How does same gender marriage hurt you?

[rep]

We can parse the stats as much as you like, but the fact remains that pedophilia is no more a “gay disease” than incest is a “straight disease”.

holier-than-thou Internet site

No place have I infered that homosexuals as a group are predispositioned to pedophilia, only homosexual males.

Use any web site you want and come up with a excuse for that. Half of the items posted on this and most boards are taken from some web site some where.

Changing the category to make your statistics work isn't quit according to your statistical model either, is it. I was and am refering to boys and the Catholic church. That's a pretty strong arguement that your premise is wrong an that there is among homosexual males a predisposition towards pedophilia, like it or not.

Isn't it interesting that only those opposing religion, constantly use religion as a club.

Rep

[Spexvet]

When the judicial branch origionates legislation or adds to the meaning of The Contstiution as written. The judicial branch becomes unimportant.

Next comes the question, should one obey an unjust law because "It's the Law".

No.

Chip

That's right! So all you homosexuals out there, go get married. Don't "obey an unjust law because "it's the law"".

Thank you, Chip, for making an excellent point.

Spexvet

[RT]

Actually, it would seem that the demographic group with the highest incidence of pedophilia would be Catholic priests. Although not forbidden from marriage by US law, they are forbidden from marriage by church law. Perhaps if they were allowed to marry...

[Spexvet]

[/left]I was and am refering to boys and the Catholic church. That's a pretty strong arguement that your premise is wrong an that there is among homosexual males a predisposition towards pedophilia, like it or not.

Rep

Actually, your point only shows that gay preists have tendancy for pedophilia.

[rep]

Actually, your point only shows that gay preists have tendancy for pedophilia.

Correct but show me a larger model with the same elements.

Rep

[Spexvet]

Well if it hasn't already been said, and then poo poo'ed on this thread I don't know what more you want.

Same sex marraige increases the number of insured in a higher risk group, for expensive medical issues. Hence everybody pays.

Typical conservative: put money before civil rights.

Do you think every same gender couple had only one individual insured before marriage?
If only one was covered, wouldn't moving the other's coverage from the public sector to the private sector be desirable?
Do you think same gender marriage will increase or decrease the number of new AIDS cases?

[chm2023]

Prove it - Show me one (objective) study here that supports your "theory" regarding Gay's are better educated and higher earners than the population in general. You have been seeing too many reruns of the movie "Bird Cage" and its warped your brain.

Can't you READ!!!!!!

I have NO BIBLE QUOTES!!!!!!! ANYWHERE - Genius.

Is this the best you can do in posting a response? Make false statements about what is clearly in black and white.


Rep

http://www.cathfam.org/Hitems/ProtectedClass.html

Catholic Family Organization objective enough for you?

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/P...ionalintro.htm

On the other end of the spectrum, the above. The data is pulled from the Census. (If you want to check it go to www.census.gov ) Basics: 37.3% of homosexuals have college degrees (including 12.6% graduate/professional) versus the overall population of 24.4% and 8.9% respectively.

I am sure you will be quick to admit your mistake, as are all people of grace and learning.

I was commenting on the general tendency of people to quote the Bible to support their argument against homosexuality. There have been a number of these discussions on the Board--I really don't keep close track of who said what, when; nor do I intend to.

[Spexvet]

Rep,

I have truly tried to be civil in this discussion. You really make it difficult, but I will continue to try to ignore your unpleasantness, although I know I haven’t been entirely successful.

The majority has spoken pretty loud and it's liberal's and their wacky ideas that took the hit and will take the hits in the near future - not conservatives.

If you want me to give up because "the majority has spoken", then please give up your "wacky ideas" regarding restricting a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy. The majority thinks this action is acceptable. It would be hypocritical to use the majority argument to support your stance against SSM, yet dismiss it as it relates to the issue of choice, don’t you think?

That is a typical liberal response regarding insurance companies having to pay more for aids related diseases. Wake up - Increase the cost of a product or service and the companies have no choice to pass it on to you and I. They won't take the hit - WE WILL.

But how great will the impact be? The healthcare cost currently must be born by the taxpayers or the health insurance industry. After marriage, how will that change?

A – some healthcare costs will be transferred from government programs to private healthcare companies. As a conservative, reducing government burden should be desirable to you.

B – some premiums will go from individual to family. How much more will it cost the healthcare industry? They may lose the revenue of individual premium amount less family premium amount, for those couples who get married out of 2% to 3% of the population, by your post statistics. Seems like a trivial amount, to me.

