For or Against Gay Marriage

[Cre8ivE]

Originally posted by joebrummer
And I hope that gay marriage comes to my state before a situation comes where my partner and I are not protected. We have been to the lawyer and have tons of papers, But there are somethings we just can't have unless you are married. Even if it is a Civil Union, you know that every right you try to use someone will test. Marriage is portable. It cannot be tested.

As I would have to qualify under Civil Union myself, as I do not have a marriage 'license' - who needs to ask permission (and from whom I might add) to get married??!! I want neither the 'benefits' (legal ability to divorce??) of a marriage license, nor it's governances (state and federal agencies' legal access to your life - and children - by said contract...)

I think the problem we get into is when we 'test our rights', as compared to simply 'excercising our rights'. When we go out of our way to make people take notice of our excersise of basic rights, that's when the "sheeple" perk up and say "hey, via mob-ocracy, we say 'h@|| no'", and flex their (relatively) ignorant political muscle. And quickly realize who REALLY runs the country when things are removed from the people's hands and enforced by federal govt. via Supreme Court fiat.

From: stateline.org
http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?...Info&id=353058
...
“It is always wrong to put basic rights up to a popular vote,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide on marriage equality and it will base its decision on the U.S. Constitution, not anything in any of the state constitutions.” ...

Interesting how Matt got it right in the first part of his quote, but then he applies for the Supreme court to 'make it right' based on the federal Constitution...when, in the attendant Bill of Rights (IX & X) it states:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Marriage is not enumerated therin, so it must be reserved to the people (local municipalities) to decide regulation

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. .

If a power (to determine the definition of marriage?) is NOT explicity delegated to the federal government, and not explicitly prohibited to the states, that ability is governed by the States' or the peoples' (local) regulations respectively.

Now, since the US Constitution took no effort to enumerate 'marriage' rights AT ALL, the individual States (should) have the power to pass such amendments to their constitutions or generate such laws as they deem necessary (as some have, good or bad), or the people may create regulations at a local level if the State chooses not to.

If we as a society try to push 'gay' marriage (or any other personal choice issues) through Supreme Court interpretation of some 'inferred' right or federal power that does not follow the 9th and 10th Amendments' directive, we open the floodgates (figuratively) for any group to push for similar protections. We then have the "putting up of basic rights to a popular vote" at the Federal level so to speak, as anyone with enough backing can (repeatedly, with slight change to the premise) bring suit to the US Supreme Court and vie for an 'acceptable interpretation' of their 'issue'.

Removing the decision from the people's hands and placing it in the hands of an influencable few - when you get right down to it - is the intent of the PACs involved anyhow...

[JPSartre12]

Originally Posted by JakeCJB

It does state that MSM are statistically considered a high risk category in the U.S. So yes, a high percentage of cases would come high-risk parnters such as bi-sexual men, "OR HIV-INFECTED MEN", "OR HIV-INFECTED MEN WITH UNSPECIFIED RISKS". It's being transmitted by heterosexual sex, as I said before. If I get a disease from my partner, why should I put the blame on the person who gave it to my partner?

It's not about "blame", it's about stemming the spread of infection. And the TWO biggest routes for HIV spreading are gay men and intravenous drug use. Intravenous drug use is already illegal. The other avenue to explore is to discourage homosexual activity. And THAT isn't done by rewarding homosexuality as a lifestyle.

[joebrummer]

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

It's not about "blame", it's about stemming the spread of infection. And the TWO biggest routes for HIV spreading are gay men and intravenous drug use. Intravenous drug use is already illegal. The other avenue to explore is to discourage homosexual activity. And THAT isn't done by rewarding homosexuality as a lifestyle.

Has it ever occurred to you right wingers that maybe the solution is to raise healthier homosexuals. You will never make homosexuality go away, it has been here for thousands of years or more. For all of the ways people have tried to make it go way, most or all have failed. Even so called reparitive Therapy only seem to claim a 1% success rate. Promiscuity is a sign of low self esteem and growing up in a society that dooms you from the start creates low self esteem. Maybe society should try to raise homosexuals that don't have sex outside marriage. Then let them get married. Maybe we should also teach better sex education in schools focusing on safe sex practices for both hetero and gay students. Promote an enviroment where gays and lesbians grow up feeling good about themself and take care of themselves becasue of it.

Just my rambling for the week!

[JakeCJB]

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

It's not about "blame", it's about stemming the spread of infection. And the TWO biggest routes for HIV spreading are gay men and intravenous drug use. Intravenous drug use is already illegal. The other avenue to explore is to discourage homosexual activity. And THAT isn't done by rewarding homosexuality as a lifestyle.

