Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

Originally posted by Uniceft17

Originally posted by alpha crusis

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by sos37

I would very much like to hear an argument against gay marriage that is not based on religious conviction. One that holds up to the test as making it so different from other marriages.

An epidemiological study from Canada of data for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. The San Francisco Public Health Department reports that syphilis among the city's gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men.

It's useless to quote these studys because no one on earth knows how many gay people there are, is that counting the people in the closets, the people that are just now coming out, and the people who have not yet realized they are gay?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has estimated America's gay, lesbian, and bisexual population at around 8.8 million people. That translates to somewhere between 2.5 and 3 percent. Even if you were to triple that figure, we're still talking about less than 10 per cent of the population. What should be clear is that Homophiles have a much shorter lifespan than their procreating counter-parts, regardless of their numbers.

Originally posted by Angus123

Originally posted by IAF101
Hallelujah !! Finally New England's electorate has some semblance of sanity! Its ridiculous to have "marriage" between people who can never build a family by themselves.

One good thing about Obama in office is that it's a whole lot easier to beat the liberals when they think they have already won!

They say we are what we hate you know, lol.
And don't waste time saying you don't hate gays... your posts are dripping with it.

Don't you think we should start charging people with a "hate crime" when they rob a store or a bank? After all, they must hate being broke!

reply to post by alpha crusis


Is that supposed to make sense? I'm wasn't talking about hate crimes.

reply to post by Jovi1

without the other side of it from feeling their way of life is completely and totally under attack.

While the state should and does have a responsibility to not discriminate against these pairings and to ensure they receive equal treatment under the law, they cannot force religious institutions into doing so, this is what scares away many would be supporters away from supporting these issues.

Two questions here about the above.

First, why on earth should the "other side" feel like their way of life is "under attack" when the marriage laws would only affect gay people who want to marry? The laws have no impact whatsoever on straight people. How do they get off with such a ridiculous notion that this somehow attacks their way of life?

Second, it has never been the case that churches would be required by any of these laws to perform gay ceremonies. Who is pushing that bit of dis-info? You?

reply to post by alpha crusis

Contrary to what you've been told, homosexuality is not genetic. If it were, it could not be altered by mere choice. You cannot choose to be Caucasian, blonde, tall or attractive. But homosexuals can choose to alter their behavior.

A homosexual can alter their "behaviour" in terms of whether they choose to have sex with men or to abstain. Altering their behaviour does not mean they aren't still gay. When a straight man becomes a monk or priest and takes a vow of chastity he is still a straight man.

Changing behaviour does not change who you are.

reply to post by alpha crusis

If it is NORMAL to be gay, why do Homophiles commonly refer to themselves as QUEER? (defined as: demented, unnatural, unbalanced, freakish ...

Like you didn't know that straight people were first to use that term used it all the time as a way of putting down gay people? Give me a break!

Gay people using that term themselves now is a way to take the power and sting out it. It is an attempt to blunt the effect of it or even turn it around to indicate pride and lack of fear; to indicate they will not be intimidated.

As that term has lost some of its punch, you might have to come up with something else to be hurtful with. I am sure you are trying.

Originally posted by Jovi1
reply to post by Annee

 

It isn't selective reading it is the facts pure and simple. The fact that you cannot process it says more about you than anything else you say. It is simple the gay community is going to have to make a compromise on it.

. . . . and blacks need to compromise on equal rights.

. . . . and women need to compromise on equal rights.

Learn the difference between Fact and homophobic opinion.

reply to post by alpha crusis

If you believe in equality for all people, then surely you would have to support those whose sexual appetites include children or animals.

Simple answer: NO!

What a stupid, idiotic assertion. You guys really need to develop a conscience.

Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by alpha crusis

 

If you believe in equality for all people, then surely you would have to support those whose sexual appetites include children or animals.

Simple answer: NO!

What a stupid, idiotic assertion. You guys really need to develop a conscience.

GEEZE!!

How many times must one repeat CONSENTING ADULTS?!?

Every time they run out of argument - - they throw these gems in.

I really feel like I'm living in a time warp with some posters archaic thought patterns.

Originally posted by alpha crusis

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by sos37

I would very much like to hear an argument against gay marriage that is not based on religious conviction. One that holds up to the test as making it so different from other marriages.

An epidemiological study from Canada of data for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. The San Francisco Public Health Department reports that syphilis among the city's gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men.

A study in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexuals and bisexuals contracted potentially fatal ailments such as AIDS, anal cancer, tuberculosis and hepatitis disproportionately. The U.S. National Institute of Health reports that the median age of death is less than 50 years for those involved in homosexuality.

