Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Dixie said:
Several studies have reported an increased risk of acquiring a communicable disease from homosexual sex than with heterosexual sex. However, all sexual transmitted diseases effecting homosexuals also effect heterosexuals.

AIDS -- As of 1998, 54% of all AIDS cases in the United States were homosexual men and the Center for Disease Control stated that nearly 90 percent of these men (48% of new cases) acquired HIV through sexual activity with other men.[18] In Western nations, HIV is overrepresented in homosexuals, however worldwide, the vast majority of HIV cases are among heterosexuals. [19]

Intestinal Parasites --An article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated the following in its abstract: "In a controlled study 67.5% of 200 homosexual men but only 16% of 100 heterosexual men were found to be infected with intestinal parasites"...These findings suggest that the male homosexual community may be an important reservoir of potentially pathogenic protozoa." [20] If left untreated, these parasites can cause an increased occurrences of stomach flu or liver problems.

Syphilis --According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC):
"While surveillance data are not available by risk behavior, a separate CDC analysis suggests that approximately 64 percent of all adult P&S syphilis cases in 2004 were among men who have sex with men, up from an estimated 5 percent in 1999....Syphilis increases, especially among men who have sex with men, demonstrate the need to continually adapt our strategies to eliminate syphilis in the United States,” said Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, acting director of CDC’s HIV, STD and TB prevention programs."[21]

Gonorrhea --The CDC had the following to report concerning gonorrhea:
"CDC conducted sentinel surveillance in 28 cities and found the proportion of cases resistant to fluoroquinolone antibiotics (a first-line treatment for gonorrhea) increased from 4.1 percent in 2003 to 6.8 percent in 2004. Resistance is especially worrisome in men who have sex with men, where it was eight times higher than among heterosexuals (23.8 percent vs. 2.9 percent). In April 2004, CDC recommended that fluoroquinolones no longer be used as treatment for gonorrhea among men who have sex with men. These antibiotics were also not recommended to treat the disease in anyone in California or Hawaii, where resistance has been widespread for years. Outside of these states, the prevalence of fluoroquinolone resistance among heterosexuals remains low at 1.3 percent." [22]

Mental Health --Recent studies indicate that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse). However, research has only proven correllation, not causation. Many studies caution that social stigma may be to blame for such psychiatric problems. [23]

Also, a national survey of lesbians was published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology which found that 75 percent of the approximate 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some type, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness. [24]



What in the hell gives YOU the goddamn right to determine this????????

You keep saying... Children aren't capable of this and that... but that is a moral constraint YOU established! Did you ask the children? How the fuck do YOU know they aren't just as fucking capable of making sound and rational decisions and choices as YOU or any Homosexual are? That is YOUR established criteria based on YOUR moral judgment and IMPOSED on others!!! Hypocrite!



LMAO... I didn't say I was trying to protect homos! WTF? Where do you people get this stupid shit?



Circa 75 years ago: A conversation about the possibility that one day, men will seek to marry other men! "You pretend that this nonsense will be compelling in a court of law, that the judges must bend to your illogic. They would laugh you out of court!"
Click to expand...


Everyone of the studies you cited, are just as prevelant among hetrosexuals who have multiple partners.

Circa 5 years in the future: A conversation about societies norms. "I can't believe that people actually wanted to deny a segment of society the same civil right of two consenting adults being able to marry. Thankfully those that believed this are now confined in mental wards and heavily medicated."
 
Southern Man said:
Queers are more likely to be pedophiles than non-queers.
Click to expand...

Interesting point but a LIE
-http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

QUOTE: Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:

Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

AND

In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).

This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn't a priority. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the 1994 study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about gay people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994).


WHY LIE SOUTHERN MAN??????
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
It is not a moral constraint that I established. It has been establsihed in common law and devloped over centuries.
Click to expand...

WOW... Exactly like Traditional Marriage!

You pretend that your consern is that homosexuals are getting into something that they are not capable of understanding. This is the reason for contraints on children and it is permitted because the state has an interest in protecting children. For your argument to fly you would have to argue that the state had a legitimate interests in protecting homosexuals.
Click to expand...

I didn't "pretend" any such thing. You make the argument this is why we don't allow children to marry, and I pointed out that some people make that same exact argument for why homosexuals shouldn't marry. Replace "children" with "family" and you have the exact same argument, the problem is, your personal morals condone homosexuality, and others don't. You want to establish laws based on what YOU think is moral and right, like you are a fucking KING or something, and WE have to live by whatever moral standard YOU THE KING establish for us... THIS sexual deviance is okay--THAT sexual deviance is not! Why? Because Stringy says so!

See, this is what I am talking about. You have no clue about what the court accepts as reasonable argument. In your mind they just make up whatever crazy shit they want and go with it. But if you would bother to look into it you would see they base it on a much more stable foundation than that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they base it on PRECEDENT! Once a law is on the books that was established to accommodate Homosexual behavior, then any and all sexually deviant behavior has a LEGITIMATE right to make the case for EQUAL PROTECTION under the law, and you have absolutely NO basis on which to deny them said protections.

And I don't know if I would say 75 years ago. But after Loving, it should have been predictable. They would have still likely found some way to prevent it, but they would not have had any precednt to back them up.
Click to expand...

Again, the point was.... 75 years ago, I am certain there were people who would have thought it INSANE to even think we'd see a day where men wanted to marry men! They would have been just as unbelieving of that, as you currently are about children and age of consent, or people marrying their pets! While it seems "far fetched" now, it might not be in 75 years, especially if we start traveling down the road of moral relativism, as you wish to do.
 
