Gay Marriage
#21
03-02-2004, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by stevo12886@Mar 2nd 2004 @ 10:42 PM
but popular sovrenty is....
but popular sovrenty is....
#22
03-03-2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Cindy+Mar 3rd 2004 @ 12:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cindy @ Mar 3rd 2004 @ 12:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-stevo12886@Mar 2nd 2004 @ 10:42 PM
but popular sovrenty is....
but popular sovrenty is....
I agree. However, we could have a problem on our hands. What if the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage is constitutional, and then a case where 3 people want to get married comes to court? What if they rule that threesome marriages are constitutional? Ack!
#23
03-03-2004, 03:36 PM
exactly..besides...freedom of religion..i believe that makes gay marrage unconstitutional. marrage is a christian institution, they could do the same thing and call it something else for all i care, but marrage should remane sacred.
#24
03-03-2004, 03:39 PM
Um... no 
I disagree completely. That point doesn't hold water.
The constitution grants freedom of the practice of religion, not freedom to discriminate based on religious values of a single religion. Gay marriage won't be ruled unconstitutional just because Christian values oppose it. That's preposterous!
May I add, "marriage" is an English word. What language is the Bible written in? Latin!
I disagree completely. That point doesn't hold water.The constitution grants freedom of the practice of religion, not freedom to discriminate based on religious values of a single religion. Gay marriage won't be ruled unconstitutional just because Christian values oppose it. That's preposterous!
May I add, "marriage" is an English word. What language is the Bible written in? Latin!
#25
03-03-2004, 03:42 PM
actually the bible was written in greek, jewish, and latin...but anyway...
marrage began as a christian practice (err, well jewish i think) and has been under attack for far too long....the attack is just now crossing the line and people are fighting back.
marrage began as a christian practice (err, well jewish i think) and has been under attack for far too long....the attack is just now crossing the line and people are fighting back.
#27
03-03-2004, 03:51 PM
....woops...i was thinking of it as the jewish people....
ill put the shovel down....but i still say they should come up w/ something else...i just cant stand for gay marrages....grrr
ill put the shovel down....but i still say they should come up w/ something else...i just cant stand for gay marrages....grrr
#29
03-09-2004, 12:07 PM
A few points.
1. If a judge can get disbarred for violating the law by posting the 10 Commandments, why do justices in MA and mayors in CA get away with violating the law of the United States (Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Clinton, defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman) as well as identical law in CA?
2. A recent Dutch study found that homosexual relationships last on average 1.5 years, and the partners had on average 8 sexual partners outside of the main partnership even while the relationship was going on (Maria Xiridou et al, “The Contributions of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS, 17 2003: 1029-38).
A 1991 study of homosexual men revealed that their average number of lifetime partners was 308. ((H. Meyer-Balburg et al, “Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men,” Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 28, No. 1: 3-27)
Those of you who are married presently, do you believe your marriage involves having sex with 5-6 other unrelated people per year? Not likely. So when people speak of homosexual 'marriage' they don't mean that they intend that homosexuals intend to conform to the existing definition of marriage, but that they intend to redefine it to mean something else.
When a word is redefined, its prior meaning is destroyed, or lost. How many people have something nice happen to them and tell their colleagues that they're feeling particularly gay today? Similarly with marriage; if the meaning of "one man, one woman, monogamous, until death do us part" is not what 'marriage' means any more, then there is no word for it. What point is there then to having homosexual 'marriage'?
3. If the point then is merely to obtain health benefits, then let's suppose we drop the issue of 'marriage' so as to stop worrying about the institution of marriage per se and call it 'civil union' such that insurance and other benefits would accrue. Either way, the issue then becomes a social issue.
For homosexual males with a partner, the average lifespan was 45. For homosexual males without a partner, the average lifespan was 46. (Deaths examined between 1999 and 2001. Homosexual Partnerships and Homosexual Longevity: A Replication. Psychological Reports - 2002, 91, 671-678).
According to the Centers For Disease Control, 65% of all reported AIDS cases among U.S. males since 1981 have been men engaged in homosexual behavior. (CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, May 1998)
According to the CDC (1996), Federal money spent per death for Cancer was $3,776.00, for heart disease it was $1,056.00, and for AIDS/HIV it was $39,172.00.
According to the 1986 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), homosexuals account for an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of the cases of Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, and Gonorrhea.
The risk of **** cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive. Condoms offer only limited protection. (Between the Lines, "**** Cancer and You," Sept. 29, 2000.)
