The real gay agenda?

<i><b>
Oh and what disease would you be talking about?
</b></i>
Homosexuals have a higher risk of disease such as AID's and other STD's. It is true that this higher risk stems mainly from there being more disease within the population. There are, however, diseases such a gay bowel syndrome to not occur in the heterosexual population at all compared to the heterosexual population. Anyone who ignores the unique healthcare responsibilities for homosexuals, especially homosexual men, are out of their mind.

From Supporting Marriage, "...Finally, while married peoples income is pooled for tax and welfare purposes, domestic partners (especially same-sex partners) are typically not. This means that unmarried partners are eligible for social insurance benefits unavailable to most married couples. So unlike married couples, if one parent in a domestic partnership drops out of the work force to care for a baby, he or she will be more likely to recieve Medicaid and other means-tested medical and finacial benefits reserved for low-income and single parents." Therefore, the paper follows, the push for homosexual rights is not out of any demanding need but to achieve a symbolic acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.
 
okinrus you need to get rid of your "benefits society" or "the majority of society believes blah so blah" arguments. all of your arguments come down to subjugating the beliefs of minorities because they are incompatible with your religious specific world view. try to imagine yourself in the shoes of the minority group you are stealing rights from for once. imagine yourself trying to live your christian preaching lifestyle in place like iran or under the taliban. you would sing a different tune then.
Click to expand...
My position on this thread is that the state should allow gay marriages without endorsing them. Unfortunately the benefits offered by state marriage would be conducive to the state endorsing gay marriage, of which has not been proven to be beneficial to society. Now it's funny that you say that my arguments are subjugating the minorities. Perhaps you are right but you could just as well say that using age demographics on car insurance is unjust as well. Or even better, you've argued for abortion on these forums and I have to ask why? Isn't the right to life before the rights to liberty and the persuit of happyness. Isn't the unborn a minorty? If only a minorty that cannot even speak. I'm not really stealing the rights of others am I? I don't really see it. If that were so, we would be stealing the rights of those in polygamous relationships who want to be married.
 
Oki I think you are ignoring the fact that STDs cannot get into a monogomous married relationship as easily as generaly circulating singles. And yet you assert that allowing homosexuals to marry will increase cases of AIDS and other STDs

Of course im sure what you REALLY believe deep down in your middevle mind is that if we allow homosexuals to marry then married homosexuals will be struck by a pluage of new diseases from the lord for thier sinful mockery of a holy union and all that sodomy, right?
 
Oki I think you are ignoring the fact that STDs cannot get into a monogomous married relationship as easily as generaly circulating singles. And yet you assert that allowing homosexuals to marry will increase cases of AIDS and other STDs
Click to expand...
I don't think a marriage by the state is a fixall for the problems within the gay population. Often times the gay rights movement becomes synomous with rejecting all traditional social norms. Although there is increased risk of STDs, there are also increased drug use within the gay population. It is true that the risk of AIDS and other STDs would be lower if and only if the couple remains in monogamous relationship. This is a big stretch though. There's no evidence to state that extra-marital sex would be less comon in gay weds than it is in straight weds. On the contrary, there have also been studies that say that divorce rates are more frequent among gay relationships than straight relationships. Of course the cause of increased breakups may be the result of emotional stress caused by homophobics, the end result and evidence remains. There are, however, other risk factors involved. Because monogamous couples would probably not be wearing condoms, they would be exposed to more bacteria infections. These infections are more likely to occur during anal sex than they are during vaginal sex. More research has shown that the semen impairs the immune system making sexual conduct more likely to cause diseases.

Of course im sure what you REALLY believe deep down in your middevle mind is that if we allow homosexuals to marry then married homosexuals will be struck by a pluage of new diseases from the lord for thier sinful mockery of a holy union and all that sodomy, right?
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn't say it's mockery. I have a definition of marriage and they are not under it. It is likely that there will be new sexual diseases like AIDS that different people will attribute to God. There is no reason that people shouldn't try to prevent them from happening.
 
Oki
You obviously know everything there is to know about homosexuality. I guess you've been talking to your gay friends and they've filled you in on all the facts. Just how many gay friends do you have by the way? You must know a few to speak with such authority.

I strongly suspect that your full of shit. Everything you say is at odds with my daily reality and I'm not even queer.

