Gay Marriage

[BleedingHeart]

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...

 

[jimnyc]

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.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
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.

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?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
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?

"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.

 

[SLClemens]

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

Originally posted by jimnyc
"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.
.

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.

 

[jimnyc]

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

This position is just one of unsophisticated hate. Muslim and Christian extremists alike would find great affinity with you here.

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?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
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?

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.

 

[jimnyc]

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.

Again, the chances of catching/spreading STD's is more prevalent amongst ALL gays, not just those who have one single partner.

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?

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.

It sounds, rather, like you've trolled around for whatever muck you could find in desperation.

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

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.

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.

 

[janeeng]

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!!!!

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
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.

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?

 

[jimnyc]

This is my last correspondence with you in this thread. Your refusal to refrain from making it personal makes it too difficult to debate without it flaring up like the other thread did yesterday. Future comments by you making it personal will just be removed. We can all share views without taking potshots at the person posting.

What would be the relevance of it to this debate, apart perhaps from hatred for one particular lifestyle?

Why are you asking me? I didn't start the thread. The original poster asked a question and I replied. You aked a question and I replied. Is it so hard for you to express your views without taking shots at the poster before you? If so, you might want to search out other avenues to express your anger, there are literally thousands of message boards on the internet.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
This is my last correspondence with you in this thread. Your refusal to refrain from making it personal makes it too difficult to debate without it flaring up like the other thread did yesterday. Future comments by you making it personal will just be removed. We can all share views without taking potshots at the person posting.



Why are you asking me? I didn't start the thread. The original poster asked a question and I replied. You aked a question and I replied. Is it so hard for you to express your views without taking shots at the poster before you? If so, you might want to search out other avenues to express your anger, there are literally thousands of message boards on the internet.

You premised your argument against gay marriage on certain facts, in some cases disputable, leading you to conclude that a category of people who exhibit a higher rate of health problems should not be allowed to marry. You then failed to consider what effect marriage for this category of people would have on such health problems, and why, if marriage would lower them, they should not be encouraged to marry. You also failed to consider whether the principle that health problems, among identifiable groups, should be a criterion of the right to marry, should be applied to groups beyond homosexuals. In short, you presented a very seriously flawed argument. What mentality underlies this argument I cannot know in your case. I know that in other cases where I've seen similar arguments the mentality behind it has been hatred of gays; I've had several people openly admit this to me. I hope that you're not like them. If this is the case, perhaps you could help demonstrate this by posting some of the good things you see and believe about gays and lesbians.

 

[jimnyc]

My discussion with you in this thread has been completed. I'm sure someone else will be happy to further debate with you.

I was asked my views, I expressed them.

 

[DKSuddeth]

First off, We've all seen studies done by this group or that group and we've all came up with at least the same conclusion at one time or another depending on the outcome of the study and thats that they are ALL, in some way - shape - or form, designed to provide specific results.

I can tell you that in 1982 (One 1982 study found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal.) most of the US population still considered AIDS the 'gay disease' and that it was a curse laid upon the homosexuals by god.

I would also think that we, as logical thinking human beings, can tell whether the results of a study have any significance to it just by the results they publish. Case in point, by the above study results we could also assume that men who are diagnosed with anal or colon cancer are 50 times as likely to be gay. Now, as we can see, its all in the way the results are published. I have no doubt that these organizations have more knowledge about certain things than we do but even us 'average joes' can think through and come to logical conclusions.

Simple and straight forward thinking should tell us that HIV and AIDS, along with the numerous other STD's that are out there are capable of infecting ANYBODY, not just gays and lesbians. With that in mind lets look at the real reasons why some of them seem to be more prevelant among those with the 'alternative lifestyle' and chief among them would be the carefree attitude of how they conduct their intimate lives. Because, in our society, gays and lesbians are still treated with disdain for one reason or another, most of them are ready and willing to part from the theory of 'erring on the side of caution' and engage in unprotected sex alot more than the heterosexual counterparts will. That alone makes the chances of infection so much greater.

Think about that, the basic premise of higher STD's among gays and lesbians isn't because they are gay or lesbian, its because they mentally uncheck the 'safe sex' box more often. Break that down further and we SHOULD be able to see that it becomes a case of looking for acceptance by 'completely accepting' a partner....no condoms etc....

So, the longer we continue to berate and degrade people for an 'alternative lifestyle, is only going to perpetuate the same vicious cycles we see today.

As far as using religion and the bible to point out that homosexuality is wrong....all I have to say is this...Jesus didn't grab people from the streets and force them to listen to him. He had a message for those that WANTED to hear. He is supposed to be the example that true 'christians' are supposed to follow. To ME, this means that religion is a personal spiritual choice, not a choice to be made for others, just YOU and YOU alone. I don't think its unseemly for me to speculate that jesus would frown upon those that use his fathers word to subjugate or persecute others for choices they don't agree with.

ok, i'll step off my soapbox now. thanks.(One 1982 study found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal.)

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
My discussion with you in this thread has been completed. I'm sure someone else will be happy to further debate with you.

I was asked my views, I expressed them.

That's fine - it's your choice.

Now let me state a few simple *relevant* facts to bear in mind for further debate:

Homosexuality does not cause sexually *transmitted* diseases; transmitting them by sexual promiscuity does.

Marriage does not cause or spread STDs; it prevents their spread.

People who marry and stick to vows of monogamy cannot transmit STDs outside their marriages.

If more gays married and stuck to their vows there would be fewer people with STDs in our society and the costs of health care would be lower.

Having children or even a proclivity to have children has no relevance on our society's current legal right to marry; if it did, there would be seperate laws for men known to be sterile or impotent.

Homosexuals who chose legally to engage regularily in certain types of intercourse will have the same health problems regardless of weather or not they are married, as will heterosexuals who engage in such forms of intercourse.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by BleedingHeart
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...

I'd like to know, where in the Constitution it says "Gay Marriage is permissable". Please cite the passage.

Thanks.

 

[janeeng]

That's going to be a tough one for him, because it doesn't EXIST!!!!!!!

 

[Isaac Brock]

This is one area where i have a fairly strong opinion.

I believe that love is the upmost emotion that makes us human. It is a bond that seems to transcend what would normally be animalic sexual urges. To me, whether love is between a man and a woman, man and a man or a woman and woman is irrelevant. I believe there is very few things more important that love between two people.

In almost every culture on this planet, marriage exists as an institution to affirm a love between two people. Now, some obviously religious traditions cite homosexuality as immoral and I must respect that. However, we must also recognize that there are relgions who do respect homosexual love. I personally do not think it is wrong in the very least and should be celebrated.

However, state policies are very different. I think the problem with gay marriage is that it often comes to ethics of the state. Marriage as defined by the state, is different than marriage defined by religion. I love a quote by former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau that,

"The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

I personally believe that the government should get out of the marriage business and should endorse civil unions for ALL in the spirit of affirming long-term relationships and let religious traditions fight over the ethics of homosexual marriage itself, which I can concede is not necessarily a black and white issue.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Moi
I'd like to know, where in the Constitution it says "Gay Marriage is permissable". Please cite the passage.

Thanks.

Why is who can get married a constitutional matter? Laws have changed, and still vary from state to state, about marriage ages, rights, etc. In fact it seems quite constitutionally permissable to change or expand laws about marriage in our country's legislative bodies. Why would our Constitution suddenly have bearing in the case of gays, except in the case of federal vs. state jurisdictions?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
Why is who can get married a constitutional matter?

When the original poster states it is "permissible" by the constitution. The question asked was in reference to that.