Although gay activists often argue that legalizing homosexual marriage would help make such relationships more permanent, the reality is that most gays desire variety in their sex partners, not the monogamy of traditional marriage. Numerous studies throughout North America and Europe show that the plea for legal homosexual marriage is less about marriage than the push for legitimacy. Most gays and lesbians are not in monogamous relationships, and in fact often live alone by preference.

The best scientific evidence suggests that putting society's stamp of approval on homosexual partnerships would harm society in general as well as homosexuals themselves, the same group some contend would be helped.

A large body of scientific evidence suggests that homosexual marriage is a defective counterfeit of traditional marriage and that it poses a clear and present danger to the health of the community.

A study by Dr. Cameron, Chairman of the Family Research Institute in Colorado reports that traditional marriage improves the health of its participants, has the lowest rate of domestic violence, prolongs life, and is the best context in which to raise children.

Homosexual coupling undermines its participants' health, has the highest rate of domestic violence, shortens life, and is a poor environment in which to raise children.

In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death.

The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay 'marriage' is beneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women. Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man.

Across the world, numerous researchers have reported that 'committed' or 'coupled' homosexuals are more apt to engage in highly risky and biologically unsanitary sexual practices than are 'single' gays. As a consequence of this activity, they increase their chances of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted or blood-borne diseases.

Among heterosexuals, domestic violence is an obvious marker of a troubled marriage, and media attention and tax dollars to aid 'battered women' have both grown tremendously in recent years. What is not reported is the empirical evidence indicating homosexual couples have higher rates of domestic violence than do heterosexual couples, especially among lesbians.

In 1996, Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the L.A. Gay Lesbian Center, said that "domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse in terms of sheer numbers and lethality."

I will make a scientific assessment of my own:
99% (religious/right wing/nut job) propaganda
1% science
Do you really think we are all blind?
Do you really

Originally posted by wayno

I will make a scientific assessment of my own:
99% (religious/right wing/nut job) propaganda
1% science
Do you really think we are all blind?
Do you really

I second that.

Fact is - - AIDS has become an economical & cultural disaster. Fastest growing among lower income/less educated black/Hispanic heteros world wide - - both male & female.

With beliefs such as - if you have sex with a virgin it will cure aids.

reply to post by wayno


1.) They feel their religious traditions are under attack, simply because every time these issues come up the focus is turned to them by the opposition until the gay community turns it to and makes it about purely the legal benefits, and continues to allow the opposition to turn it in to a mandate to the churches.

2.) You know these laws never address forcing the churches to do so, I know they never do but as long as you allow opposition to turn the argument that way you will get nowhere.

As for me I could really care less about what grown people choose to do, not my concern. Personally I feel the State should recognize these with all the legal rights and benefits, but being a realist know it is not going to happen unless the gay community makes it an issue of just that aspect of it.

Originally posted by alpha crusis
What should be clear is that Homophiles have a much shorter lifespan than their procreating counter-parts, regardless of their numbers.

Anyone who has anonymous unprotected sex is likely to have a shorter life-span reguardless of being homosexual or not. Quit trying to turn this into a homosexual issue when it's an issue for every human whether they are gay, straight, white, black, brown, asian, etc.

And why do you keep trying to associate homosexuality with pedophilia, there's more hetero pedos out there than gay ones, by large.

[edit on 11/11/2009 by Uniceft17]

reply to post by Annee


Talk about selective reading.

The fact of it is you are trying to force the State to require a political mandate on a religious institution. That cannot and will not ever be tolerated PERIOD. In almost every possible argument you would be right, unfortunately this issue by the very nature of it is tied to a religious belief and value system.

Unless you are willing to differentiate between a civilly performed ceremony and a religious one, these issues will make no progress and continue to be voted down.

Originally posted by Uniceft17

Originally posted by alpha crusis
What should be clear is that Homophiles have a much shorter lifespan than their procreating counter-parts, regardless of their numbers.

Anyone who has anonymous unprotected sex is likely to have a shorter life-span reguardless of being homosexual or not. Quit trying to turn this into a homosexual issue when it's an issue for every human whether they are gay, straight, white, black, brown, asian, etc.

And why do you keep trying to associate homosexuality with pedophilia, there's more hetero pedos out there than gay ones, by large.

[edit on 11/11/2009 by Uniceft17]

The stats Alpha Crusis gave does not seem to support your argument Unicleft. All his stats show more negative health consequences and domestic violence issues for the gay community.

Do you have any stats that show that not to be the case?

Originally posted by Jovi1
reply to post by Annee

 

Talk about selective reading.

The fact of it is you are trying to force the State to require a political mandate on a religious institution. That cannot and will not ever be tolerated PERIOD. In almost every possible argument you would be right, unfortunately this issue by the very nature of it is tied to a religious belief and value system.

Unless you are willing to differentiate between a civilly performed ceremony and a religious one, these issues will make no progress and continue to be voted down.

