But is there a right to 'marry whomever you love?"

arent minors restricted from marriage, and siblings?


we all have the same right, biological males can marry biological femalse, the laws have never based a right upon anyones 'preference', (social sexual or vegetarian)


vegetarians can eat at a pizza shop if they wish or they can go to a barber, similarly homosexuals can marry the opposite sex, like everyone else

again, I have to disagree with this premise as an argument against those who oppose gay marriages


'The REASONABLE objections are based upon knowledge/fact and are partially listed above. There are NO SUCH reasonable objections for discriminating against gays.'



this argument, to me, is weak,,,,because it gives others the RIGHT to impose what they believe 'reasonable' onto others


we have decided children cant make decisions ,,? really? and why is that more reasonable than any other belief and why cant they make decisions when they seemed to have done so fairly well in ancient history(although I imagine their biology was basically the same then as it is now)? is it possible CULTURE nourishes children now in a way to not PREPARE Them for making decisions until later? and why is that more 'reasonable' than the cultures which do teach them?



and why are there laws against sibling marriage? why is that any less 'reasonable' than same sex marriage?

arent there high likelihoods for physical illnesses in such couplings just as there is in sibling marriage( gay couplings being more likely to contract certain life threatening illnesses than others and sibling couplings more likely to create children with physical impairments)?


I know many will not agree or understand, and I am sure we can find professionals and doctors and psychiatrists all over the world with 'facts' to back up both sides of the debate but sex is not a stagnant and neither is sexual tastes,,,they grow, they evolve, unlike gender(the factor which is usually considered in who society promotes for 'coupling')

Seriously, you should stop trying to twist my words...
I'm right? I asked you a question, so unless you confess to being insincere, the only way your words can be taken is that you're a pathetic puppetmaster.






There you go again, trying to twist my words and implying I said something I didn't. This is extremely dishonest, but I wouldn't expect you to grasp that fact.

If you want to agree with something I have actually said, then agree with this...
"It's useless for a hypocritical, pathetic puppetmaster to reference Jesus when said pathetic puppetmaster claims that Jesus never wrote down anything himself and that the Christian religion worships religious bigotry."

Sorry Abra, the only bigotry around here comes from your posts...


BTW, calling me "PP" is an extremely lame attempt using an extremely childish reference to a penis, so PP (pathetic puppetmaster) is more fitting to yourself. Perhaps I should just say EAT ME!!!





P.S. you also, incorrectly (or dishonestly), quoted a post earlier in this thread and attributed it to myself. The honorable thing to do would be to correct it. Again, a concept that I wouldn't expect you to understand.

You should have thought of that before you chose your screen name. It's a common practice on forums to shorten screen names down to this sort of abbreviation.

Besides CeriseRose goes to extra-ordinary lengths to re-cast my screen name as "Abra-CAD-Abra"

Referring to you as PP, is at least within the standard practices of Internet forums.

That's what I took it to mean.

Although it could also mean "Christ Approved Druid"

Or maybe "Charming Awesome Dude".

I'm sure if it's going to reflect something about me it's got to be divine.

How about "Certified Angel of Divinity".

I kinda like that one.

Oh no Abra.. Your " Bonefide" Thats what the step children said..

Not true. Gays are fighting for their rights, not to deny yours. Opposition to gay marriage is a fight to deny gays the rightd that they have been afforded by being citizens of the US.

Let me ask you this... Do you think that it is "reasonable" for straight couples to be denied the ability to get married based upon the opinions, belief, lifestyle, and moral convictions of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders? Would you say that that is reasonable? Would you object to such a thing?

I would hope that you would object to such a thing, and I would agree. I also do not blame gays for objecting upon those same grounds, and you by virtue of applying the same principle should not blame them either. Likewise, I would also guess that you cherish the principle of self-direction and uphold the idea that we be allowed to pursue our own happiness, as long as such a pursuit does not cause unnecessary harm to others. The age of consent for sex and/or marriage takes this into consideration. Likewise for the mentally challenged and cases of adult/child incest.

As the situation has it, those kinds of things have been rejected based upon considerations of human rights, American principles of freedom, and opinion logically grounded in knowledge/fact. There is just cause for holding fact above opinion when talking about ethical concerns. The ground for objecting to anothers freedom of action must be strong. Among other things, ethical concerns in the US involve the principles of freedom and unnecessary harm - including harming another by way of impeding one's self-direction. If it were not that way, we would still have slavery. Women would not be able to vote. The civil rights movement would have never gotten off the ground.

All this being said, I could be in error regarding your opinion on the earlier scenarios. Give me one good reason why one group of citizens should be able to deny another group the same rights/priveleges that they themselves hold, and we'll see if that reason applies to same sex marriages.

PP means penis?

Hmmph... I use it to mean PeterPan. Penis never entered my mind, although now that I think about it...

Now that's funny - I don't care who ya are!

Like I said, childish and lame...

