Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[finglobes]

finglobes

Let me know if I understand you right. You believe that AIDS is part of an environmental change that will weed out gay people from the general population? This is your "natural correction".

AIDS is directly correlated to bad hygiene and unhygienic sexual practices. That's a reason why it spread in Africa more there than anywhere else. If a person knowingly drank water from a sewer and got sick there would be no surprise about it. In big cities you have a segment of the population that routinely practices unhygienic sex with many partners (often random). This is a disease conducive scenario. That's why the homosexual population leads by a lot in disease cases (AIDS, hepetitis, STDs etc). Researchers in San Fran have feared have feared several diseases combining in the gay population. Its just a big petri dish in many ways. Like bacteria infections if you keep trying to fix problem with medicine without fixing underlying issue sooner or latter a worse disease comes up. We see that with bacteria and antibiotics. The same will be true of AIDS. Something worse will come up.

As for the "correction" that would not be just about the disease and the people who cause it. It would be about all the systems in society and those who allowed them to deteriorate. In last 50 yrs the libs ruined the black family. Where 65% of prison inmates were white in the 1950s they are now mostly black. A high illegitimacy promotes a high crime rate (its not poverty because there was more of that pre-60s and never the crime). Now there are millions of basically anti-social types who will look to have their way as America economy gets euthanized by Obama and Dems. The big cities will be a nightmare at some point. The liberal metrosexuals wil find themselves at the mercy of the street gangs they created. So you see its not just about the disease or the gays. In real ways the enablers who know better are worse than the people with the compulsive behaviour.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

One of the simplest and most reliable ways of combatting STDs is monogamy.

Gay marriage opponents who talk about AIDS are being transparently disingenuous.

 

[First]

Gay marriage is a mutation that only takes place in an unhealthy social organism. Its no accident gay marriage is cropping up just as America is crashing and burning. First normal marriage was debased ("Its just a piece of paper!") and now its reincarnated as the most special thing in the world - but for homosexuals. I mean its all farce. Any day there will be a new AIDS from the gay populations except everyone might catch that disease and then their will be rage. Just like market bubbles nature and society make corrections and when it does it can be catastrophic. Clock is ticking.

There is so much fail here, I mean wow, I didn't think people were honestly this far gone from reality.

 

[Nintendesert]

Had the gay movement gone after civil unions instead of trying to jab every religious person in the eye and call it gay marriage there wouldn't be nearly as much opposition as there is now.

The gay community needs monogamy for many reasons and should already be here had it not been for the militant wings of the gay community trying to spite others.

 

[Retro Rob]

One of the simplest and most reliable ways of combatting STDs is monogamy.

Gay marriage opponents who talk about AIDS are being transparently disingenuous.

Yep, agreed.

Having more gay marriges won't bring more "love" into the world, though, as some proponents like to argue. Love isn't exclusive to marriage.

 

[werepossum]

Yep, agreed.

Having more gay marriges won't bring more "love" into the world, though, as some proponents like to argue. Love isn't exclusive to marriage.

More love, no. More security and structure, yes.

 

[sandorski]

Had the gay movement gone after civil unions instead of trying to jab every religious person in the eye and call it gay marriage there wouldn't be nearly as much opposition as there is now.

The gay community needs monogamy for many reasons and should already be here had it not been for the militant wings of the gay community trying to spite others.

Ridiculous.

 

[werepossum]

Had the gay movement gone after civil unions instead of trying to jab every religious person in the eye and call it gay marriage there wouldn't be nearly as much opposition as there is now.

The gay community needs monogamy for many reasons and should already be here had it not been for the militant wings of the gay community trying to spite others.

We went through that with blacks, too. Separate but equal is never equal, else there would be no reason to be separate, and it just leads to eternal litigation and irritating marches keeping me from driving cross-town. Personally I'm heartily tired of this whole debate and, just as with blacks, the best way to stop someone from complaining about discrimination is to stop discriminating. It ain't perfect, but it works for most people most of the time.

I don't care if my neighbor's spouse is an innee or an outee and I live next to him. I fail to see why government should be so concerned on my behalf.

 

[Retro Rob]

More love, no. More security and structure, yes.

Again, depends on the attitude of the parents. Like I said earlier about attitudes, my wife and I have good structure and security because we value each other and the institute of marriage. Freinds of mine (hetero) enjoy strong, secure marriages. You don't need to be gay to have a secure, structured marriage.

As much as I like you and respect your views, this is a strawman at its finest.

 

[Nintendesert]

We went through that with blacks, too. Separate but equal is never equal, else there would be no reason to be separate, and it just leads to eternal litigation and irritating marches keeping me from driving cross-town. Personally I'm heartily tired of this whole debate and, just as with blacks, the best way to stop someone from complaining about discrimination is to stop discriminating. It ain't perfect, but it works for most people most of the time.

