New Mexico declares gay marriage bans unconstitutional

[Exophase]

And the 4 - 6 month window between infection and testing positive?

Can be counted against the window in which people are saying they haven't had sex. Do you really think someone going through all this trouble to give blood has any real likelihood of lying about their very recent sexual activity?

As for the test itself:

"The most common HIV tests use blood to detect HIV infection. Tests using saliva or urine are also available. Some tests take a few days for results, but rapid HIV tests can give results in about 20 minutes. All positive HIV tests must be followed up by another test to confirm the positive result. Results of this confirmatory test can take a few days to a few weeks."

http://hivtest.cdc.gov/faq.aspx#tests

The few weeks part later is to narrow down false positives, not false negatives. If you test negative in the first test you don't have AIDS.

 

[Texashiker]

How does gay marriage facilitate the spread of a lethal disease exactly?

It is not just the disease issue as to why I opposed gay marriage.

But to answer your question, it is not that marriage itself that facilitates the spread of a disease, it is normalizing a certain behavior.

By excusing the gay lifestyle, it is normal and there is nothing wrong with it so why not give it a try?


The other issue is alternative lifestyles are being ignored in the gay rights / marriage equality fight. By allowing gays to marry, and ignoring other lifestyles, gays are achieving a special status as a protected group.

Shouldn't we be arguing for true marriage equality, rather than trying to lift a certain group up and leave the others behind?

How can we celebrate gays achieving marriage equality when Polygamy and Polyandry are left in the dark? Yea, good job new mexico, you granted rights to a certain group, now what about the others?

New Mexicos decision is not about marriage equality. It is about gay rights.

Shouldn't we be fighting for everyones rights, rather than a select group?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It is not just the disease issue as to why I opposed gay marriage.

But to answer your question, it is not that marriage itself that facilitates the spread of a disease, it is normalizing a certain behavior.

By excusing the gay lifestyle, it is normal and there is nothing wrong with it so why not give it a try?


The other issue is alternative lifestyles are being ignored in the gay rights / marriage equality fight. By allowing gays to marry, and ignoring other lifestyles, gays are achieving a special status as a protected group.

Shouldn't we be arguing for true marriage equality, rather than trying to lift a certain group up and leave the others behind?

How can we celebrate gays achieving marriage equality when Polygamy and Polyandry are left in the dark?

So you either support marriage for only straight people, because other sexualities are immoral... or you support marriage for EVERYTHING, because otherwise it would be showing favoritism to the gays. That doesn't make any sense. Unless you're conceding that marriage laws currently show favoritism to heterosexuals (which they clearly do), and that favoritism is wrong (which you would disagree with given your opposition to gay marriage). What exactly is your point here? It's like you're desperately searching for any argument against gay marriage, even if they happen to be completely conflicting viewpoints.

And this idea that other marriages need to be lumped in with gay marriage; why? Because they aren't one man, one woman? What does a gay couple have in common with a polygamous group relationship? Nothing. It makes as much sense to argue that these should be lumped together as it would to argue, "No, we can't repeal miscegenation laws, they're pushing for favoritism of interracial marriages over gay marriages!" They aren't the same thing just because they happen to be different from your specific marriage. I'm not going to bother debating poly marriages when we're discussing marriages between two consenting adults; it's a different topic that I'll be glad to discuss with you, just not here.

 

[werepossum]

If a marriage is considered to be a legal contract between consenting adults (who thus can sign into a contract), then yes. Hopefully all marriages will someday be treated equally, regardless of what actual form they take.

This, exactly. If we are free beings of sound mind, then the state should never have right of refusal over our marriage choice. We are not serfs, and we should not need our lord's permission to marry. Where the state has valid objections, be they fear of inbreeding or child custody or whatever, let each specific case be evaluated exactly on the merits of those objections, not what might happen or what has always been the case. Otherwise adults of sound mind should be free to make the marriages they find best for them.

SCOTUS should have gone all the way and made it clear that marriage rights are inherent and granted by G-d, and thus are not subject to man's infringement short of some compelling societal interest that can only be fulfilled through that infringement. As it stands, we're in the weird position where many find it possible to have their marriage sanctified by a reasonably mainstream Christian church but disallowed by their state.

I'm all for economic issues being state's right issues, but basic human rights need to be the same for all Americans.

 

[nehalem256]

This, exactly. If we are free beings of sound mind, then the state should never have right of refusal over our marriage choice. We are not serfs, and we should not need our lord's permission to marry. Where the state has valid objections, be they fear of inbreeding or child custody or whatever, let each specific case be evaluated exactly on the merits of those objections, not what might happen or what has always been the case. Otherwise adults of sound mind should be free to make the marriages they find best for them.

The only way that argument makes sense is if you consider procreation to be tied to marriage. If you accept same-sex marriage obviously you do not and there can be zero argument against incestuous marriage.

