Reporting on Warren's invocation, NY Times repeatedly ignored his comparison of same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia, polygamy
SUMMARY: In separate articles, The New York Times mischaracterized opposition to the selection of Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation as a function solely of Warren's opposition to same-sex marriage or same-sex marriage and abortion. In fact, Warren has compared same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy.
In January 19 and January 20 articles, The New York Times mischaracterized opposition to the selection of Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation as a function solely of Warren's opposition to same-sex marriage or same-sex marriage and abortion. Neither article noted that Warren has compared same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy. By contrast, a January 21 Boston Globe article about Warren's invocation noted Warren "compared gay relationships to incest and polygamy," and a January 21 Los Angeles Times editorial about same-sex marriage noted that Warren "has infuriated many by equating homosexual unions with incest, child molestation and polygamy."
Similarly, a January 20 USA Today article about the invocation delivered by "[c]ontroversial evangelical pastor Rick Warren" reported that he "has been excoriated for weeks by gay rights activists outraged that a leading opponent of gay marriage had been offered a national podium by Obama" but did not note Warren's comments.
As Media Matters for America has noted, in a Beliefnet.com interview, Warren compared same-sex marriage to "having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage ... an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage [or] ... one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."
From the January 20 Times article, headlined "Few Protesters at Inauguration":
Some advocates of gay rights booed when the Rev. Rick Warren of California's Saddleback Church delivered the invocation. Mr. Warren, one of the nation's best-known evangelical preachers, opposes gay marriage. He spoke at Mr. Obama's invitation. About 100 people rallied outside his church in Lake Forest, Calif., on Monday to protest his inclusion in the inaugural ceremonies.
From the January 19 Times article, headlined "Transition Holds Clues to How Obama Will Govern":
Mr. Obama opted not to play it safe during the transition. He brought his Democratic rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, into the cabinet, and angered gay and liberal supporters by inviting the Rev. Rick Warren, an opponent of abortion and same-sex marriage, to give the inaugural invocation. Although Mr. Obama deferred foreign affairs with his "one president at a time" rule, that did not apply to domestic policy, where he lobbied Congress to release $350 billion in financial bailout money and set about negotiating roughly $800 billion in spending programs and tax breaks.
From the January 20 USA Today article:
Controversial evangelical pastor Rick Warren opened Barack Obama's inaugural ceremony Tuesday by touching on the two greatest prayers in Judaism and Christianity and asking God to grace the nation with clarity, responsibility and civility, "even when we differ."
Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., has been excoriated for weeks by gay rights activists outraged that a leading opponent of gay marriage had been offered a national podium by Obama.
Warren left his opinions out of yesterday's invocation, something Obama certainly knew he would do. for whining liberals to complain about it as they did only shows their intolerance, not the inclusionary tone OBama was out for. His biggest entanglements will be with those leftist liberals, not conservatives. let's hope he has the backbone to buck their special interest demands.
There's a lot of truth in your statement.
MM: "Warren compared same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy."
Wrong. This is simply a lie, and the liberal media is echoing this falsehood also. Warren did no such thing. He was addressing the definition of marriage, and the fact that it is a union between and a man and a woman, and not anything else.
There's no way aroung the fact that MM is simply being dishonest here.
*
Shoes must have made bail.
Gad this lying can be seductive!
So, are you saying that pedophiles and polygamists and incestors should be given marriage rights too? That must be the 'slippery slope' that is called a logical fallacy. Good job showing how liberals really feel about marriage.
That must be the 'slippery slope' that is called a logical fallacy. (Phailib)
Yes, it is. Are you just giving up?
Thanks for the answer. That is why conservatives don't like what you people are after. Sexual deviants should not be given civil rights. Not until you prove genetic absolutes.
So there have to be genetic absolutes to get married? Really?
Since when?
Furthermore, I take great offense that you consider homosexuals sexual deviants. Homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time, not only in humans but in other animals, be it penguins, bees, or any other number of species. There are even species of animals who are able to change genders.
I'm not a sexual deviant because I am in a relationship with another man. You're just a homophobe with a flat argument that, over time, will be on the losing side of history. Too bad for you that you'll be remembered as one who was in favor of taking rights away from people just because you don't agree with them. You're a sad human being, probably bordering on depression. It's evident from your posts.
"Homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time, not only in humans but in other animals, be it penguins, bees, or any other number of species. "
So has pedophilia. What's your point on that one?
I believe the point is that it's natural behavior. And since it's a matter of two consenting adults, it's nothing at all like pedophilia.
Has pedophilia been witnessed among penguins, by the way?
Are you willing to base our moral laws on the behavoir of penguins?
No, I want to base them on the behavior of people. The behavior of penguins only shows that it is natural behavior, not "chosen".
Oh, then, you should have NO problem showing that it is genetic.
Perhaps you should address csl's point that since homosexuality has been around since the "dawn of time" it should be given 'civil rights'. Pedophilia has been around since the "dawn of time" also, are you in favor of giving the participants of that chosen lifestyle 'civil rights' because of that?
It makes no sense as a choice. You say you chose to be heterosexual, but you don't seem to have ever felt an attraction towards men. It occurs in nature. People continue to be gay even in the face of being physically harmed, disowned, etc. Why, if it's a "choice"?
Pedophilia is abusive, so it's not acceptable. It's not comparable to a consentual relationship, as you've been told countless times. Please make an effort to understand that point.
Genetics have nothing to do with this debate.
How do genetics have anything to do with same-sex marriage?
Because YOU claim civil rights for this issue. Why did the black man gain freedom? Because he is born black and born into a situation that shouldn't be that way. You choose your lifestyle then demand civil rights? I don't think that is acceptable. Continue your fight for civil union rights and I'll support you until the end. This is NOT a civil rights issue! You only gain them by being born that way and that would include genetic make-up.
You do not have to be born gay in order to request civil rights for same-sex marriage. Are you crazy? It's not about genetics or birth or anything like that. It's about treating all Americans in the same manner.
As of right now, heterosexuals are enjoying preferential treatment in that the civil right to marriage is afforded to them, but not to homosexual couples who would like to take advantage of the benefits marriage has to offer. It is heterosexuals who have the special rights, not gay folks. Birth has not a thing to do with it. Civil rights is not a genetics issue. It's a human issue.
What do civil union rights do? Aren't those designed to correct a grevious error from previous generations? Aren't they designed to give you everything you seek? Wait, you just want to have the word "marriage", you don't really care about equality or fair representation of justice. You are very hypocritical and disingenuous with your demands. Isn't it true you don't want equal application of financial/ect. laws? You just want the word 'marriage' on your certificate. Well, I'm sure you have that word on your certificate. Now, be truthful and demand equal application of financial laws, which the civil union laws are designed to give you. If all you want is the word, you have it! Quit your whining.
Seriously, what is the freaking difference. Why do you care if it's called marriage or civil unions. It doesn't affect you. Two people could get "civilly united" and say they are married and no one would think twice about correcting them. You don't think it is a civil rights issue, but we do. You think you're right and so do we. On and on it can go. What it simply comes down to what is fair. Gay marriage would not affect you one iota. However, not being allowed to marry affects gay people everyday of their lives. You don't have to like it, but you don't have the right to deny other people a harmless bit of happiness just because you think gay people are icky or immoral. They're not hurting anyone by being gay, gay marriage is such a harmless thing to be so afraid of. You say if we allow gay marriage it would lead to pederastic or polygamist matrimony, but answer me this: Why is it our society has deemed the aforementioned unacceptable and illegal behavior, yet homosexuality is tolerated, to an extent, as a personal "choice" even by the most fervently homophobic? Do you think being gay should be illegal? If not, why? If pedophilia and polygamy are in the same boat as homosexuality, why then would they be treated so differently by the vast majority of society? Name one way in which gay people being married will change anything for you personally. Please.
"Name one way in which gay people being married will change anything for you personally. Please." + "Gay marriage would not affect you one iota."
When my church is sued by the ACLU for discrimination because the pastor refused to perform a 'marriage ceremony' to a gay couple. I don't need my church spending money on defending themselves from lawyers because you simply want to use the word. You already admitted there is no difference, why are you NOT demanding more strict enforcement of the civil union laws that are already on the books and designed to do exactly what you complain about?
"Why is it our society has deemed the aforementioned unacceptable and illegal behavior, yet homosexuality is tolerated, to an extent, as a personal "choice" even by the most fervently homophobic?"
The problem with your immoral arguement is that homosexuality was considered unacceptable and illegal at one point. Isn't it still considered illegal in Texas? Now it is gaining acceptance among more and more. To the point that you want civil rights for you chosen sexual behavior. Explain to me WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE between gays seeking civil rights because they're gay and a pedophile seeking civil rights because they are a pedophile? Pedophilia is illegal now, but that could easily change with a different society in control.
CSL has claimed pedophilia is against HIS moral standards and he defiantly opposes that chosen sexual behavior. What if his grandkids decide that grandpa is a 'stuffy old shirt' and they think he is being intollerant and a bigot for his opposition to pedophilia, since many of their friends are in safe pedophiliac relationships? Suppose those grandkids and all their friends think the same way and decide to start pursueing changing those 'old fashioned' laws that prohibit this "alternative lifestyle that hurts no one"? Explain to me how one moral compass changed to the point of allowing open homosexuality and you can guaranteed it won't happen again on another level?
The problem with your fear (and others who complain of no slippery slope) is that you think pedophilia is 40 year old men having sex with 8 year old children. Well, it isn't that way, we're talking kids in the range of 15-17 being included in pedophiliac relationships. There is a group currently running a movement to abolish or lower legal consent age of minors and to change the diagnosis of pedophilia from a psycological disorder to a 'sexual orientation'. Wasn't homosexuality considered a psychological disorder many many years ago? Under current laws a HS senior girl (17) cannot have a college boyfriend (23) without fear that he will be diagnosed/charged with pedophilia. How long before you deem that as unacceptable and decide to pursue law changes that will abolish that law???
The "my church will get sued" argument is bogus. Churches already refuse to marry people, and it is within their right to do that. My husband was raised catholic and I was never even baptized, so the catholic church would not marry us.
I never said there was no difference, I said it wouldn't make a difference to you. Marriage and civil union are not always the same thing legally, and furthermore there is no right even to a civil union for gay couples in most states.
It has been explained to you over and over what the difference is between pedophilia and homosexuality is. Pedophilia is an adult abusing a child, whereas a gay relationship is between two consenting adults. There is a huge difference. So what if being gay was illegal once, it is not anymore, and there is a reason for the legal distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia. Women voting was once illegal, alcohol was once illegal. Did the legalization of alcohol lead to legalizing crack? Something having once been illegal is not an argument for why it is no longer illegal. Pedophilia will not become legal, that is a stupid argument. An unemancipated child under 18 cannot even sign a document and have it be legally binding. Pedophiles can seek civil rights all they want, but it will never be viewed the same, as it is not. You have not demonstrated how being gay hurts anyone, but it is obvious how molestation hurts a child. That is where your argument falls apart. Pedophilia is not an "alternative lifestyle that hurts no one". It is simply not comparable. If you cannot see the difference between an adult abusing a child and two consenting adults sharing love then you are crazy.
As for the argument about a 23 year old and a 17 year old, that is a whole separate issue from gay marriage. That is like saying we can't allow women to have rights because someday rapists will want rights too. It doesn't make any sense. So what if being gay was considered a mental disorder? It is not anymore because more research was done and it was proven to be false. Do you know where the term hysterectomy comes from? Well, it used to be believed that women could be cured of hysteria by the removal of the uterus. Obviously that has been proven false, but under you logic we should still give women with mental problems hysterectomies because once upon a time that was considered procedure.
You still never answered my question. Do you think being gay should be illegal? If not, why?
"The "my church will get sued" argument is bogus. Churches already refuse to marry people, and it is within their right to do that."
That's because there is no law saying they must. Which is what your intention is to have. Once that law is in place then litigation can be pursued. And you know it. It is very disingenuous for you to claim otherwise.
"Pedophilia is an adult abusing a child, whereas a gay relationship is between two consenting adults" + "An unemancipated child under 18 cannot even sign a document and have it be legally binding."
Yes a child of 17 can sign a document and have it be legal. How is a 24 Y.O. male dating a 17 Y.O. female child abuse? Where it is (legally) pedophilia. I think you lose that arguement based on the fact that someone 'decides' what age is legal and isn't. Your moral battle loses on that fact alone. Otherwise they are both sexual lifestyle choices. You feel one is ok and the other not ok. I feel they both are not ok. Try giving a good arguement instead of the same old "I feel it is immoral based on my moral beliefs". That is what you complain about my arguement against homosexuality for.
"Did the legalization of alcohol lead to legalizing crack?"
Obviously, there are many who feel alcohol is the 'gateway' to drug use. Which could lead to using crack. I think you would have a very hard time finding a drug user who didn't start out with alcohol, don't you think?
"Do you think being gay should be illegal?"
No. But, I do think it is immoral. Much like you think pedophilia is immoral (as do I). Are you saying your morals are a better indicator of what should be legalized than mine? I don't. I just happened to believe both are sexual behaviors that are immoral.
Pedophilia and homosexuality are not even related. Pedophilia is against the law. Homosexuality is not. Pedophilia hurts children. Homosexuality does not.
Your attempt to conflate homosexuality and pedophilia is not only insulting, it's also intellectually dishonest - and you know it is. I find it incredible that you say you have gay friends but continue to promote this notion that pedophilia and homosexuality have some sort of link. Obviously your gay friends don't know this side of you. I don't know if you're trying to be a total jerk or if you truly think you're making a point, but there is a big difference between pedophilia and homosexuality: it's called CONSENT.
