Mass. strikes down gay marriage ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I were passing the laws ...

I'd get the government out of the marriage business entirely.

I'd make it illegal to take advantage of a child under the age of consent, whether she's related to you or not, and make it illegal for a man to impregnate his sister, aunt, mother, or cousin. I'd enforce civil unions as contract law, by whatever terms people had legally bound themselves.

That's all.

Some of you know I'm a Christian, and I don't make any apology for that. As a Christian, I believe that the best union is "one Christian man, one Christian woman, one lifetime."

I also believe that it's not the business of Christians to worry about or judge those outside the church (see 1 Cor 5:13 -- that whole chapter speaks to this issue rather precisely). If someone inside the church sins egregiously, we can kick 'em out so that the church remains pure. But what business is it of ours what unbelievers do outside the church?

pax
 
I'd enforce civil unions as contract law ...
That's what we have now but it is not good enough for the people who are trying to push their agenda on everyone else while claiming that the agenda of the majority is being pushed on them.

Good ol' Barney Frank was on the TV tonight stating how he is proud to be from the state of MA where he is now a "full citizen". :barf:

If he's not a full citizen, what the Hell is he doing in our Congress?
 
Last edited:
jimpeel:

What kind of agenda is someone pushing, if they just want the same rights and privileges as the segment of the population who intentionally keeps those rights from them?

Did the blacks of 20th century Alabama "push an agenda" by opposing the law prohibiting them from marrying white people?

Gays, much like the black Americans of the 1950s, are not asking for one single right that you do not already have. They are not asking for "special rights", just those rights that you enjoy already. What legal or moral right do you have to advocate keeping these rights from them?
 
Gays, much like the black Americans of the 1950s, are not asking for one single right that you do not already have.
And they also have every one of those rights. What they want is more than any other American.

Where is my right to extra jail time for those who would assault me or kill me? There is no "hate crimes" legislation for me.

Where is my right to special government programs? There are no special programs directed to the Heterosexual male.

Where is my right to be the purveyor of an epidemic disease and have my identity sheltered? If I get an infectious deadly viral disease, I will be quarantined.

If I accepted other men's penises into my rectum, I would have all of the above. If I were someone who participated in analingus and fellatio I would have all of the above.

Because I choose not to participate in the above practices, I have fewer rights than they do.

Gays have a higher incidence of Hepatitis A due to the above actuivities -- analingus and post-coital fellatio. AIDS isn't the only disease that is predominantly "theirs". So the next time a Gay waiter serves you at the restaurant, just hope he washed his hands after he visited the restroom 5 minutes ago.
 
It's a contract between two people. Period. If you have parameters from a religious point of view, see Pax's post. It makes sense.

Where/when did being “gay†begin to be aberrant behavior? The responses, if any, should be interesting.
 
jimpeel, nobody's forcing you to be waited on by a gay waiter. But some of your implications are simply disgusting. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who engage in the same sorts of activities. Hepatitis A isn't chronic; if you're that worried, go get vaccinated.
 
jimpeel--

You're trying to bring in a bunch of other issues to confuse this one.

You have asserted, but not made the case, that allowing gays to marry like heterosexuals is giving them a "special right" when pretty much everyone on this thread-- even the ones who oppose it for religious reasons-- see it as extending the same right.

As to your claims that gays are a diseased scourge on society, you're simply wrong... and I'm tempted to point out another incident in history where a class of people were claimed to be diseased as part of the argument justifying taking away human rights from them.

There are socialists who happen to be gay-- people who want, for instance, to remove the right of a property owner to rent to whom they chose. Those people are just as wrong as christians who want to be a protected class.

Oh, wait, it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. Employers cannot refuse to hire someone on religious grounds, and that's wrong. That's a special right. Well, even though they are wrong, they are just asking for the same special rights christians have. If you support the right to discriminate in your dealings with gays (as I do, free association, remember) you should also support it for those who wish to discriminate against christians.

Otherwise you're saying christians deserve special rights.
 
Don Galt

I'm trying to confuse the issue?

I didn't say a word about Christianity. You brought that up and placed the words in my mouth. (You seem to do that a lot, now, don't you?) I simply posted the fact that they already get special rights when I was told they merely wanted the same rights as me.

I posted the epidemiological aspects of homosexuality. I didn't say a thing about them being a scourge. (Again YOUR words attributed to me)

I am well aware of the German claim that the Jews were a diseased people so I will save you the temptation to point that out. (Again, you place comparisons before us that were not heretofore breached by me)
There are socialists who happen to be gay-- people who want, for instance, to remove the right of a property owner to rent to whom they chose.
The activist agendists have already covered that one. Christian landlords are required to rent to unmarried couples and others whom their faith says are sinful people; and they are required by law to accept that sinful behavior into their homes.
Oh, wait, it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. Employers cannot refuse to hire someone on religious grounds, and that's wrong. That's a special right.
Right. An employer cannot discriminate against the religion of someone they hire, but the employer can be discriminated against by requiring them to hire those whom their faith shows them to be sinful. So there is no "special right" for the employer -- only the employed. This is not a "zero-sum-gain" proposition. The employer loses rights while the employee gains rights. In San Francisco, an employer is required to hire Transvestites even if the employer is religiously opposed. So there is no "special right" for the employer -- only the employed.
If you support the right to discriminate in your dealings with gays (as I do, free association, remember) you should also support it for those who wish to discriminate against christians.

