Gay marriage and you (religious zealots)

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

I'm talking about LAWS here. Right or wrong, the people have spoken and it becomes a LAW.

There are laws on the books in some states that say you can't marry your cousin, yet you don't hear those people that wish to do so crying discrimination even though, it may be legal two states over to do just that!

Right or wrong the people have spoken and it's LAW?
Kind of like Slavery at the time, right?

No. A law is not absolute. It still has to pass constitutional muster. As this one doesn't, upon facing a supreme court challenge it will be ruled unconstitutional (as it was in mass) and struck down. This law is BRAND NEW and sadly this can take years.

You do understand that no law may subvert protections guaranteed by the constitution, right? How about that 14th amendment?

Then the same argument should be able to guaranty my right to marry my cousin if I wish to do so right?
Does it OUTRAGE you that I can't do so NOW?

No?

Why not?

You seem to think all of us that don't agree with YOUR outlook SHOULD be outraged.:shocked:

Will you fight for MY rights? You seem to think I and everyone who disagrees with YOU should fight for yours.

 

[Rage187]

Oregon is a democratic state, that alone should tell you something.

 

[Audiophile1980]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: theNEOone
gimme a break. the states that voted for the gay marriage ban:
Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah

let's get some real states in there, not hick-central usa. how about some cities with real economies and intellectuals. new york, chicago, boston, baltimore, d.c., philly, los angeles, seattle....


=|

Wow... just wow. If you cannot even begin to see what a hypocrite you are for screaming about discrimination and then posting this post then I'm really at a loss for how anyone can show you.

That's not descrimination. That's stereotyping. (and very accurate one at that) Descrimination would be if he dissallowed them to vote because they're hicks.

 

[Audiophile1980]

Then the same argument should be able to guaranty my right to marry my cousin if I wish to do so right?
Does it OUTRAGE you that I can't do so NOW?

No?

Why not?

Because doing so will produce offspring with defects (harming the rights of the offspring) and stagnates the gene pool (harming mankind as a whole.)

Gay marriage does nothing harmful to either partner.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Then the same argument should be able to guaranty my right to marry my cousin if I wish to do so right?
Does it OUTRAGE you that I can't do so NOW?

No?

Why not?

You seem to think all of us that don't agree with YOUR outlook SHOULD be outraged.:shocked:

Will you fight for MY rights? You seem to think I and everyone who disagrees with YOU should fight for yours.

That's the problem if you don't fight. Truthfully, right now, I am not sympathetic towards inter-family marriages. Why is that? Because no one cares. Why does no one care? Because no one has spoken up. As far as I know, inter-family marriages result in genetic problems and I haven't heard anything else regarding the matter.

 

[flexy]

i think this issue is entirely about religion and tradition ...

you are right, its religion and "morals".

STILL - i think its amazing and outstanding to seek input in SEXUAL and relationship-things from the CHURCH. Like the CHURCH is competent enough to give me (or anyone else) advice regarding relationships and sexual lifestyles/preferences.

a) the (eg. catholic) church is totally IMCOMPETENT in giving advice since their leaders/priests are not even allowed to marry...how can some celebate priest who NEVER had a women give advice whats sexual "right or wrong" ? Especially in the light of the many pervs there having their ways with young boys instead....and THIS people are the same preaching to us about morales and how bad it is to look at women/have sex before marriage....or, better, how bad it is to have sex AT ALL (except for the creation of babies

The sad thing is that a BIG number of people actually buys into that logic.

YOU (eg: Bush voters) and "moral-people" also are obviously not bright enough to see that the religious/moral issues are mainly only used as a cheap TOOL by the politicians - because they know how SIMPLE many people's minds work - and therefore they use the same rhetoric to catch votes.

I have never seen so much OBVIOUS zealotism and bigottery like lately....with bringing in MORE restrictions (in the name of "FreeDom"), showing even MORE intolerance (Gays are just the start !)....and then obviously seriously thinking that these actions of being intolerant and more restrictive are "the good moral" while the "bad moral" allegedly is on side of the democrats/liberals because it is seen as "BAD" to give someone (eg. gay couples) the same freedom eg. if they wanted to marry.