Two people of the same sex have the ability to consent to a relationship. A minor taken advantage of by a pedophile doesn't.
You really don't know what you're arguing, do you?
Are the questions getting too hard for you? Or, since the thread is 2 days old you stopped caring about fighting for your "civil rights". You sure give up easily.
Actually, Philib, I have a life and I don't have time to sit on this board. There are times throughout the day that I check it, but once I'm home in the evening, that time is for me and my partner. You don't get that time. That is our time. So please, enough with the petty bs about threads being too old for some of us to comment on. You're pushing it too far, especially with the Col. Grow up.
Your questions above, as laughable as they are, really aren't getting to the meat of the message I'm attempting to convey. They are questions which look almost to be rhetorical, as we all know that pedophilia hasn't been 'legal' - ever. Come on. If you want to have reasoned debate, at least TRY to have a reasoned debate - and be reasonable. I've not been unreasonable. However, you've been disingenuous. Tsk Tsk.
You compare homosexuality and pedophilia - JUST LIKE WARREN DID. You don't see that, do you? There is a difference - and you just absolutely refuse to see any other point of view. The Catholic Church and their problems aren't the topic of this thread and have nothing to do with homosexuality. But just to answer some of your questions, the children involved were victims of pedophilia, not homosexuality. Just because the act of homosexuality was committed doesn't mean that pedophilia and homosexuality are linked. There were girls molested by priests, you know. It wasn't just boys. Further, studies and statistics show that by and large, pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL. Bringing up the priests in the Catholic Church does not buttress your argument that homosexuality and pedophilia are related. And for the record, pedophilia is wrong, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual.
What you fail to see, either because you won't take off the blinders or because you're being purposefully obtuse, is that there is a difference between my healthy, monogamous relationship with my partner and the disgusting acts of taking advantage of children. See, my partner and I CONSENT to a relationship. We love each other and we are a couple, whether YOU approve or not. Children don't have the legal ability to CONSENT to a sexual relationship with an adult (which is what pedophilia is, adults having sex with children). You cannot use the pedophilic priests in the Catholic Church who've been involved in homosexual acts with young boys as that standard by which all homosexuals should be judged. It's a disingenuous argument on your part. It's sad that people like you will do what you can to tear down relationships or take rights away from people just because you don't like them, or because you're too much of a chickensh#t to have to explain to your children how people are different than one another vis-a-vis sexuality. Not only does it act againts Christ's teachings, it's selfish of you.
Maybe you should think about how things will truly affect you and your family before you embark on crusades to single out people who aren't exactly like you. My relationship with my partner - and JamesB's relationship with his partner have exactly ZERO effect on your heterosexual relationship(s). It doesn't diminsh your marriage and it doesn't hurt your children. You righties have had a hard time coming up with how same-sex marriage will hurt heterosexual marriage. You've not been able to prove it. Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusettes and was legal here in California for a time. The world didn't come falling down and the fabric of society was not ripped apart. Again, you righties are disingenuous. Don't you guys get tired of being liars, cheaters and thieves? You would think that at least some of you who profess to be Christians would see that.
Nobody is asking you for acceptance of same-sex marriage. You don't have to accept my relationship. I'm not asking for acceptance from you - I don't need it. In fact, your opinion of my relationship doesn't even matter to me.
However, I will not stand by quietly as people of your ilk legislate discrimination and marginalize people like me because we have the balls to live our lives honestly and openly.
" If you want to have reasoned debate, at least TRY to have a reasoned debate - and be reasonable."
Reasonable debate?? When have I said F-you to you? I am having a reasonable debate, you think differently than I do...but I'm not cussing at you because you won't agree with everything I say. Step down from you high horse and be reasonable. Stop cussing at me because I have a different opinion.
You brought up the length of time homosexuality has been around. I brought up the same comparison for pedophilia. You claim homosexuality is ok since it's been around that long. But, you say pedophilia is not because it's got an underage partner involved. Well, what was the age of consent at the "dawn of time" (as you put it)?? The comparison is valid because both are sexual relations; one that you approve of one that you don't. I say I don't approve of either, and you say F-you to me. That's being VERY reasonable.
I never claimed that homosexuality is ok because it's been around for a long time. I claimed that homosexuality has been around a long time because it is natural. If it were a choice, as you claim it is, then why is it practiced in other parts of the animal kingdom?
And yes, I said F-you to you. And you deserved it. You referred to me as a second class citizen, and I will not tolerate your bs in that regard. I am equal to you, whether you like it or not.
What I meant by reasonable debate was that I would hope that you would stop asking these assinine questions that have nothing to do with the topic, but derail the thread. You twisted my words to try to prove me wrong, which is indeed disingenuous of you. You deliberately twist a lot of other posters' comments, which, when looked at in it's totality, show that you cannot be a reasonable debater.
Furthermore, as I said above, I don't give a damn whether or not you approve of homosexuality. We can both agree that pedophilia is wrong. But you went one step further and compared me to a pedophile - and that is where I draw the line.
You're a sick, twisted puppy who is probably here because of some masochistic need to be proven wrong, time and time again. There are some reasonable posters here who fall on the conservative side. I can accept their posts because they don't compare me to a pedophile, and they don't diss my life based on their perceptions of how OTHER people live. We agree to disagree, but you, on the other hand, must unload all of your invective on someone you don't know, someone you don't ever care to know and someone who doesn't want to know you.
Keep your hate to yourself, you phony Christian.
"We can both agree that pedophilia is wrong."
Wait a minute. You say pedophilia is wrong. Why? Is it because it hurts someone? Or because a minor is involved? The prior: homosexuality hurts someone too. As has been proven, in this thread, AIDS is very prevelant among gay men. The man doesn't even have to know he has it in order to pass it on. It could take months to develop enough to show up in medical tests and sometimes years to manifest itself into the deadly disease that it is. How can you guarantee that this deadly disease will NOT be passed on to an unsuspecting individual? That is hurting someone. As for the former: consentuality is only a legal term. How do you account for consentual young and old participating in pedophilia before there was the legal terminology of consenting adult sexual behavior? If you say the young does not have the capability to consent, then what gives you the right to say a particular age is the cut-off point for sex?
How are these not real concerns for someone who believes homosexuality and pedophilia are both sexual deviant lifestyles? The simple fact that you approve of one lifestyle does not make it less deviant to me. What if the majority suddenly decides that pedophilia is an acceptable lifestyle and also deserves 'civil rights'? Then we would both be on the same side of claiming NO it isn't deserving. How can you correlate that reasoning?
Wait a minute yourself. You cite the Bible as a rationale against homosexuality, then you talk about AIDS. Was AIDS around two thousand years ago? What "harm" was the basis for condemnations back then?
"How do you account for consentual young and old participating in pedophilia before there was the legal terminology of consenting adult sexual behavior? If you say the young does not have the capability to consent, then what gives you the right to say a particular age is the cut-off point for sex?"
People who are older can decide what age is appropriate. What is the suggestion, that because some people are too young to make that determination, then nobody can do it?
"What if the majority suddenly decides that pedophilia is an acceptable lifestyle and also deserves 'civil rights'? Then we would both be on the same side of claiming NO it isn't deserving. How can you correlate that reasoning?"
Aren't you the same person who says that gay people shouldn't have rights because the majority says so?
Are you even from this planet?
How could you even argue that pedophilia could even ever become legal? Yes, consent is a legal term. It means that there is permission on both sides of the relationship to be in the relationship. Pedophilia is wrong in a legal sense because a child is not of the emotional capacity to give consent. In a moral sense, we just don't believe in sleeping with children. It's not a bible based law, it's a common sense moral law.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, does NOT hurt anyone. Your premise above is flawed. Not only gay men have HIV/AIDS. Straight folks have HIV/AIDS as well. They might not know they have it, and they can spread it to women (even women become pregnant and the baby could have HIV/AIDS - oh no, a straight person did that???) Nothing has been proven in this thread other than your idiocy.
I've not been hurt by being gay, other than by people like you who like to beat/kill people like me. You see, the actual damage done to homosexuals are from people like you who think that our relationships are nasty, disgusting, unholy, against God, or whatever. You just don't get it: YOU, and PEOPLE LIKE YOU, are the problem here! We gay folks just want to be treated equally. But it's too much for you, isn't it? You have to be above others in order to be satisfied with your phony Christian lifestyle. With Conservative Christians, there always has to be an enemy to rail against, hasn't there?
Disease is not a viable argument. Come on, even if AIDS is prevalent in the gay community, it does not nullify the argument that same-sex marriage should be legal. Actually, it only bolsters the argument in favor of same-sex marriage. You just don't get the fact that gay folks are just like you, other than the fact that we have partners of the same sex. We enjoy monogamy just as much as heterosexuals do. We don't want HIV/AIDS. In fact, what community has been the most vocal about the education and eradication of HIV/AIDS? Oh, it's the GAY COMMUNITY, of course.
So, according to you righties, if I were to be married, it would hurt the gay community. What kind of twisted logic is that? It makes no sense.
Again, I don't give a damn what is acceptable to you. I'm not having that discussion. My point is that even though you don't agree with the way I live my life, you have NO right to tell me how to live my life. You have no right to legislate discrimination. It's as simple as that.
I refuse to further debate you about pedophilia. You have taken it way too far. You have compared me to a pedophile. You have insulted my relationship with my partner and you have insulted gay folks world-wide with your idiocy. You weave and dodge when asked specific questions. You bring up issues which have nothing to do with the topic at hand (who cares what age is the cut-off point for sex? That's not the issue here). You're trying to divert attention from arguments which are clearly losers for you. Typical rightie - Look over here! Look over here! Don't worry about the true issue at hand, let's see if we can relate to unrelated issues to prove that one of the issues is bad! Yeah, that's it.
It's a loser of an argument. It's too bad you cannot see that.
And before you say, "Aha, I win the debate because you refuse to debate with me", think again. You cannot stay on debate topic. You have to switch sub-topics to somehow correlate two things which have no correlation, in order to prove some point which has, as I've said before, even eluded you. Anymore, I cannot even figure out what the hell you're arguing, except that gay folks are icky and shouldn't be able to get married.
"How could you even argue that pedophilia could even ever become legal? Yes, consent is a legal term. It means that there is permission on both sides of the relationship to be in the relationship. Pedophilia is wrong in a legal sense because a child is not of the emotional capacity to give consent. In a moral sense, we just don't believe in sleeping with children. It's not a bible based law, it's a common sense moral law."
You're really argueing my case for me better than I can. What was said about homosexuality only 50 years ago? Now, you're argueing that pedophilia will NEVER become legal because it's immoral? Unless you plan on changing the age of children to meet your morality standards.
"Homosexuality, on the other hand, does NOT hurt anyone. Your premise above is flawed. Not only gay men have HIV/AIDS. Straight folks have HIV/AIDS as well. They might not know they have it, and they can spread it to women (even women become pregnant and the baby could have HIV/AIDS - oh no, a straight person did that???) Nothing has been proven in this thread other than your idiocy."
Which furthers my point. My religion teaches that any sexual immorality is wrong. That includes male/female while unmarried. So, your point that heterosexual sex is just as deadly is based on a premise that I approve of that lifestyle. Immorality is inaccaptable to me.
"Again, I don't give a damn what is acceptable to you. I'm not having that discussion. My point is that even though you don't agree with the way I live my life, you have NO right to tell me how to live my life. You have no right to legislate discrimination. It's as simple as that."
Another aspect of my arguement. Thanks for helping me out. YOU have NO right to tell an adult and a 15/16/17 year old how to live their lives, either!!! Even if YOU do not agree with their lifestyle, YOU cannot determin what is moral for THEM or legislate discrimination against them. Turns out it isn't as simple as you want to believe. Again; unless you plan on changing the 'age' of children to meet your morality standards.
"There are some reasonable posters here who fall on the conservative side. I can accept their posts because they don't compare me to a pedophile, and they don't diss my life based on their perceptions of how OTHER people live."
What are you doing when you say pedophilia is an unacceptable way for OTHER people to live their lives. You have no moral basis to "diss" their 'right' to live that way other than you don't approve of it. What makes that less bigoted than my disapproval of homosexuality?
Again, another losing argument for you.
Pedophilia is illegal. It corrupts a child and steals the child's innocence. It also causes emotional and psycho-sexual issues for years to come.
Homosexuality is not illegal, does not corrupt a child and does not cause emotional psycho-sexual issues for years to come. Granted, many gay folks do have issues with depression and loneliness, but that's due, again, to people like YOU and the hatred you spew. It's also due to the deeply religious in this country who simply cannot accept that not everyone is like everyone else.
You cons fear what is not like you and what you don't understand. Instead of fear, why not try to understand, and if you cannot understand, fine. Take it as one of those life questions that you just cannot find an answer to. I've accepted that about my sexuality. I've also accepted the fact that I will more than likely have to deal with the hatred coming from people like you. I'm strong enough that I don't have to hide my sexuality or who I love. I can take what you dish out and come back for more.
"You [libs] fear what is not like you and what you don't understand. Instead of fear, why not try to understand, and if you cannot understand, fine. Take it as one of those life questions that you just cannot find an answer to."
I put my changes in to demonstrate my point. How is a consentual pedophile relationship between a 16 year old and a 30 year old hurtful? Don't try to tell me a 16 isn't mature enough to make a decision of sex. Your sex-ed policies have been teaching them all they need to know since the first grade.
In NO way am I advocating pedophilia, but if you can't see the bigotry in your unfounded hatred of ones sexual tendacies based on your own personal beliefs, then I can't show it any better. You are no different than I in that aspect of our whines about sexual deviances.
I call BS. You're saying that I'm a bigot because I don't believe pedophilia is OK? Really?
