Give gays their rights!

[GarzaUK]

The point is, minors do indeed have rights. But there are certain priviledges that the state will not allow them to do drive - marry etc...

Why cannot a state make the same decision based on marriage of two adults?

Just a question vague.

Children do not have priviledges that adults have. Children cannot vote. So is voting a priviledge or a right? A century ago, white men had the priviledge to vote, not the black man or a white woman for that matter.

I would have thought the one person - one vote was a right, but it looks like history treats it as a priviledge.

My point is what makes straight people "more special" than gay people to gain the "priviledge" of marriage? And is it linked to time where white men were "priviledged" to have a vote rather than a black man or white woman?

 

[Rev.]

Have we seen the same 'detrimental effect' to voting, because a woman has the right to vote?

Yes, actually I believe we have. We now have "men's interests" and "women's interests" and "minority interests" and candidates will focus on and pander to certain voting blocks in order to gain power. We are all niave if we really believe a candidate gives one hoot about an interest group's concerns. It's all about getting the most votes. And I can say whatever I need to in order to get a group to vote for me, but that by no means guarantees that those voters will have true representation in the end.

If allowing minorities and women to vote was really about giving minorities and women a voice in the political process, I guess I fail to see how it has really benefitted them. I think the truth is more that it gave candidates a bigger pool to earn votes from, thereby giving them greater chances of being elected.

Just call me cynical. :roll:

 

[Squawker]

Champ said:

Less than 19,000 Americans died in 2003 from AIDS. Any idea how many died from Second Hand Smoke? 52,000. SO what of the financial costs of that?

That isn’t true, Champ. People dying from second hand smoke, is an environmentalist myth.

Capt. America said:

They receive no Social Security survivor benefits upon the death of a partner despite paying payroll taxes. They are denied healthcare, disability, military and other benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. Without a will, they often pay estate taxes when a partner dies, including significant tax penalties when they inherit a 401K pension plan from a partner. They are denied family leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

By facts, I meant a link to confirm what you are saying. How many couples are actually affected by it? What is the percentage of homosexuals who partner for life? Do heterosexual unmarried couples get these benefits?

What do you mean 'discriminated against enough'? That is the whole point, is that they are discriminated against. Are you for discrimination? Do we need to go back to the dark days of the 60's? We are a better people, we should act like it.

What I mean is, you cannot justify changing our current laws to claim a group should receive special rights or protected status without clear evidence of discrimination over and above any other groups. Where is the study that proves x % of gays are evicted from housing, fired from their job, or not hired, just because they are Gay? Ugly people are also discriminated against, should they get special protection over and above what someone else would get? Gays have legal recourse to resolve most of the issues you state. This isn’t the same as the civil rights movement, so that argument doesn’t have any weight, and is a last ditch effort to justify Gay marriage.

I don’t think any of you actually read the links I provided, but here are some different sources.
Source
Source
Source

If you wish to use the argument for Gay Marriage that has a monetary base, the links provided here and on page one, prove it would cost us a great deal more to allow them to marry. Smokers and drinkers have to pay more for insurance, and taxes. Some states have as much as $1.50 a pack of smokes now. There really isn’t a good argument for Gay marriage other than they want it. I want a lot of things, but I wouldn’t pretend to be a special class to get it. That would be selfish, wouldn’t it?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

That isn’t true, Champ. People dying from second hand smoke, is an environmentalist myth.

You've got to be kidding me. Environmentalist myth? Kind of like the Green House Effect?

 

[shuamort]

You've got to be kidding me. Environmentalist myth? Kind of like the Green House Effect?

Not to completely hijack the thread with this, but Squawker is half-right. The results of tests and data about second hand smoke shows that it does not generally cause cancer with the threat of cancer "unproven at best". The other affects of second hand smoke, such as heart disease is about the same. Follow the two links above for more info.

 

[Mixed View]

:applaud :applaud :applaud :applaud

More divorces?

Someone finally got it right! 50 percent of marriages get divorced and that means court and money for lawyers. With the addition of gay marriage there will be more divorces and and more money for those lawyers. Just a thought for all of you.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Champ said:
That isn’t true, Champ. People dying from second hand smoke, is an environmentalist myth.

