Deep Shame

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jon_forward
how about you wear the shoe for awhile bully....why oh why are you so adamently for gay marriage...

Why not? Are you familiar with the concept of equal protection under the law? Many of the same arguments being made here against the marriage of same gender couples are the same ones used to deny the marriages of mixed-race couples up until the 1960's.

As for HIV, it started amongst the heterosexual population in West Africa. It is not a "gay-disease". It's an equal opportunity killer.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Hmmmm....Take a look at what passes for entertainment on MTV and in most movies.

The disgusting displays involve mostly heterosexuals. Exhibitionism is practised by freaks of all persuasions. But we shouldn't punish decent people who want to go about their private lives because of it.

Private lives? I hardly think it's private anymore.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Big D
School achievements

The major finding of the study was that family type made a significant difference to the children's school achievements. Children in families with their married biological parents scored best of the three groups (on a scale from 1 to 9) in language ability (7.7), mathematics (7.9) and sport (8.9). Children of cohabiting couples generally did next best in these areas (6.8, 7.0 and 8.3), while children of homosexuals scored lowest (5.5, 5.5, 5.9). Social studies was the only exception to this trend - all scores were similar, with children of homosexuals doing slightly better (7.6) than those of married couples (7.3), who were slightly ahead of children of cohabiting couples (7.0).

More pointless statistics...

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
As for HIV, it started amongst the heterosexual population in West Africa. It is not a "gay-disease". It's an equal opportunity killer.

Do you realize that AIDS originated from monkeys?

 

[wonderwench]

I find this thread to be both fascinating and depressing.

Many people here who stand up for America and our form of government have no concept that the Consitution was designed in order to protect all individiuals - including minorities.

de Tocqueville warned about the Tyrrany of the Majority. This situation is a textbook case. The true test of liberty is whether one is willing to defend the rights of people who live their lives in a very different manner than one's own.

In the case of homosexuals who want to live private lives in committed relationships, I for one am willing to defend their right to do so.

 

[eric]

Notice there was no response to my post :

No one cares what you do in the privacy of your bedroom, but to condone it by giving it a legal status is a different story. Once you open the floodgates watch out, now where will it end. How about having more than one wife, why can I not marry 3 women, this way all three would receive legal protections afforded a wife ? If I am a farmer why can't I marry one of my sheep ! This may sound stupid to you, but to me two people of the same sex marrying also sounds silly and vile !

Tell me where equal protection should stop, and don't dare use morals as a marker, because my morals dictate that homosexuality is vile, un-natural, and revolting !

 

[wonderwench]

No one is forcing you to have a homosexual relationship.

 

[Big D]

Health

The physical and mental health of prospective adoptive parents is an important consideration. For example, Queensland adoption criteria include the requirement that applicants must "not be suffering from a physical or mental condition, or have a physical or mental disability, to an extent that the person could not provide a high level of stable, long-term care for a child."

It is widely acknowledged that homosexual men suffer from a disproportionately high rate of sexually transmitted diseases. When AIDS was first observed in 1981 it was called GRIDS (Gay Related Immunodeficiency Syndrome) since all cases seemed to be in homosexual men. It was later discovered in those who injected drugs, and other groups. During the past 20 years, millions of dollars have been spent on educating the homosexual community to practise so-called "safe sex", with the prediction that HIV/AIDS would cease to be a particularly "gay disease" in Australia. However this prediction has not come true.

The Annual Surveillance Report for HIV/AIDS in the year 2000 states: "Transmission of HIV in Australia continues to be overwhelmingly through sexual contact between men. Approximately 85% of all HIV transmissions in Australia were estimated to have been via this route. Similarly, most reported diagnoses of newly acquired HIV infection were in men who were exposed through homosexual contact."

Moreover, the HIV/AIDS Report notes that the "Sydney Gay Community Periodic Survey, a 6-monthly cross sectional survey of gay and other homosexually active men, has recently detected an increase in the proportion of residents reporting unprotected anal sex with casual partners. The proportion increased from 14% of respondents reporting unprotected anal sex with casual partners in February 1996 to 28% in August 1997 and 32% in 1999... the number of (men with rectal gonorrhoea) in NSW has increased steadily, from 72 in 1997 to 195 in 1999."

Lesbians have problems similar to, but generally not as pronounced as, male homosexuals - according to the largest-ever study of Sydney lesbians. In the year 2000, 1432 lesbian women who visited a Sydney sexually transmitted infections (STI) clinic between 1991 and 1998 were interviewed. The lesbians were matched to a group of heterosexual controls. Both sets of women were tested for sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, genital herpes and genital warts, and asked questions about their sexual history.

The vast majority of the lesbians had, in the past, had sex with men. Only 7% of these women had been exclusively lesbian all their lives. The lesbians were much more likely than other women to have been a prostitute (22% vs 11%) and to have injected drugs (23% vs 4%).

