gays – or three or four, I don’t care – can already have whatever relationship they want with each other.

The argument is never, or virtually never, from the perspective of the entire effect being to force OTHER people to act differently or pay differently than there is already existing mutual agreement to do.

Could you find me a webpage, for example, where gay advocates of such legislation acknowledge that the purpose is to accomplish the second, rather than the first?

Our British friend (if I recall correctly) asked why anyone would be opposed to legislation “letting gays be married.” (paraphrase.)

That is the reason, or the reason in my case. Because this legislation is not to “let” them have any relationship with each other that they can’t already have, but to use government power to force others to do contrary to what they wish to do or have already entered into mutually-agreed contracts to do.

I oppose that sort of thing.

Now, if the “gay marriage” advocates want to modify the proposed legislation where contracts agreed to prior to the date of enactment that have clauses referring to married individuals shall not be construed to have any reference to cases where persons are of the same sex – thus throwing the extraction of these benefits from employers or others contrary to existing contract out the window – then that would largely remove that objection.

I strongly suspect that that won’t be done because the goal does include extracting these benefits from unwilling payers.

22

[quote]Mangusrah wrote:

I wish I were gay. I think I’d be good at it.[/quote]

NOW you’ve sparked the interest of Forlife and Irish.

23

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Mangusrah, yes, my first sentence there was an atrocity, but it does seem to me that it can be puzzled out.

My key point on this is that the argument for these proposed “gay marriage” laws either invariably or almost invariably couch the matter in terms of supposedly opening to gays the possibility of having a relationship with each other that they want but now can’t have.

Which is utterly not true. Two gays – or three or four, I don’t care – can already have whatever relationship they want with each other.

The argument is never, or virtually never, from the perspective of the entire effect being to force OTHER people to act differently or pay differently than there is already existing mutual agreement to do.

Could you find me a webpage, for example, where gay advocates of such legislation acknowledge that the purpose is to accomplish the second, rather than the first?

Our British friend (if I recall correctly) asked why anyone would be opposed to legislation “letting gays be married.” (paraphrase.)

That is the reason, or the reason in my case. Because this legislation is not to “let” them have any relationship with each other that they can’t already have, but to use government power to force others to do contrary to what they wish to do or have already entered into mutually-agreed contracts to do.

I oppose that sort of thing.

Now, if the “gay marriage” advocates want to modify the proposed legislation where contracts agreed to prior to the date of enactment that have clauses referring to married individuals shall not be construed to have any reference to cases where persons are of the same sex – thus throwing the extraction of these benefits from employers or others contrary to existing contract out the window – then that would largely remove that objection.

I strongly suspect that that won’t be done because the goal does include extracting these benefits from unwilling payers.
[/quote]

Well said Bill.

24

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Mangusrah, yes, my first sentence there was an atrocity, but it does seem to me that it can be puzzled out.

My key point on this is that the argument for these proposed “gay marriage” laws either invariably or almost invariably couch the matter in terms of supposedly opening to gays the possibility of having a relationship with each other that they want but now can’t have.

Which is utterly not true. Two gays – or three or four, I don’t care – can already have whatever relationship they want with each other.

The argument is never, or virtually never, from the perspective of the entire effect being to force OTHER people to act differently or pay differently than there is already existing mutual agreement to do.

Could you find me a webpage, for example, where gay advocates of such legislation acknowledge that the purpose is to accomplish the second, rather than the first?

Our British friend (if I recall correctly) asked why anyone would be opposed to legislation “letting gays be married.” (paraphrase.)

That is the reason, or the reason in my case. Because this legislation is not to “let” them have any relationship with each other that they can’t already have, but to use government power to force others to do contrary to what they wish to do or have already entered into mutually-agreed contracts to do.

I oppose that sort of thing.

Now, if the “gay marriage” advocates want to modify the proposed legislation where contracts agreed to prior to the date of enactment that have clauses referring to married individuals shall not be construed to have any reference to cases where persons are of the same sex – thus throwing the extraction of these benefits from employers or others contrary to existing contract out the window – then that would largely remove that objection.

I strongly suspect that that won’t be done because the goal does include extracting these benefits from unwilling payers.
[/quote]

That is pretty much besides the point.

Hetero couples can extort money out of employers, why not homo couples?

