Same sex marriage settled.. again.. 175-123

[jzA]

Originally Posted by jharp

i understand what you mean, and i am sure that there are a tone of people like your friend out there. this is fine, i understand that. i do think it is wrong, but what can i do about it? it is not my place to tell people what to do or think.
having said that, the point i am trying to get across is that i think it is wrong to allow gay couples to adopt kids. i think this is wrong, as well as unfair to the children. being raised in a gay home would make it seem much more acceptable to be gay and would also lead to the things that i bolded in your post. i would not want to be abused and made fun of in school for having two daddys.

My opinion in a nutshell. Believe me jharp, we are not alone on this issue.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jzA

Good statistic, but almost all first known cases are from gay males. Whos to say some of those gay males didnt go both ways.

This topic on the whole is just sad, i feel so sorry for these peoples family.

In most cases, HIV is a social disease. It's spread through lack of precautions, fear, and lack of awareness.

To a point, you're right. HIV spread in North American through gay bathhouses in San Francisco. It was a sexually active lifestyle, with no precautions against STDs or anything.

However, HIV is also prolific among IV drug users and GASP straight people who don't use protection or get tested.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by jzA

It's orgin is somewhat up in the air, but one cannot deny this fact.

Which fact is that? That HIV causes aids? What does that have to do with Aids being a gay disease?

[jzA]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Which fact is that? That HIV causes aids? What does that have to do with Aids being a gay disease?

Probably the part about it was discovered in the 1980's in gay men :/.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by jzA

Probably the part about it was discovered in the 1980's in gay men :/.

So how does that make it a gay disease? It is not limited to gay males and as shown, they are not even the most common infectees anymore, nor is it known where aids came from.

[Thunderball]

I think a lot of people simply don't care that gays can marry, but don't like the way it happened.

SSM was rammed down people's throats at bureaucratic lightspeed, and it was done in a very thoughtless way that ended up offending a lot of people with religious beliefs that state that marriage is a religious tradition between a man and a woman. What happened was one lobby was more successful than the other, and they really got their way. That, and the ruling Liberals thought it would be a wise way to gather votes in Vancouver and Toronto.

What should have been done was either simply grant civil unions to gays like in the UK, or to redefine marriage as a religious activity outside of the government's discretion and replace marriages for all people, straight and gay, with civil unions. If we want a secular government, we better act like one, and get rid of religious traditions like marriage.

[skins]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

It is good that you have decided to educate yourself about the dangers of HIV and Aids. Because, as you know, everyone can get it. And not just from sex. While it is prevalent in the gay male community, it certainly isn't exclusively there. Lots of exclusively heterosexual people have it.

Some have only ever had 1 partner. Some have never had a partner. Some are children infected by tainted blood.

Bottom line? We all have to be careful. Being gay or straight has almost nothing to do with it.

We do all need to be careful, but I think the point that was trying to be made is that the gay population needs to be much more careful. Being gay puts you at a much higher risk of contracting HIV because, like you said, "it is prevalent in the gay male community". You you were correct in saying, "Being gay or straight has almost nothing to do with it."

[jzA]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

So how does that make it a gay disease? It is not limited to gay males and as shown, they are not even the most common infectees anymore, nor is it known where aids came from.

Well because it was first discovered in gay males? Maybe a good portion of them went both ways if they are not the most common infectees now.

[jzA]

One thing that always bothers me is a statistic I read noting that an average person has sex with 6 different people a YEAR.

I dont, but even if this was cut in half, its ALOT of people.

When you have sex with a person, you indirectly come into contact with millions upon millions of people.

Scary isnt it?

[skins]

A brief apologue:

Say Person A has this type of candy called, oh I don't know, let's say "marriage". He's been enjoying marriage for many years. Not only is it delicious, but it's good for you too! Then Person B comes along, see's marriage, and wants some for himself. He askes the distributor of marriage if he can have it. When Person A hears about this, he is upset because he feels that if Person B also gets marriage, it will take away from how special it is to Person A. The distributor decides that he will give Person B marriage, but under the different name of "legal union". It is the exact same delicious candy with all the same health benefits, just a different name. This solution was acceptable to Person A, and he hoped that Person B enjoyed the candy as much as he did.


---Questions---

was Person B treated unfairly or unequally?

was a compromise made that allowed both Persons the benefits enjoyed by eating the candy?

is this a good analogy of the argument that religious groups were trying to make?


aside: didn't AIDS come from someone having sex with a monkey in Africa?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by OilersBaby

Maybe cuz Im super liberal and I live in the San Francisco Bay area but...what does the church have to do with marriage. The church and the law should stay SEPERATE. Marriage doesnt necessarily have to do with religion.......I wish this issue would stop being an issue. Just let people do what they want to do and if you dont believe in it, dont do it!

Hear, hear.

The government should completely stay away from marriage.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by jzA

Well because it was first discovered in gay males? Maybe a good portion of them went both ways if they are not the most common infectees now.

Reguardless, of where it started of how it spread, it's not a gay disease now. Which is the important part, since you were drawing links between accepting gays and spreading HIV.