Also, its astonishing to see here, in this country, in the year 2004, people seriously discuss and ask whether "being gay" is by choice or not. This society gets stupider and stupider....and this is also a result of all the restrictions and "morals". A society which is not allowed (!) to see naked skin on TV and where people snap over a exposed tit is of course the same society where people think that there is a choice in being gay or not.
Result of an uninformed and mislead society...

My anger and disbelief over so much stupidity and ignorance, bigotery etc. is (AT LEAST) somewhat mildered knowing that (approx.) 50% of the people do NOT think that way.

 

[Toastedlightly]

One could have rectal problems. Government can protect you from that.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Then the same argument should be able to guaranty my right to marry my cousin if I wish to do so right?
Does it OUTRAGE you that I can't do so NOW?

No?

Why not?

Because doing so will produce offspring with defects (harming the rights of the offspring) and stagnates the gene pool (harming mankind as a whole.)

Gay marriage does nothing harmful to either partner.

Well, I guess it had to come up sooner or later so I guess it's left up to me to drag it out.

Isn't aids still a big factor in the gay community?

And YES I KNOW it doesn't just effect gays. But it IS a factor isn't it?

 

[Audiophile1980]

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
One could have rectal problems. Government can protect you from that.

If you're referring to gay men, then yes. But then many married straight couples have anal sex too.

What about Lesbian couples?

How about the lesbian couples take a stance that straight marriage be banned because it leads to the transmission of STDs while lesbians are all but immune!

 

[Audiophile1980]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Then the same argument should be able to guaranty my right to marry my cousin if I wish to do so right?
Does it OUTRAGE you that I can't do so NOW?

No?

Why not?

Because doing so will produce offspring with defects (harming the rights of the offspring) and stagnates the gene pool (harming mankind as a whole.)

Gay marriage does nothing harmful to either partner.

Well, I guess it had to come up sooner or later so I guess it's left up to me to drag it out.

Isn't aids still a big factor in the gay community?

And YES I KNOW it doesn't just effect gays. But it IS a factor isn't it?

Yes. Just as much as in the straight community. If you're going to use that to ban gay marriage, you have to ban straight marriage too.

Thing is though that gay marriage leads to MONOGOMY which means that if both partners don't have aids, they are both effectively immune to it forever whereas if they weren't allowed to marry, they could have many partners and the risk of infection would INCREASE by not being married.

Of course, you ignore lesbian partners who can't get aids through sex from each other and, even if they could, would be less likely to get it because of marriage.

 

[Rage187]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
One could have rectal problems. Government can protect you from that.

If you're referring to gay men, then yes. But then many arried straight couples have anal sex too.
What about Lesbian couples?

How about the lesbian couples take a stance that straight marriage be banned because it leads to the transmission of STDs while lesbians are all but immune!

except to herpes, and HPV.


Or we can talk about all the new cool diseases that have been created recently that affect the gay community.

 

[Audiophile1980]

Originally posted by: Rage187

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
One could have rectal problems. Government can protect you from that.

If you're referring to gay men, then yes. But then many arried straight couples have anal sex too.
What about Lesbian couples?

How about the lesbian couples take a stance that straight marriage be banned because it leads to the transmission of STDs while lesbians are all but immune!

except to herpes, and HPV.


Or we can talk about all the new cool diseases that have been created recently that affect the gay community.

...equally with the straight community. My Hyperbole obviously went over your head.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Then the same argument should be able to guaranty my right to marry my cousin if I wish to do so right?
Does it OUTRAGE you that I can't do so NOW?

No?

Why not?

Because doing so will produce offspring with defects (harming the rights of the offspring) and stagnates the gene pool (harming mankind as a whole.)

Gay marriage does nothing harmful to either partner.

Well, I guess it had to come up sooner or later so I guess it's left up to me to drag it out.

Isn't aids still a big factor in the gay community?

And YES I KNOW it doesn't just effect gays. But it IS a factor isn't it?

Yes. Just as much as in the straight community. If you're going to use that to ban gay marriage, you have to ban straight marriage too.