And no, it's not the same thing. You believe homosexuality is a sexual deviance. Nowhere is it a sexual deviance, except for in theocratic countries. Even the APA removed it as a sexual deviance over 35 years ago. So no, your argument doesn't fly, because it forces me to accept your premise that pedophilia and homosexuality are comparable and even equal - and they're not. I don't accept your opening premise. It's logically flawed from the beginning.
When you decide to stop comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, then I'll discuss this with you. Until you stop comparing my life and my relationship with my partner (who is, by the way, 34 and I'm 37, so no pedophilia there...), I refuse to debate you further.
And no, you cannot put those "changes in..." there to demonstrate any point. You actually didn't demonstrate any point. You only showed that you know how to insert brackets and change a word. I can accept the fact that people are different. You cannot. That is the big difference between you and I. I accept these differences. You try to make everyone the same. You want everyone to be the same as you are. You're scared.
Can you fathom what the world would be like if everyone thought and acted the same way as you do? *shudder* I can say the same thing. I'd shudder at the thought that everyone thought and acted the same way as I do. Not only would it be boring, it would get annoying.
Liberals tend to stand up to fear, try to understand why there is the fear, solve the problem and move on. Lefties don't fear change as Righties do. This is why Lefties are often called 'progressives'. We enjoy PROGRESS. You know, change for the better! Righties are scared of anything that moves in the dark. They are scared of anything that challenges their belief structures, because they won't know what to think if their dear leaders who taught them this crap in the first place turn out to be wrong. Righties place too much stock in authoritarianism. Righties need someone else to guide them and to tell them what to think and how to behave.
Notice how I haven't had to rely on a book or a person to make my arguments? You have to use the bible to tell you how to reason with me and how your interpretation of it should govern the way I live my life. I think that says a lot.
"I can accept the fact that people are different."
You can accept the fact that pedophiles are different than you? Does that mean you also approve of their lifestyle? I thought you stood up to fear? Why do you fear their lifestyle? Where's your PROGRESS, you know, change for the better? Lefties put too much enphasis on hypocrisy. Lefties need someone else to control. Control your life, not someone whose sexual lifestyle is different than yours and quit your hypocrisy and accept others like to perform those deviant acts.
I don't use the Bible to tell me how to live my life. I use it as a guide for my salvation and acceptance into Heaven. You say you don't even use it, except when you need to claim some quotes from a person you don't believe in as the God He is. But you have no problem using His quotes to support your lifestyle.
You are terribly warped. First off, I said that I accept that people are different than I am. I accept that people believe differently. That being said, laws against pedophilia are on the books to protect children. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. No matter how many times you make that comparison, it doesn't ring true.
The fact of the matter is, I don't need to control anyone. Allowing gay folks to marry has nothing to do with control. It is people like you who want to control others, what with your, 'Live the way I say, or you cannot get married!'. That is control. I fail to see how I am a hypocrite, when you are demonstrating that you indeed are the hypocrite.
You are telling me above that I should "[C]ontrol my life, not someone whose sexual lifestyle is different than yours..." Fact is, I am controling my own life. I am controlling my life in that I am fighting for a right that I don't have, that I believe I should have. I don't tell others how to live. I don't preach, based on some book, that people should have to live a certain way. You do. In fact, you do it to a point that you feel you have the right to deny others rights.
Again, the constitution is on your side. I don't need your approval. I don't need your acceptance. Sincerely, Philib, you're a hypocrite yourself. Read your own posts and you might be able to see where it is you slipped up.
Further, using the bible as a guide for your salvation and acceptance into Heaven is indeed using the bible to tell you have to live your life. I don't use it to lead my life, but I do use it when phony holy rollers like yourself use the bible to spread hatred among God's children. I'm sure God is pleased. Enjoy your eternity in hell.
"That being said, laws against pedophilia are on the books to protect children."
Sure laws are on the books...now. They weren't at "the dawn of time". Which YOU claim is when homosexuality started. If that is true, then pedophilia started then, also. What makes that deviant lifestyle so immoral, to you? Simply because it is against the law? Oh wait, you said it was against human morality. Hypocrite! You say that because you don't approve of that lifestyle. Who set these human morals that you find so demanding? And, what gives YOU the right to tell a 16 Y.O. (what if she's 17?) that you don't want her living with a 30 Y.O. (what if he's 24?)? Your morals?? Sorry, that isn't good enough. That is being hypocritical because I use the same excuse to say your lifestyle is immoral and you call me a bigot. Laws have nothing to do with it when you claim it is against human morality.
You are terribly warped. First off, I said that I accept that people are different than I am. I accept that people believe differently. That being said, laws against pedophilia are on the books to protect children. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. No matter how many times you make that comparison, it doesn't ring true.
The fact of the matter is, I don't need to control anyone. Allowing gay folks to marry has nothing to do with control. It is people like you who want to control others, what with your, 'Live the way I say, or you cannot get married!'. That is control. I fail to see how I am a hypocrite, when you are demonstrating that you indeed are the hypocrite.
You are telling me above that I should "[C]ontrol my life, not someone whose sexual lifestyle is different than yours..." Fact is, I am controling my own life. I am controlling my life in that I am fighting for a right that I don't have, that I believe I should have. I don't tell others how to live. I don't preach, based on some book, that people should have to live a certain way. You do. In fact, you do it to a point that you feel you have the right to deny others rights.
Again, the constitution is not on your side. I don't need your approval. I don't need your acceptance. Sincerely, Philib, you're a hypocrite yourself. Read your own posts and you might be able to see where it is you slipped up. This is not a religious issue, so shove your bible where the sun doesn't shine.
Further, using the bible as a guide for your salvation and acceptance into Heaven is indeed using the bible to tell you have to live your life. I don't use it to lead my life, but I do use it when phony holy rollers like yourself use the bible to spread hatred among God's children. I'm sure God is pleased. Enjoy your eternity in hell.
Damn I hate it when I accidently hit the post button before I realized that there was more I wanted to add...sheesh...
Col, I don't think Pilly understood your question, Btw I didn't know you were a sexual deviant. No civil rights for you!
I don't think Phailib understands much of anything. Acknowledging his logical fallacy, then claiming a "win" with it is just sad.
I'm probably a sexual deviant by the standards of some far right wingnuts, often removing my pants completely, and not praying immediately after "mission accomplished".
Amazing that you could get all of that from an acknowelged lie of five words, off topic as well. Really, I'm in awe.
%*P
I guess I assumed you were talking on-topic when you claimed shoes was lying. I guess you weren't, you are just trolling...again.
Wrong.
He cited incest, pedophilia, and polygamy as examples and drew a comparison between them and his "definition of marriage." (A definition which, by the way, doesn't actually exist.)
It's the same comparison Santorum made many years ago, and is a pretty simple variation on the "slippery slope" argument. Which, as we all know, is a logical fallacy.
What he said was he was against gay marriage. He was also against an old guy marrying a "girl" and family members marrying each other.
If that's not COMPARING these things, then nothing is. Of course he was. He was making DIRECT comparisons between gay marriage and the others, almost in the same breath!
Nothing like watching trolling wingnuts make an echo chamber.
Warren is a dishonest buffoon and, when called on his bigotry, he tries to hide it. Homosexuality is not a choice (see the APA website here), it harms nobody, and he pretends that it is and it does. The slippery slope argument is apropos, but not in the same way that the right wingnuts try to claim; banning civil rights from one group (homosexuals) makes it easier to ban the same rights for other groups. It used to be illegal for blacks and whites to marry; it's the same thing. Homosexual marriage has no impact on anybody else's marriage, and those who claim otherwise are lying through their teeth. Nobody is advocating incest, pedophillia, or polygamy, and equating them is just another attempt to muddy the waters.
Do you consider President Obama to be a bigot for inviting Warren to speak at the inauguration, and also for his opposition to gay marriage?
No, I wouldn't say that Obama is a bigot. I do, however, think that his lack of support for gay marriage is flat-out wrong. I think that when he picked Warren he was trying to demonstrate how inclusive his administration will be; I also think it was a fantastically poor choice. He wouldn't have picked an openly racist pastor for the invocation, and there is no difference between racist bigotry and homophobic bigotry.
The President is trying to bring a message of tolerance and unity. Sometimes as Americans we may disagree with peoples views like Rick Warren. That however does not mean they are horrible people.
The President is right we need to grow up and stop the childish behavior.
I don't think criticism of an anti-gay bigot is childish.
it isn't. But when you whine about who the president picks to give the invocation at his own inauguration, that's childish.
agreed, it is childish and petty.
No, it's not.
But what's wonderful about it is that these guys always F'up in the end, like Warren. He was a bump on a log there.
So, give em enough rope.....
The President does not think he is anti-gay. Thankfully.
I certainly do disagree with bigotry. I always will. Again, Obama would not have picked an openly racist pastor to deliver the invocation; there is no difference. Reaching across the aisle is not only admirable, it is necessary. At the same time, it was not OK when blacks weren't allowed to marry whites, and it is not OK that gay marriage is not allowed. There is no difference; it is a civil rights issue.
Maybe the President will change his view on that. At the moment he feels marriage is between a man and a woman and not between members of the same sex.
history,
Many African Americans disagree with your contention that racism is equivilent to being against same-sex marriage. Your argument falls flat.
Here's a quote from a black gay man.
As an African American, I have to say that racism and homophobia are not the same thing and the predominantly white gay community needs to be aware of that. I'm not minimizing homophobia, but I am just asserting that it is different than the discrimation that blacks have felt.
http://neomugwump.blogspot.com/2008/11/gays-blacks-and-marriage.html
AA,
Many African Americans DO agree that racism is equivalent to homophobia. Homosexuality is determined by biology, so is "race." (For those who don't understand, I'll link to the APA website again.) Nobody chooses to be black; nobody chooses to be gay. Bigotry against either one is reprehensible. I am not minimizing racism, nor am I denying that blacks have been horribly discriminated against--I am saying that bigotry in any form is disgusting.
Please cite studies that conclusively confirm that homosexuality is determined by biology. Thanks.
Third time today: HERE.
I noticed that the article said the following: There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.
Thanks for providing the link proving that it is not conclusive.
"Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors."
Yes, that's correct. But if you read the next two paragraphs you'll find that sexual orientation is not a choice and is not changeable.
And it is also NOT genetic! Huge difference from what you are claiming. Humans are biologically human inside the womb, that doesn't stop them from being murdered. Is this a new defense we should be aware of to stop the murder of innocent human beings?
Here's a deal for you... If liberals stop murdering biological humans before they are born, conservatives will give biological gays "marriage rights". Sound fair to you?
I'm pretty sure gays can survive without living off the body of someone else. If a gay said he wanted to share my liver for nine months I wouldn't agree to that either. Luckily enough, my friend's marriage doesn't affect anyone but her and her wife.
Nice little story about your gay friends. I have gay friends, too. Go figure. Too bad you couldn't actually address the concerns I brought up.
If you weren't trying to turn a thread about Warren and his invocation into a debate about abortion (which you almost always do), then you might have a point.
Until then, expect people to speak to your concerns if it has something to do with the topic at hand.
Trolls derail threads. Nice try, troll.
Oh gosh. Your comment was stupid and off topic. I tried to bring it back around to show how gay people living their lives doesn't affect anyone but them. Sorry for trying to make your comment worth the time it took you to write it.
By the way, you know that gay rights and abortion rights are not overlapping topics right? There are gay people who are pro-life and pro-choice people who don't support gay marriage. Conflating the two just shows that you don't have much to your homophobic argument.
It is when biological issues are brought into the arguement. If geek is going to show homosexuality is a civil rights issue because of biology, then biology says that human babies are human babies at conception. Which would obviously change non-medical necassary abortions into murder. You can't have it both ways: biology counts in one but not the other.
When geek or you or anyone else can show homosexuality is a proven genetic formation then you will have a civil rights issue. Until then, you do NOT! THAT is the point of why I talked about abortion.
Biology does not say that babies are babies at conception. It says that a fertilized egg has the potential to become a baby. As far as science is concerned, I don't believe there is any such thing as a "baby" before birth.
What you're talking about is an issue of semantics, basically. Whether you call it a "baby" or not, the question would still be whether it has rights while it is within the woman's body. Besides this, it simply does not make sense to wait for the acceptance of scientific evidence which A)may not come for decades, if ever, and B)gay right opponents have a vested interest in rejecting.
"Biology does not say that babies are babies at conception."
You're right. It says that human babies are human babies at conception. Once the two cells get together biology already knows what they will become. Science may not agree that it is life, but biology says it is human.
"scientific evidence which A)may not come for decades, if ever, and B)gay right opponents have a vested interest in rejecting."
That's right, evidence may never come. So, why are they claiming "civil rights" in a marriage issue? A civil right is something held for those who are born a way. But, they are more then welcome to fight for more strict enforcement of civil union laws. I would support that, also.
No, it doesn't say that human babies are human babies. You imagine that if you use your terminology that an embryo will automatically have the same rights as a born person, and it doesn't work that way.
There's no way to argue that homosexuality is chosen behavior, really. You can't describe how you chose to be heterosexual, as one example.
The links that historygeek brought to the discussion say they ARE chosen. Through several different factors...but chosen just the same. Are you going to say something to geek for his discriminatory links about homosexuality? Or, just complain to me because I feel differently than you do?
How did those links say that? Biology and environment are not within someone's control.
You lie. The APA link says sexuality is not chosen.
"Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others."
First paragraph, first sentence. Where does it say your sexual orientation is determined by genetics?
I know I'm derailing this thread a little bit, but since anotheramerican and wesley are clearly just playing games...
anotheramerican, please tell us, at what age did you choose to be heterosexual?