The government license named "marriage license" is not in anyway religious. There are no religious requirements to be legally married. Actually - that would be illegal to require/demand a couple to even acknowledge a god.

Oh yes - well at one time everything revolved around god. God was the law. Remember Galileo?

We could be like Iraq and have "Enjoyment Marriages". Heaven forbid any two consenting adults get together without being married in the eyes of god.

Temporary 'Enjoyment Marriages' In Vogue Again With Some Iraqis - By Nancy Trejos

BAGHDAD -- Fatima Ali was a 24-year-old divorcee with no high school diploma and no job. Shawket al-Rubae was a 34-year-old Shiite sheik with a pregnant wife who, he said, could not have sex with him.

Ali wanted someone to take care of her. Rubae wanted a companion.

They met one afternoon in May at the house he shares with his wife, in the room where he accepts visitors seeking his religious counsel. He had a proposal. Would Ali be his temporary wife? He would pay her 5,000 Iraqi dinars upfront -- about $4 -- in addition to her monthly expenses. About twice a week over the next eight months, he would summon her to a house he would rent.

The negotiations took an hour and ended with an unwritten agreement, the couple recalled. Thus began their "mutaa," or enjoyment marriage, a temporary union believed by Shiite Muslims to be sanctioned by Islamic law.

www.washingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Annee


I think we already have that. It is called dating or living together in this country. Since we aren't as uptight and murderous as the Muslims the women in this county do not usually die (unless the womans father is an extreme muslim who think women are basically equal to dogs) as a result, so therefore no need for fake marriage.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Jovi1
reply to post by Annee

 

The government license named "marriage license" is not in anyway religious. There are no religious requirements to be legally married. Actually - that would be illegal to require/demand a couple to even acknowledge a god.

At what point did anyone say that the license itself would change you read too much into somethings and too little into everything else. The best chance of any success on these issues is to make it more palatable to the other side.

Lets take a walk through the process.

Obtain license.

Go see judge or other qualified civil servant to join us = Civil Union with all rights and benefits that go with it.

or

Go see qualified religious authority to join us = Marriage with all rights and benefits that go with it.

Oh wow what has changed here? Nothing other than a distinction over who did the marrying. And you have just made the goal more achievable by simply making it more palatable to those who really are not necessarily opposed to the idea but feel their religion is under attack doing it your way.

But instead of taking an approach where both parties are walking away with something they can live with you would rather have nothing at all.

Oh yes - well at one time everything revolved around god. God was the law. Remember Galileo?

We could be like Iraq and have "Enjoyment Marriages". Heaven forbid any two consenting adults get together without being married in the eyes of god.

Temporary 'Enjoyment Marriages' In Vogue Again With Some Iraqis - By Nancy Trejos

BAGHDAD -- Fatima Ali was a 24-year-old divorcee with no high school diploma and no job. Shawket al-Rubae was a 34-year-old Shiite sheik with a pregnant wife who, he said, could not have sex with him.

Ali wanted someone to take care of her. Rubae wanted a companion.

They met one afternoon in May at the house he shares with his wife, in the room where he accepts visitors seeking his religious counsel. He had a proposal. Would Ali be his temporary wife? He would pay her 5,000 Iraqi dinars upfront -- about $4 -- in addition to her monthly expenses. About twice a week over the next eight months, he would summon her to a house he would rent.

The negotiations took an hour and ended with an unwritten agreement, the couple recalled. Thus began their "mutaa," or enjoyment marriage, a temporary union believed by Shiite Muslims to be sanctioned by Islamic law.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Blah blah blah someone is talking reason to me, so i will go find something totally irrelevant to further my argument.















[edit on 11/11/2009 by Jovi1]

reply to post by Jovi1

They feel their religious traditions are under attack, ...

There is a real problem there, is there not? People who feel like that obviously feel that their religious convictions should apply to everyone and not just themselves; otherwise why would they care what other people do?

Nobody has ever suggested that they need to change their religious traditions. On the other hand, those people need to keep their traditions to themselves and stop trying to impose them on everyone else.

If I am not a member of any of those congregations, why the hell should I be bound by their beliefs? Am I not free to have my own belief system?

What I do or what I believe does not affect them. They are free to continue their traditions. This argument is bogus.

[edit on 11/11/2009 by wayno]

Originally posted by HotSauce

The stats Alpha Crusis gave does not seem to support your argument Unicleft. All his stats show more negative health consequences and domestic violence issues for the gay community.

Do you have any stats that show that not to be the case?

I was perfectly clear on what I said.

Anyone who has unprotected anonymous sex is at risk of getting an STD, yes that means heterosexuals to. And I concede that homosexuals who have unprotected anonymous sex are at a higher risk of getting aids. But what does that matter? There is still a risk for all.

And where did the domestic violence argument come from?