So whats fucked, my reality or your beliefs?
Dee Cee
 
You obviously know everything there is to know about homosexuality. I guess you've been talking to your gay friends and they've filled you in on all the facts. Just how many gay friends do you have by the way? You must know a few to speak with such authority.
Click to expand...
DeeCee, I'm going to continue to produce factual information and base conclusions on them. If you wanted to actually convince me that gay marriages should be legalized then you would find information that supports gay marriages being beneficial to society. I think a case could be made... At least you would make a better case that is better than the denial of rights. You all would do better if you could define what "right" is being taken away. The issue is similar to the abortion issue in that both depend on definitions such as what is life(or personhood) or marriage. Is it really that inconcievable for someone could have different definitions? But instead of constructive arguments, people like Xev and others run around calling other bigots just because of their different definitions.

I strongly suspect that your full of shit. Everything you say is at odds with my daily reality and I'm not even queer.

So whats fucked, my reality or your beliefs?
Click to expand...
If you can find valid statistics that supports your case then you are free to post them. Otherwise your reality is as just as subjective and biased as anyone else.
 
BUT we don't! So, why is it we aren't allowed this luxury? I knew a girl who was in an accident and was put on life support. Her lesbian partner (which she lived with for 7 years) didn't have any rights to keep her on it.. those rights were given to the girls mother. The mother never cared for her daughter..basically, she was pretty much worthless when it came to the "mother" dept. The mother had the life support shut off.
The one person in the injured girls life that loved her more than anything, had no say. But, the mother who was never there for her daughter 95% of the time...was the one allowed to make the decision. This sucks, Okin. and it's NOT right..
Click to expand...
There are tons of injustices going on. For example, if a husband of someone beats up his wife into a comma and then manages to cover it up, he could visit her. However, this seems more of a hospital policy issue and could just as well happen to cohabitating long term relationships. Nevertheless, I think the idea of joint ownership, where they would be consider significant others by law, would clear this up.

You sit there and say homosexuals should only be allowed to marry if they can only benefit society. The ONLY argument I've heard you come up with is children in a marriage. As I said before..homosexuals have avenues for having children... I ask you then, is it homosexuals that shouldn't be able to marry...or just people who do not have children? I dare you to be truthful with yourself.
Click to expand...
Well I don't. I just don't think it's right or fair that goverment should endorse marriages that a significant part of the population doesn't agree with. Of course benefits that are basically at no cost and deal with their own property should not be taken away from them. Your sort of making the mistake here because not endorsing marriage benefits is different from not allowing gay marriage. Also I'm not sure if two mother or two father relationships are healthy for children. There has not been too much research on this issue though.
 
If you wanted to actually convince me that gay marriages should be legalized then you would find information that supports gay marriages being beneficial to society.
Click to expand...

What's the benefit of heterosexual marriages to society?

Well, the happiness of the couple for one, but also providing a core for a healthy, productive family. And, since our society is capitalistic in nature, I would say that the fact that couples bolster consumerism is another benefit.

Sounds to me like there's no real distinction in the benefits of gay or straight marriage, at least as far as society is concerned.
 
Well, the happiness of the couple for one, but also providing a core for a healthy, productive family. And, since our society is capitalistic in nature, I would say that the fact that couples bolster consumerism is another benefit.
Click to expand...
Giving away free money will put a smile on most people's faces but I don't see any long term benefits besides the recogniition that their marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage. Which is find for them to believe but I don't believe so. This also does not give us any reason why polygamist marriages should not be accepted.

Sounds to me like there's no real distinction in the benefits of gay or straight marriage, at least as far as society is concerned.
Click to expand...
It would be good if you quote statistics that prove that gay marriages result in less drug use, more productivity, and more revenue but, as of right now, we don't have anything to support that.
 