Both is unjust, but when heteros can do it and homos cannot it is also unfair.

The question is no longer whether governments can create “rights” on a whim, but whether they can arbitrarily exclude people from those “rights”.

25

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Mangusrah, yes, my first sentence there was an atrocity, but it does seem to me that it can be puzzled out.

My key point on this is that the argument for these proposed “gay marriage” laws either invariably or almost invariably couch the matter in terms of supposedly opening to gays the possibility of having a relationship with each other that they want but now can’t have.

Which is utterly not true. Two gays – or three or four, I don’t care – can already have whatever relationship they want with each other.

The argument is never, or virtually never, from the perspective of the entire effect being to force OTHER people to act differently or pay differently than there is already existing mutual agreement to do.

Could you find me a webpage, for example, where gay advocates of such legislation acknowledge that the purpose is to accomplish the second, rather than the first?

Our British friend (if I recall correctly) asked why anyone would be opposed to legislation “letting gays be married.” (paraphrase.)

That is the reason, or the reason in my case. Because this legislation is not to “let” them have any relationship with each other that they can’t already have, but to use government power to force others to do contrary to what they wish to do or have already entered into mutually-agreed contracts to do.

I oppose that sort of thing.

Now, if the “gay marriage” advocates want to modify the proposed legislation where contracts agreed to prior to the date of enactment that have clauses referring to married individuals shall not be construed to have any reference to cases where persons are of the same sex – thus throwing the extraction of these benefits from employers or others contrary to existing contract out the window – then that would largely remove that objection.

I strongly suspect that that won’t be done because the goal does include extracting these benefits from unwilling payers.
[/quote]

That is pretty much besides the point.

Hetero couples can extort money out of employers, why not homo couples?

Both is unjust, but when heteros can do it and homos cannot it is also unfair.

The question is no longer whether governments can create “rights” on a whim, but whether they can arbitrarily exclude people from those “rights”.
[/quote]

Except they are not rights. So who cares, if someone told me I had to pay for benefits for someone else that was not working with me and that it was not already in the agreement. Guess what, that person is likely going to get fired or get a salary cut.

26

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Mangusrah, yes, my first sentence there was an atrocity, but it does seem to me that it can be puzzled out.

My key point on this is that the argument for these proposed “gay marriage” laws either invariably or almost invariably couch the matter in terms of supposedly opening to gays the possibility of having a relationship with each other that they want but now can’t have.

Which is utterly not true. Two gays – or three or four, I don’t care – can already have whatever relationship they want with each other.

The argument is never, or virtually never, from the perspective of the entire effect being to force OTHER people to act differently or pay differently than there is already existing mutual agreement to do.

Could you find me a webpage, for example, where gay advocates of such legislation acknowledge that the purpose is to accomplish the second, rather than the first?

Our British friend (if I recall correctly) asked why anyone would be opposed to legislation “letting gays be married.” (paraphrase.)

That is the reason, or the reason in my case. Because this legislation is not to “let” them have any relationship with each other that they can’t already have, but to use government power to force others to do contrary to what they wish to do or have already entered into mutually-agreed contracts to do.

I oppose that sort of thing.

Now, if the “gay marriage” advocates want to modify the proposed legislation where contracts agreed to prior to the date of enactment that have clauses referring to married individuals shall not be construed to have any reference to cases where persons are of the same sex – thus throwing the extraction of these benefits from employers or others contrary to existing contract out the window – then that would largely remove that objection.

I strongly suspect that that won’t be done because the goal does include extracting these benefits from unwilling payers.
[/quote]

That is pretty much besides the point.

Hetero couples can extort money out of employers, why not homo couples?

Both is unjust, but when heteros can do it and homos cannot it is also unfair.

The question is no longer whether governments can create “rights” on a whim, but whether they can arbitrarily exclude people from those “rights”.
[/quote]

Plenty of people are excluded from what you call “rights”; incestuous couples, polygamous couples those that declare an unnatural love for fido. There’s nothing unfair about this. The “right” is for one man and one woman who are married. No other combination of weirdness is accepted, if it were then all combinations of weirdness would have to be accepted.

27

The ban on gay marriage is being challenged in California, the debate began today. I don’t see this being overturned, not right now at least.

