The problem with "domestic partnership" :: Free Realms

Maybe this is a wacky concept, but I don't believe that we should be providing benefits to groups of people just because it might be a nice thing to do.

It's not just a nice thing to do you nimwit. It's another step in the entire movement of civil rights and treating humans, all of them, as equal beings under the law. It's not like gay marriage doesn't benefit society. Society as a whole has a whole benefits because people in the society are benefiting. Conditions are improving for people, and therefore, society is as well. It's not a hard concept.

hangtennow wrote:

The 14th amendment doesn't apply a social agenda that a minority group supports. Nothing in the 14th amendment supports the homosexauls arguement.

I think the first section makes it invariably clear:

Quote:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Did you bother to read it?

hangtennow wrote:

Are you comparing humans with cats?

I lol'd and then

hangtennow wrote:

If two of age americans decide they want to marry how is that any different from what the homosexuals are trying to do?

I lol'd some more. Smiley: um

hangtennow wrote:

Goggy,

Ok you've posted a link from an aids charity organization.

Now take a look at the CDC numbers,

Quote:

In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM

And that 5-7% number I believe to be on the high end.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice invariably linked with aids. No getting around it. The question is do we have a govn validate this lifestyle choice.

If I remember correctly, your study was from 2004 or 2005, right? Goggy's web page links to CDC studies done in 2008 and 2009. His information is more valid than yours by 4 - 5 years.

▲ Page top

#558 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 8:21 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Cody,

Quote Reply

#559 May 08 2009 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good

Xsarus

View User Forum

10,601 posts

Encouraging homosexual people to enter into stable relationships will limit the spread of stds though. If that's your big concern, shouldn't you be in favor of legislation that will help? The behavior isn't going away, it's been around forever. If people are encouraged to enter into stable relationships that are likely much more monogamous then they won't be spreading disease.

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#560 May 08 2009 at 8:42 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

hangtennow wrote:

According the strict definition of this incestual marriage as well as polygamy should be allowed yet we as a nation recognize these behaviours to be harmful to society.

We abridge rights for what we consider the common good. No screaming "fire" in the theater, etc etc

Quote:

Homoexuality is no different.

Given that five states have legalized same sex marriage, you would seem to be wrong.

Arguing about polygamy and incest is the common dying gasps of someone losing the argument. "I can't make a credible case against same sex marriage but.... INCEST!! No one likes incest, right?! I'll argue against incest and then say if you agree with SSM, you must agree with incest!!"

It's intellectually lazy but I suppose it works (in that people don't call them on it; not that it makes a valid argument).

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#561 May 08 2009 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

hangtennow wrote:

That 1-3% of the population

Quote:

even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM

Assuming an equal number of women that means 5-7% of the population according to CDC. Why do you discount one part of your "support" and trumpet another?

Quote:

hat 1-3% of the population accounts for 71% of the aids cases

Wrong. Reread what the study says. It does NOT say this (not just the first part, but the second is also wrong).

And it still doesn't matter. AIDS and homosexual sex has nothing to do with gay marriage. You talk about three different things in the same paragraph.

Gay marriage =/= incest =/= gay sex =/= AIDS.

And no, homosexual "acts" do not lead to AIDS. They don't. **** sex, sharing needles, breast-feeding, normal sex, and blood sharing with infected individuals leads to AIDS. Homosexuality does NOT. Being gay, kissing a man if you're a man, or getting married does not cause AIDS. Your point is totally incorrect. Edit: Technically those things I list trasmits HIV, not AIDS. AIDS is a syndrome after the virus wrecks your immune system.

Edited, May 8th 2009 1:05pm by LockeColeMA

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#562 May 08 2009 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1592347380152

View User Forum

Sage

26,516 posts

I don't condone hetero sex, I think it is filthy and disgusting, and it accounts for 100% of accidental pregnancies.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#563 May 08 2009 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

NixNot wrote:

I don't condone hetero sex, I think it is filthy and disgusting, and it accounts for 100% of accidental pregnancies.

And an overwhelming percentage of birth defects. You're right, I don't know why the government recognizes this immoral behavior.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

#564 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 9:35 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophiel,

Quote Reply

#565 May 08 2009 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

hangtennow wrote:

What's intellectually lazy is disregarding the health hazzard homosexuals represent.

If you're honestly concerned about that, work to make the homosexuality a crime like incest is. I won't support you but at least you'll be acting honestly. The legal construct of marriage doesn't spread AIDS no matter which two people are engaged in it.

Quote:

We don't allow polygamy and incest based on moral objections; homosexuality is no different.

You're not arguing it on moral grounds though which is the funny thing. You're trying to argue against it on medical grounds.

Edited, May 8th 2009 12:39pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

#566 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 9:46 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophiel,

Quote Reply

#567 May 08 2009 at 9:50 AM Rating: Decent

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Jophiel,

Quote:

If you're honestly concerned about that, work to make the homosexuality a crime like incest is.

Because I don't believe it's the job of the govn to legislate behaviour.

Weren't you just saying it is the job of the government to legislate morality?

Quote:

Saying someone shouldn't be able to marry whomever they like is much different than telling someone they can't sleep with whoever they like.

How so?

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#568 May 08 2009 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

hangtennow wrote:

Because I don't believe it's the job of the govn to legislate behaviour.

Fair enough. But it's the behaviour that causes the medical issues, correct? No one gets AIDS by taking a vow or slipping a gold band on their finger.

So you'll have the government keep people from marrying because of a medical concern unrelated to marriage but pat yourself on the back saying that you didn't "legislate behaviour"? Doesn't that seem a bit disingenuous?

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

#569 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 10:06 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,

Quote Reply

#570 May 08 2009 at 10:07 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

I'll have the govn keep people from marrying because that particular behaviour creates a health risk. You're trying to separate the moral and medical issues when they aren't mutually exclusive.

They aren't direct cause/effect either.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#571 May 08 2009 at 10:08 AM Rating: Excellent

Samira

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Jophiel wrote:

Doesn't that seem a bit disingenuous?

A fitting epitaph for virus.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#572 May 08 2009 at 10:08 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

hangtennow wrote:

I'll have the govn keep people from marrying because that particular behaviour creates a health risk.

Marrying doesn't create a health risk.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#573 May 08 2009 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

Samira wrote:

Jophiel wrote:

Doesn't that seem a bit disingenuous?

A fitting epitaph for virus.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#574 May 08 2009 at 10:11 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592347380152

View User Forum

Sage

26,516 posts

So then, why, if for some bizarre reason, me and Leo wanted to get married. We both get tested at least twice a year, and for the past oh... 30 years and more, for Leo, we've both been negative. Our having sex with each other is not going to transmit HIV, because we don't have it. So, why can't we get married?

▲ Page top

#575 REDACTED, Posted: May 08 2009 at 10:11 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,

Quote Reply

#576 May 08 2009 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent

Samira

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Jophed,

Govn recognizing marriage encourages a behaviour that is a health risk.

No, it doesn't.

People are going to have sex whether they're married or not.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top

The problem with "domestic partnership"Follow