Ok Oki lets play the 'facts' game.
The divorce rate in the US in 2002 was 54.8%
http://www.divorcereform.org/gul.html
Seems its a fact that half the people who get married figure out it was a bad move. Maybe your right about gays. Who would want to get married with those kind of odds?
Idiots?
Christians maybe?
Mind you I hear the divorce rate in Afghanistan is practically zero. Perhaps you'd prefer to live there? No gay marriage to boot and you'd probably get flamed less.
One in three murdered women was done in by her spouse, current or former.
Click to expand...
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reported 691,710 nonfatal violent victimizations committed by current or former spouses
Click to expand...
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-24-2003-43341.asp
Gee look your right again. Another reason or two why gays shouldn't marry.
More than twice as many women are killed by their husbands or boyfriend as are murdered by strangers.
Click to expand...
Arthur Kellerman, "Men, Women and Murder," The Journal of Trauma, July 17, 1992, pp. 1-5
There's no link 'cos I used to subscribe to the journal and I got in my hand as I'm typing.
In a national survey of over 6,000 American families, 50% of the men who frequently assaulted their wives also frequently abused their children.
Click to expand...
Over 3 million children are at risk of exposure to parental violence each year
Click to expand...
Children who witness domestic violence are six times more likely to commit suicide.
Click to expand...
Men who have witnessed their parents' domestic violence are three times more likely to abuse their own wives than children of non violent parents, with the sons of the most violent parents being 1000 times more likely to become wife beaters
Click to expand...
http://womensissues.about.com/library/bldomesticviolencestats4.htm
Statistics on infidelity vary, with some studies more trustworthy than others. But generally, more than half the married population is implicated. The figures for men historically have been greater than for women.
Click to expand...
http://www.longevityworld.com/sex.html
The latest, still-unpublished research shows that about 24% of men and 14% of women have had sex outside their marriages. A national study of 5,000 men and women who have been married is under way at the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California, San Francisco.
Click to expand...
What! AIDS within marriage??:bugeye:
http://www.divorcereform.org/mel/raffairstats.html
Seems even the scientists can't agree. Perhaps they need to ask you about the sanctity of marriage.

How about you take these facts and go draw some conclusions.

You know Oki I fully agree. Gay men should not get married. Thats not too say your not full of shit.
I'm gonna make your life easy and bug out of this thread.

May it rest in peace.
Dee Cee
 
Last edited:
The divorce rate in the US in 2002 was 54.8%
http://www.divorcereform.org/gul.html
Seems its a fact that half the people who get married figure out it was a bad move. Maybe your right about gays. Who would want to get married with those kind of odds?
Idiots?
Christians maybe?
Click to expand...
No, but I'd like to point out that divorse has steadly increased since the 1950 which means that there might be some correlation between the subjective definition of marriages proposed by different modernist and divorse. Also as mentioned in the Supporting Marriage, divorce typically slows productivity and cost America money. Thus our goal should be to stop divorve and redefining what marriage is isn't going to help. Also I think your stats are slightly wrong here
http://patriot.net/~crouch/adr/50percent.html

Arthur Kellerman, "Men, Women and Murder," The Journal of Trauma, July 17, 1992, pp. 1-5
There's no link 'cos I used to subscribe to the journal and I got in my hand as I'm typing.
Click to expand...
http://www.narth.com/docs/domestic.html
 
Originally posted by okinrus
There are, however, diseases such a gay bowel syndrome to not occur in the heterosexual population at all compared to the heterosexual population. Anyone who ignores the unique healthcare responsibilities for homosexuals, especially homosexual men, are out of their mind.
Click to expand...

Haha, now what in the hell is "Gay bowel syndrome"? You're making that up. Also if you think that the health concerns of homosexuals are unique then you are simply kidding yourself. There is no special condition that doesn't also apply to heterosexuals, and homosexuals are at least exempt from having to worry about unwanted pregnancy.

Also, you seriously need to rethink your arguments based on whether or not homosexual marriage benefits society. You've got to remember that we are talking about America here, we don't make policy decisions which effect individual rights based upon how society is effected. Our constitution guarantees the rights of individuals, not the wellbeing of society, and in general we try to grand equal protection from one individual to the next, not try to blackmail them with bullshit about how the community is going to suffer if they are allowed to have their freedom. In creating legal marriage licenses there was never need to prove the benefit of society before allowing them. There was only a clear benefit to those involved, a satisfaction of a public desire and legal need, and no obvious detriment to any third party, and so it was good enough. I don't see how allowing homosexual marriage would be any different.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
If you can find valid statistics that supports your case then you are free to post them.
Click to expand...

I'd like to remind you that this rule applies to you, too Oki. If you'd like to perhaps quite some sort of credible, unbiased source or really any source for statistics at all anytime in the near future, as you'd have DeeCee do, then please go right ahead.
 
Originally posted by okinrus

It would be good if you quote statistics that prove that gay marriages result in less drug use, more productivity, and more revenue but, as of right now, we don't have anything to support that.
Click to expand...

