If they want to get married let them get married. The US is a country that is supposed to be free, why are we limiting people to do what they want, especially if it isn't going to hurt anyone.
My argument is that it does hurt those around them, as such homosexual sex shouldn't be given the government license-of-approval that is marriage.Originally posted by: VIAN
If they want to get married let them get married. The US is a country that is supposed to be free, why are we limiting people to do what they want, especially if it isn't going to hurt anyone.
as for a more detailed account of what makes homosexual sex ethical bankrupt, thus not something that should have a government stamp-of-approval on it:
o male/male penetration causes increased likelihood of anal infections w/ a reduced immune system.
o The act of any homosexual sexual activity is destructive to emotional well-being.
o female/female sexual activity increases likelihood of many forms of cancer.
o disregarding basic sexual morality increases pre-marital sex rates.
o the average lesbian life style causes a higher substance abuse problem than average.
o the average homosexual life style causes more std problems than the heterosexual counter-part.
o the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.
Gay and Lesbian medical Association in a press release issued through Gay Wired on
June 10, 2002:
o Men having sex with men are at increased risk of HIV infection, a fact that is "well known." Also, the last few years have seen the return of many unsafe sex practices.
o Homosexual men use substances at a higher rate than the general population. This includes amyl nitrate (poppers), marijuana, Ecstasy and amphetamines.
o Depress and anxiety effect homosexuals at a higher rate than the general population.
o Men having sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis, which can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer.
o Sexually transmitted diseases occur in sexually active homosexuals at a high rate. This includes STD infections for which treatment is available (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pub lic lice) and those for which there is
no cure (HIV, Hepatitis A, B, or C virus, Human Papilloma Virus).
o Homosexual men are at risk for death by prostate, testicular or colon cancer.
o Homosexual men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than heterosexual men.
o Homosexual men use tobacco at much higher rates than heterosexual men, reaching nearly 50 percent in some studies. Tobacco-related health problems include lung disease, lung cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure and a host of other serious problems.
o Homosexual men are more likely to experience and eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervous, and overweight and obesity affect a large subset of the homosexual community.
o Homosexual men are at risk for human papilloma virus, which causes anal and genital warts, and plays a role in increased rates of anal cancers.
Support also can be found in these sights:
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/youth/tremblay/1930_95.html
http://www.fsw.ucalgary.ca/ramsay/homosexuality-suicide/Conference/f3.htm
http://www.hhpub.com/journals/crisis/1997/abstv18i1.html
http://idsc.nih.go.jp/iasr/24/278/tpc278.html
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/condom.htm
http://www.nature.com/bjc/press_releases/press_release_38.html
http://www.aegis.com/news/bw/1996/bw960729.html
we discriminate to now allow a government stamp-of-approval for all sorts of unethical behavior, from public intoxication to j-walking and so on; this unethical behavior is just like any other that society has every right to have it's elected representatives determine isn't one that should be government-approved.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but we don't put a government stamp-of-approval on private unethical sexual conduct;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: VIAN
If they want to get married let them get married. The US is a country that is supposed to be free, why are we limiting people to do what they want, especially if it isn't going to hurt anyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My argument is that it does hurt those around them, as such homosexual sex shouldn't be given the government license-of-approval that is marriage
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Kain, you've obviously made up your mind on this long before you posted. It also seems that you've collected enough
data to justify your stance intellectually. If these things are true, why are your wasting your time debating? You aren't going to modify your stance on this any more than I am. BTW, same sex marriage will become the law of the land. If not now, soon. It doesn't matter how much it offends you, the current government, the droves of religious folks, or their god. In spite of all the references and lip-service to the contrary, this is a secular country.
actually I've given some honest thought to the situation and would support calling a homosexual union 'marriage' if i felt it would bring about more monogamy in the homosexual community and reduce pre-marital sex among those that feel they are homosexual; This is based of the same ethical view that brings me to the current conclusion: utility.Kain, you've obviously made up your mind on this long before you posted.
