How does same gender marriage hurt you?

[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?

The statistics are broken down by sexual preference.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

The stats for females are 159,000 total out of 877,370 cases. Of these less than 10% are lesbians (74,436). The rest are hetrosexual females. I am not making this stuff up. Check it yourself.

SSM by nature would increase aids? Are you serious? Being in a MONOGOMOUS relationship will increase aids? What?

Lets put it this way.

If pot were legalized next week you can imply that people would smoke less weed, but its not likely. They would probably smoke the same amount, or more. The problems associated with smoking pot would increase also.

What makes you think legalizing gay marriage would decrease the rampant multi partner gay lifestyle that is the major reason for the spread of aids today? Because they are now married?

IF they are MONOGOMOUS,how do you rationalize the statistics? They would be skewed to the hetrosexual side or the blood transfusion group.

Rep

[rep]

Your saying that legalizing SSM would DECREASE the one particular sexual practice that is primarily responsible for aids in homosexual men? If these men are MONOGOMOUS as everybody claims they are, how do you explain the statistics.

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.

See my post to Jana regarding legalising pot.

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.

Male to female transmission is only 10% of the total cases. A small percentage but a disaster for those women who are unaware of their husband's infidelity.

If you believe that most homosexual males are monogomous with their partners, then only a handfull of gay males are responsible for almost 900,000 cases of aids. The must be a busy busy group.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

Thank you for discussing this in a rational manner.

Rdp

[rep]

Interesting and well manered?

There are too many interesting and well mannered folks on the Board for me to get caught up in this nonsense.

Interesting....

by the way only 1 out of six households in the US were asked about sexual preference. 5 out of six were not even asked.


Rep

[karen]

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.

Ok, printed it out and have read the parts you referenced and skimmed through the rest (man, who writes these things? my eyes glaze over halfway through the 2nd page) I agree that it seems alarmist to be concerned but I think things like this set precendents that allow further action to be taken later. In Chapter 2 under section 422.6 section a it is worded in a way that allows an awful lot of leeway. If any group (and I don't mean just homosexuals although that is what we are talking about here) feels "intimidated, interfered with, oppressed, or threatened" it looks like action could be taken. Who decides what is intimidating, interfering, oppressive or threatening? Those things are subject to interpretation. Some people are more sensitive than others and may take something the wrong way (which happens here all the time, have done it myself :o ) To illustrate my point I liken it to my side of the aisle trying to outlaw late term abortions. The people who are pro choice feel that would be the start of something that would pave the way for all abortions to be affected. At first glance it seems not as bad as completely outlawing abortions but would likely set a precedent that the other side would take advantage of in trying to further their cause. I know it is a bit of an extreme example but couldn't really think of another one. I do agree that criminal actions should be punished and rightfully so. I just worry that what is considered criminal may change in the face of political correctness and tolerance.

This thread has over 900 views and is obviously an issue we all feel strongly about but I feel the need to say something. I have been visiting this board for quite a while now and really enjoy matching wits with people with different opinions. There are people here from all over with very diverse beliefs and opinions. Over the last few months things have gotten less and less friendly when we disagree and I wish that weren't so. I know some of us are more outspoken than others and I certainly think we should all be able to talk about issues but somewhere along the line the friendliness and respect for others opinions seems to have faded away. Don't know if anyone else agrees, you don't have to just thought it was worth pointing out

[chm2023]

Ok, printed it out and have read the parts you referenced and skimmed through the rest (man, who writes these things? my eyes glaze over halfway through the 2nd page) I agree that it seems alarmist to be concerned but I think things like this set precendents that allow further action to be taken later. In Chapter 2 under section 422.6 section a it is worded in a way that allows an awful lot of leeway. If any group (and I don't mean just homosexuals although that is what we are talking about here) feels "intimidated, interfered with, oppressed, or threatened" it looks like action could be taken. Who decides what is intimidating, interfering, oppressive or threatening? Those things are subject to interpretation. Some people are more sensitive than others and may take something the wrong way (which happens here all the time, have done it myself :o ) To illustrate my point I liken it to my side of the aisle trying to outlaw late term abortions. The people who are pro choice feel that would be the start of something that would pave the way for all abortions to be affected. At first glance it seems not as bad as completely outlawing abortions but would likely set a precedent that the other side would take advantage of in trying to further their cause. I know it is a bit of an extreme example but couldn't really think of another one. I do agree that criminal actions should be punished and rightfully so. I just worry that what is considered criminal may change in the face of political correctness and tolerance.