SCOTUS should have gone all the way and made it clear that marriage rights are inherent and granted by G-d, and thus are not subject to man's infringement short of some compelling societal interest that can only be fulfilled through that infringement. As it stands, we're in the weird position where many find it possible to have their marriage sanctified by a reasonably mainstream Christian church but disallowed by their state.

I'm all for economic issues being state's right issues, but basic human rights need to be the same for all Americans.

So much for keeping church and state separate.

 

[mikeymikec]

The only way that argument makes sense is if you consider procreation to be tied to marriage. If you accept same-sex marriage obviously you do not and there can be zero argument against incestuous marriage.

He was giving examples of what the state might consider to be valid objections to a union, not giving a definitive list of 'valid reasons' and reasons why the state would object to a union.

Procreation is not tied to marriage, and I think you're one of a very small minority who thinks it is. A legally recognised marriage is not another name for a baby-making permit.

 

[nehalem256]

Procreation is not tied to marriage, and I think you're one of a very small minority who thinks it is.

Then why haven't liberals been updating marriage laws to allow incestuous marriages at the same time they have been adding same-sex marriages?

After all if marriage should be between ANY 2 consenting adults why wouldn't you make that the law?

 

[werepossum]

It's not just gay men, it's any man who has had "sexual contact" with a man at least one time since 1977. Someone who experimented one time in college 35 years ago and has only been with women since would PROBABLY have shown signs of HIV/AIDS by this point if he'd contracted it, but according to the rule, he's prevented from donating. So, from that perspective, the rule is somewhat baffling. Many countries outside the US have gotten rid of the lifetime ban for gays, replacing it with a ban anywhere from one to five years, to as little as a couple weeks since last sexual contact. And yet there hasn't been some catastrophic rise in cases of infected blood transfusions in these post-ban places. If we're serious about the need for blood, we need to stop arbitrarily limiting a section of the population based on the irrational fear that anyone who has ever had a gay encounter is likely diseased.

And, if you're really worried about the threat of HIV/AIDS in the gay community, shouldn't you be in favor of gay marriage? The number one way to prevent STDs between sexually active people is strict monogamous relationships; hard to get an STD when you only have sex with the same partner (unless you already have an STD, in which case only having a single partner prevents it spreading beyond them). It seems ludicrous to use HIV rates in the gay community as an argument AGAINST gay marriage when anyone with a working brain would suggest that strict monogamous coupling is a stronger solution to fight an infection that spreads through sex.

This is what I don't get in the fight against gay marriage. Any evils from gays being openly tolerated, real or imagined, are already here. Gay people are not going back in the closet or becoming straight just because they cannot legally marry, especially when there is no stigma attached to "living in sin". The fight against gay marriage is literally against establishing among gays the ties that otherwise these same people agree benefit society. If one believes that marriage strengthens family ties and benefits society, then extending those benefits to gays can only benefit society. Certainly one can make arguments for and against when marriage is extended to more than two individuals, but that has no bearing on gay marriage which is not significantly different from hetero marriage. This is as close to a single-sided argument as could ever be found.

 

[xj0hnx]

Dude, you are too me focused and worried about yourself to look at society.

I understand society perfectly well, and that society include gay men, and women.

The Bible says two men ought not lay together.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V1GqDnUkkQ

And? It also says you should stone children to death for talking back. I don't know about you, but I don't take my marching orders from a book written in the bronze age when disease was still thought to be the work of a fairy man in the clouds.

 

[mikeymikec]

Then why haven't liberals been updating marriage laws to allow incestuous marriages at the same time they have been adding same-sex marriages?

Why indeed, perhaps because they're not the same thing? Perhaps because one believes that there isn't anything wrong with same-sex marriage it does not inherently mean that they are pro the idea of marriage between any two consenting adults? Nice straw man btw.

If you want to advocate incestuous marriage, then start a new thread and state your case.

 

[zinfamous]

Yet another state surrenders to an immoral lifestyle.

Polygamy and Polyandry will not be far behind.

We can hope that ALL marriages are treated equally, and not just a select few.

what is with you? You are perpetually on both sides of this issue, but this is the first time I've seen your doublespeak in essentially two consecutive posts within the same thread.

 

[zinfamous]

what a lie.

marriage is about having other accept it. by its definition its forcing others to accept your union.

its a bullshit lie to say that two gays getting married has no impact on others.

😀

what a tiny rock you must claim as shelter.

 

[nehalem256]

Why indeed, perhaps because they're not the same thing? Perhaps because one believes that there isn't anything wrong with same-sex marriage it does not inherently mean that they are pro the idea of marriage between any two consenting adults? Nice straw man btw.

