10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong

[jb_1430]

.

Now...when you think about it....is that such a bad thing?

Just the part where the women are solely responsible for rearing the offspring.

 

[numinus]

....Or are you saying in general poor people shouldn't adopt?

YES. ABSOLUTELY.

Planned parenthood says as much. The decision on whether or not to have children has a socio-economic dimension.

The state can do no less in deciding adoption. In its exercise of this important task, it is but natural that the state DISCRIMINATES, for the interest of the child, of course.

There is a difference between the "gay life style" and being homosexual. One is a choice of a particular life style associated with a particular group of gays and - more then that - associated with the era of "free love", swingers, and casual sex that spanned both homosexual and heterosexual cultures. Today - STD's and AIDS are affecting both homosexual and heterosexual people with and with two points in common: unprotected high risk sex (shock - it's not limited to homos!) and IV drug use.

Now you seem to be implying that all homosexuals are members of that lifestyle. If that logic were followed, all heterosexuals must be as well. But guess what - they aren't. And neither are all or even most homosexuals. That lifestyle is diminishing in the advent of disease for both homo and hetero. As people mature they are more interested in long term commitments and fidelity - the kind of commitments enshrined in marriage.

So...which is it: homosexuality? (which then begs the question about why heteros get it) or a lifestyle? And there is one thing that potentially changes that kind of lifestyle for the better: marriage.

By the way - as a point of interest, AIDS did not even originate in the homosexual population. It originated in Africa, from a chimpanzee virus that jumped to humans. It affected heterosexuals and homosexuals. It spread faster among homosexuals because of the type of sex which allows easier entry for the virus.

This does not change the fact that this disease vector within the homosexual population, particularly in the us.

Or are you suggesting that the higher occurence of this disease among homosexuals is a coincidence. No academic worth his education would accept that, you know.

Oh, and anal penetration is hazardous to your health. That should be a warning disseminated as widely as cigarettes and alcohol.

Also: how does gay marriage or a civil union undermine marriage?

Do you not undermine it when you radically change its purpose?

So far, you have only given reasons not to have it based on no demonstratable public good. What verifiable harm would it do?

I have given reasons. Personal health for one. I really do not think exposing one's genitals to fecal matter on a regular basis is good for anyone -- not to mention the blood stream and with it, the entire immune system.

Disease propagation for another. This is a consequence of the above.

Shall I continue or do you think the above is sufficient?

Agreed. But I see no logical limitation to same sex unions. So you don't call them marriage. Call them something else such as other societies have done. Judaic scripture, for instance, indicates that same-sex marriages were recognized in ancient Egypt. Of course, it's no secret that the ancient Greeks and Romans recognized homosexual marriage, not to mention imperial China and some Native American tribes and a host of other peoples living around the world. Many of those unions had different aspects to them then what we define today as marriage but they all had one thing in common: a legal recognition of same sex partners in some sort of enduring bond. It didn't damage traditional marriage, or society. The fact that it existed and endured in a variety of human cultures says something about it.

Of course. That's what I have been saying all along.

Call it whatever you wish, just don't call it marriage -- lest you fall into an inextricable circular trap.

 

[numinus]

We seem to be evolving towards a sexuality that more closely resembles that of bonobo chimps than humans. I dont think government has any business in hastening that process.

ROTFLMAO

 

[Coyote]

YES. ABSOLUTELY.

Planned parenthood says as much. The decision on whether or not to have children has a socio-economic dimension.

The state can do no less in deciding adoption. In its exercise of this important task, it is but natural that the state DISCRIMINATES, for the interest of the child, of course.

I disagree as long as the family can provide for the child without the expectation of the state providing. But that's another topic!

This does not change the fact that this disease vector within the homosexual population, particularly in the us.

Yes, it does. From: http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm

Globally, around 11% of HIV infections are among babies who acquire the virus from their mothers; 10% result from injecting drug use; 5-10% are due to sex between men; and 5-10% occur in healthcare settings. Sex between men and women accounts for the remaining proportion – around two thirds of new infections.

Or are you suggesting that the higher occurence of this disease among homosexuals is a coincidence. No academic worth his education would accept that, you know.

Oh, and anal penetration is hazardous to your health. That should be a warning disseminated as widely as cigarettes and alcohol.

Anal penetration in and of itself is not. Now who's building a strawman?

