so why bother having a Supreme Court then?

[AlphaTroll]

You're beginning to catch on.

The more government has it's fingers in the pies of the people the more things get confused. Allow them to feed a few starving orphans & the next thing you know, we're giving food away to healthy & lazy individuals.

If one person deserves to get free medical care, why not everybody?

If gay marriages are allowed why not incestual marriages?

Take a look at your own homeland. Your country has gay marriage and still the AIDS epedemic expounds. What has it solved?

Ye know - not so long ago interracial marriages & relationships were against the law, that's all changed - so what makes that so different from gay marriages?

As for free medical care - everyone gets it in the UK, they don't seem to have much of a problem.

And Gonz, your ignorance regarding AIDS is astounding - gay marriage is not a cure for AIDS or a way to stop it from spreading, it is simply a right that the gay community is demanding.

AIDS is not a gay disease, as a matter of fact it is probably the one thing on earth that does not discriminate at all - ever. Unfortunately, because the first cases of AIDS were reported by gay men the world has stigmatised it & decided that it must be a homo disease.

Guess what, heterosexual marriage has also not done anything to prevent the spread of the disease.

There are several different strains of the HI virus, some possibly more virulent than others. HIV1 for instance has two groups M (major) and O (outlier) - the O group is only found in Cameroon, West Africa. The M group has 9 subtypes (A - I) & there is no relationship between subtype & infectivity.

HIV2 is predominantly confined to West Africa & differs from HIV1 in amino acid sequence of the prtein coat, but the core proteins are identical to HIV1.

Now, please tell me - which of these strains do you think gay relationships caused? And which one would gay marriages necessarily stop?

Yes, the most common form of AIDS transmission is through sexual acts and it is a growing problem because people are still practising unsafe sex today. However, mother-to-child transmission is increasing. Without the use of anti-retrovirals like AZT the chances of mothers transmitting the disease to their children during pregnancy or childbirth is between 18 - 30% There is a further chance of transmission through breastfeeding - and you may think that those mothers should just not breastfeed, but unfortunately in areas where there is no nutricious food for babies, breastmilk is the only option to prevent malnutrition (or should the babies rather be left to starve to death?)

Another point - women are more at risk of being infected with HIV because the lining of a woman's vagina is very thin & can easily tear, especially during dry sex, which makes it easier for the virus to enter her bloodstream. And guess what? More women are infected with HIV through heterosexual acts than homosexual ones - many of these women are married. And worldwide more than 75% of new infections are in heterosexuals.

So I really don't see how you could bring AIDS into an argument about gay marriage - what the fuck is the correlation?

 

[chcr]

[sarcastically]But everyone knows that AIDS is god's punishment for homosexuals[/sarcastically] (even though as many people get it from heterosexual sex).

can't you keep to the point for once, and stop making irrelevant comments, to distract from the actual question? you'd do great in political world, looking from that point of view...

I really don't think so, shadow.

 

[freako104]

we should allow people to make their own life deicisions I say cause the govt hsd no business to make decisions fr others or their lifestyles

 

[ris]

Since homosexuals aren't able to reproduce, they can both work & get their own insurance, right?

i see no problem with an inability to reproduce, there are heterosexual, married, couples unable to concieve and no-one is asking for their licence back and a revocation of priviledges.

if marriage is an insititution about love and partnership and heterosexuals are making a bad hand of it who is to say that homosexual couples won't make a better deal. make marriage about love between two consenting adults, regardless of orientation.

 

[Inkara1]

I should point out that in 2000 in California, Prop 22 passed by a pretty wide margin in what's often considered the most liberal state.

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

61.4 percent of voters voted yes, and 38.6 percent voted no.

A county-by-county look (PDF)

 

[chcr]

I should point out that in 2000 in California, Prop 22 passed by a pretty wide margin in what's often considered the most liberal state.61.4 percent of voters voted yes, and 38.6 percent voted no.

A county-by-county look (PDF)

Interestingly, I've never found most Californians to be that liberal. It's just all of the self-important celebrities that get all the press that make it seem that way (IMO). After all, Reagan as Governor, and now Arnie. Flaming liberals, both. It certainly isn't the most conservative state, but neither is it all that liberal.

 

[Gonz]

Probably so, but remember: If it looks like Ice, it's probably just wet, drive fast.

Be nice PT...someone here may complain to ris.

 

[Gonz]

I thought that the supreme court was part of the system of checks and balances that secures your freedoms.

I'm suprised at you Gonz, that you would stand up for the president exersizing power that was meant to be beyond his mandate.

The Supreme Court is part of the system. The state Supreme Courts have less "power" than the federal SC. Yet even the Federal SC doesn't require laws be written.

This is not a mandate of Bush's. It's been a smoldering pot for quite some time. Didn't you find it interesting when John Kerry, teh leading Democrat candidate almost yelled out "I DO NOT SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE" then he whispered nor do I have the balls to do squat about it.

 

[Gonz]

why do you got married?

now, please explain to me, what the hell has AIDS epedemic to do with gay marriage?

can't you keep to the point for once, and stop making irrelevant comments, to distract from the actual question? you'd do great in political world, looking from that point of view...

I got married because we were gonna have kids. We were doing just fine without it.

See the response to AT's post.

I stick to the point quite well. Sometimes people have a very difficult time with the truth so I use metaphors or similar examples to help their tiny little brains grasp the message. Unfortunately, those frequently go over the heads too.

 

[chcr]

*yawn*

 

[Gonz]

Ye know - not so long ago interracial marriages & relationships were against the law, that's all changed - so what makes that so different from gay marriages?

Man & Wife, Not man & man...jeez, I'd have thought you knew that

As for free medical care - everyone gets it in the UK, they don't seem to have much of a problem.

