New York Court Rules Gays Must Be Allowed To Marry

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CQuinn

Golden Member
May 31, 2000
1,656
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
That said, I'm not crazy about the word marriage for gay relationships and I do think it's going to be harder to argue against polygamy.

IIRC there is already existing case law that supports laws against polygamy due to
marital abuse in previous legal (and current illegal) polygamous marriages.


Dari:

Although I have nothing against gay marriage, how can it be legalized when sodomy isn't?

This has already been pointed out, but sodomy was not illegal in NY.

I mean, how else can two gay couples consummate their marriage?

AFAIK, civil marriages do not require consummation.




 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
How is it a religious matter and not a government matter?

Does the government recognize the union of a man and a woman under religious doctrine
to be a marriage? (Yes)

Does the government also perform marriages for a man and a woman? (Yes)
(If you say No, then all the people married by Judges and Captians of ships are not really
married in your opinion then, but hey are recognized by the government.)

Some will say that government accepts the marriages of people under religious context
in order to support the family unit, which helps to make the country stronger and provides
for "good" environments for the children produced in traditional marriages.

So the government decided to accept marriages, then believed it had the right to be an
issuer of marriages for those who could not be married under religious contexts.

Why does marriage have to be solely for the sake of religious context?
Do men and women get married outside of religion?
Are these marriages legal?

I'm not disputing the government performs civil marriages or "accepts" religious ones. My point is not that they do not, rather I'm saying they should not be doing the former. We already have a method in place for people to gain all the benefits of marriage even if they aren't religious or don't care to have a religious ceremony, it's called common law marriage and has been around for centuries. This method obviates the need for government involvement altogether. I could care less what sex they are and have no objection to "gay marriage" per se. As far as I'm concerned the parties involved in the lawsuit are married in every way, whether you consider it ecclesiastically or in common law. I can only shake my head in disbelief that now they need to convince the government of this, or the fact that they feel they need to.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: bsobel
Next we will have people suing so they can marry their pets. Flatout disgusting.

This argument is so patently stupid, yet it keeps coming up. Marriage requires the ability to consent, something that two (or more, but thats a different can of worms) human adults have. As much as you want to marry your goat, the courts do not consider it capable of entering a marriage or any other kind of legal contract.

LOL Hammer>Nail>Head

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Theres lots of legal rights and government benefits granted to spouces is why it's a governmental concern.

Without those they become MINO's (married in name only)
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
I can only shake my head in disbelief that now they need to convince the government of this, or the fact that they feel they need to.

They "feel they need to" because it's the only way to force the government and other institutions to make the various legal protections associated with marriage available to same-sex couples. If your wife falls ill, the hospital is legally obliged to allow you to see her. Not so with a long-term same-sex domestic partnership. Biological relatives of the ill person are free to decide to refuse access to a same-sex partner. If you or your spouse dies without a will, all marital assets will automatically pass to the surviving spouse. That isn't the case with same-sex partnerships, and biological relatives of the deceased are free to claim assets from the same-sex partnership. Their are zillions of other disparities. Married heterosexuals don't have to testify against their spouse in a court of law; same-sex partners are obliged to testify against their partner. Married couples can purchase a joint health insurance policy, same-sex partners can't. Etc. I don't think gay people are seeking access to marriage because of some crazy need for approval from the government of the day, this is more about being able to access basic legal protections and responsibilities (which, for good or bad, are linked to marriage in the US). The fact is, same-sex couples face some serious hardships as a result of not being able to access marriage. E.g., one of the defendents in the Massachucetts marriage case was forced to remain in a hospital waiting room by staff, while his partner died on a bed in the next room. He wasn't allowed in because they weren't married.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: irwincur
Legislating from the bench... another guiding light as to how exactly you can destroy the seperation of powers.


It's interesting that right-wingers call it "legislating from the bench" whenever a court makes a decision that is perceived as being liberal. But if a court makes a "conservative" decision, that (by definition) is "strict construction".