What is hazardous to your health is unprotected sex and promiscuity .

Do you not undermine it when you radically change its purpose?

Why is something necessarily "undermined" when it's purpose or function is racically change? Think of spinoffs from the space industry.

How exactly does it "undermine" marriage? How does it affect traditional marriage at all?

I have given reasons. Personal health for one. I really do not think exposing one's genitals to fecal matter on a regular basis is good for anyone -- not to mention the blood stream and with it, the entire immune system.

It comes down to personal hygiene and protected sex, not where or how you have sex. This also applies to heterosexual sex which can spread a broad variety of diseases through irresponsibility or poor hygene.

Disease propagation for another. This is a consequence of the above.

That argument doesn't work either as disease propagation occurs in heterosexual sex as well.

Shall I continue or do you think the above is sufficient?

You had better continue because neither of your arguments are excluxive to homosexuality.

Of course. That's what I have been saying all along.

Call it whatever you wish, just don't call it marriage -- lest you fall into an inextricable circular trap.

Well...I'm not quite sure yet...but I think you are pulling the rug out from under my paws here if we are in agrerement...

I don't care what it's called as long as the necessary rights and legal protections are recognized.

 

[Coyote]

Just the part where the women are solely responsible for rearing the offspring.

Where exactly do you get that from?

 

[jb_1430]

Where exactly do you get that from?

Did you have a point?

Bonobos live in groups of 50 to 120 animals. Bonobo society appears to be female-dominated. Male status is linked to that of his mother. Older females occupy the highest rank. The strongest social bonds are between females. Raising offspring is an exclusively female activity.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/primates.html

 

[Coyote]

Did you have a point?

You may be right. When I first read it, I did not see "Raising offspring is an exclusively female activity" as necessarily the same as "women are solely responsible for rearing the offspring." For example in some cooperative species the male does very little beyond protecting the females but still carries some responsibility.

Another interesting article on them: http://brembs.net/bonobos.html

 

[jb_1430]

You may be right. When I first read it, I did not see "Raising offspring is an exclusively female activity" as necessarily the same as "women are solely responsible for rearing the offspring."

Sending a monthly check isnt really "rearing the offspring". And if the mother has been running around like a bonobo chimp with 10-20 different partners, she may not even know who to seek a check from.

 

[Coyote]

Sending a monthly check isnt really "rearing the offspring". And if the mother has been running around like a bonobo chimp with 10-20 different partners, she may not even know who to seek a check from.

True. And I don't necessarily disagree. However - I don't think that the nuclear family is necessarily the end-all of human family relationships. I think it is interesting to look at biology and evolution in the origins of human cultures and it's even more interesting to look at species so closely related to us. Maybe we can learn something from them. Who knows?

It used to be a community raised a child...not just two parents.

 

[jb_1430]

True. And I don't necessarily disagree. However - I don't think that the nuclear family is necessarily the end-all of human family relationships.

There is ample evidence to show that children fair better when they are raised by both biological parents, compared to those who are not.
You show me evidence that children raised by a gay couple fair better than those who are not, and I would get behind you with this whole gay marriage thing.

 

[numinus]

I disagree as long as the family can provide for the child without the expectation of the state providing. But that's another topic!

Correct. But, as I said, that is something for the state to determine -- and on a case-to-case basis. No more whining about prejudice to homosexual couples regarding adoption.

Yes, it does. From: http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm

Globally, around 11% of HIV infections are among babies who acquire the virus from their mothers; 10% result from injecting drug use; 5-10% are due to sex between men; and 5-10% occur in healthcare settings. Sex between men and women accounts for the remaining proportion – around two thirds of new infections.

Are we talking global or in the us. Demographics in the us shows an entirely different picture.

"From 2001 through 2004, the estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases increased among men who have sex with men (MSM). The estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases decreased among injection drug users (IDUs), MSM who were also IDUs, heterosexual adults and adolescents, and among children. MSM (47%) and persons exposed through heterosexual contact (33%) accounted for 80% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in 2004"

Anal penetration in and of itself is not. Now who's building a strawman?

Doesn't penetration cause abrasions along the anal tract -- regardless of the lubrication? And aren't these abrasions exposed to fecal matter?

What is hazardous to your health is unprotected sex and promiscuity .

What is hazardous to your health is the introduction of foreign bodies in the blood stream.