I don't care if my neighbor's spouse is an innee or an outee and I live next to him. I fail to see why government should be so concerned on my behalf.

It's not even close. They would both have all the same function within the legal system and government recognition and just bypass the religious marriage stuff.

Whether or not gay "marriage" is allowed in a church is up to a church. Keep the Justice of the Peace and civil unions with the state and leave the rest to the religions to recognize or not as they see fit.

Instead the gay community let the radical flamboyant branch of the movement, the one that has daddy issues and recognition issues and needs to flaunt their homosexuality in everyone's face with ridiculous outfits and outlandish lisps, take over and make the process that much more difficult.

 

[actuarial]

Again, depends on the attitude of the parents. Like I said earlier about attitudes, my wife and I have good structure and security because we value each other and the institute of marriage. Freinds of mine (hetero) enjoy strong, secure marriages. You don't need to be gay to have a secure, structured marriage.

As much as I like you and respect your views, this is a strawman at its finest.

You completely misread his post.

He didn't say you need to be gay to have a secure, structured marriage. He said those who were married have more secure, structured relationships than those who are not married.

werepossum: I apologize if I have inaccurately paraphrased here.

 

[actuarial]

It's not even close. They would both have all the same function within the legal system and government recognition and just bypass the religious marriage stuff.

Whether or not gay "marriage" is allowed in a church is up to a church. Keep the Justice of the Peace and civil unions with the state and leave the rest to the religions to recognize or not as they see fit.

Instead the gay community let the radical flamboyant branch of the movement, the one that has daddy issues and recognition issues and needs to flaunt their homosexuality in everyone's face with ridiculous outfits and outlandish lisps, take over and make the process that much more difficult.

If that was the case then why is my non religious hetero union called a marriage? Marriage was abandoned as a religious term a long time ago.

 

[Retro Rob]

You completely misread his post.

He didn't say you need to be gay to have a secure, structured marriage. He said those who were married have more secure, structured relationships than those who are not married.

werepossum: I apologize if I have inaccurately paraphrased here.

I don't think so because he responded to my gay marriage = more love comment.

I could be wrong, though.

 

[werepossum]

You completely misread his post.

He didn't say you need to be gay to have a secure, structured marriage. He said those who were married have more secure, structured relationships than those who are not married.

werepossum: I apologize if I have inaccurately paraphrased here.

Nope, you're spot-on. Not more love, but more secure, structured relationships.

I don't think so because he responded to my gay marriage = more love comment.

I could be wrong, though.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I don't believe that being gay has any advantage in love or stability over straight couples. In fact, statistically I'd bet gay couples have less stability and structure, in part because of a lack of clearly defined roles and in part because as a society we tend to screw them up. (Partly by our stressing them but also because of the radical gay wing which emphasizes things which produce less stability and structure. A friend has a son who is gay; his family church has held exorcisms to "pray out the gay demon" and finally excommunicated him. Having your loved ones tell you you are broken, let alone evil and demon-ridden, messes you up. Ditto with "gay leaders" telling you you should be having anonymous sex with strangers. Gay people get very bad influences from both sides.)

My point was that although gay marriage doesn't produce more love, it does allow gay couples who so choose to have more stability and structure by granting tax benefits, the security of mutual legal rights, societal recognition of the bond, and formalization of the relationship. By allowing gay couples to legally marry and formalize their relationship, we also give added stability and structure to our society, changing some cohabitation situations into marriages. If one believes that marriage adds stability to society - and I do, especially when rearing children - then restricting it from otherwise competent adults reduces the overall benefit to society as well as to the individuals.

 

[werepossum]

It's not even close. They would both have all the same function within the legal system and government recognition and just bypass the religious marriage stuff.

Whether or not gay "marriage" is allowed in a church is up to a church. Keep the Justice of the Peace and civil unions with the state and leave the rest to the religions to recognize or not as they see fit.

Instead the gay community let the radical flamboyant branch of the movement, the one that has daddy issues and recognition issues and needs to flaunt their homosexuality in everyone's face with ridiculous outfits and outlandish lisps, take over and make the process that much more difficult.

I have no problem with government getting out of the marriage business and recognizing only civil unions for all, although it seems to me that's a cop-out and unnecessary just to protect a word. But if we're to have marriage for heteros and civil unions for gays, then we're faced with a never-ending legislative battle as one side tries to get special rights for "real marriage" and the other side tries to fight it.

 

[zsdersw]

It's not even close. They would both have all the same function within the legal system and government recognition and just bypass the religious marriage stuff.