28

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Mangusrah, yes, my first sentence there was an atrocity, but it does seem to me that it can be puzzled out.

My key point on this is that the argument for these proposed “gay marriage” laws either invariably or almost invariably couch the matter in terms of supposedly opening to gays the possibility of having a relationship with each other that they want but now can’t have.

Which is utterly not true. Two gays – or three or four, I don’t care – can already have whatever relationship they want with each other.

The argument is never, or virtually never, from the perspective of the entire effect being to force OTHER people to act differently or pay differently than there is already existing mutual agreement to do.

Could you find me a webpage, for example, where gay advocates of such legislation acknowledge that the purpose is to accomplish the second, rather than the first?

Our British friend (if I recall correctly) asked why anyone would be opposed to legislation “letting gays be married.” (paraphrase.)

That is the reason, or the reason in my case. Because this legislation is not to “let” them have any relationship with each other that they can’t already have, but to use government power to force others to do contrary to what they wish to do or have already entered into mutually-agreed contracts to do.

I oppose that sort of thing.

Now, if the “gay marriage” advocates want to modify the proposed legislation where contracts agreed to prior to the date of enactment that have clauses referring to married individuals shall not be construed to have any reference to cases where persons are of the same sex – thus throwing the extraction of these benefits from employers or others contrary to existing contract out the window – then that would largely remove that objection.

I strongly suspect that that won’t be done because the goal does include extracting these benefits from unwilling payers.
[/quote]

That is pretty much besides the point.

Hetero couples can extort money out of employers, why not homo couples?

Both is unjust, but when heteros can do it and homos cannot it is also unfair.

The question is no longer whether governments can create “rights” on a whim, but whether they can arbitrarily exclude people from those “rights”.
[/quote]

Plenty of people are excluded from what you call “rights”; incestuous couples, polygamous couples those that declare an unnatural love for fido. There’s nothing unfair about this. The “right” is for one man and one woman who are married. No other combination of weirdness is accepted, if it were then all combinations of weirdness would have to be accepted.[/quote]

As you say, when we accept the perversion of life long monogamy than we must accept all other perversions concerning consenting adults.

One pervert gets a cookie, every pervert gets a cookie.

Thats just kindergarden rules.

An unjust society that tries at least to uphold the appearance of fairness is better than an unjust one that does not even bother.

29

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Mangusrah, yes, my first sentence there was an atrocity, but it does seem to me that it can be puzzled out.

My key point on this is that the argument for these proposed “gay marriage” laws either invariably or almost invariably couch the matter in terms of supposedly opening to gays the possibility of having a relationship with each other that they want but now can’t have.

Which is utterly not true. Two gays – or three or four, I don’t care – can already have whatever relationship they want with each other.

The argument is never, or virtually never, from the perspective of the entire effect being to force OTHER people to act differently or pay differently than there is already existing mutual agreement to do.

Could you find me a webpage, for example, where gay advocates of such legislation acknowledge that the purpose is to accomplish the second, rather than the first?

Our British friend (if I recall correctly) asked why anyone would be opposed to legislation “letting gays be married.” (paraphrase.)

That is the reason, or the reason in my case. Because this legislation is not to “let” them have any relationship with each other that they can’t already have, but to use government power to force others to do contrary to what they wish to do or have already entered into mutually-agreed contracts to do.

I oppose that sort of thing.

Now, if the “gay marriage” advocates want to modify the proposed legislation where contracts agreed to prior to the date of enactment that have clauses referring to married individuals shall not be construed to have any reference to cases where persons are of the same sex – thus throwing the extraction of these benefits from employers or others contrary to existing contract out the window – then that would largely remove that objection.

I strongly suspect that that won’t be done because the goal does include extracting these benefits from unwilling payers.
[/quote]

That is pretty much besides the point.

Hetero couples can extort money out of employers, why not homo couples?

Both is unjust, but when heteros can do it and homos cannot it is also unfair.

The question is no longer whether governments can create “rights” on a whim, but whether they can arbitrarily exclude people from those “rights”.
[/quote]

Except they are not rights. So who cares, if someone told me I had to pay for benefits for someone else that was not working with me and that it was not already in the agreement. Guess what, that person is likely going to get fired or get a salary cut.[/quote]

If you did the same with newly wed more traditional couples?