Its not a strawman. Its basically exactly what same-sex marriage supporters say they believe in. Over and over. For example from this very thread:

"Gay rights" IS a fucking civil right you dunce. There is no reason at all other than insecure bigotry to tell two consenting adults they can't marry.

Are a brother and a sister, both over 18, two consenting adults. Absolutely.

If you want to advocate incestuous marriage, then start a new thread and state your case.

Why? Because it embarrasses same-sex marriage advocates and/or reveals them as massive hypocrites?

EVERY argument made in favor of same-sex marriage works equally well for incestuous marriage.

 

[mikeymikec]

Its not a strawman. Its basically exactly what same-sex marriage supporters say they believe in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Over and over. For example from this very thread:

In the context of gay marriage. Two gay adult people who want to get married are two consenting adults.

Why? Because it embarrasses same-sex marriage advocates and/or reveals them as massive hypocrites?

No, because for example if someone says "marriage is between a male and female only", it would be just as absurd (as your current argument tactic) for someone to counter with "well why aren't you arguing for a man and a female of any species to be able to marry?", or "why aren't you also arguing for a man to be able to marry his daughter as well then?" or something similar. Those counter-arguments represent separate topics because the reasons for and against aren't anything like those of same-sex marriage.

The strongest, most popular arguments and history behind those arguments pro and against gay marriage are in no way similar to those of incestuous or inter-species marriage, so stop trying to lump them together just because that's how they are in your mind.

 

[nehalem256]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

In the context of gay marriage. Two gay adult people who want to get married are two consenting adults.

So when they say that marriage was between two consenting adults they were full of shit is what you are saying?

It was not a phrase that implied any justification for their beliefs what so ever.

No, because for example if someone says "marriage is between a male and female only", it would be just as absurd (as your current argument tactic) for someone to counter with "well why aren't you arguing for a man and a female of any species to be able to marry?",

Because animals are not capable of consent? Did you really miss that part?

or "why aren't you also arguing for a man to be able to marry his daughter as well then?" or something similar.

I thought that was covered under the incestuous marriage thing?

The strongest, most popular arguments and history behind those arguments pro and against gay marriage are in no way similar to those of incestuous or inter-species marriage, so stop trying to lump them together just because that's how they are in your mind.

There is no argument for gay marriage that does not equally reasonably apply to incestuous marriage. None. Not one.

 

[mikeymikec]

So when they say that marriage was between two consenting adults they were full of shit is what you are saying?

I have no idea where you got that from. Is it reducio ad absurdum again, or just utter nonsense, not sure.

Because animals are not capable of consent? Did you really miss that part?

I'm not arguing for inter-species marriage, I'm trying to show you how absurd your argument style is.

I thought that was covered under the incestuous marriage thing?

Congratulations, you missed the point.

There is no argument for gay marriage that does not equally reasonably apply to incestuous marriage. None. Not one.

The "marriage can only be between a man and a woman" definition is a gender-based discrimination, that's why same-sex marriage is the topic here. Incest is not about gender. That makes it a different topic (as well as the last paragraph of my previous response).

 

[nehalem256]

I have no idea where you got that from. Is it reducio ad absurdum again, or just utter nonsense, not sure.

I'm not arguing for inter-species marriage, I'm trying to show you how absurd your argument style is.

Congratulations, you missed the point.

So thinking that when liberals say "marriage is between any 2 consenting adults" they are defending some actual principal is absurd? 😀

The "marriage can only be between a man and a woman" definition is a gender-based discrimination, that's why same-sex marriage is the topic here.

Which gender is it discriminating against? 😕

Incest is not about gender. That makes it a different topic (as well as the last paragraph of my previous response).

It is still discriminating against 2 consenting adults from marrying, which makes it the same topic.

Again, every argument for same-sex marriage applies equally for incestuous marriage. Every single one.

Arguments such as "between 2 consenting adults" obvious don't apply to marrying children or animals.

 

[shadow9d9]

It is not just the disease issue as to why I opposed gay marriage.

But to answer your question, it is not that marriage itself that facilitates the spread of a disease, it is normalizing a certain behavior.

By excusing the gay lifestyle, it is normal and there is nothing wrong with it so why not give it a try?


The other issue is alternative lifestyles are being ignored in the gay rights / marriage equality fight. By allowing gays to marry, and ignoring other lifestyles, gays are achieving a special status as a protected group.

Shouldn't we be arguing for true marriage equality, rather than trying to lift a certain group up and leave the others behind?

How can we celebrate gays achieving marriage equality when Polygamy and Polyandry are left in the dark? Yea, good job new mexico, you granted rights to a certain group, now what about the others?

New Mexicos decision is not about marriage equality. It is about gay rights.

Shouldn't we be fighting for everyones rights, rather than a select group?

People won't "give it a try" unless they ARE gay you buffoon. It isn't a choice. It is how you are born.

