The problem with "domestic partnership"Follow

Two pages ago we had to figure out how it benefited society, and now you're trying to make it purely economic? You're slacking.

You know what would have been awesome? If you just acknowledged that you want to ignore the rights issue, while admitting that you don't really give a fuck about separate but equal and all that.

People have brought up time and time again that it's just flat out ridiculous of you to say that gay people have to pay for the marriage rights of straight people but you shouldn't have to pay for their benefits. You continue to try to dance around that issue and refuse to reply directly to it. Try it. 30 words or less. Why do I have to pay for your benefits but you don't have to pay for mine?

You cannot advocate to continue to keep the government out of people's lives like you seem to want and also demand that we then change the marriage code to give certain benefits to certain people.

Throwing a bunch of words out doesn't disguise how pitiful every argument you make is. This issue is far too complex to say "it's about the children!" or "it's an economical issue!" or "it's not about rights!" or "it's not an emotional issue!" It's about all of them, and I'm certain you know that.

Just say you don't want gay people to marry because it makes you feel weird. It's not like we haven't caught on by now.

So you want examples of benefits.... but not including any sort of benefits for children or the couples?

Gee, so sorry we're not meeting gbaji's narrow definitions for what benefits are considered valid.I answered that in the previous thread. If it's really about the economics then the thing to do is give the married benefits to any married couple who is claiming a minor dependent on their taxes. This way, all of the children of any married couple are cared for and we're not stuck paying for a bunch of idling uteruses that aren't currently generating children. That is easily the most economically efficent method of dealing with it. By the same measure that you claim we shouldn't pay for gays getting married, we shouldn't be paying for imaginary, theoretical children that may or may not one day exist. The solution is simple: until the day comes that those children do exist, you don't get shit. And you get a good 6+ month warning before you drop out some children so no crying that you just didn't know it was going to happen and didn't have a chance to get married.

But it's not really about the economics.

Edited, May 8th 2009 11:10pm by Jophiel

The Asylum is nothing, if not as predictable as the OoT.

When someone turns gay they create aids inside themselves and then go around wildly inserting the disease into everyone they meet. If they were to get married, they create an extra copie of aids and so the spread of aids doubles. True story.

oh and I'm speculating now, but I'd assume that gays spreading aids is actually a liberal conspiracy that will erupt when a republican president is elected so that the democrats can blame the GOP and regain power and further their agenda of whatever it is that they want to do.

Edited, May 8th 2009 11:52pm by Xsarus

gbaji and varus are amusing.

But Gaytennow is cute and funny!

You don't have this vision in your head that 71% of male homosexuals have AIDs, do you, Gaytennow?

Apart from that:
There are several highly disabling chronic infectious diseases that, although they get everyone of all ages, have a vast majority (60-70%) incidence among working-age women, because Teachers and Nurses are the most exposed professionals to infections.

People who choose to visit or live in Africa are exposing themselves to great danger from Malaria, and need to take careful precautions against it.

Sickle-cell Anemia is almost confined to the black African and African descended community.
Cystic Fibrosis afflicts mainly white males.

Illness is not a moral issue. It's a problem solving issue.

When the HIV issue became known in Australia, a big government, community organization and private charity safe sex campaign started up generally. But it wasn't ignored that the vast majority of cases were among the homosexual community. Much more funding, attention and events went into the safe sex campaign in the gay community, in their places and media, as went into the straight community. Gay-friendly strip shopping malls/cafes/bookstores etc got various safe sex posters, some featuring kissing men, along with all the toilets in gay night-clubs. And this was back in the 80s and 90s when being gay was much more controversial. Drag-queen shows would usually feature the host/ess tossing out a "...and remember, be safe!" line during the show, if the safe-sex message wasn't worked in more subtly, as part of the comedy.

As a night-clubber in gay clubs in the early 90s, it was just part of the social scene for your friends to inquire mock-severely "Are you being safe?" when they knew you'd picked up that night. Night-clubbing gear was your money, your ID, your keys, and some condoms or dental dams. And it worked beautifully. The page I linked back in the thread showed that as soon as the government started keeping HIV records and doing something about it, the HIV infection rates per year plummeted until they were so small, that people became complacent and the rates started rising again. But it is taken seriously enough that 50% of non infected gay men voluntarily have yearly HIV tests, among their usual precautions, without it ever being a requirement from any organisation that they do so.

You keep throwing those numbers together like they mean something.

Doing a little research, I found this passage:

Clearly, African Americans should be forbidden to marry, as that would eliminate the possibility of their transmitting AIDS.

Edited, May 11th 2009 11:41am by AshOnMyTomatoes

I just want to hear him say it. Obviously the choice to be Black leads to a significant increase in the transmission of this tragic disease. Blackness is a sin and he should be agin' it.

Cody,

You didn't just try and pass off wiki as a valid source did you?

Joph,



No one believes what I say as it is. So how can I loose any credibility? On the other hand you people seem to speak with such authority I would think you would be able to find something from the cdc to invalidate one of my main points. Guess not.