those are your words! copied right out of your posts, using proper quotation procedures; i don't know why you want to lie about what anyone wanting to go back through the thread can read... unless you go edit it out now. You posted all of those, in that order, less the one post i separated out; just look it up yourself!Do me the courtesy not to state 'originally posted by Moonbeam' when those aren't my words at all. Are you so pathetic that you can't have the decency to use my actual words. I would appreciate it if you edited your post
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
HW: could be, we'll see, all i ask is that we allow the legislature to decide such things on a state-by-state basis. I never made a biblical argument, nor a religious one; although spirituality should often be in the public forum and debate;actually I've given some honest thought to the situation and would support calling a homosexual union 'marriage' if i felt it would bring about more monogamy in the homosexual community and reduce pre-marital sex among those that feel they are homosexual; This is based of the same ethical view that brings me to the current conclusion: utility.Kain, you've obviously made up your mind on this long before you posted.those are your words! copied right out of your posts, using proper quotation procedures; i don't know why you want to lie about what anyone wanting to go back through the thread can read... unless you go edit it out now. You posted all of those, in that order, less the one post i separated out; just look it up yourself!Do me the courtesy not to state 'originally posted by Moonbeam' when those aren't my words at all. Are you so pathetic that you can't have the decency to use my actual words. I would appreciate it if you edited your post
RB: heterosexuals aren't inherently going to destroy themselves with their sexual activity. destroying yourself effects those around you; i don't think homosexuals should be treated any differently than adulterers, any 'discrimination against' them greater than the 'discrimination against' adulterers is a truly horrible thing.
having homosexual sex be a prerogative of state-legislative rights is more along the lines of baning same-relation marriages than ethnically diverse marriages. you are welcome to have a differing view on this, or even a view that says same-relation marriages are OK, but that i disagree does not make me any more a hate monger than being against Judaical-tyranny creating a government stamp-of-approval on same-relation marriages. My argument is about the sexual activity it self causing negative consequences thus not being something the government should give a stamp-of-approval to, as opposed to what you think of the man and woman getting married.
And allowing same-sex marriages will affect this how?Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
o male/male penetration causes increased likelihood of anal infections w/ a reduced immune system.
Only to bigots. I know several gay men who are happy with their lives as well as a few lesbians. BTW, never seen Girls Gone Wild? They look like they enjoy it to me!!o The act of any homosexual sexual activity is destructive to emotional well-being.
Complete and utter bullsh!to female/female sexual activity increases likelihood of many forms of cancer.
Thank you, mom. But, again, how will same-sex marriages affect this? What about the fact that teen pregnancy has been dropping each year for the past few years?o disregarding basic sexual morality increases pre-marital sex rates.
Proof? And how will same-sex marriages affect this even if it were true?o the average lesbian life style causes a higher substance abuse problem than average.
So? How will same-sex marriages affect this? It will probably reduce the amount of STDs as gay men will enter into more monogamous relationships.o the average homosexual life style causes more std problems than the heterosexual counter-part.
Every human has the same ability to fight AIDS. Being a gay male may increase the likelihoold of contracting HIV but it doesn't decrease their ability. You know of some study that shows gay men/women have genetic deficiencies in fighting off disease?o the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.
And same-sex marriage will affect this in what way?Gay and Lesbian medical Association in a press release issued through Gay Wired on
June 10, 2002:
o Men having sex with men are at increased risk of HIV infection, a fact that is "well known." Also, the last few years have seen the return of many unsafe sex practices.
o Homosexual men use substances at a higher rate than the general population. This includes amyl nitrate (poppers), marijuana, Ecstasy and amphetamines.
Because of the bigotry and persecution they face each and every day from narrow-minded idiots like yourself.o Depress and anxiety effect homosexuals at a higher rate than the general population.
All similar in content and, again, will most likely improve if same-sex marriage is allowed.o Men having sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis, which can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer.
o Sexually transmitted diseases occur in sexually active homosexuals at a high rate. This includes STD infections for which treatment is available (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pub lic lice) and those for which there is
no cure (HIV, Hepatitis A, B, or C virus, Human Papilloma Virus).
o Homosexual men are at risk for death by prostate, testicular or colon cancer.