But I guess you dont. I will even would go out on a limb and wager that you would not even be allowed to legally.

Do I think that it should be that way?

No.

But if it is that way it should be the same for gay couples.

30

If I am an employer, I don’t have to give benefits to heterosexual married couples (in most states anyway, I can’t be sure if it is true for all, and don’t know if it’s true under the health care “reform” bill) any more than I have to do so to those who drive American cars, wear green shirts on St Patrick’s Day, earn college credit, or whatever other things that I might or might not want to offer benefits for.

But somehow, using government force to make me offer benefits to same-sex couples that I never agreed to offer is re-couched as (from a news story today) “It’s time that the debate about marriage equality is seen for what it is: a debate over the rights of our friends and families to live their lives freely.”

It is this fraud in the presentation of the matter that I object to.

Gay couples are already able to, and have every legal protection to, “live their lives freely” and have whatever relationship between themselves that they want. That is not what these attempts at legislation are for. Rather they are to use government force to make others do differently than they choose.

But lying and claiming it is about being “time that the debate about marriage equality is seen for what it is: a debate over the rights of our friends and families to live their lives freely” is so much better at tugging the heartstrings and cause people to take sympathy, isn’t it. So the proponents I guess do not care that they are lying.

31

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Mangusrah, yes, my first sentence there was an atrocity, but it does seem to me that it can be puzzled out.

My key point on this is that the argument for these proposed “gay marriage” laws either invariably or almost invariably couch the matter in terms of supposedly opening to gays the possibility of having a relationship with each other that they want but now can’t have.

Which is utterly not true. Two gays – or three or four, I don’t care – can already have whatever relationship they want with each other.

The argument is never, or virtually never, from the perspective of the entire effect being to force OTHER people to act differently or pay differently than there is already existing mutual agreement to do.

Could you find me a webpage, for example, where gay advocates of such legislation acknowledge that the purpose is to accomplish the second, rather than the first?

Our British friend (if I recall correctly) asked why anyone would be opposed to legislation “letting gays be married.” (paraphrase.)

That is the reason, or the reason in my case. Because this legislation is not to “let” them have any relationship with each other that they can’t already have, but to use government power to force others to do contrary to what they wish to do or have already entered into mutually-agreed contracts to do.

I oppose that sort of thing.

Now, if the “gay marriage” advocates want to modify the proposed legislation where contracts agreed to prior to the date of enactment that have clauses referring to married individuals shall not be construed to have any reference to cases where persons are of the same sex – thus throwing the extraction of these benefits from employers or others contrary to existing contract out the window – then that would largely remove that objection.

I strongly suspect that that won’t be done because the goal does include extracting these benefits from unwilling payers.
[/quote]

That is pretty much besides the point.

Hetero couples can extort money out of employers, why not homo couples?

Both is unjust, but when heteros can do it and homos cannot it is also unfair.

The question is no longer whether governments can create “rights” on a whim, but whether they can arbitrarily exclude people from those “rights”.
[/quote]

Plenty of people are excluded from what you call “rights”; incestuous couples, polygamous couples those that declare an unnatural love for fido. There’s nothing unfair about this. The “right” is for one man and one woman who are married. No other combination of weirdness is accepted, if it were then all combinations of weirdness would have to be accepted.[/quote]

As you say, when we accept the perversion of life long monogamy than we must accept all other perversions concerning consenting adults.

One pervert gets a cookie, every pervert gets a cookie.

Thats just kindergarden rules.

An unjust society that tries at least to uphold the appearance of fairness is better than an unjust one that does not even bother.

[/quote]

Are we discriminating against a 40 year old who is in great shape and can pass all the physical requirements but still cannot join the military because of age?

Are we also discriminating against 15 year olds because they are not allowed to drive a motor vehicle on a state highway?

Are we discriminating against 18 year olds because they are not allowed to drink alcohol?

Are we discriminating against 17 year olds because they are not allowed to vote?

The answer is yes to all of them but that’s exactly what government does, it discriminates for the betterment of society.

Really, why can’t we all just do anything we want otherwise it’s discrimination according to you.

Think about it.