Otherwise you're saying christians deserve special rights.
Anyone can discriminate against anyone or anything they wish. We discriminate every day. We shun Bikers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hare Krisnas at the airport, John Birchers, Gays, Christians, Blacks, Whites, Dogs, Cats, Dawn dishwashing detergent, Mr. Clean, Ivory soap, Ford F-150s, Chevy Cavaliers, the Goodyear Blimp. You name it, we shun it; and that, Sir, is discrimination for discriminating tastes.
 
I posted the epidemiological aspects of homosexuality. I didn't say a thing about them being a scourge.
I think it's the way you applied those STDs and sexual acts to your argument against gay marriage that made it come off as if you see them as a scourge on society. This is mostly because the acts and diseases you mentioned are equally capable of being present in heterosexual partners as homosexual, and I for one certainly fail to see how a gay waiter possibly carrying an STD has to do with this thread, seeing as how a straight waiter can do the same as easily.

That said, Marko has pretty much said everything I was thinking of adding to this thread, so I'll step back out.

Edited for grammatical errors. Whoops! :)
 
Last edited:
tyme

But some of your implications are simply disgusting.
I didn't imply anything. I thought I was quite clear.
There are plenty of heterosexual couples who engage in the same sorts of activities.
Heterosexuals have a choice of which orifice to place their mouth upon. Not so with Homosexuals. There is a vast difference in preparing a woman to accept an erect penis and preparing a man to accept one. Also, post coital fellatio in Heterosexuals usually does not involve fellating a penis that is covered in fecal matter.

From: http://www.immunizecanada.com/hepatitisa.asp
How is hepatitis A spread?

Hepatitis A is mainly spread by fecal contamination of water, ice and food (such as raw or under-cooked seafood, shellfish, fruits or vegetables) generally in areas of poor sanitation and hygiene. You may acquire the virus through direct contact with an infected person including sexual contact.
Symptoms usually don't appear for a month, time enough for an infected person to pass the virus to family members and co-workers.
 
Nightfall

I think it's the way you applied those STDs and sexual acts to your argument against gay marriage that made it come of as if you see them a scourge on society.
That was not my intention.
This is mostly because the acts and diseases you mentioned are equally capable of being present in heterosexual partners as homosexual, ... The reason AIDS crossed over into the Heterosexual community is because the original purveyors of the disease gave blood, used the same needles, had sex with bi-sexuals, etc. Of course, they didn't know at the time that they were doing this because the disease can take up to eleven years to incubate. BUT ...

After they found out what the source of the disease was, they still refused to take matters in hand. They still kept the bathhouses open for three years before the city of San Francisco shut them down. They have now reopened.

In the bathhouses, one could go to a "gloryhole" where a strange man on the other side of the partion would fellate the man on the other side anonymously; or he could present his penis through the hole for similar treatment. There were also "gloryholes" for one to back up to as well.

They had "barebacking" parties where part of the thrill was the possibility of contracting the disease.

From: http://www.managingdesire.org/scarcebtb.html
Back to Barebacking
-- Michael Scarce

Reprinted with permission from the NY Blade, August 21, 1998

Whereas some gay men have continued to engage in unprotected anal sex since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, only lately has there emerged a heightened eroticization, premeditation, and form of structured organizing devoted to the practice of unsafe sex. An abundance of Internet web sites, online chatrooms, e-mail listservs, personal ads, private parties, jargon and slang terminology, and even amateur and professional videos dedicated solely to barebacking have been created in the past two years. A few of these venues extol the pleasures of intentional infection with HIV as well as the open exchange of bodily fluids. Taking place against the current backdrop of sex controversies permeating gay male communities, barebacking has become a lightning rod of political contention in the United States.

...

It should come as no surprise that a cultural phenomenon of conscious and sometimes defiant resistance to safer sex has emerged among some gay men, both HIV-negative and -positive. Some barebackers discuss AIDS prevention workers as "latex-obsessed" and "condom Nazis." Perhaps most interesting is a cross-cultural comparison. In countries such as Australia where harm reduction and negotiated safety were instituted early in the epidemic, it seems that no culture of barebacking has emerged in the sense that gay men have not created social movements based on their unprotected sex.

...