If your concern is about the spread of aids, homosexuals should not be your main target.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Reguardless, of where it started of how it spread, it's not a gay disease now. Which is the important part, since you were drawing links between accepting gays and spreading HIV.

If your concern is about the spread of aids, homosexuals should not be your main target.

No kidding. For goodness sake, HIV didn't cultivate itself in gay bath-houses, it's been traced to monkeys in the Congo! HIV dates back to the 1950s and was probably spread from human to monkey by tribespeople eating monkey meat.

It was a freak chance that it spread first throughout the gay community. which in the early 1980s was a very "swinger" type lifestyle. This could have been any other sexually active and naive community in North America.

[skins]

why didn't the government just change the name of marriage in the charter of rights to "legal union" for everyone. then those who are religious can call it "marriage" and those who aren't can call it whatever they want.

[jzA]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Reguardless, of where it started of how it spread, it's not a gay disease now. Which is the important part, since you were drawing links between accepting gays and spreading HIV.

If your concern is about the spread of aids, homosexuals should not be your main target.

Fair enough.

[jharp]

Originally Posted by skins

A brief apologue:

Say Person A has this type of candy called, oh I don't know, let's say "marriage". He's been enjoying marriage for many years. Not only is it delicious, but it's good for you too! Then Person B comes along, see's marriage, and wants some for himself. He askes the distributor of marriage if he can have it. When Person A hears about this, he is upset because he feels that if Person B also gets marriage, it will take away from how special it is to Person A. The distributor decides that he will give Person B marriage, but under the different name of "legal union". It is the exact same delicious candy with all the same health benefits, just a different name. This solution was acceptable to Person A, and he hoped that Person B enjoyed the candy as much as he did.


---Questions---

was Person B treated unfairly or unequally?

was a compromise made that allowed both Persons the benefits enjoyed by eating the candy?

is this a good analogy of the argument that religious groups were trying to make?


aside: didn't AIDS come from someone having sex with a monkey in Africa?

a rose by any other name?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by skins

why didn't the government just change the name of marriage in the charter of rights to "legal union" for everyone. then those who are religious can call it "marriage" and those who aren't can call it whatever they want.

Exactly... and I think that is what they will eventually have to do. While many of us shake our heads and say, "what took you so long?"

[ben voyonsdonc]

Here's my story:

I am a gay man. I am just like every straight guy out there... I like hockey, football and other typical "guy" things. However, I don't feel any sexual attraction to women. I don't have HIV and am not any more promiscuous than any straight guy. I have known that I am gay for a long time but it took me a long time to be able to put those three little words together...I AM GAY.

One of the main reasons it took me so long to come to grips with my sexuality is that when I was 17 I became a born again Christian. As a result, I have a pretty good understanding of how Christians feel about homosexuality. As a result, I have lost my faith in many Christians but I haven't lost my faith in God. I have moved away from formal Christianity to a more personal relationship with Christ.

I always worried about how my family would feel about me after I told them. After coming out to one of my friends he told me "You have always been a good son to your Mom, you have always been a good brother to your brother and sister...after you tell them you are gay they will see that you are still a good son and a good brother but you will be a good gay son and a good gay brother." He was right. My family and friends still love me for me and not for my sexuality. It took them a while to "get it" but my realationships have been stronger than ever with them.

This post is getting long!! Anyways, I am just like everyone else on this board...except the Oiler fans...those guys are the real degenerates!

I want to live my life and feel accepted by society like anybody else. Separate is not equal. A civil union is not good enough because it creates a needless division between gays and lesbians and the straight society. I will never go to my old church and demand to be married there...I understand their right to disagree with gay marriage and would not want to have to deal with the disapproval. A religion can still only recognize only striaght marriages but the government does not have that right. A government is bound by the constitutional rights of its people and not by a particular dominant religion.

Thanks for reading my long post. I would be happy to answer any of your questions about my experience.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by skins

Say Person A has this type of candy called, oh I don't know, let's say "marriage". He's been enjoying marriage for many years. Not only is it delicious, but it's good for you too! Then Person B comes along, see's marriage, and wants some for himself. He askes the distributor of marriage if he can have it. When Person A hears about this, he is upset because he feels that if Person B also gets marriage, it will take away from how special it is to Person A. The distributor decides that he will give Person B marriage, but under the different name of "legal union". It is the exact same delicious candy with all the same health benefits, just a different name. This solution was acceptable to Person A, and he hoped that Person B enjoyed the candy as much as he did.

By the same token, why should the manufacturer of the candy be forced to rebrand the product, and why should Person B be forced to buy the rebranded product just so that Person A can feel special?

If "marriage" is so wonderful and healthy and has such a strong name recognition, why should this level of effort be put into marketing "marriage" by some other name?

Would allowing Person B to have his own "marriage" somehow reduce Person A's ability to enjoy his "marriage"? Would Person A's "marriage" be ruined because Person B is also enjoying his own "marriage"? Would Person A buy less "marriage" in the future because it's no longer his own special candy?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by skins

why didn't the government just change the name of marriage in the charter of rights to "legal union" for everyone. then those who are religious can call it "marriage" and those who aren't can call it whatever they want.

Not trying to be an ass here....but where is marriage defined in the charter?