Because they are fighting depression caused by persecution from bigots like yourself.o Homosexual men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than heterosexual men.
o Homosexual men use tobacco at much higher rates than heterosexual men, reaching nearly 50 percent in some studies. Tobacco-related health problems include lung disease, lung cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure and a host of other serious problems.
o Homosexual men are more likely to experience and eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervous, and overweight and obesity affect a large subset of the homosexual community.
We've got many things in society that we dis-allow that only have health risks and negative utility; I'd say I'd be as personally damaged by homosexuals having a government stamp-of-approval on their sexual relations as i would a government stamp-of-approval on obesity alcoholism or smoking or adultery; Making personal freedoms jail able offenses is irrational, but so is expanding government to approve personal choices that are negative; I'm actually for removing the ability of government to declare people married, but making it a state's legislative-rights issue looks to me like the most logical solution.Beyond your arguments of the health risks and supposed utility of gay marriage, how are YOU, as an individual, damaged or injured by gay marriage?
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
We've got many things in society that we dis-allow that only have health risks and negative utility; I'd say I'd be as personally damaged by homosexuals having a government stamp-of-approval on their sexual relations as i would a government stamp-of-approval on obesity alcoholism or smoking or adultery; Making personal freedoms jail able offenses is irrational, but so is expanding government to approve personal choices that are negative; I'm actually for removing the ability of government to declare people married, but making it a state's legislative-rights issue looks to me like the most logical solution.Beyond your arguments of the health risks and supposed utility of gay marriage, how are YOU, as an individual, damaged or injured by gay marriage?
"you just can't tell, who you'll love and who you won't"
"with these sorts of things you've got to have some empathy"
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
We've got many things in society that we dis-allow that only have health risks and negative utility; I'd say I'd be as personally damaged by homosexuals having a government stamp-of-approval on their sexual relations as i would a government stamp-of-approval on obesity alcoholism or smoking or adultery; Making personal freedoms jail able offenses is irrational, but so is expanding government to approve personal choices that are negative; I'm actually for removing the ability of government to declare people married, but making it a state's legislative-rights issue looks to me like the most logical solution.Beyond your arguments of the health risks and supposed utility of gay marriage, how are YOU, as an individual, damaged or injured by gay marriage?
"you just can't tell, who you'll love and who you won't"
"with these sorts of things you've got to have some empathy"
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Conjur, moon; personal insults couched in self-righteous grand-standing does little to nothing to help any intelligent person appreciate or accept your view. Others have done a much better job of it in this very thread.
Just tell me what points don't directly concern the majority of the taxpaying doctor going public?How will you be damaged or injured on a personal basis?
I'm glad you agree that approving or dis-approving doesn't belong in the hands of the government; so why do you want to expand governmental sphere to approve of homosexual sex?As much as some would want it, these activities, and MORE, are NOT the governments business.
my argument is about the role of government, which i don't want to have expanded, especially to approve of unethical activities.As such, your argument is, at its root, simply how YOU as an individual feel about gays.
so the ONLY American thing to do is take the rights of both same-sex and same-relation marriage from the states and then make them part of the law. It's not your argument, but the same logic applies.That can ONLY mean the expansion of rights, not the curtailing of them.
so?They keep us mollified while ALL levels of government slowly reduce us to the status of thought-managed serfs.
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Just tell me what points don't directly concern the majority of the taxpaying doctor going public?How will you be damaged or injured on a personal basis?
I'm glad you agree that approving or dis-approving doesn't belong in the hands of the government; so why do you want to expand governmental sphere to approve of homosexual sex?As much as some would want it, these activities, and MORE, are NOT the governments business.
my argument is about the role of government, which i don't want to have expanded, especially to approve of unethical activities.As such, your argument is, at its root, simply how YOU as an individual feel about gays.
so the ONLY American thing to do is take the rights of both same-sex and same-relation marriage from the states and then make them part of the law. It's not your argument, but the same logic applies.That can ONLY mean the expansion of rights, not the curtailing of them.
so?They keep us mollified while ALL levels of government slowly reduce us to the status of thought-managed serfs.
traditionalism vs. secularism; Do we have a right to have and vote on views that disagree with a purely secular agenda?im just saying tradition has nothing to do with it
was:so the ONLY American thing to do is take the rights of both same-sex and same-relation marriage from the states and then make them part of the law? It's not your argument, but the same logic applies.