Why is something necessarily "undermined" when it's purpose or function is racically change? Think of spinoffs from the space industry.

How exactly does it "undermine" marriage? How does it affect traditional marriage at all?

Please don't make me repeat what I said.

From the udhr, the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.

Marriage is the social-legal institution by which the above principle manifests.

When you include homosexual unions in marriage, you are ALIENATING the institution from its intended purpose. It contradicts the above assertion and renders it moot.

Furthermore, the right to motherhood and the rights of children become subject to the whims and vagaries of sexual preferences, instead of the other way around.

It comes down to personal hygiene and protected sex, not where or how you have sex. This also applies to heterosexual sex which can spread a broad variety of diseases through irresponsibility or poor hygene.

How can anal sex on a regular basis be construed as anything but INHYGIENIC?

That argument doesn't work either as disease propagation occurs in heterosexual sex as well.

SEX AMONG MEN IS THE SINGLE LARGEST VECTOR FOR AIDS -- AND GROWING.

This is not some coincidence. I am not misrepresenting FACTS to suit a particular argument. It is so by the very NATURE of homosexuality in men.

You had better continue because neither of your arguments are excluxive to homosexuality.

Nope. I think the above would suffice.

Well...I'm not quite sure yet...but I think you are pulling the rug out from under my paws here if we are in agrerement...

I don't care what it's called as long as the necessary rights and legal protections are recognized.

No tax perks. No adoption rights. No maternity leaves for homosexual men and a host of other privileges that RESULT from the right to motherhood, the rights of children and family relations.

It would be AS IT SHOULD BE -- an agreement between two consenting adults.

Agree?

 

[Coyote]

Correct. But, as I said, that is something for the state to determine -- and on a case-to-case basis. No more whining about prejudice to homosexual couples regarding adoption.

Oh, I will whine about it because it does exist and decisions on what is best aren't always made on sound evidence.

Are we talking global or in the us. Demographics in the us shows an entirely different picture.

"From 2001 through 2004, the estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases increased among men who have sex with men (MSM). The estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases decreased among injection drug users (IDUs), MSM who were also IDUs, heterosexual adults and adolescents, and among children. MSM (47%) and persons exposed through heterosexual contact (33%) accounted for 80% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in 2004"

I was looking at global.

If you are talking about disease vectors, using the US alone portrays a deceptive picture. Outside the US the vector in most countries appears to be hugely heterosexual. Think about it. Sex and the way people approach sex has to change - not whether it's homosexual or heterosexual because those are largely hardwired.

Sure, you can say that homosexuals in the US represent the biggest source of AIDS but it's dishonest to then say that homosexuality promotes aids and use that as evidence because it ignores the larger AIDS picture.

Doesn't penetration cause abrasions along the anal tract -- regardless of the lubrication? And aren't these abrasions exposed to fecal matter?

While I'm not a medical person, I have had to do some research on the intestinal track to try and understand a disease one of my dog's has. What I found out is that the intestinal track is very porous and closely surrounded by a considerable part of the lymph system. It also has a fast growing/shedding cell structure. From what I have read STD's can be much more easily transferred via that type of sex hence the need to be careful and use a condum. From what I've read - if proper care and precautions are taken, the health risk and problems are not statistically significant. However, this type of sex is by no means exclusive to homosexuals and it all goes on in the privacy of a person's bedroom so it's really not anyone's business. Ironically, though - it seems as though when it comes to homosexuals what would be considered utterly private in a heterosexual couple becomes public domain. So...while raising the question of infertility in prospective marriages is considered within the domain of unbreechable privacy, the intracacies of homosexual sex is not.

What is hazardous to your health is the introduction of foreign bodies in the blood stream.

Indeed, and that is not something limited to anal sex.

Also, on that subject...I can not find anything that other than STD's - that that actually is an issue or happens...can you find anything?

Please don't make me repeat what I said.

From the udhr, the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.

Marriage is the social-legal institution by which the above principle manifests.

When you include homosexual unions in marriage, you are ALIENATING the institution from its intended purpose. It contradicts the above assertion and renders it moot.

None of that tells me exactly how a homosexual marriage in any way damages the "institution of marriage"....

marriage - overall - is being damaged by lack of commitment and respect (imo).

allowing homosexuals a similar legally recognized commitment would do nothing whatsoever to change that.

it would not affect heterosexuals and families one iota in practice.

but - this may be moot anyway if we are in agreement that homosexuals deserve the same equality of rights that heterosexuals enjoy through a legally binding and nationally recognized contract that spells out rights and responsibilities but isn't called a marriage. I'm fine with that.