I am fully aware that marrying cousins is legal in the South. It has been a point of embarassment for quite some time as we are constantly reminded by our northern bretheren who have decided to retire here.

Rep

Then why did you post:

Heck we know better than to date cousins, even in the south!

Rep

[chm2023]

Though really, I think Scalia made it clear that the whole problem stems from our failure to criminalize masturbation.

Well you have to admit in a post 9/11 world, we can no longer afford to wait until the self pleasurers who hate our Christian society......uh, let me get back to you on this.

[chm2023]

Actually, your point only shows that gay preists have tendancy for pedophilia.

Priests don't become pedophiles. Pedophiles become priests. Pedophilia is a manifestation of arrested sexual development, which of course means it starts in puberty. My theory, though I haven't really looked at the numbers, but it appears the large bubble of cases date back to the days when altar servers and the kids choir were all boys. Case of access I would think. As a kid who went to parochial schools, I don't ever remember being alone with a priest, something not true of my brothers.

For what it's worth Spexman!!!:bbg:

[shanbaum]

I simply pointed out that a least three SCJ's feel we are aready traveling down a slippery slope and in matters of the law I would accept their legal opinions a lot faster than Spexvet's

I think SSM is a continuation down that slope into the gutter.

Bowers - the case that was overturned by the ruling in Lawrence - was not explicity a law against homosexual acts, it prohibited oral and anal sex, even between heterosexual couples.

None of the justices actually presented a "slippery-slope" argument. As I tried to say, Scalia's argument was that all of these immoral acts are equivalent, in a legal sense; if a state can't prohibit one, it can't prohibit any of them. He doesn't see that the change in the law really derives from a change in
what society believes constitutes immoral sexual acts, not from a novel declaration that the law can't prohibit immoral sexual acts.

And Thomas' dissent was simply, Americans have no "privacy" right at all.

As far as the three justices you mention are concerned, if Georgia wants to put you and your wife in jail for engaging in oral sex, that's fine by them; you and your wife don't have the right to engage in oral sex.

In a way, the slippery slope argument is more persuasive, at least rhetorically - it seems reasonable to say, for example, "if we can't prohibit fornication, we can't prohibit masturbation", assuming that we think that neither is immoral. But it's certainly not a legal argument to assert in defense of suppressing a liberty right.

Nor is affordability. How would you feel about, "we'd really like for you to be able to own a firearm, but society just can't afford it"?

[Spexvet]

Priests don't become pedophiles. Pedophiles become priests. Pedophilia is a manifestation of arrested sexual development, which of course means it starts in puberty. My theory, though I haven't really looked at the numbers, but it appears the large bubble of cases date back to the days when altar servers and the kids choir were all boys. Case of access I would think. As a kid who went to parochial schools, I don't ever remember being alone with a priest, something not true of my brothers.

For what it's worth Spexman!!!:bbg:

My mistake - I put the egg before the chicken.

[chm2023]

My mistake - I put the egg before the chicken.

Interesting article attached. Later.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html

[Jana Lewis]

Specifically you said "AIDS affects alot more than just the gay community"

Actually it doesn't. AIDS is primarily found among Gay men. Period.

Secondly, it is found in women who sleep with bisexual men (men who engage in homosexual contact). And finally it is found among interveinous drug users.

This is in direct reference to % infected in the population.

I think your stement would be closer tot he truth if it said "Aids effects a few more than the Gay community"

As far as Rep's inflamatory ignorance, you obviously aren't interested in changing it, or getting educated if you are inflamed! Face it Jana, you just like to get mad.

Why is it when libs disagree it is inflammatory, but wen cons disagree they just lauph?

Errr.... I think your the one who likes to get mad....Your post is not worth responding to since it wasn't addressed to you.... looks like some things haven't changed since you decided to come back to the "horrible" Lib optiboard.

[rep]

http://www.cathfam.org/Hitems/ProtectedClass.html

Catholic Family Organization objective enough for you?

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/P...ionalintro.htm

From your site Homosexuals have an average household income of $63,100 versus a general population income of $36,500. Do you think maybe gee -wizz could that be because they have TWO working males or TWO working females and hetrosexual average household imcomes are lower because they are raising children? Nawww...... couldn't be!!!!

Saying the household income is higher equates to

Gay are both better educated and higher earners than the population in general"

it illogical and a false premises not worthy of your previous post.

Your website of choice does have lot to say regarding: Child Molestation & Homosexuality. They went a lot further than I did. Since you think they are a totally legit site I intend to use them to reference your further post regarding homosexuality and abortion.