Dixie said:
Several studies have reported an increased risk of acquiring a communicable disease from homosexual sex than with heterosexual sex. However, all sexual transmitted diseases effecting homosexuals also effect heterosexuals.

AIDS -- As of 1998, 54% of all AIDS cases in the United States were homosexual men and the Center for Disease Control stated that nearly 90 percent of these men (48% of new cases) acquired HIV through sexual activity with other men.[18] In Western nations, HIV is overrepresented in homosexuals, however worldwide, the vast majority of HIV cases are among heterosexuals. [19]

!"[/I][/B]
Click to expand...


Anybody else see this from Dixie?:palm:
 
Ice Dancer said:
The Annals of Homosexuality

Anyone debating homosexuality should at least read this article.
Click to expand...

Here's something I found especially interesting.

(Excerpt) The proposal made before the Assembly of the A.P.A. on May 3, 1975 made it a requirement that any sexual condition, in order to be termed a disorder, must "coexist with distress." For example, a fetishist must experience distress to be considered as having a disorder……….

It was obvious that this requirement ran counter to everything we know dynamically about mechanisms involved in these serious disturbances. For example, the enactment of any perversion helps keep the individual in equilibrium and neutralizes anxiety. It has been unconsciously specifically fashioned for this purpose. Therefore, the presence or absence of anxiety cannot be an adequate criterion to use when determining whether the condition is a disorder or not. (End)

When talking about deviant sexual behavior frequently people say, "Why would they do that knowing it's wrong?" However, according to the foregoing "the enactment of any perversion helps keep the individual in equilibrium and neutralizes anxiety." In other words it brings the person back to "normal".

Similar, in many respects, to an alcoholic/drug addict. They reach a point (withdrawal) where the alcohol/drug is not taken to feel high but to get out of the low and back to normal.
 
Dixie said:
Even better question... How many states disallow homosexuality?
Click to expand...

Don't change the subject, just anwer the fucking question!! :cof1:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqfVzJhBRU4&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqfVzJhBRU4&feature=related[/ame]
 
PostmodernProphet said:
feel free to raise this issue the next time someone asks you if you choose to be black...
Click to expand...


They didnt break the law back then for being black in my example. According to my link it was against the law for the choice they made for a spouse(just like the same problem with homosexual and marriage today)........TRY to keep up, will ya:good4u:
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
False premise based on a radical and extreme view. Thankfully we are far more reasonable in our laws which allow us to make, at the very least, later term abortions illegal.

Nothing should die just because you think a life might be harder than you judge it should be. That's a ridiculous assessment based in elitism and denies the worth of those who you deem to be in conditions that "may be hard"...
Click to expand...

Check out a hospital specializing in sick children.

It's not elitism. It is preventing a child from needless suffering.
 
apple0154 said:
Check out a hospital specializing in sick children.

It's not elitism. It is preventing a child from needless suffering.
Click to expand...

And of course, at least according to your logic, all POOR children are unwanted and will be subject to a lifetime of abuse and neglect.
And none of them will ever rise above their situation. :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And of course, at least according to your logic, all POOR children are unwanted and will be subject to a lifetime of abuse and neglect.
And none of them will ever rise above their situation. :good4u:
Click to expand...

I never said nor suggested all poor children were unwanted. Many have caring and supportive parents, however, if the poverty is such the child suffers from a lack of food, shelter and medical care that's another story.

Some do rise above their situation. The fact is it's relatively rare. That's why when it happens there is usually a story about it. It's far more common for children who come from inadequate homes to drop out of school, join gangs, live in poverty and/or end up in jail.
 
apple0154 said:
I never said nor suggested all poor children were unwanted. Many have caring and supportive parents, however, if the poverty is such the child suffers from a lack of food, shelter and medical care that's another story.

Some do rise above their situation. The fact is it's relatively rare. That's why when it happens there is usually a story about it. It's far more common for children who come from inadequate homes to drop out of school, join gangs, live in poverty and/or end up in jail.
Click to expand...

But that's becasue children who come from parents with more money, never drop out of school, join gangs, live in poverty, and/or end up in jail. :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Don't change the subject, just anwer the fucking question!! :cof1:
Click to expand...

Oh okay... that's easy enough! In fact I'll answer that one and a few more...

How many states disallow swingers to marry?

NONE!

How many states disallow homosexuals to marry?

NONE! (marriage is 1 man + 1 woman)

How many states allow swingers to marry all their swinging partners?

NONE!

How many states allow pedophiles to marry children?

NONE!

How many states allow people to marry their pets?

NONE!

How may states allow boyfriends to marry their dead girlfriend?

NONE!


Any more STUPID QUESTIONS???
 
Dixie said:
Oh okay... that's easy enough! In fact I'll answer that one and a few more...

How many states disallow swingers to marry?

NONE!

How many states disallow homosexuals to marry?

NONE! (marriage is 1 man + 1 woman)

How many states allow swingers to marry all their swinging partners?

NONE!

How many states allow pedophiles to marry children?

NONE!

How many states allow people to marry their pets?

NONE!

How may states allow boyfriends to marry their dead girlfriend?

NONE!


Any more STUPID QUESTIONS???
Click to expand...

But all the States will soon change their positions and will allow same sex marriages, between consenting adults.

You'll just have to accept this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top