Why should such statistics even matter? First off there can't be any such statistics valid to Americans, as there are not homosexual marriages, thetas sort of the issue. Second, heterosexuals rights to marriage don't hinge on similar statistics, so I don't see how it should even matter one way or another. You're just trying to create another double standard, really that's all the argument against homosexual marriages can be based upon.
 
The decision to scapegoat gay and lesbian Americans was poll-driven by an antigay backlash that gathered steam in the wake of the Supreme Court's June 26 decision, in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down laws making gay sex between consenting adults illegal--the so-called sodomy laws. The backlash first surfaced in a July 25-27 Gallup poll. It showed that support for legalizing gay sex had plummeted a dramatic twelve points, to only 48 percent, down from a comfortable 60 percent in favor of legalization in Gallup's May survey. Those saying "homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle" also slalomed down from 54 to 46 percent; and support for same-sex civil unions dropped from 49 to 40 percent. Two weeks later, a Washington Post poll showed that support for gay civil unions had dropped three points lower than in Gallup's. Since then, five other national polls have confirmed the antigay trend.

Just two days after Gallup released its poll showing the backlash, Bush unexpectedly used a Rose Garden press conference to announce that he'd assigned lawyers to come up with a plan to stop gay marriage. Bush and the Republicans had been under enormous pressure from the Christian right and social conservatives--including National Review and The Weekly Standard--to support a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, which would ban recognition of any form of marriage between two persons of the same gender. (The FMA would also forbid giving same-sex couples the "legal incidents" of marriage, thus vitiating the civil-union law in Vermont and any other state that followed suit.)
Click to expand...
Sad.
Read whole article from The Nation here:

My tax dollars are paying this team of lawyers that Bush has hired to "stop gay marriage"?:mad:

This country sucks.
 
Haha, now what in the hell is "Gay bowel syndrome"? You're making that up. Also if you think that the health concerns of homosexuals are unique then you are simply kidding yourself. There is no special condition that doesn't also apply to heterosexuals, and homosexuals are at least exempt from having to worry about unwanted pregnancy.
Click to expand...
No, it's a real medical condition. It can happen to heterosexuals as well but it's <i>far</i> less common.

Also, you seriously need to rethink your arguments based on whether or not homosexual marriage benefits society. You've got to remember that we are talking about America here, we don't make policy decisions which effect individual rights based upon how society is effected
Click to expand...
Of course we do.

Our constitution guarantees the rights of individuals, not the wellbeing of society, and in general we try to grand equal protection from one individual to the next, not try to blackmail them with bullshit about how the community is going to suffer if they are allowed to have their freedom.
Click to expand...
And is legal benefits for marriage a required right given in the constitution.

In creating legal marriage licenses there was never need to prove the benefit of society before allowing them. There was only a clear benefit to those involved, a satisfaction of a public desire and legal need, and no obvious detriment to any third party, and so it was good enough. I don't see how allowing homosexual marriage would be any different.
Click to expand...
Marriage must benefit society or it is a useless institution. Of course it detriments a third party, namely those who choose not be married.

Why should such statistics even matter? First off there can't be any such statistics valid to Americans, as there are not homosexual marriages, thetas sort of the issue.
Click to expand...
There is gay marriages but they are just not recognized by the law. They matter because the effects of gay marriage are uncertain. For example, will having a subjective definition of marriage make divorce more frequent. Or will it just result in everyone accepting that marriage is a useless institution. What exactly is the effect of children with two fathers or two mothers? Unless if you have evidence otherwise, there's no reason to reject tradition.

Second, heterosexuals rights to marriage don't hinge on similar statistics, so I don't see how it should even matter one way or another. You're just trying to create another double standard, really that's all the argument against homosexual marriages can be based upon.
Click to expand...
I don't have a doublestandard. I just have one definition of marriage. Is that really so bad? My definition of marriage takes away from those practicing polygamy and even singles trying to doubleup their health insurrance.
 
yes, Oki is just concerned about the bottom line. How is Homosexual marage gonig to affect the GDP. I think thats the question on everyones mind. These fundies opposition to marage doesnt stem from dogmatic indoctrination to bigotry, but instead from ligitimate concern about the economy. Why if gays just went around getting hitched every time they fall maddly in love who KNOWS how that might impact wallstreet. Until there is evedence to show that married gays can produce more revenue for the nation I say we should forbid them from it. In fact, i think gays shouldnt be allowed healthcare, drivers licences, or public education until they can prove that they are not a satanic pluage that is going to destroy socioty and its values.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top