Sometimes the things that you write and profess to believe truly stun me. Second hand smoke a myth? Really? In other posts in this thread you demand proof positive about this or that and do not accept the most obvious of truths, i.e. Gay people cannot collect Social Security death benefits from their partner. You know that's true...UGH

Now, 2nd hand smoke....how about if I provide proof from the US government? Is that acceptable to you? Are you going to say the EPA is wrong? I've listed lots to read....so tell us again about the myth? It seems to me that the myth is that 2nd Hand Smoke is NOT deadly! Here:

What is Secondhand Smoke?

* Secondhand smoke is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe, or cigar, and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers.

* This mixture contains more than 4,000 substances, more than 40 of which are known to cause cancer in humans or animals and many of which are strong irritants.

* Secondhand smoke is also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS); exposure to secondhand smoke is called involuntary smoking or passive smoking.

Adult Nonsmokers
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of lung cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen). In 2000, the National Institutes of Health formally listed secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen in its 9th Report on Carcinogens. (NIH, 2000 http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2000/niehs-15.htm

Secondhand Smoke is a Serious Health Risk to Children

* The developing lungs of young children are severely affected by exposure to secondhand smoke because children are particularly vulnerable to secondhand smoke. This is likely due to several factors, including that children are still developing physically, have higher breathing rates than adults, and have little control over their indoor environments. Children receiving high doses of secondhand smoke, such as those with smoking mothers, run the greatest relative risk of experiencing damaging health effects.

* Children with asthma are especially at risk. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the number of episodes and severity of symptoms in 200,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma. Moreover, secondhand smoke is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously exhibited asthma symptoms.

http://www.epa.gov/asthma/index.html

* Cal EPA found that exposure to secondhand smoke causes increased risk for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healthrisks.html#Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke

* Infants and young children whose parents smoke are among the most seriously affected by exposure to secondhand smoke, being at increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections, such as pneumonia and bronchitis. EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.

* Cal EPA found that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk for middle ear infections in children.

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healthrisks.html#Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke

Other Studies

* Australian National Health And Medical Research Council Report (1997): www.health.gov.au:80/nhmrc/publications/synopses/ph23syn.htm

* United Kingdom’s Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health Report (1998): www.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/tobacco/contents.htm

* World Health Organization’s (WHO) Consultation on ETS and Child Health Report (1999): www5.who.int/tobacco/page.cfm?tld=67#healtheffects

* The National Toxicology Program’s 9th Report on Carciongens (2000): ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/tenth/profiles/s176toba.pdf

* WHO-Europe (2000): www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/8_1ets.pdf

 

[Squawker]

I should have posted a link but, I thought this was about Gay marriage, not second hand smoke. They call it propaganda for a reason Champ. Here are the facts and the latest and most thorough study on the danger of second hand smoke. If that fails to convince you, use your common sense. How many hours would one have to be exposed for years to be effected. Not scientifically possible to get cancer that way. Source
Now, address it the topic of the post please.

 

[Mixed View]

We've slipped so much as time has gone on.
1.Atleast they didn't have sex before marriage
2.Atleast she didn't get pregnant
3.Atleast it was a guy

Armogeddon is not far off. What is next? Atleast it wasn't an animal? Sick sick world.

 

[shuamort]

They should do the same for Homosexuals then.
I don’t know why gay marriage has to be talked to death.

Frankly, I'm quite sick of it myself.

The people for it are not going to budge, and the people against it are not going to budge.

In the short time I've been on this Earth, I've seen huge budges made in ways of acceptance and support.

Every time it comes up I get more angry and bitter about having the Gay agenda imposed on me and my family.

I'm sorry, I've lost my notes and don't know what the agenda was actually. Except for being treated like everyone.

Marriage will do nothing for the gay community, and will cost taxpayers millions in health care costs.

So in other words, the small percentage of gay people who would otherwise be married but can't be are saving money. But at the same time, these people are being expected to shoulder the cost of the straight people who do marry. Reminds me of Taxation without Representation.

For every responsible, committed, person like our Shuamort, there are ten on the other side.

For men, I'll sadly agree with ya there. Put a man and a woman in a relationship, and you're more likely to have a man do the cheating. Put two men in a relationship and monogamy is like the white elk. I've dated since my partner passed a couple years ago and it's really quite wretched.

As for women... well, there's the old joke: "What does a lesbian bring on the second date? A U-Haul." Dykes just have that immediate monogamy thing built in and the numbers from the marriages in Massachusetts have been backing that up.

