Gay Marriage

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by BleedingHeart, Nov 16, 2003.

  1. BleedingHeart
    Online

    BleedingHeart Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Gay Marriage...Simple. Permissible by the Constitution. Yet, still not allowed...

    What's wrong here? I'd love to hear your thoughts- especially those of you who have no legal background for your arguments, LMAO, I crack myself up...
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I'd love to hear how you interpreted the constitution to say that gay marriages are permissible. And what legal background do YOU have?

    My thoughts are plain and simple - it's foul and disgusting.

    One 1982 study found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal.
    Council on Scientific Affairs, "Health care needs of gay men and lesbians in the United States," JAMA, May 1, 1996, p. 1355.

    And a 1997 study again drew attention to the "strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact.
    M. Frisch and others, "Sexually transmitted infection as a cause of anal cancer," N Engl J Med, Nov. 6, 1997, p. 1350.

    Another study found that: 1) 80% of syphilitic patients are homosexual; 2) about one-third of homosexuals are infected with active anorectal herpes simplex viruses; 3) chlamydia infects 15% of homosexuals; and 4) "a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population.
    S.D. Wexner, "Sexually transmitted diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The challenge of the nineties," Dis Colon Rectum (EAB), Dec. 1990, from the abstract, p. 1048.

    Another study found that: 1) amoebiasis, a parasitic disease, afflicts around 32% of homosexuals; 2) giardiasis, also a parasitic disease, afflicts 14% of homosexuals (no heterosexuals in the study were found to have either amoebiasis or giardiasis); 3) gonorrhea afflicts 14% of homosexuals; and 4) 11% of homosexuals had anal warts.
    J. Christopherson and others, "Sexually transmitted diseases in hetero-, homo-and bisexual males in Copenhagen," Dan Med Bull (DYN), June 1988, from the abstract, p. 285.

    In 1997 a writer for the pro-homosexual New York Times noted that a young male homosexual in America has about a 50% chance of getting H.I.V. by middle age, that many homosexuals have abandoned "safe sex" in favor of unprotected anal sex, and that the incidence of gonorrhea rose 74% among homosexuals between 1993 and 1996.
    Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality," New York Times (late edition, east coast), Nov. 23, 1997, section 4, p. 1.
     
  3. SLClemens
    Online

    SLClemens Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Even if all the above were true, and I'll let someone with more knowledge of medicine than me dispute it, if this is the basis for denying marriage to homosexuals, to say that it should be denied because it's physically unhealthy, what reasons are you going to drum up to deny it to lesbians?
     
  4. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    "if" it were true? This data is presented in some of the worlds most respected medical journals.

    Ok, here's some similar data on lesbians:

    Regarding lesbians, they face a higher breast cancer risk. One study of lesbians found that: "Sixty-three percent of the lesbians had never been pregnant....[And] Not having children increases a woman's breast cancer risk by between two to six times. Not having children also "may be a risk factor for ovarian cancer and may be implicated in endometrial cancer as well.
    Jim Ritter, "Breast cancer risk higher in lesbians," Chicago Sun-Times, Oct. 16, 1998, p. 50.
    Council on Scientific Affairs, op cit, p. 1355.

    Another study found bacterial vaginosis occuring in 33% of the lesbians but only in 13% of heterosexual women, and found that: "Cervical cytology abnormalities were uncommon but only found in the lesbians. (Those abnormalities may be precursors to cervical cancers.)
    C.J. Skinner and others, "A case-controlled study of the sexual health needs of lesbians," Genitourin Med, Aug. 1996, from the abstract, p. 227.

    Another study of lesbians found a "relatively high prevalence of the viral STDs, herpes simplex and human papillomavirus [HPV]. And according to another: "Genital HPV infection and squamous intraepithelial lesions are common among women who are sexually active with women.
    A. Edwards and R.N. Thin, "Sexually transmitted diseases in lesbians," Int J STD AIDS, May 1990, from the abstract, p. 178.
    J.M. Marrazzo and others, "Genital human papillomavirus infection in women who have sex with women," J Infect Dis, Dec. 1998, from the abstract, p. 1604.
     
  5. SLClemens
    Online

    SLClemens Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    This is just such gay-hating crap, but what the hell, I'll carry on.