Furthermore, the right to motherhood and the rights of children become subject to the whims and vagaries of sexual preferences, instead of the other way around.

I don't see how the rights of children would be in anyway affected or the right to motherhood for that matter since it will not prevent women who wish marry men from doing so. Marriage does not change inate orientation, it only masks it. Or am I misunderstanding you here?

How can anal sex on a regular basis be construed as anything but INHYGIENIC?

I'm not going to get into a practice that is ultimately a private matter between consenting adults - but like any sexual practice I'm sure there are hygenic and unhygenic ways of doing it. If you google it (which I did) - that seems to be the consensus.

SEX AMONG MEN IS THE SINGLE LARGEST VECTOR FOR AIDS -- AND GROWING.

This is not some coincidence. I am not misrepresenting FACTS to suit a particular argument. It is so by the very NATURE of homosexuality in men.

Only in the US and the US represents only a small portion of AIDS cases worldwide. But it also brings into question AIDS reporting and how those statistics can be used or misused.

AIDS is the end result of chronic HIV infection. A person can carry the infection for years before beginning to show the symptoms that classify it into full blown AIDS. In addition - new drugs are greatly prolonging that transition into full blown AIDS. So what statistics showing AIDS only are showing is AIDS that may have been contracted at any point previously including many years previously and it's difficult to use that to state that the rate of infection is growing.

It might be more meaningful to look at rates of HIV infection itself: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2005report/table18.htm

According to this, in 2005, the total number of HIV infections reported was:

35,537 total

12,730 MSM or 36%

876 MSM and IDU or 2%

225 sex with bisexual male (for females) 1 %

At most, the homosexual population could account for is 39% if I read this correctly.

While still a significant number - it is clear that the problem of HIV/AIDS is not vectored in the homosexual community alone and it is clear that it is a problem that goes far beyond homosexuality and focusing on homosexuality rather than safe sex and drug use is not going to solve the problem nor - given the 61 to 64% of the rate of infection that is not/may not be due no homosexual sex.

Nope. I think the above would suffice.

We shall have to agree to disagree then

No tax perks. No adoption rights. No maternity leaves for homosexual men and a host of other privileges that RESULT from the right to motherhood, the rights of children and family relations.

It would be AS IT SHOULD BE -- an agreement between two consenting adults.

They deserve the same tax perks as any other united couple - or no one should have ANY tax perks. They should have the same adoption rights as any couple that is fit to adopt. Maternity leave is interesting...had not thought about that. Seems a bit unfair men can't take parternity leave.

Agree?

Almost

 

[numinus]

Coyote,

Since my reply to the above has been gobbled up by a 'glitch', I'll ask again:

What is the difference between a homosexual union with juridical entities like partnerships and corporations that would rationalize any of the tax perks you are contemplating?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote,

Since my reply to the above has been gobbled up by a 'glitch', I'll ask again:

What is the difference between a homosexual union with juridical entities like partnerships and corporations that would rationalize any of the tax perks you are contemplating?

I am not a legal expert...my knowledge of those kind of partnerships is limited. I'm not sure what exactly you are asking?

Are you asking if there is any reason a civil union could not be set up like a business venture? In terms of tax perks however - you would need income/profit/depreciation and all kinds of other stuff, no? How else would you get any kind of tax perks such as is given by the state to married couples?

And - why should married couples without children get ANY tax perks?

 

[numinus]

I am not a legal expert...my knowledge of those kind of partnerships is limited. I'm not sure what exactly you are asking?

Are you asking if there is any reason a civil union could not be set up like a business venture? [/QUOTE]

Correct!

That is essentially what partnerships and corporations are -- an agreement between two or more people governed by specific rules.

In terms of tax perks however - you would need income/profit/depreciation and all kinds of other stuff, no?

Not necessarily. There are non-profit private organizations that fall in this category.

How else would you get any kind of tax perks such as is given by the state to married couples?

Ever get audited? The thing about taxes is that the government is averse to not getting their hands on your money. Certainly, exemptions based on a nebulous idea of union isn't going to appease it.

And - why should married couples without children get ANY tax perks?

They don't. You get exemptions if and when you have a child.