You are scapegoating gays(by the way msm are not necessarily gay). If heterosexuals want to stem HIV/AIDS they should practice protected sex and eliminate the single biggest risk factor, which is unprotected sex. The same thing applies gays. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it doesn't matter who rubbed the lamp.

The CDC also cites poverty as a risk factor, and states African Americans are at higher risk.

You can't say, as I believe you have tried to previously, that homosexuality causes HIV in the same way that smoking causes lung cancer. There is a direct link between smoking itself and lung cancer. HIV is a sexually transmitted virus. Homosexuality is not the way HIV is transmitted. Sex itself is the way HIV is transmitted, in the same way that smoking causes lung cancer.

[JPSartre12]

Originally Posted by JakeCJB

You are scapegoating gays(by the way msm are not necessarily gay). If heterosexuals want to stem HIV/AIDS they should practice protected sex and eliminate the single biggest risk factor, which is unprotected sex. The same thing applies gays. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it doesn't matter who rubbed the lamp.

The CDC also cites poverty as a risk factor, and states African Americans are at higher risk.

You can't say, as I believe you have tried to previously, that homosexuality causes HIV in the same way that smoking causes lung cancer. There is a direct link between smoking itself and lung cancer. HIV is a sexually transmitted virus. Homosexuality is not the way HIV is transmitted. Sex itself is the way HIV is transmitted, in the same way that smoking causes lung cancer.

I'm amazed that you want to continue arguing that homosexuality isn't the major cause of HIV spreading in the US. Here's some more data for you to chew on.

Researchers ID Risk Factors for Heterosexual HIV Transmission
Source: http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1997/08/826_aids.htm

In the nation's largest and longest study of heterosexual HIV transmission, UCSF researchers found transmission rates remain extremely low. Those rates, they said, could be even lower by eliminating certain risk factors identified by the study.

The researchers estimate the odds of a an HIV-positive male infecting a female partner in an unprotected sexual encounter is about 9 in 10,000. The chances are even lower for female-to-male infections. Females are about eight times more likely than males to become infected by their HIV-positive partners, says study principal investigator Nancy Padian, PhD, UCSF assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences.

The study also found that the practice of anal sex, lack of condom use, injection drug use and the presence of a sexually transmitted disease (STD) are the best predictors of infection.

"We now know many of the risk factors that affect the likelihood of transmission between infected individuals and their heterosexual partners," she says. "Elimination or modification of these factors would result in reduced transmission of HIV."

Obviously, it does matter who rubs the bottle.

[JPSartre12]

Originally Posted by joebrummer

Has it ever occurred to you right wingers that maybe the solution is to raise healthier homosexuals. You will never make homosexuality go away, it has been here for thousands of years or more. For all of the ways people have tried to make it go way, most or all have failed. Even so called reparitive Therapy only seem to claim a 1% success rate. Promiscuity is a sign of low self esteem and growing up in a society that dooms you from the start creates low self esteem. Maybe society should try to raise homosexuals that don't have sex outside marriage. Then let them get married. Maybe we should also teach better sex education in schools focusing on safe sex practices for both hetero and gay students. Promote an enviroment where gays and lesbians grow up feeling good about themself and take care of themselves becasue of it.

Just my rambling for the week!

In my opinion healthier homosexual is an oxymoron, but that's just my opinion.
So do you think that if we raise kids with high self-esteem, maybe less of them will become gay as well? I don't buy your argument. If you look at the performance of American students on standardized tests and compare their results to other developed countries, a couple of facts emerge. 1. We aren't as smart as everybody else. 2. We have a higher self-esteem than everybody else.
With all of the touchy-feely programs in public schools pumping kids' egos up and the lengths that are gone to not negatively affect a student, why would anyone feel doomed?

[JakeCJB]

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

I'm amazed that you want to continue arguing that homosexuality isn't the major cause of HIV spreading in the US. Here's some more data for you to chew on.

What exactly is that supposed to tell me? It talked about different risk factors among heterosexuals, and showed men can transmit the virus more easily to women, than women can to men. Why would you be amazed that I tell anyone gay or straight, not to play Russian roulette with their bodies, and use protection, whatever the odd ratios are? The disease among heterosexuals has not stopped. The number of women with it continue to rise. It has increased greatly since the disease first appeared.