Let's see: The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." Seems like the courts have found constitutional all sorts of laws that make certain speech illegal or unprotected. For example, Libel. Slander. Shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Threatening the President. Broadcasting a boob shot at halftime during the Superbowl. Need I go on? I have a feeling that conservatives would have no problem with the courts affirming THESE types of laws that go against "a literal reading of the Constitution".

No, it's the same conservative hypocrisy as when they kept calling Bill Clinton a liar and tried to impeach him. What are they advocating now that their boy is in the White House and lying in ways that put Clinton to shame?
 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: irwincur
Legislating from the bench... another guiding light as to how exactly you can destroy the seperation of powers.


It's interesting that right-wingers call it "legislating from the bench" whenever a court makes a decision that is perceived as being liberal. But if a court makes a "conservative" decision, that (by definition) is "strict construction".

Let's see: The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." Seems like the courts have found constitutional all sorts of laws that make certain speech illegal or unprotected. For example, Libel. Slander. Shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Threatening the President. Broadcasting a boob shot at halftime during the Superbowl. Need I go on? I have a feeling that conservatives would have no problem with the courts affirming THESE types of laws that go against "a literal reading of the Constitution".

No, it's the same conservative hypocrisy as when they kept calling Bill Clinton a liar and tried to impeach him. What are they advocating now that their boy is in the White House and lying in ways that put Clinton to shame?

You only have your rights until they infringe on the rights of others.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: kotss

I am personally against adoption by homosexuals. I do believe that a child needs a full
time mother and father. I do not fear that a child will become homosexual though
because of being brought up in this environment, unless the parents are "training the child
to be a homosexual". The same could be said of heterosexual parents who train their
children to be of a certain behavorial pattern. So the argument goes both ways.
I just believe a child needs the support of the 2 sexes. This has been my ten cents worth.

In that case, you must also be against adoptions by single parents, right? And what if a woman's husband dies before her child is born? I guess we should force the woman to give her child up for adoption by a heterosexual couple, since "that would be best for the child" (and no bond will have been formed).

I swear, the intellectual dishonesty, the self-delusion, that people will use in order to convince themselves that they have a rational reason for being bigots is limitless.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Dari
Although I have nothing against gay marriage, how can it be legalized when sodomy isn't?

I mean, how else can two gay couples consummate their marriage? Or is that like a white elephant where everyone knows but no one wants to bring it up?


By your reasoning, we should also NOT sanction heterosexual marriages in which oral sex is going to be practiced. In case you didn't know, "sodomy" is defined to be any "unnatural" sexual act. Oral sex is considered sodomy. Also (in case you didn't know) many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex.

And how about mutual masturbation? Is it "wrong" when practiced by two people of the same sex, but "right" when practiced by a heterosexual couple?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its irrelevant. infertile or old hetero couples have nonproductive sex too.

yes, but it's impossible for homosexual couples to have productive sex. Hence, where is the legality in their sexual activity/sodomy?


And it's impossible for an eighty-year-old heterosexual couple to have productive sex. Hence, where is the legality in their sexual activity? Please explain the distinction you're making?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: mwtgg


You only have your rights until they infringe on the rights of others.


Please show me the precise words in the Constitution that make this statement? (Hint: You won't find them.) Or are you engaging in a bit of "interpretation" yourself?

Please understand, I believe the ONLY way the Constitution can be used is by a disciplined interpretation of it. The point I'm making is that conservatives consistently label that intepretion "legislating from the bench" when it results in a liberal outcome. But it's "strict construction" when a conservative result ensues. By using the argument you did, you've proven my point.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Dari
Although I have nothing against gay marriage, how can it be legalized when sodomy isn't?

I mean, how else can two gay couples consummate their marriage? Or is that like a white elephant where everyone knows but no one wants to bring it up?

Lawrence vs. Texas struck down sodomy laws as Unconstitutional.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Now an interesting question.

Will gays and the courts try to force churches to perform gay marriages?

Good question, but if they do it would be a dumb idea in my opinion. Churches can make their own rules as they don't receive public funding, nor should you be able to violate a basic tenant of the separation of church and state.