Wow, that's working out really well now isn't it.

And Gonz, your ignorance regarding AIDS is astounding - gay marriage is not a cure for AIDS or a way to stop it from spreading, it is simply a right that the gay community is demanding.

Guess what, heterosexual marriage has also not done anything to prevent the spread of the disease.

If the people in the heterosexual marriage entered into the marriage disease free & followed the tenets of marriage, then yes it does help to stop the sppread of AIDS. Same goes with homosexuals.

Marriage is a monogomous committed relationship. Assuming both partners start off disease free how is it they would continue to propagate the virii? If that were the observed behavior of homosexuals then you & I would have something to talk about. However, gays tend to be promiscuous. Even gays in relationships. It is shown by observation in the scientific community that homosexuals men, by and large, are neither faithful nor "safe".

Heterosexual men, by and large, were far more committed & faithful. As time has passed, that has become a less true statement, especially in the last 20=30 years. Like most things, honor has been replaced by cupidity. Not by all of us but most certainly by a large plurality.

I can end the spread of AIDS right this minute. It isn't nearly as much fun as life could be. The pleasures would be traded for the plight of betterment to mankind. I know that will never happen so I don't pay attention to the AIDS sufferers because they has a choice. The lone exception is the tiny (but growing) minority that aquires it thru zero fault of their own. Children being born to HIV+ crackwhores. Even the blood supply is clean. Illegal drug use & promiscuity are the leading causes of HIV/AIDS, worldwide. End the promiscuity, especially in homosexual community & it will rapidly die off.

I understand that the African problem is far more widespread but, in the end, the exact same thing is the cause. Education would do more good in Africa at the moment. That is not true for Europe & America. And look, at the horrendous number of HIV deaths that have overtaken the Arab culture...oh, wait, they keep their dicks in their pants,[/quote]

Peter Sprigg: Here's one piece of evidence: a study of homosexual partnerships in the Netherlands (coincidentally, the first country to legalize same-sex "marriage") found that the average homosexual male partnership lasted 1.5 years, and included 8 sexual partners per year outside of the primary relationship. (Maria Xiridou, et al., "The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam," AIDS Vol. 17, No. 7 (2003), p. 1031.)

 

[Gonz]

i see no problem with an inability to reproduce, there are heterosexual, married, couples unable to concieve and no-one is asking for their licence back and a revocation of priviledges.

if marriage is an insititution about love and partnership and heterosexuals are making a bad hand of it who is to say that homosexual couples won't make a better deal. make marriage about love between two consenting adults, regardless of orientation.

You could go to any court in the country, before no fault, and file for and be granted a divorce if your spouse was unable to procreate. The Catholics even allowed divorce for it.

Marriage is a contract we enter into to provide a (historically) stable environment. With the covenent of marriage, wives/mothers & children were protected in case of death or disappearance of the husband/father.
Why do gays need this?

 

[freako104]

isnt it a sign of commitment? and they can have a stable enviroment. why shouldnt they have it?

 

[Gonz]

isnt it a sign of commitment? and they can have a stable enviroment. why shouldnt they have it?

Well, how would I know? I'm some closed minded bigot. A closed minded bigot who hears distubing shit, finds it in print & then reads it. A bigot who see's past his own prejudices & looks at the potential & probable & makes an informed decision. I'm not as open minded as these learned people that refuse to see past their assumptions of people who don't agree with them. They present so much evidence to base an opinion. In fact, here's some now.

Currently, 86% (range 74-90%) of new HIV infections occur within steady partnerships. A reduction of 75-99% in infectivity caused by HAART will be counterbalanced by increases of 50% (range 30-80%) in risky behavior with steady partners, but not by increases of up to 100% with casual partners.

Conclusions: Most new HIV infections among homosexual men in Amsterdam occur within steady relationships. Prevention measures should address risky behaviour, specifically with steady partners, and the promotion of HIV testing.

04/23/03

 

[freako104]

heterosexuals also can get HIV and AIDS gonz.

 

[Gonz]

If you have something you stand for, you won't fall for everything.

 

[freako104]

i stand for letting people be themselves and living their lives. is that enough for you

 

[Shadowfax]

Conclusions: Most new HIV infections among homosexual men in Amsterdam occur within steady relationships. Prevention measures should address risky behaviour, specifically with steady partners, and the promotion of HIV testing.

that's such pathetic proof, lol. because there is some conclusion that most new hiv infections among men in amsterdam happen in steady relationships, this means that marriage is a bad thing for gay people? 'cause that's the point you're trying to make with your 'superb' 'facts' right?

but! wake up mister...most HIV infections do NOT take place in the netherlands...only a tiny bit of HIV infections are in the netherlands...and thus among men in amsterdam.
mind that most HIV infections, and most deaths are in Africa.

this 'evidence' of yours is so totally irrelevant. but go ahead, believe whatever you want, but don't find yourself that important: our 'tiny little brains' are a lot more open-minded than your narrowminded brain. your ego is just way too big to realize that.

 

[AlladinSane]

I'm all for the ugly people thing as long as they can't reproduce.

Someone should have told you that a long time ago

 

[Gonz]

but! wake up mister...most HIV infections do NOT take place in the netherlands...only a tiny bit of HIV infections are in the netherlands...and thus among men in amsterdam.
mind that most HIV infections, and most deaths are in Africa.

Since when is the Netherlands (or anywhere) a petri dish? It's a microcosm of the entire picture. Once again, you can't see past your own nose.

What do these things have to do with the rights of gays to marry? It's an indicator of the empty, shallow nature of a few whiny loudmouthed idiots who don't get it. They piss & moan & make some politicians nervous to get their way. With a year & a half life expectancy to these so called marriages, don't waste our time.

'Til death do us part means soemthing.