Think of it this way. You are the past. You will be ridiculed throughout history like all of the other bigots. Your lunatic arguments will not change this.

 

[shadow9d9]

Then why haven't liberals been updating marriage laws to allow incestuous marriages at the same time they have been adding same-sex marriages?

After all if marriage should be between ANY 2 consenting adults why wouldn't you make that the law?

1. Liberals don't operate in the US government, outside of one senator.

2. If incestuous groups were more than .000000000000000001% of the population, and were being discriminated against, then sure, there might be a push for such a thing. I wouldn't be able to care less. It is allowed in some places already.

3. There isn't a blood test when getting married, so they likely CAN get married if they'd like. There are plenty of ridiculous laws on the books that don't actually get prosecuted.

Good to know our resident bigot is sticking up for the non existing incestuous community!

 

[werepossum]

People won't "give it a try" unless they ARE gay you buffoon. It isn't a choice. It is how you are born.

Think of it this way. You are the past. You will be ridiculed throughout history like all of the other bigots. Your lunatic arguments will not change this.

Actually that isn't true. A lot of people experiment with homosexuality. There's even a term, LUG, that means "Lesbian Until Graduation". In the UK, similar behavior among young men in all-male schools is accepted. Seems strange to me, being raised in the rural Bible Belt, but human sexuality is a continuum rather than a binary switch and lots of folks are either unsure where they fall or simply like the thrill of engaging in something illicit and forbidden. In reality a lot of sexuality is confined by societal bonds, so that some portion of those who might be homosexual in a very sexually open society are heterosexual in a very sexually restrictive society.

 

[brycejones]

A shot of penicillin or rocephin will clear most STDs right up.

The truth is, HIV is mostly a gay male disease.

Excusing the gay lifestyle and its spread of a deadly disease is not acceptable.

Dang you have gone full retard on this one. Why don't you look into the transmission patterns in Africa or Asia before you make such ignorant statements?

 

[Victorian Gray]

A shot of penicillin or rocephin will clear most STDs right up.

The truth is, HIV is mostly a gay male disease.

Excusing the gay lifestyle and its spread of a deadly disease is not acceptable.

Only in the United States is it mainly confined to the gay male population and even in the US women compose approximately 1/3 of HIV infected.

World wide the majority of infected happen to be women. In Sub Saharan Africa the rate is estimated at between 57% and 64% of HIV infected are women.

Educate yourself. There really is no excuse for willful ignorance.

 

[Victorian Gray]

It is not just the disease issue as to why I opposed gay marriage.

But to answer your question, it is not that marriage itself that facilitates the spread of a disease, it is normalizing a certain behavior.

By excusing the gay lifestyle, it is normal and there is nothing wrong with it so why not give it a try?


The other issue is alternative lifestyles are being ignored in the gay rights / marriage equality fight. By allowing gays to marry, and ignoring other lifestyles, gays are achieving a special status as a protected group.

Shouldn't we be arguing for true marriage equality, rather than trying to lift a certain group up and leave the others behind?

How can we celebrate gays achieving marriage equality when Polygamy and Polyandry are left in the dark? Yea, good job new mexico, you granted rights to a certain group, now what about the others?

New Mexicos decision is not about marriage equality. It is about gay rights.

Shouldn't we be fighting for everyones rights, rather than a select group?

So it would appear that the "certain behavior" that bother you is anal sex. But it also appears that anal sex is only an issue for you if it's one guy doin' it to another guy. Because I suspect that you know that a heck of a lot of heterosexuals seem to like anal sex as well.

BTW, given that lesbians don't do that 'icky thing' (at least not without artificial aid), is their "lifestyle" still an issue as regards marriage?

Also, still waiting for an answer as to why I, or anyone else, should be afraid of Polygamy and Polyandry (or any other configuration of consenting adults that you can come up with).

 

[Victorian Gray]

This is what I don't get in the fight against gay marriage. Any evils from gays being openly tolerated, real or imagined, are already here. Gay people are not going back in the closet or becoming straight just because they cannot legally marry, especially when there is no stigma attached to "living in sin". The fight against gay marriage is literally against establishing among gays the ties that otherwise these same people agree benefit society. If one believes that marriage strengthens family ties and benefits society, then extending those benefits to gays can only benefit society. Certainly one can make arguments for and against when marriage is extended to more than two individuals, but that has no bearing on gay marriage which is not significantly different from hetero marriage. This is as close to a single-sided argument as could ever be found.

Well said.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You said that gay people cannot procreate if they are not married. That was your argument.

So if gay people cannot procreate without marriage. Why is it necessary to grant them marriage to control the procreation they otherwise could not have?

You still haven't answered my earlier question. If heterosexual partners who can not have children or do not want children wish to get married, should they be allowed to?