That being said, glad to see the New York court ruling this. All along this has been about equal protection and the 14th amendment clearly says that all people are supposed to have equal rights. The government turned marriage into a "right" so gays should have that right to marry.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Bloomberg Appeals Gay Marriage Ruling
by Beth Shapiro 365Gay.com New York Bureau

Posted: February 6, 2005 12:01 am. ET

(New York City) Hopes of gay and lesbian couples to wed in New York next month were dashed Saturday by mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The mayor announced that the city would appeal Friday's landmark ruling that declared a state ban on gay marriage violated the New York Constitution. (story)

Bloomberg said that while he believes such marriages should be permitted, "If we did not appeal this I think we would have chaos in this city."

He said that he feared the same sort of legal confusion that followed San Francisco's decision last year to allow same-sex couples to marry. After thousands of gay couples married the state Supreme Court said that the city had acted illegally and it nullified the marriages.

"What you do not want to have is a repetition of California, when many people for a month were misled into thinking they could get the union they so much wanted. ... Their great joy was snatched away, Bloomberg said."

The mayor said that the only way to avoid this was to allow the state's highest court to rule.

"While it's disappointing that couples can't get married right away, we're pleased that the mayor agrees with the judge and many New Yorkers that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry," said Susan Sommer, Supervising Attorney at Lambda Legal and the lead attorney on the New York marriage case.

"We're glad that the city is taking the case directly to the state's highest court for a full and fair hearing and a fast resolution. These families want the case resolved so they can get married.

Sommer also expressed confidence the Appeals Court would uphold Friday's ruling.

"Friday's ruling couldn't be stronger legally -- it's rooted in bedrock constitutional values and freedoms, and it should be upheld on appeal. We're confident that any court taking a good look at these families and at our state's Constitution will reach the same conclusion."

Empire State Pride Agenda also said it believed the appellate court would uphold the ruling.

Alan Van Capelle, Pride Agenda's Executive Director said he was encouraged by Bloomberg's "offer to work with elected officials in Albany to make equal access to marriage the law of New York State."

In her ruling Friday Judge Doris Ling-Cohan said that the New York State Constitution guarantees basic freedoms to lesbian and gay people, and that those rights are violated when same-sex couples are not allowed to marry.

The ruling said the state Constitution requires same-sex couples to have equal access to marriage, and that the couples represented by Lambda Legal must be given marriage licenses.

©365Gay.com 2005
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
this seems like this is going to happen again and again and again.
judge "its legal!"
crowd a: "yeah! finally, victory for civil right?"
crowd b: "boo. failure of tradition/god/moral values!"
dude in power "its illegal!"
crowd a: "haters!"
crowd b: sigh of relief.
judge "its legal!"
 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: mwtgg


You only have your rights until they infringe on the rights of others.


Please show me the precise words in the Constitution that make this statement? (Hint: You won't find them.) Or are you engaging in a bit of "interpretation" yourself?

Please understand, I believe the ONLY way the Constitution can be used is by a disciplined interpretation of it. The point I'm making is that conservatives consistently label that intepretion "legislating from the bench" when it results in a liberal outcome. But it's "strict construction" when a conservative result ensues. By using the argument you did, you've proven my point.

Ok... but what I'm saying is no one has more rights than another person. So your rights end where mine begin.
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Now an interesting question.

Will gays and the courts try to force churches to perform gay marriages?

I don't see how this is an issue. Why would a church be force to marry people?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
If court after court after court finds that laws which limit the institution of marriage (and its consequent advantages) to one man and one woman are unconstitutional, isn't it clear that this isn't just the result of some "activist, liberal judge making law from the bench"? I mean, if ONE court, or a few, found the laws to be unconstitutional, maybe there'd be an argument. But it's become abundantly clear that under the US constitution, these laws really don't pass muster. That is, they limit certain freedoms to only certain classes people. That's a violation of the equal protection clause.

The right-wing response is typical: Since the fundamental laws (the Constitution) of the land are against them, they want to change the fundamental laws. Sounds like, "If I can't win the game, let's change the rules."
 

kotss

Senior member
Oct 29, 2004
267
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: kotss

I am personally against adoption by homosexuals. I do believe that a child needs a full
time mother and father. I do not fear that a child will become homosexual though
because of being brought up in this environment, unless the parents are "training the child
to be a homosexual". The same could be said of heterosexual parents who train their
children to be of a certain behavorial pattern. So the argument goes both ways.
I just believe a child needs the support of the 2 sexes. This has been my ten cents worth.