This thread has over 900 views and is obviously an issue we all feel strongly about but I feel the need to say something. I have been visiting this board for quite a while now and really enjoy matching wits with people with different opinions. There are people here from all over with very diverse beliefs and opinions. Over the last few months things have gotten less and less friendly when we disagree and I wish that weren't so. I know some of us are more outspoken than others and I certainly think we should all be able to talk about issues but somewhere along the line the friendliness and respect for others opinions seems to have faded away. Don't know if anyone else agrees, you don't have to just thought it was worth pointing out

Amen sister!! I have made a decision not to engage where the tone is unpleasant or aggressive. Life is too short!:cheers:

[chm2023]

Interesting and well manered?

Interesting....

by the way only 1 out of six households in the US were asked about sexual preference. 5 out of six were not even asked.


Rep

So of the 100 million HHs (or so) the data is based on only about 15 million HHs. Gee, someone better tell the Census Bureau a thing or two about sample size and statistics!!!!:hammer:

And no I don't consider my joke either, titling it "tasteless" should have been a big hint.

[EyeManFla]

I repeat what I have said before, gays and lesbians should have the same right to get married and be miserable just like the rest of us poor slobs!:hammer:

[Jana Lewis]

Your saying that legalizing SSM would DECREASE the one particular sexual practice that is primarily responsible for aids in homosexual men? If these men are MONOGOMOUS as everybody claims they are, how do you explain the statistics.

See my post to Jana regarding legalising pot.

Male to female transmission is only 10% of the total cases. A small percentage but a disaster for those women who are unaware of their husband's infidelity.

If you believe that most homosexual males are monogomous with their partners, then only a handfull of gay males are responsible for almost 900,000 cases of aids. The must be a busy busy group.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

Thank you for discussing this in a rational manner.

Rdp

So... you are saying that SSM will actually INCREASE aids transmission? Also, did you happen to see several posts up about the demographics of percentages?

Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion that your defiance with SSM dosen't really have anything to with Aids, if it did, then why have social services for aids lost funding? ( I am guessing that you oppose spending more for these programs) Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Jana Lewis]

Ok, printed it out and have read the parts you referenced and skimmed through the rest (man, who writes these things? my eyes glaze over halfway through the 2nd page) I agree that it seems alarmist to be concerned but I think things like this set precendents that allow further action to be taken later. In Chapter 2 under section 422.6 section a it is worded in a way that allows an awful lot of leeway. If any group (and I don't mean just homosexuals although that is what we are talking about here) feels "intimidated, interfered with, oppressed, or threatened" it looks like action could be taken. Who decides what is intimidating, interfering, oppressive or threatening? Those things are subject to interpretation. Some people are more sensitive than others and may take something the wrong way (which happens here all the time, have done it myself :o ) To illustrate my point I liken it to my side of the aisle trying to outlaw late term abortions. The people who are pro choice feel that would be the start of something that would pave the way for all abortions to be affected. At first glance it seems not as bad as completely outlawing abortions but would likely set a precedent that the other side would take advantage of in trying to further their cause. I know it is a bit of an extreme example but couldn't really think of another one. I do agree that criminal actions should be punished and rightfully so. I just worry that what is considered criminal may change in the face of political correctness and tolerance.

This thread has over 900 views and is obviously an issue we all feel strongly about but I feel the need to say something. I have been visiting this board for quite a while now and really enjoy matching wits with people with different opinions. There are people here from all over with very diverse beliefs and opinions. Over the last few months things have gotten less and less friendly when we disagree and I wish that weren't so. I know some of us are more outspoken than others and I certainly think we should all be able to talk about issues but somewhere along the line the friendliness and respect for others opinions seems to have faded away. Don't know if anyone else agrees, you don't have to just thought it was worth pointing out

karen-

I agree.... I guess it just goes to show you just how divided we have all become. No one will move an inch either way. This is what America is now. I hope we can come together at some point, but I don't think we ever will.