The lifestyle of the common homosexual is not pretty, and people who promote it are doing those who follow a disservice.

Yeah, I went to work this morning, stopped off at the grocery store, been working on laundry, and have been swapping back and forth between debates and playing Playstation 2. It's not the fast paced lifestyle many would think is pretty.

It is wrong to allow our young people to believe it is a normal and acceptable lifestyle, which they may wish to experiment with.

I experimented with the heterosexual lifestyle in junior high/high school. Had me a nice catholic girlfriend that believed sex before marriage was a sin. Nice girl, but I gotta agree that experimentation? Not so great. Just be who you are.

Source

“the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%,” “the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.: “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations. ” So, about 1 out of every 25 people you know is a pedophile. I've known a lot of people in my day. Gay and straight. Now, I'll admit that I don't know them all backwards and forwards, but I don't think I've ever met a pedophile. What with having to file under Megan's Law nowadays, you think I'd have heard of at least one person I knew. Hmm.... Of course, how pedophilia (and AIDS) become related to marriage when it's monogamous is another... well, let's just say my BS detector is revving at full throttle here.

Source

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~williamsproj/press/GayParents.html

Source
Source
Source

As for the rest of your sources.
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~williamsproj/press/GayParents.html
http://www.colage.org/research/facts.html#facts
http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=19050
http://www.detnews.com/2001/editorial/0110/10/a09-312959.htm
http://content.gay.com/channels/news/heads/010427_gayparents.html
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/parent.html
http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/sexual_health/1321
http://joeyrouth.tripod.com/colage/id10.html
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abs/
http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/Resources/ResearchStudies/ERIC.html
http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html

 

[Squawker]

So, about 1 out of every 25 people you know is a pedophile. I've known a lot of people in my day. Gay and straight. Now, I'll admit that I don't know them all backwards and forwards, but I don't think I've ever met a pedophile. What with having to file under Megan's Law nowadays, you think I'd have heard of at least one person I knew.

If you are young, and attractive you don't have a problem finding dates. When homosexuals get older and the dating pool dries up, they do look for young people they can have a sexual encounter with. I know that for a fact. Homosexuals didn't join the priesthood for Godly reasons, and thousands of children pay the price. Those children have serious emotional problems. I will look at your sources, but the average Gay person isn't the well adjusted man or woman who are portrayed to advance the agenda. Maine has a lot of gays, and I have worked with many. I treat them with respect, but they are not discriminated against in any way. I know how the Maine legislature worked to show discrimination where none existed, so any claims are suspect IMO.

 

[shuamort]

If you are young, and attractive you don't have a problem finding dates. When homosexuals get older and the dating pool dries up, they do look for young people they can have a sexual encounter with. I know that for a fact.

And this differs from heterosexuals how?

Homosexuals didn't join the priesthood for Godly reasons, and thousands of children pay the price.

And the majority of the priest abuses were on girls and not boys.

I will look at your sources, but the average Gay person isn't the well adjusted man or woman who are portrayed to advance the agenda.

True, but you don't put David Koresh out there to support Christianity either.

Maine has a lot of gays, and I have worked with many. I treat them with respect, but they are not discriminated against in any way. I know how the Maine legislature worked to show discrimination where none existed, so any claims are suspect IMO.

I've only experience discrimination once. I was with a company for almost two years as an accountant. One day, a co-worker asked why I was single, I explained that I had a partner of (at that point) 7 years, my co-worker asked to see a picture and I had one in my wallet. Fifteen minutes later, the owner of the company (it was a small company of about 50 people) came to my desk and asked me to clean it out because he wouldn't employ "that kind". So after almost 2 years and no problem with my work, just finding out I was gay changed his mind completely about me. I've never worn my sexuality on my sleeve and only talk about it when asked or when appropriate to. It's as important to me as being left-handed.

 

[Schweddy]

I've never worn my sexuality on my sleeve and only talk about it when asked or when appropriate to. It's as important to me as being left-handed.

If only more heterosexuals were that way - we would have a much better world. There would be much less sex in the media, much less sexual violence, and the concern over gay marriage wouldn't exist because it would just be a thing. Everyone would keep to themselves.

Unfortunatly, that is not the case and because many people wear thier sexuality on thier sleeve it has become a world of sex. Not only that, but I fear my kids will grow up in a society were casual sex is considered even more of the norm. A place where STD's kill our kids at a staggaring rate. A place where religion is considered being shallow.