I'm guessing it's a gut-wrenching choice that has to be made every day. At least by anybody who needs to ask for proof that sexual orientation isn't a choice. I don't need any scientists to tell me what I like, and I would hope that I would be as comfortable with that if I was gay.
"Nobody chooses to be black; nobody chooses to be gay."
Being black is determined in the genes of a person as they are formed in the womb. Being gay is not determined in the genes of a person as they are being formed in the womb. As the site that YOU provide says: "There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.".
Did you read what you linked to? The closest it comes is to say there is recent evidence that suggests it could be genetic. NO actual proof or scientific evidence is given or linked to. Otherwise YOUR site says it is interactive, environmental and cognitive. YOU are the one claiming you are born that way, NOT the site you provide as proof, nor the majority of respected scientists!
First off, Phil, you're coming from the point of view that in order to grant marriage rights to us gay folks, that we have to be somehow biologically inclined towards homosexuality. No one is claiming that you have to be 'born gay' in order to be able to marry someone of the same sex, which you seem to assert in your previous postings.
You've begun your argument with a false premise. It doesn't matter if homosexuality is biological or even chosen. God knows I didn't choose it, but it's how I'm most comfortable. I decided to be truthful about myself to myself and my family. I didn't want to live a lie. Conservatives wanted me to be dishonest and live a lie, but I was raised that lying is a mortal sin. And believe me, if you have gay friends, as you say you do (I have trouble believing that), you would understand more and more that being gay isn't something that is chosen, like what you might wear for the day. "Let's see, I'll be gay today - and I'll wear that fabulous pink shirt!" Nope. Doesn't happen. It's insulting to gay folks for you to say that my sexual orientation is chosen, because, you know, I just loved being picked on, called names, beat up and somewhat ostracized as a youth. Let me tell you how much I've enjoyed being treated differently, being on the receiving end of some seriously nasty vitriol, witnessing discrimination personally, because I'm in a relationship with a person of the same sex, instead of living the Conservative 'straight' lie.
Any way you cut it, denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is discrimination. It doesn't matter how you argue it. Denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is the classic definition of discrimination - denying rights to some, but not all.
The fact of the matter is that nobody knows if homosexuality is biological, environmental, cognitive or a funny mixture of the three. Even if it weren't biological and it were a chosen lifestyle, how would that change your argument, that denying rights to a certain subset of people is OK?
"No one is claiming that you have to be 'born gay' in order to be able to marry someone of the same sex, which you seem to assert in your previous postings."
No. I haven't done that. I have stressed that gay marriage is NOT a "civil right", which all the arguements you use trying to claim special rights you aren't qualified for. Seek the civil union rights and be happy with it. I would vote for that. But, not marriage rights. Virtually everyone else says the same thing...seek civil union rights. Those you have a right to ask for.
would you be happy if marriage were only performed in churches as a religious ceremony as each church or affilation sees fit? And the state would sanction civil unions and get out of the marriage business, for everyone, straight and gay. because that is what should be done.
You can do whatever you want. It isn't my place to tell you how to act or vote. I am just expressing how I feel on this subject and you all act as if I make all the decisions in the world and that I'm solely responsible for every failure currently happening that you all don't like. Sorry, I'm not Bush. Just because you don't have him to kick around anymore....
But, if you want my answer to your inane question. No I would not be happy. Would you be happy if all chosen sexual behaviors were given civil union rights equal to marriage rights? Or, are you a hypocrit and want to pick and choose which chosen sexual behavior gets civil union rights?!?
It doesn't matter what 'everyone else' says. It's what the Constitution guarantees us. You don't get to decide, no matter how much you think you do.
And F you with your "...trying to claim special rights you aren't qualified for...". I'm fighting for rights that I DESERVE. I DESERVE them because I am living the life of a married man. I'm in a same-sex relationship and I have more respect for the institution of marriage than most heteros have in their ring fingers, what with your rampant infidelity, skyrocketing divorce rates and such. I DESERVE marriage rights because I respect the institution.
And yes, I AM qualified for the right to marriage because I AM AN AMERICAN. The Constitution guarantees me this right. Realize it and get over it.
In the words of our mayor (SF Mayor Gavin Newsom) - and he's right about this: Gay marriage will be legal, whether you like it or not.
This so reminds me of having to school my (since passed) racist grandfather about the equality of all people regardless of color of skin. Equality will come, it's a matter of time, whether you like it or not. You will not be the force to be reckoned with. You will not be able to stop it. Your nazi-esque beliefs will be relegated to the dustbin of history.
"And yes, I AM qualified for the right to marriage because I AM AN AMERICAN. The Constitution guarantees me this right. Realize it and get over it."
Where does the constitution guarantee you that right to marriage?
"In the words of our mayor (SF Mayor Gavin Newsom) - and he's right about this: Gay marriage will be legal, whether you like it or not."
He's not my mayor. He's not my governor. He's not my president. The last I looked that issue was VOTED on by 'we the people'. You have heard of that process haven't you? The last I heard, elections are what happen when issues are put forth. How did that issue handle the election process? How does "whether you like it or not" feel on the other foot? Besides, you HAVE equality with civil unions. If you don't like that equality, work on changing civil unions.
the constitution guarantees it as it cannot deny a right affored to one but not the other.
And Philib doesn't understand that 'we the people' don't get to legislate discrimination, which is what Prop 8 is/was.
Philib, the fact that Gavin Newsom isn't your mayor (or governor or president) doesn't matter. He was making a point - and it has nothing to do with him being in office - any office. The point he was making is that eventually it will become legal, whether people agree to it or not. It's not for 'we the people' to vote on. YOU don't get to decide whether I get to get married. You righties might think that by putting ballot initiatives up for vote will get some sort of 'moral majority' on your side, but you forget, we have a court system. The court system will find that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. The CA Supreme Court has already found it to be unconstitutional. 'We the people' do have a voice, but that voice cannot be used to trample the rights of others, or to legislate any sort of law which is contrary to the constitution. End of story.
Philib, you might think that the ballot box is the end all be all of democracy, but it's not. Pick up a book, you ignorant bigot.
" The court system will find that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional."
Not when you have your equal rights offered through 'civil unions'. You seek the word 'marriage' for whatever reason. Why? Who knows and who cares. You are given equal rights legally through civil unions. If you aren't then complain about THAT.
You ask why we want the word marriage versus the term civil unions. Fair enough.
There is a difference. I know and I care. What civil unions offer might be the same as marriage. I'll grant you that. However, they are not the same thing as marriage - because if it were the same thing, it would be called MARRIAGE. Get it?
See, again, you folks on the right want to claim something for yourselves which doesn't belong to any one class of people.
And the Court system will find that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, even when civil unions are offered. Do you know why? Of course you don't. The reason is that (1) banning gay marriage has already been deemed unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court; and (2) Civil unions aren't the same as marriage.
If it's not that important, then why don't YOU change your 'marriage' to a 'civil union'? If it's the same thing, then it shouldn't be a problem for you, right?
Oh, you won't change your 'marriage' to a 'civil union'? Why? Because it's not the same thing? Or, because you're straight and a bigot? Which might it be, Philib?
"See, again, you folks on the right want to claim something for yourselves which doesn't belong to any one class of people."
Well, when am I able to claim 'civil rights'? I am a white male. Am I going to be discriminated against when Obama's infrastructure plan goes into affect and he directs most new jobs to minority and women workers? That is an example of you trying to claim something for yourself that doesn't belong to another class of people.
" What civil unions offer might be the same as marriage. I'll grant you that."
That wasn't so hard, now was it? Now, if you want my vote to help increase the effectiveness and enforcement of those laws, I'll be glad to help.
No. I don't want anything from you.
I didn't concede anything, so you can lose the tone of victory in your post.
The point I was making, which you purposefully avoided, is that if marriage and civil unions were indeed the same, they would be called the same. There would be no need for the separate but equal quality to this issue. You want separate but equal. The U.S. doesn't work like that anymore.
So, why did you ignore my final question:
"If it's not that important, then why don't YOU change your 'marriage' to a 'civil union'? If it's the same thing, then it shouldn't be a problem for you, right?
Oh, you won't change your 'marriage' to a 'civil union'? Why? Because it's not the same thing? Or, because you're straight and a bigot? Which might it be, Philib?"
I requested a response, but you dodged it. Maybe it's because your answer is a losing answer either way?
Hhhhmmm....seems that Philib can answer the other questions posed to him, but when he's posed a question which basically kills his argument, he suddenly goes quiet.
That says a lot about him, too.
Wow, we're learning a lot about Philib today, aren't we?
"If it's not that important, then why don't YOU change your 'marriage' to a 'civil union'? If it's the same thing, then it shouldn't be a problem for you, right?"
I would have no problem with that. As long as I get equal financial considerations as I do with marriage. I don't know how many times I've answered that one---even before you asked it.
How about you? Would you accept 'civil union' if it gave you the same financial considerations as 'marriage'?
Wow, we're learning a lot about commonsenseliberal today, aren't we?
He spends 3 days of intense discussion trying to convince me (and others) that his chosen sexual behavior is moral and deserving of civil rights while defending his right to be a bigot against another chosen sexual behavior. But, when the rubber hits the road, he disappears without answering the same question he whined that I wouldn't answer.
We learned a lot about CSL, today, didn't we?
People have a right to ASK for anything. The fact is that marriage is a legal institution and it involves HUNDREDS of legal rights that nonmarried people do not have; this is all about rights.
"...rights you aren't qualified for." Your bigotry is showing. Again.
" It's insulting to gay folks for you to say that my sexual orientation is chosen, because, you know, I just loved being picked on, called names, beat up and somewhat ostracized as a youth."
Historygeeks link to the APA says it is a chosen sexual behavior. Are you going to ostrisize him, too? And actually, all the gay people I know are women, so technically I know lesbians. About 10 women I know are gay. And they know how I feel about it. I even have a close enough friendship with one to ask her advise on relationship problems. But, what do you care about that, right?
None of this has anything to do with the fact that the NY Times left out some pretty key comments Warren has made that are relevant to any discussion of the controversy.
And in my opinion there's a difference between speechifyin' and praying. Warren was supposedly there to do the latter.
Adding "Amen" to the end of a speech doesn't make it a prayer. I half expected him to say the phrase "purpose driven" a few times.
And nobody knows childish liek the "OMGZORZ U ALL PARTIZEN U CHIDLISH" troll.
Any substance to your posts? Or is everyone with a different view than you a troll?
He/she hasn't even expressed a view to be different from, yet, has he/she? That's the thing about these left-wing trolls, they don't post a point to be disagreed with, they just slip in and call names. Much like the col and ewes. But for some reason, everyone loves these trolls. It's like Obama: he hates gay marriage, but gays and liberals love him....Warren hates gay marriage and gays and liberals hate him. Typical liberal mentallity, if you ask me.
Actually, just because Barack Obama doesn't support gay marriage doesn't mean he 'hates' gay marriage. Nice try, though.
I've noticed you've not added a whole lot of substance to the conversation yourself, Tommy.
Tommy's probably on vacation. Casey dosen't have that love of wrangling that Tommy has.
Obama is a clever chess player who knows how to get broad support. But pointing out Warren's intolerance hardly counts as intolerance itself.
I would agree with you except that President Obama is on record as being against gay marriage.
If President Obama was in favor of legalizing gay marriage and yet invited Warren to speak, then I would agree with your comment. It is a matter of judging others consistently.
I don't understand this whole 'Obama is against gay marriage' thing.
Sure, he may not support gay marriage rights. I disagree with him on that. That doesn't mean he's not got other good points. You know, you don't have to agree with everything a politician says or believes in order to support said politician. It's not all black and white, as you conservatives like to see things.
Notice how Obama is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? If he 'hates' gay marriage so much (as Philib says above), then why wouldn't he push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
My opinion is that Obama is in favor of gay marriage, just not right now. Things must be done in increments. My opinion is that the U.S. populace isn't ready for gay marriage (though that doesn't mean it should be banned) and Obama knows that. He knows that quick change could spell disaster. While the American people are patriotically resilient, we have a problem with social issues 'shock'.
I think when you're running for President, and you've already been labeled "the most liberal Senator in the world!" you probably don't want to advertise your decidedly liberal stance on gay rights, since there are plenty of moderates who don't yet support gay marriage.
He was being a politician. Do I think he should stick to his convictions? Of course. Do I think that he would have been elected if he had said "gay marriage for all!"? not really. He made his point pretty clear when he denounced Prop 8.
I think you're absolutely correct. He would not have won if he would have said, "gay marriage for all!". He was very clear when he denounced Prop 8 (which thankfully will be overturned in a few months).
I believe Obama was once a constitutional law professor. Most constitutional law professors agree that banning gay marriage is indeed unconstitutional. Even conservative judges on the California Supreme Court (yes, conservative judges!) agreed that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. It's just bigotry and discrimination on the part of the righties (and some lefties) that they just cannot fathom until they are put in a bigoted or discriminatory situation where they are the target.
It's a sad thing that people look for reasons to deny others the right to be just like them. It's an 'I'm better or more deserving than you are - just because you're different than I am' attitude. It's seriously unChristian and anti-American.
"It's seriously unChristian and anti-American."
Un-Christian to be against homosexuality? Umm, Christianity does not approve of homosexuality. Just like it doesn't approve of any other type of sexual deviance. Christianity teaches to love the sinner, hate the sin. But, if you're a Christian you already know that.
No, idiot. I believe it's unChristian and unAmerican to deny rights to others that you would fight for yourself. It flies in the face of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'
Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. If so, I'd like to see it. I've never seen it in my studies of the bible.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't a Christian someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ? Just how is opposing same-sex marriage 'Christian'?