In that case, you must also be against adoptions by single parents, right? And what if a woman's husband dies before her child is born? I guess we should force the woman to give her child up for adoption by a heterosexual couple, since "that would be best for the child" (and no bond will have been formed).

I swear, the intellectual dishonesty, the self-delusion, that people will use in order to convince themselves that they have a rational reason for being bigots is limitless.

Actually the intellectual dishonesty and bigotry comes from you.
I orginally stated that I am personally against it. I am smart enough to know that I would
not legally stop it.
In no way am I against a loving parent from raising a child.
I just believe that children need the example of both sexes as dominant factors in their
lives. This does not mean I do not understand this does not happen all the time. Sure,
there is divorce or death. That is actually to be expected and does not mean the child
will grow up "wrong". (I used wrong for lack of a better word). My statement was
intended to apply to an environment as ideal as possible for a child. Nothing more, nothing
less.

It seems people are quick to apply labels to others quickly. If you had bothered to read
all of the text of my statement, you would have realized that I am not against
homosexuals from having legal rights as heterosexuals do. It just does not sit well
with me. My opinion, nothing more, nothing less. If you call me a bigot because I do
not like a situation, but I am tolerant of it, then you need to understand the
definition of the word bigot a little better. At least I am willing to speak my mind on the
subject and be honest about it. ( And I am sure this last sentence will be parsed improperly.)
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: kotss
Actually the intellectual dishonesty and bigotry comes from you.
I orginally stated that I am personally against it. I am smart enough to know that I would
not legally stop it.
In no way am I against a loving parent from raising a child.
I just believe that children need the example of both sexes as dominant factors in their
lives. This does not mean I do not understand this does not happen all the time. Sure,
there is divorce or death. That is actually to be expected and does not mean the child
will grow up "wrong". (I used wrong for lack of a better word). My statement was
intended to apply to an environment as ideal as possible for a child. Nothing more, nothing
less.

It seems people are quick to apply labels to others quickly. If you had bothered to read
all of the text of my statement, you would have realized that I am not against
homosexuals from having legal rights as heterosexuals do. It just does not sit well
with me. My opinion, nothing more, nothing less. If you call me a bigot because I do
not like a situation, but I am tolerant of it, then you need to understand the
definition of the word bigot a little better. At least I am willing to speak my mind on the
subject and be honest about it. ( And I am sure this last sentence will be parsed improperly.)

I agree that the word "bigot" gets tossed around too casually on this forum. I am probably guilty of this myself at times.

 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0

Washington Could Be Second State To Legalize Gay Marriage
New York Court Not Likely To Hear Case Until Fall

by Beth Shapiro 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: February 7, 2005 12:01 am. ET


(New York City) In filing its appeal today, to Friday's court ruling in New York that said denying same-sex couples the right to marry was unconstitutional, lawyers for Mayor Michael Bloomberg will ask that the appeal be expedited, but, with a full spring docket, the high court is not likely to hear the case until mid November or December.

As 365Gay.com reported on the weekend, Bloomberg said that while he believes gay marriage should be permitted he feared there would be chaos throughout New York state unless there was a final and definitive ruling from the highest court in the state. (story)

On Friday, Judge Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage violates the New York State Constitution's guarantees of basic freedoms. (story)

Bloomberg's appeal drew jeers when the mayor appeared late Saturday at the Queens Lesbian and Gay Pride Committee's winter dance. On Sunday, City Council speaker Gifford Miller told a news conference that the mayor should pull the appeal. Miller is a candidate for mayor.

With a full docket and an election in November in New York for mayor, it is generally believed, that unless the Court of Appeals clears its case load to hear the appeal this spring - something considered highly unlikely - it will not come before the court until after the November election.

Same-sex marriage rights are also before the courts in a number of other states including New Jersey and California, but one in Washington state will be the first to reach the high court.

The state Supreme Court in Washington will hear arguments March 8.