Perhaps I am wrong to only point fingers at the gay community. It's not the act that I care about. It's the publication. I think that publication is what is leading us in the wrong direction. I am not convinced that homosexuality is something one is born with. By the same token, someone is not born with a religious gene either. Because of that - the very idea of publicizing homosexuality seems to encourage increasing sexual behavior for both gays and straights. That promotes STD's. That promotes the breakdown of the family structure. That promotes the breakdown of the government.

That is my true argument against gay marriage - however flawed it may be.

 

[Courtneyx3]

If being homosexual was natural then maybe they would have rights! Get over it, its not natural, and no one wants it to be! :doh

 

[JustineCredible]

If being homosexual was natural then maybe they would have rights!

Guess what, that very argument was used against women gaining the right to vote, blacks being free citizens (as they were only concidered as 3/5ths human at one time), as well as against interracial marriage. It would behoove you to know your history a bit better before you go spouting off against things you know nothing about.

Get over it, its not natural, and no one wants it to be! :doh

"no one"?
Are you sure about that? Really? What "no one's" I'm curious. You mean yourself and ignoramuses like you? Well that's not surprising.
Does that make you feel good about yourself?
Honey, I was graduating high school by the time you were born. Stop showing your immaturity with your pretentiously arrogant comments.
It's a well known fact within the scientific community that homosexuality is most assuredly "natural." It's occurrence in other species is well documented and studied.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

If being homosexual was natural then maybe they would have rights! Get over it, its not natural, and no one wants it to be! :doh

You condemn with no reason. You are becoming tiresome.

 

[Courtneyx3]

You condemn with no reason. You are becoming tiresome.

NO, I have reasons why I believe in what I believe but I chose not to type it all out.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

It's a well known fact within the scientific community that homosexuality is most assuredly "natural." It's occurrence in other species is well documented and studied.

That is a falsity. It is not a fact. It is a theory. And it is only a theory because it goes unchallenged. There is no science that proves that homosexuality is in fact genetic. And there is certainly no one in the scientific community attempting to refute this evidence. Therefore, it is nothing but theory.

 

[Courtneyx3]

That is a falsity. It is not a fact. It is a theory. And it is only a theory because it goes unchallenged. There is no science that proves that homosexuality is in fact genetic. And there is certainly no one in the scientific community attempting to refute this evidence. Therefore, it is nothing but theory.

Exactly! You put that very well! LOL I am going to quote this on another thread that I am on! LOL

 

[JustineCredible]

That is a falsity. It is not a fact. It is a theory. And it is only a theory because it goes unchallenged. There is no science that proves that homosexuality is in fact genetic. And there is certainly no one in the scientific community attempting to refute this evidence. Therefore, it is nothing but theory.

It's also completely ASSUMED that heterosexuality is genetically linked as well. There is NO scientific proof pointing that way either....just thought I'd point that out. :mrgreen:

 

[sebastiansdreams]

It's also completely ASSUMED that heterosexuality is genetically linked as well. There is NO scientific proof pointing that way either....just thought I'd point that out. :mrgreen:

Precisely. Which is the reason that we cannot say that homosexuality is a genetic attribute. Because no one can prove this in either direction. However, we do know from Darwin's studies that we are prone to act in a manner that ensures our survival. And that would lead one to suggest that for means of procreation, we are driven to sexual activity with those of the opposite sex. Is the genetic or is it simply an inherent leaning amongst species that wish to survive? That is up in the air. But the only real problem I have had with your arguments up to this point is that you said it was fact in the scientific community. And that is not the case.

 

[JustineCredible]

Precisely. Which is the reason that we cannot say that homosexuality is a genetic attribute. Because no one can prove this in either direction. However, we do know from Darwin's studies that we are prone to act in a manner that ensures our survival. And that would lead one to suggest that for means of procreation, we are driven to sexual activity with those of the opposite sex. Is the genetic or is it simply an inherent leaning amongst species that wish to survive? That is up in the air. But the only real problem I have had with your arguments up to this point is that you said it was fact in the scientific community. And that is not the case.