Thing is though that gay marriage leads to MONOGOMY which means that if both partners don't have aids, they are both effectively immune to it forever whereas if they weren't allowed to marry, they could have many partners and the risk of infection would INCREASE by not being married.

Of course, you ignore lesbian partners who can't get aids through sex from each other and, even if they could, would be less likely to get it because of marriage.

Would you guess that the likelihood of someone contracting aids through same sex sex is about the same as a child being born with a defect from a marriage between close family members?

 

[Toastedlightly]

Alright, end this damn thread. Give it time, things will change.

 

[flexy]

>>>
Scientists agree that a homosexual has some differences in the way their brain works. They are born that way.
>>>

EVERYONE is born different - and, btw, "scientists have also proven that there is a differnce in how FEMALS and MALE brains work. They also have proven that children's brains work different - so MAYBE do various different race's brains.

WHATS YOUR POINT ??? Do you want restrictions and limitations for all individuals who "proven" have some "difference" in how their brain works ?

You argue like Joseph Mengele (or other Nazis) who killed people who's brain ALLEGEDLY was not working right - because they were "DIFFERENT" from the WHITE PEOPLE.

Eg: GAY. BLACK, HANDICAPPED -----> whooosh, lets kill all of 'em ! (After we took their RIGHTS)

No wonder that the KKK and similiar is also MAINLY active in the rural south, where, by coincedence, Bush has the highest votes anf Gay marriage is banned

WAY TO GO !!!

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980
Thing is though that gay marriage leads to MONOGOMY which means that if both partners don't have aids, they are both effectively immune to it forever whereas if they weren't allowed to marry, they could have many partners and the risk of infection would INCREASE by not being married.

Of course, you ignore lesbian partners who can't get aids through sex from each other and, even if they could, would be less likely to get it because of marriage.

A person doesn't need to be married to be monogomous.

 

[Audiophile1980]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Then the same argument should be able to guaranty my right to marry my cousin if I wish to do so right?
Does it OUTRAGE you that I can't do so NOW?

No?

Why not?

Because doing so will produce offspring with defects (harming the rights of the offspring) and stagnates the gene pool (harming mankind as a whole.)

Gay marriage does nothing harmful to either partner.

Well, I guess it had to come up sooner or later so I guess it's left up to me to drag it out.

Isn't aids still a big factor in the gay community?

And YES I KNOW it doesn't just effect gays. But it IS a factor isn't it?

Yes. Just as much as in the straight community. If you're going to use that to ban gay marriage, you have to ban straight marriage too.

Thing is though that gay marriage leads to MONOGOMY which means that if both partners don't have aids, they are both effectively immune to it forever whereas if they weren't allowed to marry, they could have many partners and the risk of infection would INCREASE by not being married.

Of course, you ignore lesbian partners who can't get aids through sex from each other and, even if they could, would be less likely to get it because of marriage.

Would you guess that the likelihood of someone contracting aids through same sex sex is about the same as a child being born with a defect from a marriage between close family members?

No.

an STD can be contracted equally through straight sex or gay sex or lesbian sex. There is no basis for banning it (and we're talking about sex here - not marriage) unless you ban all forms of sex.

However, in your familial example, incest is known to consistently lead to birth defects (usually retardation) and stagnated genes. Sex with non-family members is not. This is why the law exists and is justifyable.

 

[Rage187]

Gay males suffer strains of STD's that have been mutated through their own promiscuity.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: theNEOone
gimme a break. the states that voted for the gay marriage ban:
Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah

let's get some real states in there, not hick-central usa. how about some cities with real economies and intellectuals. new york, chicago, boston, baltimore, d.c., philly, los angeles, seattle....


=|

Wow... just wow. If you cannot even begin to see what a hypocrite you are for screaming about discrimination and then posting this post then I'm really at a loss for how anyone can show you.

That's not descrimination. That's stereotyping. (and very accurate one at that) Descrimination would be if he dissallowed them to vote because they're hicks.

indeed, it's called stereotyping. i think you're a little out of your league when you're arguing against audiophile. give it a rest, he puts up a much stronger logical argument than you.

audiophile - preach on, brotha! as for me, i need to pack and sleep, because i'm headed to d.c. tomorrow for business. w00t.

btw, i still hate gays. (i hope i don't get another vacation for this.)