Lambda Legal and the Northwest Women's Law Center are representing eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in King County last year. (story)

In their brief to the court they argue that the state's prohibition on same-sex couples marrying is a violation of the Washington Constitution. (story)

Two lower courts last year ruled that the state Constitution guarantees basic rights to lesbian and gay people - and that those rights are violated by a state law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Opponents of same-sex marriage appealed to the Washington Supreme Court.

"We believe that the Washington Supreme Court will look closely at the important issues this case raises and come to the same conclusion the lower court reached," said Lambda lawyer Jennifer C. Pizer, one of the lead attorneys in the case.

If the court upholds the lower court rulings, Washington would become the second state after Massachusetts where same-sex couples could legally marry.

©365Gay.com 2005
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
A far-ranging study published in 1978 revealed that
75% of self-identified, white, gay men, admitted to having sex
with more than 100 different males in their lifetime, with 28%
claiming more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Alan P.
Bell and Marin S. Weinberg, HOMOSEXUALITIES: A STUDY OF
DIVERSITY AMONG MEN AND WOMEN 308, Table 7 (1978).
A study published in 1997 produced similar results: of 2,583
homosexuals, only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with
one partner only; the most common response, given by 21.6
percent of the respondents, was of having 101 to 500 lifetime
sex partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., A Comparative
Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually
Active Men, J. SEX RESEARCH 34 (1997).

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control similarly reported an upswing in promiscuity
in San Francisco: from 1994 to 1997, the percentage of
homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected
anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the
largest increase among men under 25. See John R. Diggs, Jr.,
M.D., The Health Risks of Gay Sex (available at
www.corporateresourcecouncil.org) (citing Increases in
Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have
Sex With Men ? San Francisco, California, 1994-1997,
MORTALITY AND MORBIDITY WEEKLY REPORT, CDC, 48(3):
45-48, p. 45 (Jan. 29, 1999)); see also Erica Goode, With
Fears Fading, More Gays Spurn Old Preventive Message,
NEW YORK TIMES, August 19, 2001 (in the past seven years,
while the practice of anal sex had increased, with multi-partner
sex doubling, condom use had declined 20 percent). A 1994
survey of 2500 homosexual men published in the August 23,
1994 issue of THE ADVOCATE revealed that in the past five
years 48% of the men had engaged in ?three-way sex? and
24% had engaged in ?group sex (four or more).?
w w w . f o r t h e c h i l d r e n i n c . c o m / i s s u e s /
homosexuality/TheAgenda/InTheirOwnWords.html.

A long-term monogamous relationship also has a
different meaning among those who engage in homosexual
conduct. ?Gay magazines are . . . celebrating the bigger bang of
sex with strangers or proposing ?monogamy without fidelity? ?
the latest Orwellian formulation to excuse having your cake and
eating it too.? Camille Paglia, I?ll Take Religion Over Gay
Culture, Salon.com online magazine, June 1998 (available at
w w w . f r o n t p a g e m a g . c o m / a r c h i v e s /
guest_column/paglia/gayculture.htm).

Another author praises gay male couples for realizing that sexual fidelity is not necessary to show their love for each other and advocates that gay male
couples can ?provide models and materials for rethinking family
life and improving family law.? Richard D. Mohr, In The Case
for Gay Marriage, 9 NOTRE DAME J. L. ETHICS & PUB.
POL?Y 215, 233 (1995). A recent study reveals that although
46% of gay men attending ?circuit parties? claimed to have a
?primary partner?, 27% of those men ?had multiple sex partners
(oral or anal) during their most recent circuit party weekend . . .
.? Gordon Mansergh, Grant Colfax, et al., The Circuit Party
Men?s Health Survey Findings and Implications for Gay
and Bisexual Men, AM. J. OF PUB. HEALTH 91(6): 953-58
(June 2001).