Gay men bareback for a multitude of reasons, including increased physical sensation, a sense of greater connectedness or intimacy with their sex partner, excitement in transgressing the paternal proscriptions of many AIDS prevention campaigns, sharing semen as a symbolic act of bonding, and more.

...

Whether we like it or not, barebackers have organized around their sex.
(Nightfall)and I for one certainly fail to see how a gay waiter possibly carrying an STD has to do with this thread, seeing as how a straight waiter can do the same as easily.
Hepatitis A is not an STD. I know SDSs are not spread through casual contact, mosquitoes, or dirty toilet seats. However, Hepatitis A is spread through the Homosexual community by their behavior.

Felating a penis that has just finished anal intercourse is not exactly sanitary. Neither is analingus. Both have the potential to spread Hepatitis A.

Once one has Hepatitis A, however, it is easy to spread the disease through casual contact from someone who has not washed their hands after visiting the toilet. That comntact could come through shaking hands or having one's food handled by an infected person.

Due to their sexual activities, the incidence Hepatitis A is far greater in the Homosexual community than in the general community at large.
 
Jim Peel, Rock Jock, and company, have made sexual practices, diseases, and such as a reason to deny people a marriage license. Isn't the point of the High Road to keep personal attacks out of it? Personal attacks also include attacks against entire groups of people.

We attack anti-gunners because of their illogical fallacies that being unarmed will protect them from gun wielding predators.

Essentially, what jim peel did was accuse me (as a gay person) of engaging in those rather vile and disgusting behaviors (which requires you to have a paraphilia as well).

Did you know that in the 19th and early 20th century, black people were accused of having higher disease rates? Being "dirty"? and such?

I suggest for the future, this thread attack the political positions of each other, not sling mud and accuse each other directly of being diseased.

Update: I suggest the moderators either edit or delete posts refering to the specific sexual practices of people in general, including the "glory holing" and "post coital fellatio". It has no place on THR and only serves to inflame the debate out of control.
 
azthistletoe

Since you are quick on the draw, or type as the case may be, and you have two posts to answer I will answer both here.

As to your first post:
So the point of underlining and bolding that part of the text is... ?
Bolding is to call attention to a particular portion of a greater body of text. The underlining is to call the attention to a particular portion of the bolded text.
It says nothing about gays. Why does it even matter
It has to do with the fact that sexual contact, especially sexual contact with the anal cavity, is one of the manners in which Hepatitis a is spread. Since Homosexual sex among men centers around the anal cavity, the relationship, and thus the implication, is inescapable.

As to your second post:
This is not what your quote said. It said sexual contact. Not homosexual contact.
For one, it is not my quote. It is a quote from http://www.immunizecanada.com/hepatitisa.asp which is clearly noted. That quote was about sexual contact in general without explicitly stating that anal contact was the primary culprit. That quote also stated:
Hepatitis A is mainly spread by fecal contamination ...
Fecal contamination implies something to do with the anal cavity as, unless the sexual partner is a real "s--- for brains", I doubt that it comes from any other source.
 
If the disease is in your fecal matter, would it not also be in your semen? And I understand that you are trying to pin gays as "disease spreaders", but I do not understand to what avail. Homeless people have lots of diseases, too, should they not be allowed to get married?
 
Did the blacks of 20th century Alabama "push an agenda" by opposing the law prohibiting them from marrying white people?
Once again missing the mark. You are comparing a group defined by a physiological characteristic with one defined by a behavior. You might as well compare minority groups to serial murderers, for the latter endure discrimination in many of the forms that the former once did, e.g., they are segregated in society, are portrayed negatively in popular media, are not allowed to vote or own firearms, and have minimal chance for career advancement, all because of a specific behavioral characteristic that they feel compelled to act on and which society feels uncomfortable with based on concepts of morality rooted in religious beliefs.
 
rock jock,

In my earlier post, Texas = The State of Texas, the Government of, the Elected Officials. But take it how you want, I've been reading your posts and I really don't see a point in debating anything with you on this.
 
The key difference being that one group (psycho killers) hurts people, and the other (gays) does not.
Ah, but you are missing the point, both groups are defined by a behavior. I would also say that "not hurting anyone" is open to debate. Pushing their agenda of gay marriage will certainly hurt all of society.
 
jimpeel

The issue is that you seem to be condemning a community based on individual acts. For example, condemning all gun owners because somebody uses a gun in a murder; condemning all gays because some engage in risky or irresponsible sexual behavior.
Due to their sexual activities, the incidence Hepatitis A is far greater in the Homosexual community than in the general community at large.
And unwanted teen pregnancy, STDs, etc. are spread through heterosexual communities by their behavior. Again, individual behavior.
 
Pushing their agenda of gay marriage will certainly hurt all of society.

Right, all of soceity will crumble if two guys get married.

Ah, but you are missing the point, both groups are defined by a behavior.

As are all people religious. There are no laws preventing certain religions from marrying other certain religions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top