"Increase in Heterosexually Acquired HIV Infection Validated"
Reuters Health Information Services (01/05/99)
Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
report in the January issue of the American Journal of
Epidemiology that most patients with heterosexually acquired AIDS
have a valid heterosexual risk of exposure to HIV, supporting
reports of an emerging heterosexual AIDS epidemic in the United
States. Dr. R. Monina Klevens and others at the CDC investigated
heterosexual risk among almost 2,000 patients aged 13 years or
older who reported heterosexual risk or no risk for HIV
infection; heterosexual risk was validated in 82 percent of the
subjects. About one-fifth of the men and over half of the women
who initially reported no risk factors for the virus were
determined to have most likely contracted HIV heterosexually.
The authors suggest that heath care workers make determined
efforts to identify and record accurate information for people
infected with HIV and that there be periodic re-examination of
patient risk factors to ensure data accuracy.

http://www.cdcnpin.org/PrevNews/1999...date010699.txt

Women
Women make up nearly one-third of new HIV infections. 4

In 1992, women accounted for 13.8% of people living with AIDS 5; by the end of 2001 that percentage had increased to 21%. 6

Among women, sexual contact accounts for 75% of infections. 7
http://www.cdcnpin.org/scripts/hiv/hiv.asp#women

Heterosexuals do not have any kind of natural protection against this virus. If they do, it isn't working very well. If the HIV virus discriminated by gay sexual contact in the U.S., there wouldn't be rising rates resulting from heterosexual contact.

[firstthings1st.]

Hello ! , and how're you'll doing? , but about this issue of:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...Search+the+Web

But! , in view of the above Question, I' am against for the below views! , if interested:

"For or Against Gay Marriage"/for the way that some people are living this way of life/ Gay or Not!/or just plain having their way with each-other! with whatever way that seem good enough for them, and maybe as what other people are doing in secret or open/or whatever it takes to satisify themselfs in the flesh, whether gay!/ or not, for some people just won't stop until God will stop/expose them! , but also since this issue of the subject matter of Gay! marriage for or against! , really puts me in-mind of what the scriptures point to the day of Sodom And Gomorrah/Genesis 18: and 19: all verses. also looking at II Chronicles 7:14,

well! since some judges are still "?"/it is no telling/and some people in secret or open! We are standing on the promises of God Words of Life: Matthew 4:4, John 3:16, Philippians 2:12, Romans 1:"16"-As Paul have said!/but now I' am also saying and living the same words of life, -but not as someone else like in:-18-32-2:1-11-21-29. , I John 2:16.

I see that since I wanted to know the truth of taking heed of myself and of why it would make what difference in my life some-where down the road for lusting after after the wrong things! , Deut. 4:9 , Ps. 51:10-13 , Matthew 5:6, Matthew 6:33

Also as it was in the days of: Genises 18:1-"9-22"-33. , 19: (All verses) , and so SHALL IT BE IN THESE END-TIMES DAY OF LIFE ON THIS EARTH FOR THE 2ND COMMING OF THE SON OF MAN ON THE CLOUDS OF GLORY! , but look like to me, only those who care about looking for our Saviour's Glorious Appearing!, but we all shall SHALL BE JUDGED OUT OF THE BOOKS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THE LAMBS BOOK OF LIFE FOR SURE! "The Judgement Seat of Christ" : Rev. 21: 1-"27" -Lamb's book of life. Dan. 12: 1. Phil. 4: 3. Rev. 3: 5. 13: 8. 20: 12. , II Corinthians 5:"10-15".

http://www.ldolphin.org/Jseat.html ..... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search <P>

Love you'll always, Fr: http://www.firstthings1st.com

[Kaill]

"Marriage has always been between a man and a woman ... This sounds more like a temper tantrum than an argument" - Dr. Davina Kotulski

Please see the following installment of my column "Beyond God & Evil" for my own take on this subject.

http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/beyond...=1321_0_28_0_M

Derek Kaill, president of the Humanist Association of London and Area (Ontario, Canada)

[Perry5]

First came man,then came sex,and lastly came the insanity that we call religian and rightiousnes.

[JPSartre12]

Originally Posted by Kaill

"Marriage has always been between a man and a woman ... This sounds more like a temper tantrum than an argument" - Dr. Davina Kotulski

Please see the following installment of my column "Beyond God & Evil" for my own take on this subject.

http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/beyond...=1321_0_28_0_M

Derek Kaill, president of the Humanist Association of London and Area (Ontario, Canada)

Since we have a bona fide "Humanist" amongst us, I have a few questions about the Humanist Manifesto III. I'm particularly interested in how the following passage is meant:

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

1. How do you propose to "minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability"?
2.Is this just an extension of Karl Marx's "from each according to his means; to each according to his needs"?
3. What is a just distribution of nature's resources? Does that mean that everyone in the world is entitled to benefit from Middle Eastern oil, for example?
4. How does one distribute the fruits of human effort justly?
5. Is it fair to characterize Modern Humanism as an offshoot of Socialism?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

[Kaill]

Jean Paul,

In the sixties, you worked closely with a great humanist, Bertrand Russell. Didn't you and he ever discuss these compassion/empathy-based aspects of humanism?