Whether or not gay "marriage" is allowed in a church is up to a church. Keep the Justice of the Peace and civil unions with the state and leave the rest to the religions to recognize or not as they see fit.

Oh please... this is, as werepossum said, the mother of all cop-outs. Where was your proposal to get the government out of the marriage business and into the civil union business before people started talking about gay marriage?

No one is and no one was ever talking about forcing religious institutions to perform or recognize gay weddings.

Instead the gay community let the radical flamboyant branch of the movement, the one that has daddy issues and recognition issues and needs to flaunt their homosexuality in everyone's face with ridiculous outfits and outlandish lisps, take over and make the process that much more difficult.

You and your ilk who feel threatened by stuff "flaunted" in your face need to get over yourselves... and grow up.

The Puritanical (aka: ignorant nonsense) attitude in this country toward nudity and the spectrum of sexual pleasures/tastes is something we're better off for losing. It is not something to covet or protect.

 

[zsdersw]

I have a question for all of the same-sex marriage opponents: How many homosexual/bisexual people do you personally know?

 

[Retro Rob]

I have a question for all of the same-sex marriage opponents: How many homosexual/bisexual people do you personally know?

I only knew one former (let's not make this about that, please -- just wanted to mention the pertinent detail) homosexual guy about 15 years ago. Good person, a dude I had no issues with. He died about that time.

Why?

 

[zsdersw]

I only knew one former (let's not make this about that, please -- just wanted to mention the pertinent detail) homosexual guy about 15 years ago. Good person, a dude I had no issues with. He died about that time.

Why?

Because it is far better to speak about an issue from an experienced perspective than from an ignorant one.

If you're (not you specifically but SSM opponents in general) going to make generalizations and accusations about, and advocate restrictions upon, a group of people you should at least be familiar with that group of people.

 

[nehalem256]

Had the gay movement gone after civil unions instead of trying to jab every religious person in the eye and call it gay marriage there wouldn't be nearly as much opposition as there is now.

The gay community needs monogamy for many reasons and should already be here had it not been for the militant wings of the gay community trying to spite others.

This was covered in another thread. Maryland did this, and someone complained that it still wasn't equal because private institutions could then not be forced to recognize gays civil unions as the same as straight marriages.

Which of course is in direct contradiction to the idea that gay marriage does not affect anyone else.

 

[nehalem256]

If that was the case then why is my non religious hetero union called a marriage? Marriage was abandoned as a religious term a long time ago.

For the same reason that marriage exists in Japan, China, India, Ukraine, etc.

Marriage is not a Christian institution.

 

[Retro Rob]

Because it is far better to speak about an issue from an experienced perspective than from an ignorant one.

If you're (not you specifically but SSM opponents in general) going to make generalizations and accusations about, and advocate restrictions upon, a group of people you should at least be familiar with that group of people.

I don't understand what's so different about them that's different from us from an individual standpoint. They're people.

We need to stop making this about love and peace and unity, becasue that isn't what this is about, IMO. It's only about getting the benefits that hetero couples (married) gets, and having a little "in yo face" factor in it. Plain and simple. Gay people care less about whether people accept them or not. I don't blame them, to be honest. I don't think they care about uniting the country -- they only want want what hetero couples have.

They and we understand that there will always be a divide, just like both whites and blacks will never completely abolish the race issue, IMO.

As far as I am concerned, it won't bother me any because I am not dead-set on "fighting against ssm". Like I've said in previous threads, no.. I don't agree with it, but shucks, if it's passed, it's passed. I really couldn't care less. Has zero affect on me.

 

[zsdersw]

This was covered in another thread. Maryland did this, and someone complained that it still wasn't equal because private institutions could then not be forced to recognize gays civil unions as the same as straight marriages.

Which of course is in direct contradiction to the idea that gay marriage does not affect anyone else.

"Someone complaining" doesn't mean gay marriages affect those who aren't involved in them.

By the way, how many gay people do you know? If your opinions on this and other GLBT issues is any indication, that number is probably zero.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't understand what's so different about them that's different from us from an individual standpoint. They're people.

We need to stop making this about love and peace and unity, becasue that isn't what this is about, IMO. It's only about getting the benefits that hetero couples (married) gets, and having a little "in yo face" factor in it. Plain and simple. Gay people care less about whether people accept them or not. I don't blame them, to be honest. I don't think they care about uniting the country -- they only want want what hetero couples have.

The bold part is particularly wrong. The only way it can be "in your face" is if you let it. Everyone else is more secure in their sexuality and their relationships.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

theres only one thing more disgusting that two dudes marrying, and that is phony religious people imposing their medieval "morality" on the rest of society

there should just be a single law that says people can do whatever they want. if youre gonna allow dudes to marry you at least ought to be allowing heterosexual polygamy and bestiality