Gay Marriages

Although i don’t believe that the gov’t has any position legislating with regards to marriage, i have to laugh at your post.
You worry about becoming “racist” when the post itself might be considered by some to be quite homophobic.

I think it is terrible and i will outline my thinking:

1. marriage is a religious institution which should be changed by the religion and not governemnt
2. the fact that lots of marriages end in divroce is not an argument
3. it is a dangerous life style which knocks some 20 years off your life (more if you get aids), if you compare this to 8 from smoking. Therefore it should be accepted but not encouraged.
4. i had better stop there before i insult anyone……

btw I was there at the State house on the 11, was anyone else there?

3. it is a dangerous life style which knocks some 20 years off your life (more if you get aids), if you compare this to 8 from smoking. Therefore it should be accepted but not encouraged.

do you have any evidence for that? what knocks 20 years off your life, and how is it a “dangerous” lifestyle?

4. i had better stop there before i insult anyone……

youve probably already insulted someone, and im sure youve insulted me. now i am not gay, but i have friends who are, and this is just despicable. i dont have problems with rascist/sexist/discriminatory jokes, because they are jokes. but to come on here and presume to seriously discuss homosexuality, while calling it a dangerous lifestyle, and calling the idea of gay marriages “terrible” just shows how bigoted you are.
im disgusted by this.

how was i wrong? and how were you right? and don’t take responsibility for anyone’s posts but your own. And “I Killed Mufasa” stated his opinion, just like anyone else here. His fact with regards to his 3rd point was questionable (in that i’m not sure i’ve seen supportive epidemiology), and i agree with his first 2 points.
Also and not everyone on any site is “mature enough to have a discussion like this”. Big deal. freedom of expression and all that.
Big deal - Janus got upset. It doesn’t take much and he’ll get over it. Other posters offend me plenty of times, but i get over it. Every night i go to bed planning massive strikes of vengence against you and your offensive posting, but the next day tends to be sunny and a little exercise makes me a new man. So relax.

Religious institution though it is, it is sanctioned by government.

Therefore, either let all people marry, or do away with it entirely.

Seems like the fair thing to do.

~cheers

@K-Ration:

Religious institution though it is, it is sanctioned by government.

Therefore, either let all people marry, or do away with it entirely.

Seems like the fair thing to do.

~cheers

do away with it?
That’s kind of non-freedom of religion-y, no?

@cystic:

@K-Ration:

Religious institution though it is, it is sanctioned by government.

Therefore, either let all people marry, or do away with it entirely.

Seems like the fair thing to do.

~cheers

do away with it?
That’s kind of non-freedom of religion-y, no?

I’m quite sure I don’t understand what you mean.

~cheers

http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha031901.asp

here is some evidence for point 3, it is quite detailed and doesnt make cofortable reading.

I am sorry if my opinions offended you but this is hardly an issue where one can show thier opinions without offending the other side. Also i would like to say i am in no way homopehbic, i am happy for them to exist and practise in the quite of thier own homes, however, i do not feel they are entitled to marriage.

1. marriage is a religious institution which should be changed by the religion and not governemnt
2. the fact that lots of marriages end in divroce is not an argument
3. it is a dangerous life style which knocks some 20 years off your life (more if you get aids), if you compare this to 8 from smoking. Therefore it should be accepted but not encouraged.
4. i had better stop there before i insult anyone……

1. Religion does not Govern this country. Legal marriage and Religious marriage are apples and oranges.

3. Now thats just homophobic. Gays have no more chance of getting aids than straight people. 20 years off your life? Um, BS.

I’m not saying the information is wrong, but I think your case might be better made had the article not been on ‘Americas Pro-Family Action Website!’ (with Sean Hannity ad on the side =p) and not been titled

Homosexual Agenda
Compassionate Society Should Discourage Deadly Homosexual Behavior

This is just so 80’s! Three more minutes of searching (a link from this same site, oddly enough) led me to this article

http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499

The jist of which said this:

(original study done in the late 80’s early 90’s)

if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.

So I guess i’m modifying my earlier statement: this information IS wrong.

Yanny: Your figure about the odds (straight/gay) of getting AIDS sounds a bit fishy to me. Do you have numbers to back it up?

Same sex marriages are inevitable. Might as well get used to the idea.

~cheers

@Yanny:

1. marriage is a religious institution which should be changed by the religion and not governemnt
2. the fact that lots of marriages end in divroce is not an argument
3. it is a dangerous life style which knocks some 20 years off your life (more if you get aids), if you compare this to 8 from smoking. Therefore it should be accepted but not encouraged.
4. i had better stop there before i insult anyone……

1. Religion does not Govern this country. Legal marriage and Religious marriage are apples and oranges.

3. Now thats just homophobic. Gays have no more chance of getting aids than straight people. 20 years off your life? Um, BS.

w.r.t. #1 - i prefer the term “civil unions” to legal marriage. I don’t think that couples should have more benefits than single people, but if they’re going to then i don’t really see why gay “couples” should not also be entitled to these benefits.
As for #3 - i’m not so sure that this is so homophobic. It may be old and exaggerated, and the information may have been used for homophobic purposes, but data itself is not homophobic.
Also i believe that your statement should be modified to “gays have no more chance of getting AIDS than very promiscuous straight people”. As a group they are still at higher risk - epidemeologically speaking.

Since pretty much everyone here has been in the “Atheism is not a religion” forum, I’m sure they can all guess my opinion on this subject, so I won’t bother to state it. I will say this: The increasing tendency of people who object to homosexuality on principle, or simply object to homosexual marriage, to be labeled “Homophobic” is one of the most disgusting trends in an age of disgusting trends. The ability to discuss a subject such as this, without resorting to un-backable, generalizing terms, is an ability I would love to see more of, whatever your opinions on marriage.

wargaming nut, i would question the validity of your source. first, the information is never backed up. they claim that it reduces life expectancy, but never supports it with evidence. also, the site is completely subjective. it is clearly against homosexuality, and was certainly against it long before the “evidence” it is touting turned up. look at the wording they use, they are very against the very notion of homosexuality. even if the information you are using is correct, thats not a very credible source.

Umm, I wasn’t the one who posted that info, and I know nothing about it. I was the one who expressed his disgust at the use of the term “Homophobic” to describe objectors to homosexuality.

my mistake wargaming nut, i assumed it was you since you had made the point originally, i didnt see that it was i killed mufasa.

Wargaming_nut:

Although I have not personally used the term homophobic, I will glady honor your wishes and start referring to you henceforth as a bigot.

=p

CC: Yikes. We agree on #1. Actually we agree on almost all of it.

peers around the room nervously

Although I would call the post a bit homophobic. (oops! bigoted!) Obviously a skewed site, the data was flawed, and dated - contradicted in fact, by one of the authors of the original study, within a few minutes of searching.

Obviously not hard to find, but then he couldn’t make his point otherwise, so what can really be expected.

~cheers