32

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If I am an employer, I don’t have to give benefits to heterosexual married couples (in most states anyway, I can’t be sure if it is true for all, and don’t know if it’s true under the health care “reform” bill) any more than I have to do so to those who drive American cars, wear green shirts on St Patrick’s Day, earn college credit, or whatever other things that I might or might not want to offer benefits for.

But somehow, using government force to make me offer benefits to same-sex couples that I never agreed to offer is re-couched as (from a news story today) “It’s time that the debate about marriage equality is seen for what it is: a debate over the rights of our friends and families to live their lives freely.”

It is this fraud in the presentation of the matter that I object to.

Gay couples are already able to, and have every legal protection to, “live their lives freely” and have whatever relationship between themselves that they want. That is not what these attempts at legislation are for. Rather they are to use government force to make others do differently than they choose.

But lying and claiming it is about being “time that the debate about marriage equality is seen for what it is: a debate over the rights of our friends and families to live their lives freely” is so much better at tugging the heartstrings and cause people to take sympathy, isn’t it. So the proponents I guess do not care that they are lying.[/quote]

So people lie when it comes to the distribution of money through the government?

Who would have thunk?

Do hetero couples not marry to receive benefits?

Because it seems to me that they do.

33

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Really, why can’t we all just do anything we want otherwise it’s discrimination according to you.

Think about it.
[/quote]

I thought about it and that is how I see it, yes, because it is not up to you me or anyone else to tell people how to live their lives.

Not only because it is immoral and expensive but also because we cannot know what works for someone else.

In the case of children I am willing to make an exception because they are stupid by default.

34

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Really, why can’t we all just do anything we want otherwise it’s discrimination according to you.

Think about it.
[/quote]

I thought about it and that is how I see it, yes, because it is not up to you me or anyone else to tell people how to live their lives.

Not only because it is immoral and expensive but also because we cannot know what works for someone else.

In the case of children I am willing to make an exception because they are stupid by default.

[/quote]

Here’s where that entire libertarian ideal breaks down my friend. I too do not want to take freedom away from anyone, but I realize that if we didn’t have a sound legal structure society would soon break down.

If you look closely at why we’ve had such a civil society you’ll quickly see it’s because of a few main things.

  1. Family structure.

  2. Reasonable laws allowing certain things while disallowing others.

  3. An economic system that while not entirely fair seems to work.

There are other things as well, but over all anything that changes any of the above three things could very well damage our future and have untold of deleterious consequences. Surely other societies and cultures have proven this.

I don’t want to live in a society where everyone just does what they want willy nilly, and I don’t think you do either. It makes for great philosophical conversations, but when someone decides they want to drive their car across your lawn you’d think otherwise. And that’s really quite unimportant compared to what could happen if our society the way it exists were to suddenly go away.

I don’t want to live in a society where animals can be tortured whether it effects me directly or not. Nor do I want to live in a society where people are in danger simply for walking in the street at 1:00 in the afternoon. There are untold of horrors awaiting us if we tamper with a system that (with all of its faults) still works pretty well. I don’t want to live in a society where men can marry other men, or someone can marry their sister, or three women can marry one man. Certainly if the envelope is pushed for one group it will be pushed for all groups, there is no other logical response. We need to hold the line on homosexual marriage as we need to hold the line on other important moral laws as they are woven into the fabric of what makes us a nation.

Those who doubt this need only look at history. What does man want? Man wants what other men have. One perverse group will surely be followed by other groups with the same intention. I don’t want to live in a society which is void of such important moral laws. Even though it’s cool to take the attitude that if it doesn’t effect me it doesn’t matter. I assure you eventually it will effect you. You only think it doesn’t matter until, well it does, then it’s too late. Everything effects everything else, when hasn’t it?. The drunk driver effects the person (and family of the person) that he hits. The whore effects the spouse of the man she’s servicing. The delinquent parent effects society by allowing yet one more stray teen onto the streets with no goals, no self-respect and no place to call home. And to date homosexual men have negatively effected every other class and group of people with their irresponsible sexual behavior being literally responsible for about 66% of all HIV cases in the US. Ask the person who was infected through a blood transfusion if homosexual behavior had no effect on him. Or the person who contracts the disease through heterosexual sex with someone who has had a homosexual experience if their life is now effected. To institutionalize this behavior would be reprehensible on our part. The recent defeat of homosexual marriage in Maine, New York and New Jersey is something to be celebrated. That over 30 states have defined marriage to be between one man and one woman can only be seen as putting the right foot forward in preserving our society for generations to come.