Child Molestation & Homosexuality

Conclusion
Not only is the gay rights movement upfront in its desire to legitimize sex with children, but whether indexed by population reports of molestation, pedophile convictions, or teacher-pupil assaults, there is a strong, disproportionate association between child molestation and homosexuality. Ann Landers claim that homosexuals molest children at no higher a rate than heterosexuals do is untrue. The assertion by gay leaders and the American Psychological Association that a homosexual is less likely than a heterosexual to molest children is patently false.

Thanks but I am, not going to accept the statistical information from a Gay based web site promoting the homosexual lifestyle. I will when I have time look it up. If I'm find I am wrong - I'll admit it.

The census - give me a break - that's one of the least accurate informal surveys. They can't even verify how many people are living in one house! Your going to tell me a survey write in form is accurate - give me a break

Rep

[chm2023]

Thanks but I am, not going to accept the statistical information from a Gay based web site promoting the homosexual lifestyle. I will when I have time look it up. If I'm find I am wrong - I'll admit it.

The census - give me a break - that's one of the least accurate informal surveys. They can't even verify how many people are living in one house! Your going to tell me a survey write in form is accurate - give me a break

Rep

Clearly you are not going to accept anything that contradicts your own dug in views. And the census is "the least accurate informal survey"--informal in what sense? Least accurate based on what? Surveys by definition rely on responses, "write in" or otherwise. Given that sexual orientation is volunteered info in just about any set of data, there is a implicit caveat here. But if you look at the info set forth across the board, it is very consistent.

This will be our last exchange Rep. There are too many interesting and well mannered folks on the Board for me to get caught up in this nonsense. I have discovered a wonderful feature on the Board--Ignore List!!!!

[rep]

Rep,

If you want me to give up because "the majority has spoken", then please give up your "wacky ideas" regarding restricting a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy. The majority thinks this action is acceptable. It would be hypocritical to use the majority argument to support your stance against SSM, yet dismiss it as it relates to the issue of choice, don’t you think?

False the majority do not think abortion is acceptable .
Abortion has never been voted on by anyone other that the SC judges who changed the long standing state laws making it legal. SSM was voted on by the public in 11 states and as you know went down 11 zip. You better hope and pray abortion never gets on a ballot nationally, you would really hear from "silent majority".

But how great will the impact be? The healthcare cost currently must be born by the taxpayers or the health insurance industry. After marriage, how will that change?

A – some healthcare costs will be transferred from government programs to private healthcare companies. As a conservative, reducing government burden should be desirable to you.

B – some premiums will go from individual to family. How much more will it cost the healthcare industry? They may lose the revenue of individual premium amount less family premium amount, for those couples who get married out of 2% to 3% of the population, by your post statistics. Seems like a trivial amount, to me.

Since Gay Activist seeking increased funding for Aids research say that the medical cost of aids is in the billions - I think the impact could be considerable.

Then why did you post:

Poor attempt to add some levity

Rep

[chm2023]

If you want me to give up because "the majority has spoken", then please give up your "wacky ideas" regarding restricting a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy. The majority thinks this action is acceptable.

Spexman: attached is a compilation of polls re abortion and Roe v Wade. What's interesting is how the answers vary with the nuance of the question. People overwhelmingly support Roe v Wade, are more evenly divided on the issue of their personal beliefs. Which is what it comes down to in my view: my values and whether I have the right (or need to!!) inflict them on you.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

[Jana Lewis]

Educate me JANA

Point out EXACTLY what I have posted that is inaccurate about AIDS !

I AGREE with you! - AIDS effects EVERYONE and SSM would give approval to a lifestyle that has the potential to cause great harm to many more than it does now. You have further strengthened MY position. Thank You

Rep

What I am trying to get convey is that you are NOT informed if you think that aids only affects the gay community. There are ALOT of straight folks out there that practice "risky aids related" activites! The post that I quoted from never said anything about aids relating to other demographics. That's why I posted that.

And on another note.... did anyone ever think that MAYBE, just MAYBE that the percentages are higher in regard to aids and homosexuals because homosexual's are smaller in number?

I also think that the topic of aids is irrelevant when discussing same-sex marriage. What's the point?

[1968]

No place have I infered that homosexuals as a group are predispositioned to pedophilia, only homosexual males.

You certainly implied it in post #41 when you said: “But my main reason weather you want to hear it or not, is that I do not approve or condone of the so called homosexual lifestyle. I like most Americans do not want persons who engage in homosexual acts as partners in their businesses, fellow employees, scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their childrens schools or boarders in their home. We view this as protecting ourselves and our families from a life style we believe is immoral and destructive. I really don't need any other reason than that and evidently neither do the majority who voted 11 zip against SSM.”