A Christian is also someone who believes Jesus is God. God wrote the Bible, through man. Are you only believing the red-letter words? Who wrote those words that you only believe? Now, why will you only believe those words if man (not God) wrote them?
You've obviously mistaken me for a Christian.
I'm a deist. There's a difference.
I've studied the bible extensively. I don't care what it says. It was written by man. So what if they claim divine inspiration. I can write a book totally contrary to the bible and say it was the result of divine inspiration.
Further, we have a separation of Church and State in this country. It's too bad you don't want to adhere to it, but you would rather legislate your morality for others to follow. How grandiose of you!
Your bible beliefs are not my laws.
Your beliefs are not the end all be all, the only correct beliefs.
At least I can understand that people have a right to live the way they'd like to live. And while I might not agree with the way that people live their lives, I have no right given to me by any god or any laws to tell others what to do based on my religious principles. Evidently, you feel you do. Thankfully, I have the Constitution on my side. That trumps your god EVERY TIME.
"I've studied the bible extensively. I don't care what it says. It was written by man."
You made the claim that Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality. Where is your proof of that, if you don't care what the Bible says? What do you have to base your claim of fact?
I've asked you to show me where, as I have not ever seen that Christ condemned homosexuality.
If you want to believe the Old Testament where it says a man shall not lie with another, then fine. When you start following all of the other laws within the Old Testament, then I'll follow along with your logic.
So, stop eating shellfish. Stop eating any animal with a cloven hoof. Stop wearing clothing that is made of two different types of materials. Stop eating cheeseburgers. And for goodness sake, don't forget that your wife cannot go to temple when she's experiencing her menstrual cycle.
If you're going to argue that we follow the rules set forth in the bible, you cannot pick and choose which rules to follow...unless you have some authority from God that no one else knows about.
What I meant by "I don't care what the bible says" is that I don't have to follow it's laws. It was written by man long ago, re-written by other men, long ago, and interpreted, misinterpreted and perverted throughout the ages. Following the bible isn't following God. It's following the proscriptions of old men who were crazy enough to think that God was telling them something important. Like I said before, I can write anything I want and claim that God told me to do it. It doesn't make it gospel truth. (I hope you liked that last sentence, it was just for you, Philib).
I don't need to pick-and-choose. I understand who those laws, you curiously quote, are intended to affect and why. I went through this a couple weeks ago with ewes or brabs or somebody (maybe it was you), but if you really want to find them, you'll have to dig up those threads yourself. If I get a chance I'll do the work for you. But, the fact is, since you don't believe in the Bible what good would it do me to show you that God is against the homosexual lifestyle, using the NEW testament?
"Your bible beliefs are not my laws."
Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not lie. Ok, I can see the murder one being against your moral standards, since someone gets hurt. But, how do the others apply if not from Biblical teachings? How does stealing and/or lying hurt someone? So, I'm afraid that my Bible beliefs ARE IN FACT your laws.
Warren is a dishonest buffoon and, when called on his bigotry, he tries to hide it.
Right. That's why he scrubbed his Web site of derogatory anti-gay language-- which the press, like CNN, claimed meant that he changed his mind!!
Egads, as they used to say...
Rev. Warren mentioned none of those things in his prayer, rather it seemed to attempt to set a mood of reverence, humbleness, seeking justice and finding peace.
Compare that with the 'so 60's' Rev. Lowery's classless comments in his benediction.
Thank you your benificence. The goleposts of heaven and hell are unmoved and visible to all.
And now another question from our carefully controlled...audience.
ewes, are you and the col one person? You both troll these threads the exact same way. Never actually mentioning the topic, but always here to break the terms of use rules as demanded by mmfa. That must be one of the many gifts from God that are spoken of in the Bible? Please enlighten us more with your brilliant comebacks and insightful analogies! Sign your next one 'the col' that way I know both of you are still following this day-old thread that is talking about how liberals despise Warren for being anti-gay marriage, but love Obama for being anti-gay marriage.
I'm convinced we're concurrent incarnations. Been a lot of that going arround. His humor is impossible to duplicate, and I have tried. On the other hand I'm sure I read more trash than he does.
Always ready to do better. Could you possibly detail a few "terms of use rules as demanded." Help a poster do better.
You tease and dance about many things, but leave me unfullfilled.
I don't remember weighing in on Warren's or Obama's positions on gay marriage. I think Warren could be called hostile to the idea. I suspicious of your designation of Obama's position for a number of reasons. Which I'll gladly express upon request.
Short on the analogy front, maybe next time.
Exactly, I had no issues with Rev. Warren. I am glad the President asked him to event.
Well of course you didn't - conservative bigots see no problems with other conservative bogits.
Plowedcon, which of Lowry's comments do you consider the most "classless"? Why?
Kernal,
A benediction, at least in church, is meant to bless all who have gathered to worship. This was not a worship service but his place should not be to politicize the event but rather encourage all to feel good about the day.
Instead he chastized us, our country for favoring the rich and exploiting the poor. Even if you believe it to be true this is not a political rally but a nation-unifying event and this divides and attacks the country for something it never aspired to be nor has become. He also talked about us sowing the seeds for discontent and reaping the response of other nations, sounds a bit rev wrightish. And the 'jokes' about color at the end. I thought it distasteful, inappropriate and denying the actions of this country, to move beyond race. I can only imagine the outrage if Warren had used the stage to divide by color or sexual orientation, "If you a homo, do it nomo".
I would like to hear other benedictions and prayers offered in previous inaugurations to see how people were sent off. I do know, that I never heard of anyone trying to excuse a minister's behavior prior to this.
By the way, if you want to hear a gracious manner and positive inauguaral address, just listent to the first few minutes of this one and see how poorly our new president presented himself yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXzgMdj5urs
Yes, it sure was easy to give a positive inaugural address in 2001, when the country was in relative prosperity and peace. Your "gracious and positive" President managed to f that all up for us.
In conclusion, you're a jackass.
Plowedcon, which of Lowry's comments do you consider the most "classless"?
Blah blah blah, bunch of interpretation of Lowry's words,no answer." I'll mark that down as " drank the Kool Aid, typed a lot, couldn't answer".
Now go sit in the stoopid corner with Phailib & Barney Fife.
Wow! That's the best you can do? Name calling? You go girl!
Philib, I asked a simple question, looking for some substance to back up PC's comment. He failed, I noted his failure. Are you just trying to out-fail him, or do you have something to say, troll?
He gave 3 examples of "classless" comments made by the guy. I guess your simple mind just stopped reading after blah, blah.
Oh, I went to your link of W's speech. I had to fastforward a lot due to the boring nature of his babbling, but I think I got the gist of it,Lips moving, nothing said. A preview of his 8 years of emptiness.
kernalocorn,
Blah, Blah, Blah???? Isn't offence related to both the interpretation of how words are used and the words themselves? Isn't that why people would be offended to be called a racial epithet, even if in the words of Deputy Fife, "I was just funnin' ya!"?
C'mon killerofchickens, you can do better than blah, blah, blah. I have come to expect better from you. If you keep up with these 'laughable', ooops I mean pathetic (See other thread) responses, you'll be bucking for private soon!
PS. I prefer grape koolaid, what about you?
No, I'm afraid you're wrong PC. He cannot do better than that. Yet he's a colonel in the ranks of the liberal. So, I think you set your expectations too high. I have mine set low and he never dissapoints me.
That's funny.
I found the benediction to be quite powerful, and frankly, almost better than Obama's speech. Conversely, I found Warren's very presence at the event to be in incredibly poor taste.
Fortunately, Obama had the sense to almost make up for it by including "nonbelievers" in his remarks.
Remember now that Warren and President Obama share the similar belief regarding gay marriage.
Dateline, San Francisco:
"The Illinois senator has said repeatedly that he believes marriage should be only between man and a woman. When the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage in May, Obama released a carefully nuanced statement saying he respected the court's decision, believed states should make their own decisions on marriage and "will continue to fight for civil unions as president."
On Tuesday, Obama spokeswoman Shannon Gilson released this statement:
"Senator Obama supports civil unions, and he has consistently opposed federal and state constitutional marriage amendments because as we have seen in some states, enshrining a definition of marriage into the constitution can allow states to roll back the civil rights and benefits that are provided in domestic partnerships and civil unions."
But civil unions, gay activists argue, aren't the same as marriage, and they say his earlier stance would put Obama on the wrong side of what's increasingly seen as a civil rights issue."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/MN8J11I731.DTL&type=politics
What part of Rev. Lawry's benediction did you have a problem with PC?
Looks like a hit & run, Ma'am.
I think it's more of a case of julie not being able to read. The guy answered that one already, but your trolling minds look past the answer and expect a transformation. Speaking of hit and run...col, had anything to say on-topic yet?? I realize this thread is already a day old and you don't show up anymore, but at least answer this one: Do you think Obama is a bigot for being anti-gay marriage?
And apparently Philly can't read time stamps.
Ooops, my bad. You got me on that one. Too bad you couldn't have joined the conversation on-topic at some point in time. I realize trolls have a hard time talking about the topic, but you should try it sometime.
Sorry, Philly, I am visiting a day old thread.
First of all, PC did not answer my question. I asked which words of Lowry's he found "classless", and he typed a bunch of words , none of them Lowry's. He may have fooled you, but don't insult me by thinking I fell for it.
I don't think Obama's a bigot for having a personal religious belief that doesn't recognize gay marriage, any more than I think Warren is a bigot for having that personal belief. I think when people start spreading lies and firing up their followers with anti-gay rhetoric, and promoting legislation against certain groups, they're getting into bigot territory.
onhiswaytoprivate,
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/01/rev-lowery-inauguration-benedi.html
Paragraphs 3,4 and 10. And remember not to be offended by my comment, "If you a homo, do it nomo!"
And remember not to be offended by my comment, "If you a homo, do it nomo!"
I'm always offended by bad comedy. ;-)
You think prayers that condemn greed and exploitaion of the poor and that call for unity and social justice are classless? You must really hate Jesus.
He wasn't there to sermonize, even if you believe he was correct. I did not appreciate his implication that this country was about exploiting the poor or that we didn't strive for justice. Somehow, the ending of this had just begun on this, the annointed one's coronation day.
Craig, I would never condemn anyone as hating Jesus, the only begotten Son of God. Rather, I would encourage us to recognize this, remember that 'anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord, will be saved.
Are you sure that's all it takes? You might want to consider trying to be a decent human being as well.
Your opinion of me as a human being doesn't really matter, I couldn't care less. It speaks of a loss of an argument or a dearth of capable intellect and dialogue.
However the Word of God gives the recipe for salvation, in this life and the world to come, as noted above. Thank God that politics never saved anyone's soul.
I've just never really liked the idea that one is saved faith. I think it makes much more sense to judge people by what they actually do.
Or maybe it's just that too many of the people who say they're saved by faith don't seem to really know that means. While they may be comforted by a belief that because they say they have faith in Jesus they're redeemed, they act like pompous, judgmental jerks that Jesus would surely condemn.
"While they may be comforted by a belief that because they say they have faith in Jesus they're redeemed, they act like pompous, judgmental jerks that Jesus would surely condemn."
Kind of like you and CSL who judge pedophiles as immoral, but condemn me because I judge both pedophile and homosexual lifestyles to be immoral? You must find comfort in yourself that you are able to judge others while not expecting to be judged yourself.
However the Word of God gives the recipe for salvation, pc
A dash of bigotry and a pinch on intollerance?
That's a good example of why politics won't save anyone's soul. Now show that Jesus is either a bigot or intollerant and you'll be able to convince us to stop believing in Him.
-- it harms nobody, and he pretends that it is and it does -- historygeek
Of course it does harm...as evidenced by the fact that homosexuals cause 57% of HIV/AIDs infections annually...as reported by the CDC.
It is not a simple little uncontrollable lifestyle that does no one harm...It's the largest factor in spreading the deadly AIDS virus....which cannot be overlooked when framing the issue.
And don't forget those dangerous bisexuals and heterosexuals, and anyone else with a real live sexual partner!
Self abuse, the only viable sexual life style. And don't forget to sterilize your toys after use.
Ank u.
Wesley, your ranting and homophobic hate should have no place on this forum.
J-Ly,
Since when is reporting a statistical fact a rant?
Do you consider drug users to lead a lifestyle that harms no one else? Should we just ignore the fact that drug users account for 43% of the spread of AIDS because you don't want to hear it?
Homosexuality is not a harmless lifestyle...especially to the homosexual community...and that is a fact and not a rant.
Wes,
It is an often used sidestep here to call anyone who voices anything other than kool-aid acceptance of the gay lifestyle as being homophobic or bigotted.
I view it as simply coded for someone not having a counter argument. Using disparaging epithets is meant only to shut down discussion. It reminds me of a child holding his hands over his ears and talking gibberish as they try to avoid facing the issue at hand.
First of all AA, I have been targeted in the past by some people on here for having different views and called names etc. I take offense to you suggesting my disagreement with Wesley is based on a kool-aid acceptance.
My issue with Wesley is the sprad of AIDS is not a homosexual only issue . In fact if we had gay marriage ,where two people who love eachother and are committed to eachother would prevent STDs.
In africa today the number one issue is hetrosexual and lack of proper protection.
In africa today the number one issue is hetrosexual and lack of proper protection.
If you listen closely, you can hear Wesley's and anotheramerican's arguments rapidly deflating.
When a wingnut's worldview is demolished, there is a subtle, slightly flatulent sound, usually followed by a malodorous cloud of frustration.
Jlyons,
So because you have been called names you are free to call others homophobes? If you grant that privilege you claim to others, you can see how quickly the discussion will sprial downward can't you?
People can disagree without the name calling. I would have thought you had learned that by now.
As I asked deez elsewhere, can you point to any link or proof that gay marriage brings down the occurance of HIV and/or STDs in Gay people? Thanks.