Given these staggering statistics of sexual promiscuity,
the number of diseases that are found predominantly (and in
some instances, exclusively) among homosexual practitioners
comes as no surprise. Although nearly 64% of men with AIDS
were men who have had sex with men, Basic Statistics, CDC
DIVISION OF HIV/AIDS PREVENTION, June 2001 (available at
www.cdc.gov/ hiv/stats.htm), the list of diseases found with
higher incidence among those engaged in homosexual conduct
does not stop there. ?Reports at a national conference about
sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the
highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases.? Bill
Roundy, STD Rates on the Rise, NEW YORK BLADE NEWS 1,
Dec. 15, 2000 (?the increased number of sexually transmitted
diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual
practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is
no longer a life-threatening illness?); see also Jon Garbo, Gay
and Bi Men Less Likely to Disclose They Have HIV,
GAYHEALTH NEWS, July 18, 2000 (researchers from the
University of California, San Francisco found that 36% of
homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal or vaginal sex
failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex
p a r t n e r s ) ( a v a i l a b l e a t www.gayhealth.com/templates/0/news?record=136).

The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency
among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal sex
include: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium,
giardia lablia, herpes simplex virus, HIV, HPV, isospora belli,
microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C, syphilis.
John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., The Health Risks of GaySex 3
(available at www.corporateresourcecouncil.org). ?Sexual
transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the
exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually
unknown.? Id. at 3 (emphasis added). Another disease found
almost exclusively among homosexual practitioners is ?Gay
Bowel Syndrome? ? ?sexually transmitted gastrointestinal
syndromes.? STD Treatment Guidelines: Proctitis, Proctocolitis,
and Enteritis, (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention 1993) (available at www.amaassn.
org/special/std/treatmnt/guide/stdg3470.htm); see also
Jack Morin, ANAL PLEASURE AND HEALTH: A GUIDE FOR
MEN AND WOMEN 22 (1998) (explaining that homosexual
sexual activities ?provide many opportunities for tiny amounts of
contaminated feces to find their way into the mouth of the sexual
partner . . . the most direct route is oral-anal contact?).

As for the diseases that are also found among
heterosexuals, individuals engaged in homosexual conduct
constitute the largest percentage of many of those diseases,
including anal cancer, HIV, HPV (a collection of viruses that
can cause warts, or papillomas, on various body parts) and
syphilis. For example, 85% of the syphilis cases reported in
the Seattle area of Washington in 1999 were among selfidentified
homosexual practitioners. Diggs, supra, at 3-4.
Syphilis among male homosexual practitioners is at epidemic
levels in San Francisco. Id. HPV also is ?almost universal?
among those men. Bill Roundy, STDs Up Among Gay Men:
CDC Says Rise is Due to HIV Misperceptions , THE
WASHINGTON BLADE, Dec. 8, 2000 (available at
www.washblade.com/health/a). While the incidence of anal
cancer in the United States is only .9/100,000, the number
soars to 35/100,000 for those engaged in homosexual conduct.
Bob Roehr, Anal Cancer and You, BETWEEN THE LINES, Nov.
16, 2000 (available at www.pridesource.com/cgibin/article?
article=3835560).

Lesbians are also at increased risk for certain diseases,
including cancer, hepatitis C, and bacteria vaginosis,
predominantly because they are ?significantly more likely to
report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man
and sexual contact with an IDU (intravenous drug user).?
Katherine Fethers et al., Sexually Transmitted Infections and
Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women ,
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS 345-47. Although rare,
a Philadelphia woman recently tested positive for HIV as a
result of ?shared sex toys? with her HIV-positive bisexual
f e m a l e p a r t n e r . S e e
www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=7628&sd=01/31/03.


Found here. It is pdf format.

Dave
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: petrek
A far-ranging study published in 1978 revealed that
75% of self-identified, white, gay men, admitted to having sex
with more than 100 different males in their lifetime, with 28%
claiming more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.

Gay men are promiscuous, therefore gays and lesbians should be denied basic rights and protections? I'd be interested to know where they got their sample of gay men from. Bath houses in the Castro? Even if a majority of gay men are promiscuous (I don't think that is true) then so what? Heterosexuals aren't required to demonstrate a capacity for monogamy before obtaining a marriage licence. Why should gay people be held to a higher standard? The fact is, there are considerable numbers of same-sex couples in long-term, committed, monogamous relationships, and those people should be able to marry.