I would agree with that to a point.
That point being that with more than seven billion humans alive at any moment, there just isn't a huge problem of survival.
Other species have been observed to also engage in long-term and seemingly committed homosexual partnerships, so the idea that just because an anomily occurs doesn't mean it's going to ever be dominant.
Just as handedness. Left handedness is still a recessive trait, while right handedness is dominant. Centuries prove to us that a few left handed folks does not make for a threat to survival of right handedness. Just as a few homosexuals does not pose a threat to the survival of heterosexuals.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I would agree with that to a point.
That point being that with more than seven billion humans alive at any moment, there just isn't a huge problem of survival.

Of course not. I am not suggesting that sex is only a means of reproduction. I certainly appreciate the existance of sex for pleasure. I personally believe that it has its boundaries (as I am a Christian), but do not think that there is any place for that belief in the legal system.

Other species have been observed to also engage in long-term and seemingly committed homosexual partnerships, so the idea that just because an anomily occurs doesn't mean it's going to ever be dominant.

And that touches on the problem I have with the research done on animals to come to conclusions about homosexuality. Animal homosexual behavior, as defined in most of the studies done by scientists with this agenda, is very much the same as bahavior between to brothers or sisters or best friends who are very very close. My mother has a best friend who she loves dearly. But they are not romantically involved, and therein lies the struggles in these studies. Human emotion and romance is a different case than it is with animals. You will never see a iguana taking another out to dinner, or holding hands with another iguana. You will never see a cat compose a love song for another cat. The elements and actions are different. So the problem is drawing a line between companionship and romantic involvement.

 

[JustineCredible]

Of course not. I am not suggesting that sex is only a means of reproduction. I certainly appreciate the existance of sex for pleasure. I personally believe that it has its boundaries (as I am a Christian), but do not think that there is any place for that belief in the legal system.

And in that we agree completely. I don't believe I've ever said differently.

And that touches on the problem I have with the research done on animals to come to conclusions about homosexuality. Animal homosexual behavior, as defined in most of the studies done by scientists with this agenda, is very much the same as bahavior between to brothers or sisters or best friends who are very very close. My mother has a best friend who she loves dearly. But they are not romantically involved, and therein lies the struggles in these studies. Human emotion and romance is a different case than it is with animals. You will never see a iguana taking another out to dinner, or holding hands with another iguana. You will never see a cat compose a love song for another cat. The elements and actions are different. So the problem is drawing a line between companionship and romantic involvement.

Good points all, but since we cannot ask a cat if it would compose a love song for another cat if it could, we cannot prove either way.

I'm only pointing to it's likelihood.
My personal beliefs are only that...personal. I know what I am oriented toward, and I know what I'm attacked to. I also know that they are not one in the same. My PREFERENCE of brunets over blonds is aesthetic only, my orientation to women is something I simply cannot put my finger on.
I just know I have always felt this way for as long as I can remember.

Yes, I would agree that in that there was some small "choice" at work. I CHOSE to attempt to force myself to "fit-in" and be seen dating men, when I just never felt it was right for me to do so. I later "CHOSE" to stop what felt wrong to me and stop lying about my real feelings. I "Chose" to live my life in accordance with my orientation, instead of in opposition to it.
But that's the only conscious "choice" I made.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Good points all, but since we cannot ask a cat if it would compose a love song for another cat if it could, we cannot prove either way.

Which is why I think it is foolish to look at other animals to attempt to find some sort of genetic answer towards human emotional and sexual behavior.

I'm only pointing to it's likelihood.
My personal beliefs are only that...personal. I know what I am oriented toward, and I know what I'm attacked to. I also know that they are not one in the same. My PREFERENCE of brunets over blonds is aesthetic only, my orientation to women is something I simply cannot put my finger on.
I just know I have always felt this way for as long as I can remember.

Yes, I would agree that in that there was some small "choice" at work. I CHOSE to attempt to force myself to "fit-in" and be seen dating men, when I just never felt it was right for me to do so. I later "CHOSE" to stop what felt wrong to me and stop lying about my real feelings. I "Chose" to live my life in accordance with my orientation, instead of in opposition to it.
But that's the only conscious "choice" I made.

Perhaps that is the case. Or perhaps you have simply made the choice to believe that you are homosexual in a world where you felt like you had to be heterosexual. An unconscious decision to be different if you will... It is all incredibly circular and inconclusive. Some fifty year old men say that they have no choice but to be in love with twelve year old girls, but that is something that we have marked as morally wrong. I would argue that what you chose was to follow your tendencies, and you have convinced yourself that you were made to be a lesbian.