But I do like libertarian ideas, as long as they remain just ideas.

35

HIV stats would stay the same if not lessen with legal gay marriage. EX: A single gay guy is dating and sleeps with 15 other guys, increasing his chances of getting HIV. That same man gets married and only sleeps with one other guy who has been tested. So that logic fails.

Based on your arguments it appears that you are not against gay marriage, you’re against homosexuality. By not allowing gay people to get married, you are trying to impose a punishment on them for living the way they are. This is childish and spiteful.

I do agree that this bill is NOT just about marriage and that it is a play for money. I do not agree with some of it, but I do think that 2 gay people married should get the same benefits that 2 straight people married should get. If you don’t want to pay those benefits to a gay couple, then don’t pay straight married couples those benefits either. It’s hypocritical otherwise IMO.

36

[quote]brnforce wrote:

HIV stats would stay the same if not lessen with legal gay marriage. EX: A single gay guy is dating and sleeps with 15 other guys, increasing his chances of getting HIV. That same man gets married and only sleeps with one other guy who has been tested. So that logic fails.[/quote]

I’ve actually read that response before, you’re off the mark. The fact is that marriage will not suddenly make gay men monogamous. Study after study (I’ve posted them before and will again upon request) clearly demonstrates that there are very, very few truly monogamous gay relationships. In fact one study showed that in the typical gay “monogamous” relationship a partner will have as many as 8 additional sexual partners outside of the main one. That is if you can find a truly committed gay couple. The typical “monogamous” homosexual relationship lasts under four years. They are a very sexually driven group which has been proved out by the amount of sexually transmitted disease which are so prevalent among the homosexual community.

My position has less to do with homosexuals and everything to do with sanctioning very dangerous behavior. As far as being against homosexuality the way it is currently practiced, I am. However, I’m also against alcoholism and other behaviors where those who participate are hurt, and others can be harmed as well from that behavior. By the way did you know that as a group alcoholics live longer and healthier lives than homosexual men? You would have to look beyond the liberal media to know that. Simply check the CDC (Centers For Disease Control) it’s a real eye opener.

If you think about it most things are about money, however this is not just about money. Most homosexual’s are looking for some sort of justification and legitimacy for their actions. Homosexual’s are the most depressed group of people on the face of the earth. And it has nothing to do with whether they can marry or not. Studies demonstrate that homosexuals remain the highest group of those with emotional disorders even in parts of the world, like the Netherlands, where homosexual marriage has been legal for many years and they are treated no differently than any other group.

You are dealing with more here than what meets the eye. The main stream media will never tell you any of this because of their politically correct agenda. The general public remains uninformed and for good reason.

37

Current divorce rates lead me to think there should be no more marriage, therefore kids won’t be hurt by these disastrous unions.

This is how you think, it doesn’t really pan out like that in reality though.

38

[quote]drewh wrote:
Current divorce rates lead me to think there should be no more marriage, therefore kids won’t be hurt by these disastrous unions.

This is how you think, it doesn’t really pan out like that in reality though.
[/quote]

Actually the reality is not as bad as you might think. The real divorce rate among people who have never been divorced is actually pretty low. What drives up the divorce rate is the relatively small amount of people who continually marry and divorce a second, third and even fourth time. A very sharp poster by the name of “Bostonberrister” once posted these statistics if anyone cares to look it up. It was very interesting reading and puts marriage under a whole new light.

39

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]brnforce wrote:

HIV stats would stay the same if not lessen with legal gay marriage. EX: A single gay guy is dating and sleeps with 15 other guys, increasing his chances of getting HIV. That same man gets married and only sleeps with one other guy who has been tested. So that logic fails.[/quote]

I’ve actually read that response before, you’re off the mark. The fact is that marriage will not suddenly make gay men monogamous. Study after study (I’ve posted them before and will again upon request) clearly demonstrates that there are very, very few truly monogamous gay relationships. In fact one study showed that in the typical gay “monogamous” relationship a partner will have as many as 8 additional sexual partners outside of the main one. That is if you can find a truly committed gay couple. The typical “monogamous” homosexual relationship lasts under four years. They are a very sexually driven group which has been proved out by the amount of sexually transmitted disease which are so prevalent among the homosexual community.