Use any web site you want and come up with a excuse for that. Half of the items posted on this and most boards are taken from some web site some where.

Rationalize it all you want. The fact remains that most honest people reference their citations, rather than sign their name after copying and pasting someone else’s material as you did in post #71.

Changing the category to make your statistics work isn't quit according to your statistical model either, is it. I was and am refering to boys and the Catholic church. That's a pretty strong arguement that your premise is wrong an that there is among homosexual males a predisposition towards pedophilia, like it or not.

Actually, my premise was that pedophilia is not synonymous with a “lifestyle” of homosexuality… just as incest is not synonymous with a “lifestyle” of heterosexuality. Sexual abuse of children is a much, much wider problem than what has happened in the Catholic Church, so it is you who are parsing the statistics to fit your premise.

Isn't it interesting that only those opposing religion, constantly use religion as a club.

Don’t fabricate passive-aggressive assertions that I oppose religion.

[coda]

SB 1234. Now, to be fair, I have not read it in it's entirety, just saved it so I could and then perhaps you and I can discuss it. My 12 year old has his last football game which I am on my way to so I will read it later. Look forward to your point of view! Go Cougars!

Well, I've now read it in its entirety. Unless your pastor is in the habit of calling on his parish to harm the life, limb or property of homosexuals then I don't think he has anything to be worried about. Whoever told you otherwise is at best a senseless alarmist, at worst.....well I'll leave you to decide. The specific sections of the bill you should read are Section 1 subsections (j) and (k) which amend Section 52.1 of the current Civil Code of the State of California.

[rep]

What I am trying to get convey is that you are NOT informed if you think that aids only affects the gay community. There are ALOT of straight folks out there that practice "risky aids related" activites! The post that I quoted from never said anything about aids relating to other demographics. That's why I posted that.

And on another note.... did anyone ever think that MAYBE, just MAYBE that the percentages are higher in regard to aids and homosexuals because homosexual's are smaller in number?

I also think that the topic of aids is irrelevant when discussing same-sex marriage. What's the point?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts.htm

877,370 cases and counting. Only 15% are by hetrosexual contact. 54% are from male to male contact. When you consider the small number of homosexual males in comparason to the general population the numbers are truly horrific.

SSM would ,by its very nature, cause an increase in Aids.

Rep

[coda]

SSM would ,by its very nature, cause an increase in Aids.

Rep

That doesn't follow. This would only be the case if SSM induced otherwise heterosexual men to become homosexual. I don't think anyone is making that arguement.

Conversely there is a distinct possibility that SSM would decrease the AIDS rate among the homosexual male population by introducing a greater degree of monogomy.

Finally I posit that SSM would reduce the AIDS rate in heterosexual women by reducing the number of homosexual men in heterosexual marriages. Legalization of SSM would provide a degree of societal approval to their sexuallity thereby decreasing the number of homosexual men who enter into and maintain heterosexual relationships because they feel societal pressure to do so. These men are likely the ones engaging in high risk behavior then bringing it 'home' to their wives.

[Jana Lewis]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts.htm

877,370 cases and counting. Only 15% are by hetrosexual contact. 54% are from male to male contact. When you consider the small number of homosexual males in comparason to the general population the numbers are truly horrific.

SSM would ,by its very nature, cause an increase in Aids.

Rep

What about the lesbians? They are homosexual too! SSM by nature would increase aids? Are you serious? Being in a MONOGOMOUS relationship will increase aids? What?

[chm2023]

Two rednecks decide they are not getting ahead in life and decide they need to go to college.

So Bubba and Cooter go off to school. On the first day Bubba goes to see his counselor and is asking about the various courses offered.

"What's this course 'Logic'?

The counselor says, " Well logic is the study of...well perhaps I should use an example. Do you own a weedwacker?"

"Yep", replies Bubba.

"Well, logically I assume you have a lawn."

Bubba nods.

"Well, using logic, having a lawn, I assume you own a house."

"Wow", says Bubba, duly impressed.

"And" continues the counselor, "Since you own a house, I assume you have a wife".

"Right again!"

"And knowing you have a wife, I logically conclude you're a heterosexual".


"Goooollllllyyyyyyyy!!!"

Bubba rushes back to tell Cooter of his new found knowledge. Cooter is not impressed, "Logic? I dunno..."

"Well" counters Bubba. "Let me give you an example--do you own a weedwacker?"

Cooter shakes his head, "No."

Bubba: "You're queer, aintcha???"