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

1. How do you propose to "minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability"?
2.Is this just an extension of Karl Marx's "from each according to his means; to each according to his needs"?
3. What is a just distribution of nature's resources? Does that mean that everyone in the world is entitled to benefit from Middle Eastern oil, for example?
4. How does one distribute the fruits of human effort justly?
5. Is it fair to characterize Modern Humanism as an offshoot of Socialism?

The Humanist Manifesto's title itself causes many to assume that humanism is synonymous with communism.

1: From building wheelchair ramps to financial aid to developing nations, all the way to universal healthcare.
2: Humanism predates Marxism by several centuries. Although I'd say Marx was for the most part a humanist.
3: Approximately. (Oil is a long conversation)
4: In large cloth bags? Sorry, I don't understand how you would like me to answer this question.
5: Many, but not all modern humanists, define themselves as socialists. Modern humanism is an "offshoot" of humanism. The political system known as socialism came much, much later in world history.

I should note that (to my chagrin) some modern humanists define their philosophy as nothing more than atheism. In fact, there are Randian libertarians who call themselves humanists.

I expect you figured I might be entirely defensive about the suggestion of communism/socialism. I live in Canada (or Kanada, as some republicans prefer), and grew up with less "Commies are evil! Bread lines! Russians wanna nuke us 'cause they're pinkos! Dem dere Ruskies and our -dom of speech! Kill! Kill! Kill!" than other peoples in the Western world. (I'm not saying that you seem ignorant to me JP. You don't)

In closing, I should say that I've NEVER met a humanist (and I've met hundreds) who told me they thought heart surgeons and gas station attendants should make the same amount of money.

Hope you're well,
Derek

[JPSartre12]

Originally Posted by Kaill

Jean Paul,

In the sixties, you worked closely with a great humanist, Bertrand Russell. Didn't you and he ever discuss these compassion/empathy-based aspects of humanism?

Don't let my name fool you. I am, in reality, Dr. Jekyl to JPSartre's Mr Hyde.

The Humanist Manifesto's title itself causes many to assume that humanism is synonymous with communism.

1: From building wheelchair ramps to financial aid to developing nations, all the way to universal healthcare.

Do humanists believe that these acts of charity should be coerced from the population or freely given?

2: Humanism predates Marxism by several centuries. Although I'd say Marx was for the most part a humanist.

I would agree with your assessment.

3: Approximately. (Oil is a long conversation)

I'm interested in how one would go about "sharing" the resources possessed by another. What mechanism do humanists believe should be employed to assure compliance?

4: In large cloth bags? Sorry, I don't understand how you would like me to answer this question.

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough in my query. How does one justly distribute the fruits of ANOTHER'S efforts? For example, if 10 men are given the task of farming a 100 acre plot, but only 9 of those men actually contribute their efforts to farm the plot. Do all 10 men share equally in the harvest?

5: Many, but not all modern humanists, define themselves as socialists. Modern humanism is an "offshoot" of humanism. The political system known as socialism came much, much later in world history.

Given humanist philosophy, I don't see how one could be anything but a socialist, but the same can probably be said about Christians, too.

I should note that (to my chagrin) some modern humanists define their philosophy as nothing more than atheism. In fact, there are Randian libertarians who call themselves humanists.

I'm aware that there are as many forms of humanism as there are colors in the rainbow, including secular and religious humanists.

I expect you figured I might be entirely defensive about the suggestion of communism/socialism. I live in Canada (or Kanada, as some republicans prefer), and grew up with less "Commies are evil! Bread lines! Russians wanna nuke us 'cause they're pinkos! Dem dere Ruskies and our -dom of speech! Kill! Kill! Kill!" than other peoples in the Western world. (I'm not saying that you seem ignorant to me JP. You don't)

I know that Canada doesn't share the same aversion to the words "socialism or communism" that we have in the States. Living just north of Canada in the Detroit subs, I have lots of daily contact with Canadians. (I'm a big fan of Ontarians and a detractor of French Canadians, in general.) Our histories and philosophies ARE different. While Canadians seem to be more collectivist in their thinking, Americans tend to stress individuality.

In closing, I should say that I've NEVER met a humanist (and I've met hundreds) who told me they thought heart surgeons and gas station attendants should make the same amount of money.

So, there is hope that humanists aren't totally committed to wealth redistribution, eh?

Hope you're well,
Derek

I am fine and hope you are the same. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

[Perry5]

There must be poverty or there will be no slaves to do the work.

[Devils Advocate]

God says marraige is between a man and a man (Psalm 5:91 "Thou shalt not be heterosexual"). Allowing opposite sex marraiges will undermine our holy fathers sacred institution, and it will propogate the evil democratic practice of heterosexuality! We must stop heterosexualness, before it pollutes our children into abandoning homosexuality!