Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

You're a ****, so you're a liberal, so you parttake in recreational baby-murdering. It's a logical deduction.

I haven't kept up with this thread, so I'm not sure if the comments in bold are yours or copied from somewhere else, but I have an issue with the statement in red. According to a CDC report from 2006:

MSM = "men who have sex with men"

- MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).

- MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).

- While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).

- MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

I can't speak to the general health risks of homosexual intercourse between men, but there's obviously something different about AIDS specifically and there's most definitely an increased risk of contracting it if you're a "MSM". We could speculate all day as to why,

And that risk isn't exactly declining, either.

Sorry, but it's one statistic that actually adds up. To deny it is not only ignorant, but potentially dangerous.

No, I definitely shouldn't have to agree that a male and a female have an inherent advantage over two males or two females when it comes to parenting. Why would I need to?

Try to think of why two parents are better than one. Protip: It has nothing to do with the gender of anyone.

Obviously one of us misread the questions, then, and I'm pretty sure it's not me.

Answering "yes" to all four questions means that my opinion is that an opposite-sex couple is better than a same-sex couple, which is better than a single parent.

No? Are you @#%^ing retarded? I didn't say anything remotely similar to that. I said that a same-sex couple is just as good at raising children as a heterosexual couple. Where the @#%^ you came up with something like this is beyond me. Did Allegory's thread tempt you into trying some salvia of your own?


Society hasn't proven sh*t, and neither have you. You're pulling a gbaji, just rushing in and yelling "IT'S ALL TRUE!!!" with nothing to back it up. How has society remotely proven this? Do you have even the slightest shred of evidence?


Well, if you read blogs and forums about these things instead of, say, peer-reviewed scientific studies, then yes, I suppose that's right. The studies might not be infallible, but they're sure as hell a better basis to argue from than "hurr durr society prooooves it!"

Edited, Aug 6th 2010 4:35pm by Majivo

Of course there is. There are two broad types of marriage:

1. Statutory Marriage. In this case, you sign a marriage license application. By doing so (and assuming it's accepted), you are agreeing to a marriage contract managed by state law.

2. Common law Marriage. In this case, you may write up your own contract or have none at all. The main difference is that the state only grants certain benefits tied to "marriage" to statutory marriages.


Some states have passed special common law marriage laws which treat anyone living in a common law marriage condition as legally bound by the statutory marriage contract, even if they've never signed one, and even if they don't want to sign one. The act of living together as spouses for a period of time is assumed to be agreement to the contract.


The idea that the states don't have and maintain a marriage contract is just silly. Marriage, in the legal sense, is a contract. A marriage managed by the state in which you don't write your own contract has to have some contract involved. Where do you think that comes from? I'm not sure how you can even intelligently discuss the issue of gay marriage if you don't understand what's involved when you apply for a marriage license.


And for the record, I never once said that a couple sits down and signs a massive contract that's the same size as a mortgage. I said that they do fill out a sheaf of papers when filing for a marriage license (in California, it's a good 15 pages or so), and that this counts legally as signing a much larger contract. The contract itself is maintained via statute though.



No. I said you have to sign a stack of papers, and that this resulted in your agreeing to a contract which was much much bigger (more like the size of a mortgage, which might have been where the confusion came from). That's somehow been morphed into something completely different though. I know it's easier to just dismiss my positions by making fun of irrelevant side points, but none of that changes the fact that marriages are contracts. When you sign a marriage license with the state, you are entering into a contract which is managed by the state.


But... As many people have pointed out, this isn't what marriage is about. Yet, somehow, when that's the only thing being denied to gay couples, not having it is considered to prevent them from being able to marry. It never ceases to amaze me how inconsistent the arguments are.

Hey, I used my "Can Do" attitude and found a quote from that thread which is good enough for government work since it contained the money quote:

Bolding, and laughter, mine.

Edited, Aug 6th 2010 7:07pm by Jophiel

I'll point out that I'm *still* waiting for someone to actually present an alternative state objective for the creation of a set of marriage benefits. As I pointed out yesterday, that's the test the court will almost certainly use to determine the constitutionality of the criteria at question.


Everything else is irrelevant.

Majivo,

Just to let you know, I responded to your post, it was sub-defaulted... not sure if you have the filter on or not..

I saw it, I just have no desire to continue such a pointless and convoluted argument.