The lesbians also had more sexually transmitted infections - or a history of them - than their heterosexual controls. They were also more likely to report having had sex with a homosexual or bisexual man, or a person who injected drugs.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Incorrect. The purpose of legislation is to ensure equal protection under the law - and to enforce the Constitution. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Just where in the Constitution do these rights apply only to heterosexuals?

The right to privacy is implicit and inherent in individual rights - and explicit in the right to be protected from things such as unreasonable search and seizure.

Regarding your examples:

- Seatbelts are used in cars that traverse public roads.
- Guns, I am pro the 2nd amendment and believe law-abiding individuals should have the right to conceal carry permits as well as to keep guns in their homes. The fact that the anti-gun zealots have been able to undermine the 2nd Amendment doesn't make it irrelevant.

Using the litmus test that private behavior is to be judged first by what is best for society is the same mindset used by fascists and socialists. The test for free societies is whether or not minorities receive equal protection.

Hate to tell you, but there is no constitutional right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". And seatbelt use only affects me. No one else, regardless of where the behavior takes place. Owning guns affects me and me alone. If it is permissible to legislate them, it is permissible to legislate all other acts whether they affect just one alone or happen in the venue of their bedroom. The bedroom holds no special regard for anything. If there is, as you say, this inherent right to privacy (which I highly disagree with) than it shouldn't matter whether my privacy is in a car or a bedroom. We're not talking about on a public bus we're talking about in my own home. I am not advocating for a removal of prohibitions of carrying loaded guns. But owning one in the privacy of my house should not subject me to any more legislations than owning a baseball bat- another deadly weapon. And yet, we discriminate.

I don't think the constitution allows for individual rights to be denied to homosexuals, but, I don't think that's the case here. No one is saying to deprive them of their lives, send them to jail or otherwise penalize them. However, there are certain distinctions made in this country based on someone's status of something. I am resonsible for my son's debts up to a certain age. Isn't that age discrimination? I am also subject to a marriage tax. Isn't that discriminating against me becuase of my religious convictions? In some instances, the court can mandate medical procedures...how can that NOT be a violatoin of my privacy? As far as the other "protections" that homosexuals seek, are they not denied to the heterosexual single peole in our constitution???

The entire argument about where the act takes place and the protections of the constitutions is a double edged sword. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Society has just not deemed it so that behaviour isn't fair game for legislation.

 

[eric]

No one is forcing you to have a homosexual relationship

You still have not answered my question concerning equal protection under the law !

 

[Big D]

It is widely acknowledged that homosexual men suffer from a disproportionately high rate of sexually transmitted diseases. When AIDS was first observed in 1981 it was called GRIDS (Gay Related Immunodeficiency Syndrome) since all cases seemed to be in homosexual men

 

[wonderwench]

Moi - I suggest you read up on de Tocqueville. You are a perfect example of his cautionary writings on the Tyrrany of the Majority.

It wouldn't hurt you to reread the founding documents, either.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Moi - I suggest you read up on de Tocqueville. You are a perfect example of his cautionary writings on the Tyrrany of the Majority.

It wouldn't hurt you to reread the founding documents, either.

I hardly think the majority of American citizens not wanting marriages between same sexes to be tyranny.

 

[eric]

By the way for those who wish to get involved in this issue and other family issue's check out this site :

http://www.afa.net/

BTW - I noticed my question has still went unanswered, there is usually a reason why people don't answer certain questions, could it be that it the answer hurts their argument ?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
No one is forcing you to have a homosexual relationship.

No, but they force me into all sorts of behaviors that are for the betterment of society. And, no one forces these homosexuals to have a relationship either I assume. No one is forcing them to parade on the streets. No one is forcing them to adopt children. No one is forcing them to get married.

What the heck does the use of force have to do with it?

I know an awful lot about the constitution of this country and what is was and was not meant to do. It was never meant to protect every single behavior. What you are confusing for equal protection is very different than protecting behavior. There should be no law that says all homosexuals have to give up the rights spelled out in the constitution: i.e., the right of speech, press, religion, right against self incrimination, the right to a speedy trial, the right to not have armies quartered in their homes, etc. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right to sex or marriage or children or love or any other such thing.

 

[eric]

By the way here is a petition you can sign to ban Gay marriages :

http://www.nogaymarriage.com/

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I hardly think the majority of American citizens not wanting marriages between same sexes to be tyranny.

That is symbolic - look at the comments in which homosexuals openly acknowledging their relationships are criticized.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Moi - I suggest you read up on de Tocqueville. You are a perfect example of his cautionary writings on the Tyrrany of the Majority.

It wouldn't hurt you to reread the founding documents, either.

I read them all the time. You just happen to be wrong.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by eric
By the way here is a petition you can sign to ban Gay marriages :

http://www.nogaymarriage.com/

Signed, sealed & delivered!

 

[wonderwench]

No, you are wrong.

You expect the government to enforce your religious beliefs. That is Unconsitutional.

Your interpretation of the founding principles is precisely what the Framers did not intend: a suppression of individual rights in favor of the majority viewpoint.