Africa's problems are immense. However to bring their problems into it, is to avoid Wes's argument.
So because you have been called names you are free to call others homophobes? If you grant that privilege you claim to others, you can see how quickly the discussion will sprial downward can't you
AA, no where did i call Wesley a homophobe. Is said his ranting was homophobic.
Here is one article on how marriage will reduve HIV or STDs. Marriage I say "Marriage". Since Gay marriage is not legal there are no studies on it that I can tell.
HIV is related to Africa, it is part of the problem the world faces. if Wesley wants to talk about HIV in the US , he should say so, and not paint AIDS/HIV as only a gay disease.
http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/FO3020630265/
http://aids.about.com/od/dataandstatistics/qt/US_HIV.htm
Jlyons,
It is laughable that you claim Wes is engaging in homophobic hate rants but you are not calling him a homophobe? That is hillarious.
As far as your statistics. It only stands to reason that if heterosexual contact goes up, gay occurances as a percentage, go down. Since Aids started infecting gays in the early 80's and was virtually non-existant in the heterosexual group, showing it's growth since 1986 is very misleading. Not to mention when you factor in the that 1-2% of the population still accounts for 43% of the infections, you only prove Wes's point.
It is laughable that you claim Wes is engaging in homophobic hate rants but you are not calling him a homophobe? That is hillarious
AA i stand by my earlier statement, his rant was homophobic, i don't know him personally so I can't say he is hompoobic.
Hetrosexual cases of HIV infection are on the rise, i have given you examples of that. If you want to dismiss it go ahead.
-- High-risk heterosexual contact accounted for 31% (16,800) of estimated new HIV infections in 2006. The historical analysis suggests that the number of new infections in this population fluctuated somewhat throughout the 1990s and has declined in recent years. -- CDC aug08
J,
Give it up.. Saying someone is engaged in "homophobic hate" is about as sophomoric name calling as it gets. Your defense of name calling is disnegenuous and your original post was uncalled for. The decent thing would have been to just apologize.
If you really think that someone who calls gay people "queers" isn't a homophobe, it's you who is being disingenuous.
That means you agree that lys is being disingenuous by calling people homophobe.
No, it means that Wesley is a homophobe. Anyone who finds it necessary to spout off about AIDS on a thread about gay marriage has a problem with homosexuality, since accepting homosexuality would mean less risky behavior (and Wesley has already admitted it's about behavior). That's just common sense, and Wesley isn't a stupid person. His habitual recitation of these statistics at every opportunity and his use of the term "queers" makes it pretty clear he is a homophobe.
How you reached your interpretation is a mystery.
historygeek: "Homosexuality is not a choice (see the APA website here), it harms nobody,"
When that was said, it opened the door for showing that homosexuality DOES harm others. So, you are saying that historygeek is a homophobe? I think you're just a heterophobe.
-- The cause of HIV infections is changing. -- J-Ly
Here's a little newer update to add to yours...once again from the CDC in Aug08:
-- U.S. HIV Epidemic Worse Than Previously Known:
Male-to-male sexual contact ...indicates that HIV incidence has been increasing steadily among gay and bisexual men since the early 1990s, confirming a trend suggested by other data showing increases in risk behavior... --
no where did i call Wesley a homophobe
Why not? He clearly is one, and doesn't seem to be the least bit ashamed of it. In fact, he's spent the last hour on here trying to justify his homophobia with misinterpreted statistics and smug rhetoric.
If it walks like a duck...
"I view it as simply coded for someone not having a counter argument."
Me too. You can always tell when they give up, they do just that.
Wow...I didn't know I had that much power. As an HIV negative gay man in a long-term committed partnership, I am harmful to the gay community. OH THE POWER!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Got it.
You're such an idiot, you don't even see that you're being an idiot.
I think it means you're one of the 43%. Puts you in the minority among your demographic.
Doesn't matter. I'm still powerful! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I still don't see how me being gay has any negativity on the gay community, especially when I am in a long-term monogamous relationship. Are you insinuating that being monogamous is harmful to a community? If so, the heterosexual community is at least 50% screwed.
Your argument, on its face, simply sucks.
Oooops, that should read:
"If so, at least 50% of the heterosexual community is screwed."
I apologize for any misunderstanding as a result of my poor wording.
Wesley, by far most pedophiles are hetrosexual, and they do horrible harm to their victims. Where is your outrage at heterosexuals?
Your implication is flat-out wrong; poor sexual habits spread HIV/AIDS and it does not matter whether the people are gay, straight, or bisexual.
If approximately 10% of the population is gay, and 57% of HIV/AIDS infections originate in the gay community (I'm accepting Wesley's figure), then your last comment is, at best, misleading.
Are the sexual habits in the gay community that much worse than those in the hetero community? I believe the type of sex engaged in is a big factor and anal sex has far more health risks than regular intercourse does.
The fact that AIDS doesn't care if you're homo- or heterosexual makes your comments moot.
The spread of HIV/AIDS is due entirely to poor sexual habits, as historygeek has said. Wesley's dubious statistics (still waiting for a source there, champ) do not prove causation, and are therefore irrelevant.
It is irresponsibe behavior, not sexual preference, that spreads disease. This is indisputable.
Alas, the bigots in the audience apparently think homosexuals are inherently irresponsible. Hence the label "bigot."
-- It is irresponsibe behavior, not sexual preference, that spreads disease. -- deez
Might be handy to have that snake bite remedy handy because you and hgeek are about to get there...it's right in front of you.
The "dubious statistics" are directly from the Center for Disease Control website...a real simple google...if you care to be informed.
Nope. Not even close.
All of you are forgetting that intervenous needle usage was and is a huge source of HIV infections. Both straight and gay folks use intervenous needles. This falls squarely under the irresponsible behaviour category, not sexual 'preference'.
You cannot in all honesty claim that HIV/AIDS is a gay disease, no matter how you slice and dice it. It's disgusting that you would want to place the blame for such a horrible disease squarely on a convenient target such as the gay community, especially when it also affects the heterosexual community, especially in Africa and third world countries.
deez-It is irresponsibe behavior, not sexual preference, that spreads disease. This is indisputable.
Alas, the bigots in the audience apparently think homosexuals are inherently irresponsible. Hence the label "bigot."
Deez, how do you reconcile these two statement with the fact that HIV/Aids was almost exclusively a gay disease in the early stages of the outbreak.
I think we can both agree that hetero's can be extremely irresponsible in their sexual behavior. And they outnumber gays by a margin of approximately 9 to 1. So where was the corresponding problem?
How is that relevant to where we are now with the AIDS epidemic?
Are you blaming gays for AIDS?
They sure get a large portion of the blame for spreading it, here in the US.
-- poor sexual habits spread HIV/AIDS -- historygeek
You're gettin' warmer...when you include your premise in the debate of lifestyles...and include the fact that one particular lifestyle's sexual habits are the leading cause of spreading AIDS.
I said nothing about a homosexual "lifestyle." I mentioned unsafe sexual practices by both homo- and heterosexuals. There is no "homosexual lifestyle."
just exactly how would legalizing their unions increase their sexual habits in spreading AIDS? I mean, that is the discussion here isn't it. same sex marriage. baffles me, that one does.
Egg-zackly.
Even if Wesley's comments had any merit, they fall flat when placed up against the gay marriage debate. Gay marriage seeks to form monogamous unions between homosexuals. How is that a bad thing if you're concerned about the spread of disease?
deez,
Do you have any link backing up your claim that changing the definition of marriage will lead to more monogamous unions between homosexuals? Thanks.
do you think that marriage between a man or a woman leads to more monogamy, or less?
JamesB,
I don't know how you can say "between a man or a woman". Sorry. It does not make sense.
Outta bullets ? Quick,Look for a typo, Barney!
You phony.
man and a woman.
Your meaning was obvious, JamesB. AA is just a troll who starts looking for typos , playing dumb, or crying about name-calling as soon as his BS runs out of gas.That's when he suddenly disappears. Don't expect any sort of serious answers from him.
Yes, traditional marriage encourages monogamy.
The question is, does gay marriage do the same? There are vast social, psychological, and lifestyle differences that make my question a valid one. It does not necissarily follow that gay marriage will lead to gay monogamy.
I'm simply asking if there is any study showing if it does? I'd also like to know what percentage of gays in gay-marriage states, actually do get married?
Yes, traditional marriage encourages monogamy.
Ha! Got any statistics for that?
I've got a good one:
US divorce rate: 48-49%
Most common reason given for divorce: infidelity
This whole thread is almost funny. AA, are you a masochist, or do you just enjoy being made to look foolish?
Shucks, and all this time I thought the common reason for divorce was marriage.
There are vast social, psychological, and lifestyle differences that make my question a valid one. It does not necissarily follow that gay marriage will lead to gay monogamy. - AA
Care to elaborate on this? What, O straight one, are the "...vast social, psychological and lifestyle differences..." Tell this gay guy what they are...I see few, if any, differences.
Unless, of course, you're living in a different universe, which you seem to be.
If they aren't allowed to marry, how can there be study showing that allowing homosexuals to marry leads to more monogmy?
I know, I know, some jurisdictions allow it, but I don't think it's been around long enough to provide statistical evidence one way or the other.
I would think there are some studies. If you say there are not, then the question cannot be answered.
How about looking in countries where gay marriage is legal, both AA and Old Benjamin.
The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain and Norway are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though South Africa is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws.
Look up AIDS statistics for those countries as well.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The word "increase" did not appear in my comment, nor was it implied.
The end goal of gay marriage proponents is the state-recognition of a union between two consenting adults. (The phrase "consenting adults" puts the lie to that slippery-slope garbage about marrying children or pets.)
I'm not entirely clear why the burden is on me to prove that this alleged "changing the definition of marriage" (nice work on the use of the right-wing talking point meme du jour, by the way) will increase monogamous unions.
But I'll play your game. It certainly won't decrease them.
For the record, I'm happily married, and I think the "definition" of marriage is different for every couple on this planet. So spare me your sophomoric babble about "changing the definition of marriage." The purpose of marriage has changed so many times over the centuries it has no inherent meaning save that which we individually ascribe to it. (Our modern concept of marriage started out as a way to form familial ties and secure property rights for future generations, love and religion played only a tertiary part. Heck, even the idea of a diamond engagement ring is less than 100 years old and was started as a marketing campaign!)
Regardless, civic marriage (the aspects of a marriage in which the state has an interest) and religious marriage (which is only the church's purview) are separate things. A marriage can exist with the former but without the latter. As far as I know, all you need to be legally married in any state in the Union is a piece of paper, a pen, a public official of suitably high rank, and a couple of witnesses. Legally (Civic-ly? Civilly?) speaking, proponents of gay marriage seek only the recognition and rights that are granted to all other state-sanctioned unions. Religiously-speaking, marriage is entirely dependent on the individuals and their belief-system of choice.
Don't get me started on "civil unions."
"Oh, but why can't we just give the gays 'civil unions'? Why can't they be happy with that?"
Because that's the same thing as the loathsome "separate but equal" philosophy that governed race relations half a century ago.
But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, right?
I think you are bit too defensive. Your argument that changing the definition of marriage to include gays will lead to monogamous relations and by so doing bring down the rates of STDs and HIV among gays. I simply asked if you had anything to back up that contention.
Contrary to your statements, Marriage has for the last 2,000 years in Western cuture been between one man and one woman. So that definition has not changed.
Marriage is a heterosexual institution. Gay marriage is a homosexual institution. There is a difference plain to all to see.
Acceptance of alternative marriages breaks down the social institution of marriage. Divorce laws, government policies, and the media assault marriage on a daily marriage. If gays want to live together and form legal and monogomous relationships, it is okay by me, but I disagree that you have to redefine marriage to do so.
Acceptance of alternative marriages breaks down the social institution of marriage
Liar.
do you really believe that allowing same sex marriage breaks down the social institution of marriage? If the institution was as sacred to many, or if it wasn't already suffering as a throwaway inconvenience when two people divorce so easily these days, then you might have a relevant argument. But it is not. The damage those that can marry nowadays have done to that social institution is legendary, and for those people now to act all overprotective of an institution they trash over 50% of the time is laughable,
look, just so people know where my argument eminates from; I am a staunch conservative who wants low taxes, limited government and a strong defense. I am also gay, i have been in a monogomous relationship with my partner for over 7 years, he is extremely liberal, but we are a happy family just like everyone else. my personal life is irrelevant to this forum, but in this context it is relevant. that is why I am saying this on this thread. people have every right to despise me or my orientation, i don't care. but I don't expect the government to discriminate against me or deny me a basic right that is afforded others. I do not have AIDS, but i have friends who do, they may have made bad choices, but they are good people who don't deserve to be marginalized or expolited to hide bigotry. Just because I am gay doesn't mean I spread disease. I contribute to society as anyone else does. I am proud of the way I live my life, and my partner is as well. as for Warren, I don't agree with him but OBama had every right to include him. I am off topic, so pardon me for that.
Excellent post! I couldn't agree more.
Except: holy hell, how do you and your liberal partner get along so well? My partner is a bit less liberal than I (but by no means a conservative) and we have our political differences...
It must be true love. You know, the kind that doesn't end up like heterosexual marriage - in divorce. :)
2000 years of "western culture"? Didn't they have lots of wives in the old timey days?
The "nuclear" family appears to come out of the 16th and17th century. Pior to that guilds and extended households were the given norm.
The good ole church sought to control of unions or marriages."Sucessful campaigns to suppress clandestine marriages and to bring all sexual unions under clerical bans."*
The Spainish Inquisition in practice was devoted to getting the layman's sex lives under priestly control. Most frequent causes in court, Bigamy 1560-1570, Fornication 1570-1590.