    If lesbians who get married are more likely to get pregnant than ones who don't, wouldn't this be an argument in favor of gay, or at least lesbian, marriage?

    The whole STDs argument is especially pathetic. People who commit to life-long monogomous relations are far less likely to get them than ones who don't. Gay marriage is one of many ways to encourage this.

    I suppose that if gays and lesbians smoked 5% more than the population at large you'd use lung cancer rates to argue against gay marriage, too. This position is just one of unsophisticated hate. Muslim and Christian extremists alike would find great affinity with you here.
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Feel free to not discuss further controversial issues if you can't keep namecalling out of it. And yes, "gay-hating crap" is calling me a gay hater. I've stated a detest homosexuality. The reasons I think so is because I don't see it as natural and there are way too many health risks putting others at risk as well.

    Not in my opinion. How is whether or not they are married going to change the medical statistics?

    People who engage in ANY type of homosexual activities are more prone to get/transmit disease, whether it's from sleeping around or from a single partner. Call the argument pathetic all you want, the data is factual and speaks for itself.

    If it was MORE PREVALENT amongst gays, yes. The things I spoke of occur at different rates amongst homosexuals, smoking does not.

    I suppose detesting drug abusers (those who use needles) because of the spread of disease is wrong? How is not wanting more disease in our world being hateful?
     
  7. SLClemens
    Online

    SLClemens Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    If you want less disease in our world, one of the best ways to achieve this is to get more gays, especially young gay men, to commit to life-long relationships.

    As for your factual data - you quote that "Not having children increases a woman's breast cancer risk by between two to six times." I'm no doctor, but how could such a study have such an incredible margin of error? Look at a random sample of 1,000 woman who've had breast cancer, check how many have had children, and compare this with the population at large. Why would you get a margin of error of 200%? How can you be sure it's not "one to seven times" if we're dealing with such apparently speculative data? It sounds, rather, like you've trolled around for whatever muck you could find in desperation.

    I'd be interested to hear from a homosexual or lesbian whether they find the views you've posted so far hateful. It seems to me a bit like saying that native Indians have a higher rate of certain health problems and STDs (which is unfortunately true in most areas) and thus should not be allowed to get married, whereas in fact stable marriages and families are key to preventing such.
     
  8. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Again, the chances of catching/spreading STD's is more prevalent amongst ALL gays, not just those who have one single partner.

    I'm sure the physicians who contribute to the medical journals know more than us. Various physicians probably got somewhat different results - but they all show a higher margin of risk.

    Yes, I "trolled" around and presented FACTS, asshole.

    I don't really care what anyone thinks of my views.

    You use your scenario with native indians WITHOUT homosexuality, why is that? If their health problems and STD's were a direct result from unprotected sex, I wou say the same thing there as well.
     
  9. janeeng
    Online

    janeeng Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I am not all out for Gay Marriages - the only reason for it, is that fact that you have man/woman, we were put as this for a reason, to have children, to reproduce. I am not saying that Gay's don't make good parents, I am sure there are plenty out there that make great one's, but I find it much harder to adapt to a gay life style for a child when it comes to the society. Think about the child in school, when it comes to say Father/Daughter day, how do you explain that the woman your brought to school is your Daddy??? kids are cruel and I believe it's tough on a child. I am not one to judge though - I don't hate for it - I do know a lot of gays and don't judge them, I just don't agree with it. And yes, it does appear that in a GAY lifestyle whether messing around on your partner or not, the chances of AIDS is much higher!!!!
     
  10. SLClemens
    Online

    SLClemens Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    If native Indians, without (or presumably also with) homosexuality (if one can "have" homosexuality) have a greater rate of STDs because they have more unprotected sex you would say the same? That they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

    And I still can't possibly see what not having children has to do with the right to marry. According to one site I randomly chose, http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_2_2X_What_causes_breast_cancer_5.asp?sitearea=CRI , "Women who have had no children, or who had their first child after age 30, have a slightly higher risk of breast cancer." Should we deny marriage to women over 30 who are not mothers on this ground? I'm sure that if I trolled around I could find all sorts of info on medical problems that women who get pregnant face that women who don't get pregnant do not. What would be the relevance of it to this debate, apart perhaps from hatred for one particular lifestyle?
     

Share This Page