Yes, to accept and protect the rights of the individual and/or minority is VERY American. This is an issue of civil rights, and should be treated as such.
then why do you argue for the expansion of the role of government?you think government should take a paternalistic posture. I don't, under ANY circumstances.
because slavery is unethical, such that many where willing to die to change the situation.Why did the government expand itself and approve of black people being freed as slaves.
my support is un-failing, my response to your mindless stereotyping is without hole; that you yell bigot consistently doesn't make you right.debunked again and again,
What's bigoted about wanting it to be a states-rights issue? and God loves us all equally, you, me, homosexuals, and mass-murderers; he wants all of us to spend every day working toward his righteousness, and it's not for any man to judge another's walk.Why do you sh!t on gays? Is it so you will go to heaven? Gay bash them in a pile so you can walk up their bodies like a stair?
marriage between a brother and sister doesn't directly damage or injure me, should we allow it? There are things greater than the 'virtue' of selfishness to be taken into account; Have you no empathy? Have you no love for your fellow man? Why would you want to encourage and approve of people to destroying themselves?LMK, tell exactly what in your life will be damaged or injured by allowing same-sex marriages.
Enough with the red herringsOriginally posted by: LordMagnusKainmarriage between a brother and sister doesn't directly damage or injure me, should we allow it?Originally posted by: conjur
LMK, tell exactly what in your life will be damaged or injured by allowing same-sex marriages.
Nobody is destroying anybody. It's only your narrow-minded self-righteousness that sees it as detrimental. Same-sex marriages will not further decay our society but, rather, will most likely help to form more monogamous same-sex relationships.There are things greater than the 'virtue' of selfishness to be taken into account; Have you no empathy? Have you no love for your fellow man? Why would you want to encourage and approve of people to destroying themselves?
Again, you failed to answer a very simple question.When the meaning of marriage decays to a social institution that has little to no meaning at all, then you stop you encouragement for heterosexual monogamy, have a higher divorce rate, more children from broken homes, more children who grow up in poverty, and more children that are a blight instead of a boon. When medical costs and supply's are less we pay more for everything from a doctors visit to car insurance. When premarital sex increases we have higher teen pregnancy, again with children born poor and without a stable home. you can call any fact i put fort 'BS' but I've supplied resources you are welcome to look up for yourself. Expanding government to approve of activity that hurts the vast majority of people is irrational and the antithesis of 'providing for the common welfare' as defined in the constitution. Doing it by the judiciary instead of our elected legislature is nothing less than un-elected judicial tyranny.
it's not a distraction from the issue because the issue isn't homosexual marriage, it's what ethical basis is used to say that government should be expanded to approve of homosexual sex.Enough with the red herrings
Increased rates of cancer, mentally illness, and substance abuse are self-destructive.Nobody is destroying anybody. It's only your narrow-minded self-righteousness that sees it as detrimental.
if i believed that it'd cause helpfully social change for those that identify themselves as homosexuals I'd support it. But monogamy is some thing that this movement is also against. Same-sex marriage will only lead to further disregard for monogamy and the institution of marriage over all, as has been seen in other countries that have done this.Same-sex marriages will not further decay our society but, rather, will most likely help to form more monogamous same-sex relationships.
public nudity doesn't hurt or injure me, same-relation marriage doesn't hurt or injure me, man-boy relations don't hurt or injure me; child abuse doesn't hut or injure me, alcoholism doesn't hurt or injure me, prostitution doesn't hurt or injure me, heroin use doesn't hurt or injure me, other people being killed doesn't hurt or injure me, slavery doesn't hurt or injure me.Give us examples of how *you*, personally, will be damaged or injured by the allowing of same-sex marriages. Dispense with your "I know what's best for humanity" tirades.