My position has less to do with homosexuals and everything to do with sanctioning very dangerous behavior. As far as being against homosexuality the way it is currently practiced, I am. However, I’m also against alcoholism and other behaviors where those who participate are hurt, and others can be harmed as well from that behavior. By the way did you know that as a group alcoholics live longer and healthier lives than homosexual men? You would have to look beyond the liberal media to know that. Simply check the CDC (Centers For Disease Control) it’s a real eye opener.

If you think about it most things are about money, however this is not just about money. Most homosexual’s are looking for some sort of justification and legitimacy for their actions. Homosexual’s are the most depressed group of people on the face of the earth. And it has nothing to do with whether they can marry or not. Studies demonstrate that homosexuals remain the highest group of those with emotional disorders even in parts of the world, like the Netherlands, where homosexual marriage has been legal for many years and they are treated no differently than any other group.

You are dealing with more here than what meets the eye. The main stream media will never tell you any of this because of their politically correct agenda. The general public remains uninformed and for good reason.

[/quote]

I would like to see that study to see what the “monogamous relationship” means. You see, if they are truly married, there are financial consequences for things such as cheating. Therefore, legalizing it would potentially deter that “dangerous behavior”. As far as the emotional disorder aspect goes: Is it not possible that the established mentality of hatred against homosexuals that you perpetuate causes them to acquire self-doubt during their adolescent years? Again, legalizing and accepting would potentially lessen how ostracized they feel and would bolster a healthy self-confidence. Which would lead them to living better lives.

So, I feel that your oppressive opinion about them is what is causing the problems that you cite. You are the problem.

40

[quote]brnforce wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]brnforce wrote:

HIV stats would stay the same if not lessen with legal gay marriage. EX: A single gay guy is dating and sleeps with 15 other guys, increasing his chances of getting HIV. That same man gets married and only sleeps with one other guy who has been tested. So that logic fails.[/quote]

I’ve actually read that response before, you’re off the mark. The fact is that marriage will not suddenly make gay men monogamous. Study after study (I’ve posted them before and will again upon request) clearly demonstrates that there are very, very few truly monogamous gay relationships. In fact one study showed that in the typical gay “monogamous” relationship a partner will have as many as 8 additional sexual partners outside of the main one. That is if you can find a truly committed gay couple. The typical “monogamous” homosexual relationship lasts under four years. They are a very sexually driven group which has been proved out by the amount of sexually transmitted disease which are so prevalent among the homosexual community.

My position has less to do with homosexuals and everything to do with sanctioning very dangerous behavior. As far as being against homosexuality the way it is currently practiced, I am. However, I’m also against alcoholism and other behaviors where those who participate are hurt, and others can be harmed as well from that behavior. By the way did you know that as a group alcoholics live longer and healthier lives than homosexual men? You would have to look beyond the liberal media to know that. Simply check the CDC (Centers For Disease Control) it’s a real eye opener.

If you think about it most things are about money, however this is not just about money. Most homosexual’s are looking for some sort of justification and legitimacy for their actions. Homosexual’s are the most depressed group of people on the face of the earth. And it has nothing to do with whether they can marry or not. Studies demonstrate that homosexuals remain the highest group of those with emotional disorders even in parts of the world, like the Netherlands, where homosexual marriage has been legal for many years and they are treated no differently than any other group.

You are dealing with more here than what meets the eye. The main stream media will never tell you any of this because of their politically correct agenda. The general public remains uninformed and for good reason.

[/quote]

I would like to see that study to see what the “monogamous relationship” means. You see, if they are truly married, there are financial consequences for things such as cheating. Therefore, legalizing it would potentially deter that “dangerous behavior”. As far as the emotional disorder aspect goes: Is it not possible that the established mentality of hatred against homosexuals that you perpetuate causes them to acquire self-doubt during their adolescent years? Again, legalizing and accepting would potentially lessen how ostracized they feel and would bolster a healthy self-confidence. Which would lead them to living better lives.

So, I feel that your oppressive opinion about them is what is causing the problems that you cite. You are the problem.[/quote]
x2