[coda]

Ok, printed it out and have read the parts you referenced and skimmed through the rest (man, who writes these things? my eyes glaze over halfway through the 2nd page) I agree that it seems alarmist to be concerned but I think things like this set precendents that allow further action to be taken later. In Chapter 2 under section 422.6 section a it is worded in a way that allows an awful lot of leeway. If any group (and I don't mean just homosexuals although that is what we are talking about here) feels "intimidated, interfered with, oppressed, or threatened" it looks like action could be taken. Who decides what is intimidating, interfering, oppressive or threatening? Those things are subject to interpretation. Some people are more sensitive than others and may take something the wrong way (which happens here all the time, have done it myself :o )

Further down in the same section of the code it is stated: "However, no person may be convicted of violating subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out the threat."

There really isn't any leeway in any of these statements. Beyond the face value of the new penal code there are also reems of case law stating that non-inciting speech can not be restricted. So, as I said before, unless your pastor is in the habit of inciting violence against homosexuals he doesn't have anything to worry about:o .

[Spexvet]

This thread has over 900 views and is obviously an issue we all feel strongly about but I feel the need to say something. I have been visiting this board for quite a while now and really enjoy matching wits with people with different opinions. There are people here from all over with very diverse beliefs and opinions. Over the last few months things have gotten less and less friendly when we disagree and I wish that weren't so. I know some of us are more outspoken than others and I certainly think we should all be able to talk about issues but somewhere along the line the friendliness and respect for others opinions seems to have faded away. Don't know if anyone else agrees, you don't have to just thought it was worth pointing out

I was so tempted to screw with you and just post "shut up".:p Some of us can disagree in a polite manner, but others just can't seem to stick to the issues, and feel that they must attack the speaker. I am embarrassed that I tend to respond in kind.

[Monkeysee]

I think a new forum should be started called "The All In The Family forum" where the Bigots (Archies), and the Meatheads (Mikes) can go at it all they want, and we Dingbats (Ediths) can just pop in an reply "oh my" once in awhile while the Little Girls (Glorias) whine:p

I agree with EyeManFla on this issue, same sex partners have every right to be as miserable as other married folk;) !

[coda]

I agree with EyeManFla on this issue, same sex partners have every right to be as miserable as other married folk;) !

Now, speaking as an unmarried heterosexual male, you certainly aren't putting a rosy hue on marriage. If my girlfriend was more the marrying type I'm sure she'd be peeved with you for poisoning the pool, so to speak. Good thing she's the shacking up type.

[mrba]

And evidently you never picked up on the phrase in Statistics 101: “Correlation does not equal causation”.

Pedrhaps correlation means "good chance"?

[1968]

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

Agreed. But the Judicial Branch does not originate legislation or add to the meaning of The Constituion.

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

No.

That depends on a large context of information... what is the law, what is the punishment for getting caught if I disobey it, am I objectively certain that the law is unjust (or do I just want it to be unjust), is it possible to change the law by convincing those who think it is just that it really is unjust, etc, etc.

[1968]

Pedrhaps correlation means "good chance"?

It doesn't.

Here is one example that demonstrates the fallacy of "correlation equals causation": The number of churches in a community is correlated with the amount of crime in a community. The more churches there are, the more crime there is. Hence, churches cause crime. (Alternatively, there is a "good chance" that churches cause crime.)

[rep]

So... you are saying that SSM will actually INCREASE aids transmission? Also, did you happen to see several posts up about the demographics of percentages?

Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion that your defiance with SSM dosen't really have anything to with Aids, if it did, then why have social services for aids lost funding? ( I am guessing that you oppose spending more for these programs) Please correct me if I am wrong.

SSM will increase aids transmission, simply by it's very nature.
Yes I did see those percentages and I trust the CDC's data on cases, rather than demographics of percentages.

On the contrary I do support the increase in funding for aids both gobally and here in the US. I don't know where you get the idea that social services for aids have lost funding. The administrations current program has not cut funding and the 2005 proposals call for increases in funding in all categories.


Rep

[rep]

Some of us can disagree in a polite manner, but others just can't seem to stick to the issues, and feel that they must attack the speaker. I am embarrassed that I tend to respond in kind.

You are absolutely the ultimate pot calling the kettle black.

In post number 4 you introduce the abortion issue.

In post number 12 you introduce the war in Iraq and Haliburton.

In post number 13 you admit your trying to enrage conservatives.

In post number 14 you accuse all Americans of having closed minds.

In post number 20 you disparage another member implying his being uncomfortable does not hurt him.

In post number 21 you bring up the clinton health care proposal.

In post number 26 you call my statement a wild assumption and bring in the bible. You continue by saying my reasons are irrational and state that I want to force my morals on others.