*Source, The Times Illustrated History of Europe, Felipe Fernandez-Arnesto. Page 95.
Like so many neocon myths, examination doesn't support them. Their use is for entirely ideological purposes.
Your argument that changing the definition of marriage to include gays
AA, I'm sooo sick of that pathetic argument!
NO ONE is "trying" to change the definition of marriage!
If certain religious folks don't want to marry gay folks, FINE!
But government should NOT be allowed to discriminate against anyone! Gay folks work, pay their taxes, and contribute to this country, just like you and I. They should be allowed the legal right to make medical decisions for their spouse, collect their spouses social security, should they die, and be as miserable or happy in their legal marriage as you and I!
Discrimination is illegal, no matter what God told you!
Pearlene, welcome back! I was wondering where you went to.
Carlileb, thanks!
I meant to post this yesterday!
"But government should NOT be allowed to discriminate against anyone!"
Pearlene, if the government makes homosexuality a "civil right". Would a private organization (ie: Church that's receives tax benefits for being non-profit) be able to say "no" to a gay couple who want to get married? Would that be discrimination?? Doesn't the seperation of church and state forbid government from giving directives to what a church is allowed to do?
If a church believes marriage is a religous ceremony, and you believe marriage is a civil ceremony, who has priority over the other? How can the government be allowed to tell religous organizations what to believe?
LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT!
LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT!
You start your argument based on a false premise. Homosexuals are not asking the government to make homosexuality a 'civil right'. We are asking the government to extend the same rights to homosexuals as they do heterosexuals. We are not asking for any special treatment. How is marriage special treatment? It's actually the straight folks who are getting special and preferential treatment because they can get married.
And yes, even if same-sex marriage were legal, a Church that receives tax benefits would indeed be able to say 'NO' to a gay couple who want to wed. As they should be able to do. No church should be forced to marry any couple, gay or straight. Under same-sex marriage laws, no church would be forced to marry a gay couple. Let's be clear on that. My church has support same-sex marriage for a number of years now. These ceremonies have been performed often - and I've been in attendance at many of them.
Again, it's the government that extends marriage rights, not a church. This is where conservative arguments fall flat. They conflate marriage as a civil issue with marriage as a religious rite of passage. Not the same thing. Civil marriage is a contract you have with your spouse through the government. Religious marriage is supported by your church and in the eyes of your god. There is a big difference.
"And yes, even if same-sex marriage were legal, a Church that receives tax benefits would indeed be able to say 'NO' to a gay couple who want to wed. As they should be able to do. No church should be forced to marry any couple, gay or straight."
I think you're wrong on that one. There isn't an ACLU lawyer on the planet that would pass up the opportunity to sue a church (any church) if they refuse to marry a gay couple. You know that's true, too bad you refuse to acknowledge it. It shows how disingenuous you are with your arguements.
"If gays want to live together and form legal and monogomous relationships, it is okay by me..." -AA
OH THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU, kind sir, for your generousity!
Marriage is a LEGAL institution, involving rights that non-married people do not have. Your arguments against homosexual marriage are exactly the same arguments that were used to justify "racial purity" laws; they were ridiculous then and they are ridiculous now.
Nice try on sliding your comment in there on 'changing the definition of marriage'. That's not the issue here. You're beginning your argument from a definition that is under dispute and is thereby not acceptable in this argument. An answer to your question may well indeed indicate agreement with your first premise. Again, nice try, but no dice.
Heterosexual couples are responsible for giving birth to the vast majority of rapists, murderers and infomercial spokespeople as well. I can swing some meaningless stats around, too.
You're right--but I don't see Wesley objecting to heterosexuals. Wesley looks like another bigot throwing a rock and hiding his hand, pretending that his attitude is justified.
-- pretending that his attitude is justified. -- historygeek
Here's an attitude...from Matt Foreman, former Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:
-- "Internally, when these numbers come out, the 'established' gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn't our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that." --
*facepalm*
Context, genius.
He was talking about its effect on the gay community. NOT as any sort of "ownership" of the disease.
Cherry-picked quotes you read in the wingnut-o-sphere aren't going to help your argument, such as it is.
Hey genious. Where did Matt get 70% from?? I thought you people were complaining when 47% number showed up. Now you're argueing "context" and letting the former official of a gay group say the number is nearly double what you complained about before?? He is obviously saying that gays have a serious problem with AIDS. Just because you want to bury your head in the sand and deny it, will not change that FACT. Gays get the disease 70% of the time according to gay group leadership.
I see that quote quite often used by homophobes to present their fears of gays in an acceptable manner.
So I went to read the actual speech by Mr. Foreman and colour me surprised. The paragraph you quote was during a segment when he was addressing the issue of hiv/aids and the gay/bi African American community. Here are the paragraphs that preceed and follow the one you posted (oh and the beginning of the sentence of the paragraph you posted...
Today, right now, more than 45 percent of African-American gay and bi men in key urban areas
are infected with HIV, with a 33 percent increase in new diagnoses among our brothers under
age 30 over the past six years. Today, right now, African Americans are nearly 10 times more
likely than white people to be diagnosed with AIDS.
The response — internal to our community and external — is appallingly racist. this is the part you left out from the beginning of you paragraph.
Even more disgusting is the response of our government. Of the 129 interventions developed and
approved by the CDC to address HIV in the African-American community, only one has been
designed for gay black men. Twenty-six years into the epidemic and only one out of 129
addresses the group of people most affected by HIV. And, on top of that, funding for meaningful
and honest prevention programs has been systematically excised from the federal budget. If
these things don’t prove that our government considers the lives of gay black men utterly
expendable, I don’t know what does.
And near the end is this...
We deserve and demand an end to any funding for abstinence only programs. We deserve and
demand a renewed focus on HIV education and prevention programs, particularly for African-
American gay and bi men. We deserve and demand a repeal of all the laws and policies that
have been put in place in recent years to restrict a woman’s right to choose.
Reading the entirety of his speech leads me to the conclusion he wouldn't appreciate the out of context quote of his being used by homophobes to justify their intolerance.
For those that care, here's the actual text of Mr. Foreman's speech.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/exec_director/cc08_state_of_movement.pdf
Thanks old ben...for highlighting the issue of homosexuals and AIDS. It's an important aspect of the gay marriage/lifestyle discussion that should not be swept under the carpet.
Identifying the high rate of AIDS incidence in the homosexual community and the black homosexual community as a subset...is a key element.
For those that want to drag homophobia or bigotry into the discussion...they're justified in some instances. Yet, it doesn't change the facts...the homosexual community is the biggest factor in the spread of AIDS....and it's part and parcel of any rational discussion of the issue.
Did you read it? The man you quote spends a great deal of time discussing his fight for marriage rights. And the quote you used was used in a dishonest way given the context.
He also advocates for more sex education and not the abstinance only nonsense. But that doesn't fit the homophobe frame.
Wesley dishonestly quote-mined?
I'm shocked.
Shocked, I say!
Of course I read it...a long time before you took the effort to look it up today...which I applaud you for.
AIDS is deadly and all behavior that increases the spread should be on the table. Yet, the "homophia or bigotry" cry of some is overlooking the rather large elephant in the room.
The point of all of this has been to explain to you that this "elephant" is in fact not particularly "large". In fact, it bears little discussion except by those who just can't bring themselves to stop bashin' teh homos!
The whole thing? Cause I can't believe someone taking that quote so badly out of context to argue against gay marriage/lifestyle.
Wow. I just read the guy's full remarks.
The contextlessness (say that three times fast!) of Wesley's quote is pretty blatant.
Bad form, Wesley. Bad form.
I know - it's quite amazing. I've seen the mouth breathers post it a lot and finally looked it up for myself. It doesn't say what they think it says.
And for wes and the others to leave out the 1st sentence of the paragraph...The response — internal to our community and external — is appallingly racist. Reveals just how dishonest they are being.
I think you're being the racist by saying that Matt says 70% of gay people in the US has AIDS and you are only concerned with the African-American portion of it. You leave out the portion that says 70% of Amercian gays have AIDS in an effort to show racism. You are the one who is missleading.
the homosexual community is the biggest factor in the spread of AIDS
I'm not going to tell you again, Wesley. That is false.
F-A-L-S-E
CDC estimated AIDS carriers in the United States: just over 1,000,000 (0.33%)
UNAIDS estimated AIDS carriers in Africa: 24,500,000 (6.1%)
Are you gonna tell us that 75% of 24-million Africans are homosexual?
How about this? (from the CDC link):
African American men and women were also strongly affected and were estimated to have an incidence rate than was 7 times greater than the incidence rate among whites.
Are they all homosexual too?
One more time, for the slow people (you know who you are...or maybe you don't):
The PRIMARY factor in the spread of HIV/AIDS is irresponsible behavior. Irresponsible behavior comes from a lack of education and, to a lesser extent, lack of access to information and resources (ie, condoms).
Race and sexual preference are not deciding factors.
Wesley, a person who knowingly speaks a falsehood is called a "liar." That's L-I-A-R.
I think we're wasting our breath--this same conversation has happened many times, and Wesley and AA have both consistently ignored the facts.
*sigh*
I know, I know.
But I must admit that I get a certain amount of satisfaction from making my arguments so resoundingly ironclad that it makes wingnuts resort to semantics (anotheramerican) and blubbering repetition (wesley).
-- The PRIMARY factor in the spread of HIV/AIDS is irresponsible behavior -- deez
Very good...it certainly is about behaviour.
The AIDS virus does not prowl the streets looking for a homosexual or a black man to jump on. It has a really easy ride among those exhibiting the irresponsible behavior.
And where do you find that behavior? The largest single transmission group at 57% is the homosexual community...the largest group by race is the black community at 45%...that's where you find that behavior.
Okay, I'll play along with your statistical game. (But, really, you must take the time someday to learn about correlation vs. causation.)
Now follow your logic to its only rational conclusion.
Do, please, enlighten us.
The train has already reached its destination...and you were on it.
AIDS is a disease spread by behavior...and the preponderance of that behavior is found in one group of people...men having sex with men.
Only one group of people?
No other group of people engages in unsafe sex?
No other group of people suffers from AIDS?
So lesbians are okay? It's only "icky" if it's guy on guy?
Did you do your homework on the AIDS epidemic in Africa?
Please, continue. I believe you were saying something about a train?
nope...nope...nope...nope...yep...
And that leaves us with that darn little factoid that won't go away...
AIDS is a disease spread by behavior...and the preponderance of that behavior is found in one group of people...men having sex with men.
So, what does HIV/AIDS, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS (or not) in the gay community, have to do with banning gay marriage?
Are you saying that people with AIDS shouldn't be married?
If so, tell that to the many straight married folks living with HIV/AIDS.
I'm confused as to how HIV/AIDS has anything to do with same-sex marriage.
Enlighten us, please.
You would think that a conservative would be all for two gay guys with HIV/AIDS getting married and staying in a monogamous relationship, instead of doing what they think gay guys do, which is sleep around with anything that walks.
Sorry, but that's patently false. Straight folks do it just as much as gay folks do. Sex is a human thing, not a sexual orientation thing.
57% of HIV/AIDS infections originating in the gay community is not a meaningless stat when that community makes up only 10% of the population.
it may not be meaningless when discussing the issue itself, but when it's used as an argument against same sex marriage it makes no sense, in fact it supports monogomous relationships in a community where 57% of the AIDS infections originate.
I agree with you. I wasn't arguing that point.
Exactly, JamesB. But I think everybody here understands that, they're just playing.
Go back and check your figures, that 57% number you're tossing around is not what you claim.
Yep, and applying Bill Bennett's reasoning from a couple of years (?) ago, if we got rid of all heterosexuals, the crime rate would go down. But, why are you picking on Billy Mayes???
"by far most pedophiles are hetrosexual, and they do horrible harm to their victims. Where is your outrage at heterosexuals?"
It's in the fact that conservatives don't want pedophiles having civil rights based on sexual deviant choices...just like homosexuality. What part of that have you been ignoring all these years??
Putting pedophiles and homosexuals in the same moral catagory. You have illusions of knowledge on the subject of sexual identity.
I'm taught what is deviant. Apparently, you go to a different school. Which is fine, you can believe what you want. You don't mind if I exersise the same right, do you?
What harm am I causing you (or anyone) by practicing monogomous heterosexuality?
You just destroyed your own argument.
"Which is fine, you can believe what you want. You don't mind if I exersise the same right, do you?"
You're admitting that everyone has the same right to decide what is "deviant", but your view is supposed to be the basis for restricting the rights of other people.
SNAP!
And another conservative head explodes!
I think what it means is that when it comes up for a vote I get to cast my one vote. Looks like many voted the same way I did. How did you vote? Oooops, I guess there wasn't enough of you voting that way.
I'm sure there are ways to sponser the bill of your dreams. Make sure you keep all the credit for all the wonderfulness that is sure to follow.
Rights are afforded by the Constitution, not the whims of the public. Otherwise black people still wouldn't be able to vote or marry outside of their race in the south. Your opinion is just your opinion, and carries no weight against that.
At what point of developement did a black man or woman get to choose they would be black? What determins the "race" someone will be? Why were they able to succeed in civil rights demands?
Sorry brabs, you're in way over your head on this one.
There is no choice to be black, just like there's no choice to be gay. No matter how much you want to make it so, your declarations otherwise don't do it.
Then bring you scientific proof that homosexuality is in the gene pool of every or any given person. Without that proof you are simply opinionating.
I haven't seen any scientific studies that suggest it's a choice. I have seen studies that suggest it's not.
There are very strong common-sense arguments regarding this anyway. Again, it makes no sense at all for it to be a "choice". So just saying "opinionating" doesn't mean anything because not all opinions have the same merit.