Men who engage in sodomy are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.( Centers for Disease Control, "Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex With Men," September 10, 1999)
What all that adds up to is IF we say yes, let's recognize the partnership/civil union/marriage/whatever then we are insisting that society pay for the diseases, the treatments, the early deaths.
Now if I was a smoker insurance companies would just charge me more; or charge my employer more. Some companies do not hire smokers; and they are within their rights to do so. However there's already law after law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual preference.
The hospitals pass the cost to insurance, the insurance passes the cost to the company, and the company passes the cost to you the employee or the consumer. That means YOU pay for diseases that are preventable by abstaining.
Smoking reduces your lifespan by 5-8 years and so cities ban smoking, lawyers sue tobacco companies and society scowls at the dirty smoker. Obesity lowers lifespan about the same and fat people are glared at. What would people do if smoking reduced your lifespan by 30 years? Everyone would clamor for an immediate prohibition on the deadly stuff. But that's what happens to homosexuals, and yet the practice is celebrated, we have TV shows all about it.
There are your reasons against homosexual 'marriage.' It's already prohibited by law, it isn't 'marriage' at all, and even if you throw all that out it's a deadly practice, which activists are asking us all to pay for.
1. If a judge can get disbarred for violating the law by posting the 10 Commandments, why do justices in MA and mayors in CA get away with violating the law of the United States (Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Clinton, defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman) as well as identical law in CA?
2. A recent Dutch study found that homosexual relationships last on average 1.5 years, and the partners had on average 8 sexual partners outside of the main partnership even while the relationship was going on (Maria Xiridou et al, “The Contributions of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS, 17 2003: 1029-38).
A 1991 study of homosexual men revealed that their average number of lifetime partners was 308. ((H. Meyer-Balburg et al, “Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men,” Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 28, No. 1: 3-27)
Those of you who are married presently, do you believe your marriage involves having sex with 5-6 other unrelated people per year? Not likely. So when people speak of homosexual 'marriage' they don't mean that they intend that homosexuals intend to conform to the existing definition of marriage, but that they intend to redefine it to mean something else.
When a word is redefined, its prior meaning is destroyed, or lost. How many people have something nice happen to them and tell their colleagues that they're feeling particularly gay today? Similarly with marriage; if the meaning of "one man, one woman, monogamous, until death do us part" is not what 'marriage' means any more, then there is no word for it. What point is there then to having homosexual 'marriage'?
3. If the point then is merely to obtain health benefits, then let's suppose we drop the issue of 'marriage' so as to stop worrying about the institution of marriage per se and call it 'civil union' such that insurance and other benefits would accrue. Either way, the issue then becomes a social issue.
For homosexual males with a partner, the average lifespan was 45. For homosexual males without a partner, the average lifespan was 46. (Deaths examined between 1999 and 2001. Homosexual Partnerships and Homosexual Longevity: A Replication. Psychological Reports - 2002, 91, 671-678).
According to the Centers For Disease Control, 65% of all reported AIDS cases among U.S. males since 1981 have been men engaged in homosexual behavior. (CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, May 1998)
According to the CDC (1996), Federal money spent per death for Cancer was $3,776.00, for heart disease it was $1,056.00, and for AIDS/HIV it was $39,172.00.
According to the 1986 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), homosexuals account for an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of the cases of Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, and Gonorrhea.
The risk of **** cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive. Condoms offer only limited protection. (Between the Lines, "**** Cancer and You," Sept. 29, 2000.)
Men who engage in sodomy are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.( Centers for Disease Control, "Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex With Men," September 10, 1999)
What all that adds up to is IF we say yes, let's recognize the partnership/civil union/marriage/whatever then we are insisting that society pay for the diseases, the treatments, the early deaths.
Now if I was a smoker insurance companies would just charge me more; or charge my employer more. Some companies do not hire smokers; and they are within their rights to do so. However there's already law after law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual preference.
The hospitals pass the cost to insurance, the insurance passes the cost to the company, and the company passes the cost to you the employee or the consumer. That means YOU pay for diseases that are preventable by abstaining.
Smoking reduces your lifespan by 5-8 years and so cities ban smoking, lawyers sue tobacco companies and society scowls at the dirty smoker. Obesity lowers lifespan about the same and fat people are glared at. What would people do if smoking reduced your lifespan by 30 years? Everyone would clamor for an immediate prohibition on the deadly stuff. But that's what happens to homosexuals, and yet the practice is celebrated, we have TV shows all about it.
There are your reasons against homosexual 'marriage.' It's already prohibited by law, it isn't 'marriage' at all, and even if you throw all that out it's a deadly practice, which activists are asking us all to pay for.