It's all good though, I can refer to myself as PP also.
I know how much you love PP.
PP fills your head with knowledge.
You can't stop thinking about PP.
Sometimes (like earlier in this thread) you think it's PP, even when it's not, obviously you're obsessed with PP.

Watch out using all those emoticons, cause if you try to butter up and stroke PP's ego, PP is gonna spit in your face!!!

Not your mind I'm sure....


At least you weren't subtle about it, you actually spelled it correctly earlier. (Pee Pee)

So I guess you are obsessed with PP too?

And yes, it is funny. :Þ

Yeah really. He comes up with these filthy thoughts and then tries to pin it on other people.

I certainly never mentioned anything about any penises.

But, hey, if the shoe fits? Who am I to renounce it?

It has been said a million times in here that marriage is and has never been a human right.You can't say you are fighting for your right to get married any more than someone saying it is their right to marry their sister.Even if it wasn't legal who gives a crap?If I wanted to marry someone get your friends together and have a ceremony and get married.They used to do it that way hundreds of years ago with out any Government at all.


Gays can get legally married in the United states anyways!You can legally go to the 6 states that allow it and get married there.You don't have to live there.



I can give you several good reasons why a group of citizens can deny anyone privileges to homosexuals...


It is their right to vote on issues on who or what they deem acceptable and moral in their towns,cities,and countries.We live in a country where majority rules and if people don't want homosexuality promoted in their cities they have a voice and a vote to say they don't like it.


-Sodomy is unnatural and disgusting,and the majority of people find sodomy between two men repulsive and don't want it praised or promoted especially to children.


-Homosexuals have have much higher STD's and spread them more often.


http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html


A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.

The data, presented at CDC's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.

The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.


Homosexuals are the only group of people who insult,sue,and slander voters when they lose voting issues.Needless to say this does not go over very well with the general public.Homosexuals sue to force people to accept their lifestyle such as making speaking out against homosexuality a hate crime,teaching homosexual sex as natural in schools,and telling companies it is their right to use what ever bathroom or male or female they want to use because "they are really a woman or man deep inside".


Many people do not believe children should be raised by two men or two women and believe it is unhealthy.


Homosexuals have a higher suicide rate then others.


Homosexuals can not reproduce.



Homosexuals live a average of 20 years less then straight people

http://www.dakotavoice.com/200506/20050606_1.asp


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm


Homosexuals account for nearly 50% of Aids cases in the United states

In 2006, more than 30,000 MSM and MSM-IDU were newly infected with HIV.
Among all MSM, whites accounted for nearly half (46%) of new HIV infections in 2006. The largest number of new infections among white MSM occurred in those aged 30–39 years, followed by those aged 40–49 years.


http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=CDC+%25+of+homosexuals+are+affected+by+STDs&fr=yfp-t-701&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=CDC+%25+of+homosexuals+are+affected+by+STDs&d=4913202224562976&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=38f0b287,958e86ca&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=WE27qmJFqclt4sKuqUEwFQ--


MSM are 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.

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


One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year.The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime


Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238). 60% of all positive HIV tests are found in homosexual men. This contrasts with just over 15% of all positive HIV tests which are due to heterosexual contact. (Public Health Agency of Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada. November 2004).


A University of Chicago study released in 2003 found that 61 percent of homosexuals in Chicago’s Shoreland area had more than 30 sexual partners

http://www.cft.org.za/articles/Children_adopt_homo.htm


Homosexual relationships are short-lived and less faithful

Even in those homosexual relationships, which the partners consider ‘committed’, the meaning of ‘committed’ typically means something radically different from marriage.

In the Triangle Project study of homosexual men in Cape Town, 47% of respondents said that they were currently in a relationship, yet only 13.3% of respondents had had only one partner in the past year. 60% of the men who were currently 'in a relationship' admitted to having had "sex" with people other than their partners in the past year.

In the book, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, the authors, two homosexual lecturers, report a study of 156 men in homosexual relationships lasting from one to 37 years. Only seven couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship and of these, the men had all been together for less than five years. In other words, all the so-called ‘couples’ with a relationship lasting more than five years had incorporated some outside sexual activity into their relationships.
Homosexual relationships are more violent than traditional marriage

While homosexuals, particularly lesbians, propagate the idea of the lesbian or homosexual home as one of peace and equality, the truth is that homosexual relationships are far more violent than heterosexual marriages. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that married women in normal families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships. Consider these studies of homosexual relationships:

The Journal of Interpersonal Violence published an article entitled "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships". Researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study. 31% of women in lesbian relationships reported one or more incidents of physical abuse.

A survey of 1,099 lesbians found that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequent forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."