No proof necessary, Philib. In order for an issue to be a civil rights issue, it doesn't have to be biologically based. Where do you come up with this nonsense?
What are your constitutional arguements that make it a civil rights issue? How are you able to claim that? I hope you don't say; "because I want it that way and so do all my friends".
YOU LOSE.
Pedophiles aren't fighting for the right to marry. Strawman argument. You're done.
You think that if gay folks are allowed to marry then pedophiles will want to marry. Slippery slope argument. You're done.
Both based on logical fallacies. How is it that you cons think you're so smart and have all the answers, but you can't even put together a logical argument without basing it on fallacies?
You guys crack me up. I'm over Conservatives. You're just plain fun to laugh at now!
I don't need to think that. If you claim one lifestyle is immoral but another isn't, you need to show how the one is while the other isn't. I claim both lifestyles are immoral and if one is granted civil rights based SOLELY on the fact that they live a chosen lifestyle then the other certainly CAN claim the same rights.
Wesley, your cdc figures are misleading. You are reporting that 57% of MEN affected as if it were 57% of all cases in the US. You are also not reporting how the US population affected is pretty much a hill of beans when compared to the entire world population infected.
Why don't you provide correct information, then? Or is this thread too old for you to follow along?
Why don't you provide correct information, then? Or is this thread too old for you to follow along? - philib
That was quite childish but here's the actual data from the CDC site...
Ahhh thank you Snoop. I'm too lazy to do my own research, but Wesley's numbers seemed off from what I've heard from people who are actually trying to help people with AIDS, and not just use it as a wedge issue to be bigoted.
Makes a lot of sense really, since as we all know (or anyone who got comprehensive sex ed would know) it's much harder for men to contract diseases through sexual contact than women..
"since as we all know (or anyone who got comprehensive sex ed would know) it's much harder for men to contract diseases through sexual contact than women.."
Really? Why would that be? With that answer, perhaps that's why it's so prevelant in the gay community?
Ummm yes I think it's pretty obvious that penetration is how disease gets spread. I didn't really think a public forum was the place to get into anal and vaginal sex though philib.
I don't think anyone is arguing whether it's easier for males to get AIDS through homosexual contact than from heterosexual contact. Snoop's chart conclusively proves that. I think the complaint is that that's really a dumb reason to deny people the right to marry, or use it as an excuse to claim that their sexual lifestyle was deviant.
I would be much better off being a lesbian, because they are the least likely to spread disease. Should I stop being allowed to have sex with my husband because it's more likely that I could contract something from him than from a woman?
The whole AIDS discussion has derailed this thread. If you biggest reason for saying that homosexuality is morally deviant is that it is easier to spread disease, then riding the subway is equally deviant. It's no excuse to deny someone their rights.
Just an FYI, it depends on the disease which sex is more likely to get it. Just go to the tab marked "all slides" and watch the slide show. I think the statement you made has always been contributed to chlamydia, but you will see from the other slides that different diseases yield different results.
Unfortunately, there will be some that will point out the relationship of blacks vs the other ethnicisities and draw the wrong conclusions...
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/slides.htm
Again, nothing new from Philib. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question:
What does HIV/AIDS have to do with same-sex marriage?
Nothing? That's what I thought.
I haven't ever argued that it does have anything to do with marriage. I'm just following along with a subject change that happened because of historygeeks claim that homosexuality harms no one.
So, to answer your question; it has nothing to do with it. Please...please show where I ever said it did. My arguement with gay-marriage is (and has consistantly been) the fact that it isn't a civil rights issue. It is a moral issue. The constitution has never guaranteed a moral issue.
It's not a moral issue just because you say it is. You are not the authority on what is moral and what is not moral (and thank GOD for that!!!)
It's a civil rights issue.
It's immoral to own slaves, but it was the granting of civil rights that set them free, n'est-ce pas?
What that graph shows is that 59% of bi-sexual men are going over to 65% of the women and infecting them with a deadly disease. And you're calling that "safe sex".
Ah, and here come the unfounded hatemongering from one of our longtime trolls.
This place has gone to pot. It's nothing but trolls and whining wingnut hatemongers now.
More troll talk, no substance.
Damian you are showing who the real troll is today.
You.
Finally completed the transition from Tommy to Casey?
Doesn't appear to be a happy camper today. He might have reasons beyond oberservable continued stupidity. Nobody's taken him up on any issue so far. Is that how you get to be a troll?
That would be less likely to harm you if you would stay out of those airport men's rooms...
What is the cure for AIDS? Would you want to risk catching it? Did you know AIDS is a virus? A cold is a virus...do they have a cure for the cold, yet?
So you don't know much about viruses and that a number cures to viral alments do exist. Can you tell how a virus is different from a bacteria? Why they are more difficult to deal with?
No apparantly I don't. Maybe you can tell me more about the cure for AIDS. Which is the question you avoided. Rather than going on to the off-topic bacteria.
The cure is difficult, mediation of the infection and the outbreak of the resultant disease (if it occurs) have seen some progress. The major thing is that the disease attacks the bodies defenses against disease, our imune system. Intense study and progress in this area is of benifit to all of us.
The bacteria mention is on topic. Bacteria are complete biological machines. there are multiple ways of interfearing with that machine. Giving many possble routes to a cure. A virus consists of nucleic acid and a surrounding protective sheath. Its progress is only possible with the materials and processes availible from the cell(s) that it infects. Molecular variation is easier to accomplish at the viral level, making targeting them difficult. And interferering descretely with the accessible viral processes difficult. Thats why its a hard, but worthy area of research.
You obviously haven't paid attention since 1980:
It is now called "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" not "Gay-related Immune Deficiency".
They also invented this thing called a condum.
You should crawl out from under your rock more often.
You mean that handy device that fails 20% of the time? Wow, you sure will cut down on transmission of that gay disease using those.
The source of that figure would be?
Wikipedia's figures on the issue deeply disagree. Condoms fail in three major ways. Do you know what they are. The user failures versis product failures?
So, school me...what is the total percentage of condom failures (including the 3 major ways)?
Breakage rate .4% to 2.3%
Slippage rate .6 to 1.3%
Didn't write down the third rate, which comes down to operator error. However two other figures did rate a notation.
Even if there is no observed breakage or slippage observed. 1 to 2% will test positive for semen residue. For broken condoms a rate of 50% less than unprotected sex. For slippage a rate of 1/5th that of unprotected sex.
If your interested in the operator failure figure, its there. Its also in part do to abstinence only sex education.
I believe I've given you two sessions of objective information without nawty names. I await reciprical posts for you
Cuse, that's from you.
A pro-birth site I looked at had the failure rate at 36%, the FDA has it at 11%. None clarified whether for failure of condom or mis-use. I do not differentiate either. It either works or it doesn't. The knowledge of the person using it gets added into the failure rate. I found the wiki site, but it didn't list a % for mis-use. So, you providing 2 of the 3 "major ways" isn't a complete answer. I'll go with the average of the sites I found; over 20%.
A look back indicates the operational failure componet is still under study. Education can lead to significantly fewer failures. Even if the major defined errors are, you ran out, you don't carry any, and they make you feel uncomfortable. A less comon error is using two as oppsed to one.
Your 20% figure has only one advantage for you that I see. Its scarey.
Scarey? Why? Would the reason be that there could be more people, like me, who are taught to think for themselves, instead of people like you who are taught to do what you're told?
The key to your statement is "education can lead to...". Get an education!
Scary because you tout that the risk of condom failure is one in five. Much scarier than a more rational figure.
After I've had to school you twice, you tell me to get an education. Sure a masters degree would be nice, though not one of my dreams, but I'm willing to make the sacrifice on your dollar.
" Sure a masters degree would be nice, though not one of my dreams, but I'm willing to make the sacrifice on your dollar."
Typical liberal...wants others to pay for their wants/needs.
The education you get may help you learn how to claim "3 major ways" that a condom will fail, then provide all 3 instead of just 2 as proof of your stats. Then when confronted with your error, you claim I am the one being schooled and irrational.
That "gay" disease?
You suffer from that "conservative" disease called ignorance. If only there were a contraceptive for the spread of that.
There is. It's called a condom. But it fails 20% of the time. (ewes: A figure that can easily be checked on your own time. Just google it)
Did, goggle didn't support you.
http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/h9/h9chap4.shtml and http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html do, both found through simple google search. These are just pregnacy rates. It doesn't take into account you're trying to stop a virul STD. But, you can believe whoever you want.
A little better, but niether supports you. The worst figure found is 14% and notes this figure is higher than three other studies. First year figures have noticably higher failure rates, and 100% useage, if maintained give the best results.
Yes, but these are "pregancy" rates. Not STD infection rates, which would be completely different, and much higher. It's much easier to catch an STD than it is to get pregnant. I guess that's the part you are told to ignore.
No I believe thats where you went into the baffle em with BS mode. Fail.
There is a contraceptive for the conservative disease called ignorance. We already know and love this contraceptive. It's called a condom! :)
I love to talk Public Policy with others, whether it be National Policy or State Policy, or even local stuff, like the new "pay as you throw" trash pickup rule us townsfolk have adopted (true: to try and slow the ever-growing only landfill we have, we limit folks to a single barrel or bag of trash per weekly pickup... if you have more than that, then you'll need to purchase special bags at $2 a pop, and then they'll get picked up by the trashman every one of them: but if you put more than a single barrel or bag out there on that day, and the extras aren't in the special bags, then he's only taking one of them away to the landfill with him... "pay as you throw": and it's working! Almost a year into the program, the growth of the landfill has slowed, all because of people being more conscious of their own personal waste and trash, which of course is what most of the town landfill is made up of... all of this awareness being prompted by just two bucks a pop!)...
Anyway, like I said, I love Public Policy talk, right across the jurisdictional spectrum (don't even get me started on leash laws and septic tanks!)... but when the talk veers into sexual matters, I'm usually silent, but I still listen, and wonder to myself "What does sexual stuff have to do with Public Policy?"
And I listen, and try and integrate whatever the sexual stuff is, into Public Policy somehow... and the second I hear "gay rights", well because I'm an old pro at this kind of talk, I immediately think (even say) "What Public Policy is it, that's violating someone's rights in this particular instance?"
And in this particular matter, there seems only a single sensible perception of violation of legal rights here (two actually): Gay Marriage... as in, if two men or two women apply for a Marriage License, the City or Town Clerk balks, and says "sorry, but this seems a little bit outside of my Authority to do that. I'm sorry you two (men or women), but I can't issue the License."
Which if all of that is a big and important matter of Public Policy, then I'm a duck: because I can never in all my years of talking Public Policy, remember when the frig this mishegas was ever important to anybody, except until 2004, when Republicans themselves made the danged thing into a wedge issue, to divide Democrats from that vast segement of the American electorate known as "Red State Americans", and perhaps in the process, divide Democrats one from another, on this single issue.
And it works.
As an atheist, I hasten to point out that not only the straight media, but the gay-friendly e-pundits such as yourselves continue either to gloss over or, worse, completely ignore the most heinous of Warren pontifications, one that indicates his theocratic bent and foreshadows the type of government we'll get if and when his ilk elect a president (a *real* anti-Christ). Namely, his categorization of the sexual minorities as "proof that evolution does not exist." Translation: if evolution were a fact there would be no gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons. So these sexual minorities must be -- and this is an old Nazi word -- "subhuman." This, not his being againts gay marriage, is Warren's worst, most bigoted, most crypto-totalitarian position of all.
Being an athiest, I don't think anyone believes you could accurately interpret what a man of God is saying. But, I (at least) got a good chuckle out of you calling Warren a Nazi.
I notice Obama said "So help me God" during his swearing in. That must make you intolerably mad that a follower of God is again our President! You must have loved how he used Bible versus during his speech? And, how he invoked the name and will of God several times to save this great nation. Sounds like it will be another tough 4-8 years for you atheists.
Atheists are actually very good at interpreting what "Men of God" are saying. We have an objectivity that some religious people can't possibly apply to the subject.
And nobody called Warren a Nazi,JM was only correctly pointing out the similarity of the dehumanization tactics that Warren uses to those used by the Nazis.
Your chuckle is just another wingnut "laughable" or "lol", mindless giggling at your own confusion.
I don't think I'd call it "objectivity". It would be more like skeptisism. Which doesn't allow for fair interpretation of the information provided. Thanks for chuckles of your own. Sorry to force you to post on such an old thread. I've been told not to post after day 1 because so many of you don't follow along after that. Must be tough having such a short attention span.
Wrong. And I'm the one who made the complaint.
Cling to your ideology like a shipwrecked sailor tied to the remains of a spar.
Hope that bring my analogy index up to nominal levels.
Skepticism is a pretty important part of objectivity, they're not two exclusive things, and they're both essential to fair interpretation. You're completely backward on this.
And the reason most don't go back to these old threads isn't about a short attention span, most of us have jobs or other responsibilities.I just had a little free time this morning to help you. You're welcome.
I'm not being backward on this, I just didn't realize you were going to change the parameters to include "fair" which, would you even know what that means? (without looking it up)
So what part of 'fair interpretation' bothers you? You don't believe in being fair?
None of it does. That's why I'll support your desire for civil unions to the end. Civil right? Sorry, that isn't given to chosen lifestyles.
Actually, bonehead, you're the one with the special rights for heterosexuals.
It is a civil right.
Shove your 'separate but equal' notion down someone else's throat. Marriage equality or nothing at all.
It will happen. Gays will be able to marry. And there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
Doesn't that just pi$$ you off?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, that's what Newsom said. Ooops
I think that kind of arrogance cost you more vote than gained. But, you act like you want, it's your choice.