In post number 32 you knock my spelling, say there is no reason to support my opinion, imply that the bible or W instructs me to oppose SSM and state that I don't know the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality.

It continues on and on....................

You were the instigator in this thread from the beginning. You should be embarrased. You achieved your goal.

Rep

[karen]

I was so tempted to screw with you and just post "shut up".:p Some of us can disagree in a polite manner, but others just can't seem to stick to the issues, and feel that they must attack the speaker. I am embarrassed that I tend to respond in kind.

Actually, I thought you might be tempted but I think we know each other well enough now that I would have been able to see that you were giving me a hard time.
:cheers:

[chip anderson]

In 11 or so states that voted on this issure SSM failed by a margin of 10-1. I am sure that if the other states vote on this the margin will be the same (except in Mass and California, and Vermont). So why waste keystrokes, it ain't gonna happen in this country in our lifetimes.

[chm2023]

In 11 or so states that voted on this issure SSM failed by a margin of 10-1. I am sure that if the other states vote on this the margin will be the same (except in Mass and California, and Vermont). So why waste keystrokes, it ain't gonna happen in this country in our lifetimes.

Actually in Mississippi the measure was approved by 86%, much lower approval in other states with Oregon being about 54 to 46 as I recall. These measures banned SS marriage, not civil unions. Civil unions, as you would imagine, are much more broadly supported. Such a fuss.

[Spexvet]

In post number 4 you introduce the abortion issue.

Reference to abortion was not off-topic, it was in support of my point.

In post number 12 you introduce the war in Iraq and Haliburton.

Reference to Haliburton used to illustrate that discomfort is no reason to deprive someone of their civil liberties

In post number 13 you admit your trying to enrage conservatives.

Do you have a sense of humor at all??

In post number 14 you accuse all Americans of having closed minds.

Are you saying Americans have an open mind, when it comes to SSM??

In post number 20 you disparage another member implying his being uncomfortable does not hurt him.

It doesn’t. It causes him no pain, no loss of privelage, assets, civil rights, property, self-esteem, etc. It does not hurt him!

In post number 21 you bring up the clinton health care proposal.

When mrba makes the assertion that SSM will hurt the health care system, of course I must point out that part of the problem with the health care system could have been resolved by the Clintons.

In post number 26 you call my statement a wild assumption and bring in the bible. You continue by saying my reasons are irrational and state that I want to force my morals on others.

Again, the reference to the bible was to illustrate that your point didn’t make sense. I thought I did it in a civil way. Your reasons stated in post #24 were not based on facts. Read your post, I’m sure you’ll agree. And by prohibiting SSM, you DO want to force your morals on others. Imagine if I forced you to marry someone of your own gender – would that be forcing my morals on you? That’s the other side of the same coin.

In post number 32 you knock my spelling, say there is no reason to support my opinion, imply that the bible or W instructs me to oppose SSM and state that I don't know the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality.

I apologize for knocking your spelling. I admitted that I respond "in kind". You tried to belittle me with your comments. I did not use my manners when I responded to your post :

"But I am sure, at least in your own mind, your much smarter than they are.

It's quite obvious that any reason you don't personally agree with is an "irrational" reason in your totally objective little world.

Let's take a peek into your model of political correctness and see if you really are advocating everything you seem to profess ad nauseam."

Do you see how your tone in these statements might bring a nasty response?

Now, can we get back on topic?
Other than your AIDS concern, do have other reasons to justify discrimination against homosexuals?

[coda]

SSM will increase aids transmission, simply by it's very nature.

You've said this repeatedly but have yet to justify it with a cogent arguement. Maybe that would be a good place for you to start.

[Jana Lewis]

SSM will increase aids transmission, simply by it's very nature.
Yes I did see those percentages and I trust the CDC's data on cases, rather than demographics of percentages.

On the contrary I do support the increase in funding for aids both gobally and here in the US. I don't know where you get the idea that social services for aids have lost funding. The administrations current program has not cut funding and the 2005 proposals call for increases in funding in all categories.


Rep

Rep-

Read it and weep!

www.nbc4.com/news/3685986/deta... | Save

The USA is not doing enough to help the spread of aids.

Essentially, your thoughts in a nutshell: ( from what I gather )

Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because:

a:It's against Christianity

b: It will increase the spread of aids

c: You are uncomfortable with it.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Jana Lewis]

Rep-


Here's another link just incase you don't care for the first one.

There are several more if you would like me to provide you.

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi... | Save