In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, D. Island and P. Letellier report that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."
Homosexuality and crime

A study of 4340 adults in five metropolitan areas of the USA showed that bisexuals and homosexuals (about 4% of the sample) compared to heterosexuals:

exposed themselves sexually to more different bodies (more frequently admitting to participating in orgies and reported larger numbers of sexual partners);
more frequently participated in socially disruptive sex (e.g., deliberate infection of others, cheating in marriage, making obscene phone calls);
more frequently reported engaging in socially disruptive activities (e.g., criminality, shoplifting, tax cheating); and
more frequently exposed themselves to biological hazards (e.g. fisting, bestiality, ingestion of faeces and sadomasochism).
Homosexuality and substance abuse

A study published in Nursing Research found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and suffer from other compulsive behaviours than heterosexual women. The study found that: Like most problem drinkers, 91% of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34%), co-dependency on people (29%), sex (11%), and money (6%)." In addition, "46% had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness."

The Triangle Project survey of homosexual men in Cape Town in 2000 found that 68% of men had used at least one recreational drug in the past year. 41% had used marijuana, 40% used ecstacy, 36% used poppers and 25% used cocaine. Acid and speed were used by about a fifth of the men.

A study in Family Planning Perspective showed that male homosexuals were at greatly increased risk for alcoholism: "Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking."
The Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, reports that "various studies on Lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater frequency in this population. These factors include higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, poor diet and being overweight."

Excellent Research Thomas and very informative. I knew it was probally bad but this stuff the evening NEWS will not Report on.

Not Politacally correct.

I am not surprised by the statistics but had not seen them.

It is amazing to me how the Amish is who is so peaceful If thier is an outbreak of MEASLEs it is all over the NEWS in the area and they are Quarentened. When most people have probally been vacinated for it I believe at least.

Working for the power company with High Voltage in the 90's It was unreal that if someone had Aids we could not be allowed to know. Against thier rights. so they gave us a 1 way valve and gloves for CPR in case of an emergency when everyone knew that it was useless.

If anyone has ever seen a High Voltage Electrical burn Victim when it happens those precautions were never followed because it was so tragic alot of the time u just wanted to help your buddy.

Not saying i do not feel for someone who gets A possibly deadly disease but the rights of the inocent was completely disregarded.

But like I said The Amish they go the other way when they would not want to take a chance of infecting anyone anyways but scare tactics and Hate crimes are Politacally correct these days for reelection I guess.. Very good Research.. Blessings of Shalom...Miles

But what if they don't want to or are incapable of seeing the opposite sex like they do the same sex? How is that fair to them? It's like you're saying: "Marriage between two humans is for all.....but only if you do it this way".

That very much IS basing a right upon preference.

but the law doesnt say marriage between two humans is for all 'couplings',,there have ALWAYS Been exceptions

like siblings
like already married couples
like minors


but it is for all people so long as they couple by the opposite sex, and are not siblings or minors

siblings(who are as free to marry the opposite sex as non siblings AS LONG as they dont have common parents)

MARRIED couples(who are as free to marry the opposite sex as LONG as they dissolve the marriage first)

minors(who are free to marry the opposite sex as long as their is parental consent or emancipation)

we all have the SAME requirement, to couple by opposite sex

the ONE reason is a common value , just as the reason for not permitting those considered legally to be 'minors' or the reason , just as the reason for not permitting siblings to marry, just as the reason for not permitting polygamy

perhaps one day people will fight for their right/privilege to incestual marriage, or for minor marriage, or for polygamy,,,and I imagine that those ideas will be opposed as well for reasons just as valid to those opposing as the reasonable objections sited for same sex marriage

Either way, it's still wrong to in effect try and force a square peg into a round hole no pun intended.

I dont know about fair, but sure would seem silly for women to protest their unequal treatment by demanding to be recognized legally as men,,,, the biology is different, the terms are different to reflect that FACT.....how about coming up with their OWN ceremony and title for the law to recognize,,,,without having to infringe upon whats already there?

So,

What do those 'stats' really say?

Gay men do things in their home that you don't like. Gay men committ crimes. Gay men are more prone to contract HIV.


Ummm...

What does any of that have to do with their getting the privelege to be legally married and be afforded the same benefits from that marriage that straight couples are afforded?

You're making my case for me.

What those people do, the sexual practices that they are involved in, the crimes that they committ(questionable 'studies') are very good reason for you to not agree with them. Your not agreeing with them, however, is not good reason to deny them the same rights/priveleges that come along with being legally married.

It is also unreasonable, assuming your stats are correct, to hold all gays accountable for the ones who do committ crimes, and the like.

So what it boils down to, as I've suspected and claimed all along, is that you do not agree with their lifestyle. Based upon your own moral belief/convictions you wish to impeded the pursuit of happiness, not only of the ones who may be guilty of the accusations put forth, but also of the ones who may follow your own standard all the way through except for having a homosexual partner. Some are faithful and law-abiding citizens.

Your logic is faulty Thomas. Just like we do not impede the rights of most straight, because most federal inmates are straight, we also should not impede the rights of gay men simply because some partake in these activities which you find offensive, or because some have HIV, or because some break the law.

Some Christian preachers have been found guilty of scamming, imbezzlement, and the like. We should not hold all Christian preachers under the gum because of that either.

Your attempting to punish the many on account of the crimes of the few.