=|

 

[Audiophile1980]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980
Thing is though that gay marriage leads to MONOGOMY which means that if both partners don't have aids, they are both effectively immune to it forever whereas if they weren't allowed to marry, they could have many partners and the risk of infection would INCREASE by not being married.

Of course, you ignore lesbian partners who can't get aids through sex from each other and, even if they could, would be less likely to get it because of marriage.

A person doesn't need to be married to be monogomous.

No. But that's not the point. They were discussing banning gay marriage on the justification that it's dangerous and thus is for their own protection like being forced to wear your seatbelt.
Pay. Attention.
Honestly, if feels like I'm discussing things with a classroom full of 6th graders all with A.D.D.

 

[Audiophile1980]

Originally posted by: Rage187
Gay males suffer strains of STD's that have been mutated through their own promiscuity.

WHAT?!
Link.
That's hillarious.
I don't believe that's even remotely true.
If it were, I'd be interested to know how many STDs have propogated or 'mutated' through straight sex.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980
Thing is though that gay marriage leads to MONOGOMY which means that if both partners don't have aids, they are both effectively immune to it forever whereas if they weren't allowed to marry, they could have many partners and the risk of infection would INCREASE by not being married.

Of course, you ignore lesbian partners who can't get aids through sex from each other and, even if they could, would be less likely to get it because of marriage.

A person doesn't need to be married to be monogomous.

No. But that's not the point. They were discussing banning gay marriage on the justification that it's dangerous and thus is for their own protection like being forced to wear your seatbelt.
Pay. Attention.

Do you really think you are going to get anywhere with your condescending attitude? Let me guess... you know everything and anyone who argues with you is an idiot? If you want to change this country, you're going to need people rallying behind you. To get those people, you're going to need to work on your attitude.

This thread has degenerated into nothing but a thinly veiled name calling contest. I'm done with it.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Then the same argument should be able to guaranty my right to marry my cousin if I wish to do so right?
Does it OUTRAGE you that I can't do so NOW?

No?

Why not?

Because doing so will produce offspring with defects (harming the rights of the offspring) and stagnates the gene pool (harming mankind as a whole.)

Gay marriage does nothing harmful to either partner.

Well, I guess it had to come up sooner or later so I guess it's left up to me to drag it out.

Isn't aids still a big factor in the gay community?

And YES I KNOW it doesn't just effect gays. But it IS a factor isn't it?

Yes. Just as much as in the straight community. If you're going to use that to ban gay marriage, you have to ban straight marriage too.

Thing is though that gay marriage leads to MONOGOMY which means that if both partners don't have aids, they are both effectively immune to it forever whereas if they weren't allowed to marry, they could have many partners and the risk of infection would INCREASE by not being married.

Of course, you ignore lesbian partners who can't get aids through sex from each other and, even if they could, would be less likely to get it because of marriage.

Would you guess that the likelihood of someone contracting aids through same sex sex is about the same as a child being born with a defect from a marriage between close family members?

No.

an STD can be contracted equally through straight sex or gay sex or lesbian sex. There is no basis for banning it (and we're talking about sex here - not marriage) unless you ban all forms of sex.

However, in your familial example, incest is known to consistently lead to birth defects (usually retardation) and stagnated genes. Sex with non-family members is not. This is why the law exists and is justifyable.

Really?

 

[Rage187]

damn your out of touch, I'll be right back w/ tons of links to new strains of syphillis and gonorhea that are now totally resistant to the usual medication, and guess who are suffering through these new diseases? Gay males.



Easier then I thought, I'll be back with more.

 

[Audiophile1980]

"The report concludes that cousins can have children together without running much greater risk than a "normal" couple of their children having genetic abnormalities. Accordingly, the report potentially undermines the primary justification for laws that prevent first cousins from marrying or engaging in sexual relations with one another."

This is new information to me.

This is only one study but if it were proven to be true, then I would agree, it should be removed from the lawbooks as it doesn't have a justification (as banning gay marriage doesn't now).

However, sex with a sibling/parent would still be wrong.

If that information is true, laws regarding cousins would have to be removed as they would be baseless, I agree.