[NYCFarmboy]

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/U...611007,00.html
Bush backs gay civil unions
26/10/2004 18:02__-_(SA)__

Washington - US President George W Bush stressed on Tuesday that he supports states' rights to allow civil unions for same-sex couples, contrary to his Republican Party's official stance, although he still opposes gay marriage.

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what the state chooses to do," Bush said in an interview with ABC television aired on Tuesday.

However, he added: "I view the definition of marriage as different than a legal arrangement that enables people to have rights. I strongly believe that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman."

Asked to comment on his party's opposition to civil unions, Bush said he disagreed with that position. The platform was adopted during the republican national convention in New York last month, when Bush officially received the party's nomination for the November 2 presidential election.


>>>>my comments:


It is interesting that Kerry did not allow gay marriage to even be discussed at the DNC convention in Boston, and that Kerry has endorsed BANNING gay marriage by amending the Massachusetts constitution.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/..._gay_marriage/

[BRussell]

Quite a flip-flop after he supported a constitutional amendment that would have banned civil unions across the entire country. And the Mass. amendment Kerry supported would have explicitly instituted civil unions. There's a world of difference between the two of them, and the two parties more generally, on this issue.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Quite a flip-flop after he supported a constitutional amendment that would have banned civil unions across the entire country. And the Mass. amendment Kerry supported would have explicitly instituted civil unions. There's a world of difference between the two of them, and the two parties more generally, on this issue.

The FMA wouldn't ban civil unions. From Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law prof:

President Bush's position is actually consistent with the FMA (whether or not either is right). President Bush said that "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so" — that, in the Times' words, "the matter should be left up to the states."

The Federal Marriage Amendment would not block a state from recognizing civil unions. It provides (I quote the Mar. 22, 2004 version, S.J. Res. 30) that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

The first sentence would indeed ban same-sex marriages no matter what a state thinks. The second sentence probably bans state and federal courts from holding that a state legislature must recognize a same-sex union (which is what the Vermont Supreme Court did); and it probably bans voters from recognizing same-sex unions via constitutional amendment, though it's not clear whether the drafters intend this, and whether the provision would be interpreted this way. But neither sentence bans state legislatures — or state voters, via initiative statute rather than constitutional amendment — from recognizing same-sex unions.

So if the FMA is enacted (and note that, as I've blogged before, I do not support its enactment), the result will be almost exactly what Bush suggests: A state could still "choose to" recognize "a civil union" as "a legal arrangement." It would have to do so via a statute — just as most family law is defined by statute — not via a court decision or (probably) a constitutional amendment. But it would indeed be free to make such a choice.

The only difference between Bush and Kerry on gay marriage is that Bush supported the obviously doomed FMA. Aside from that, they're both personally opposed to gay marriage, they both support state amendments banning it, and they both support civil unions.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Joshua:
The FMA wouldn't ban civil unions. From Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law prof:

First, that's a different version than the one that was on the table when Bush said he supported the amendment. Here it is Note the difference

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

That was proposed in the House on May 21, 2003. The version Volokh cites was proposed after Bush's press conference supporting an amendment. [edit Here's Bush's press conference when he came out in support of an amendment. In it, he says "The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage." So maybe he did support them even back then. What do I know.]

Second, even this altered version would prevent courts from interpreting state constitutions or the US constitution as allowing civil unions.

The only difference between Bush and Kerry on gay marriage is that Bush supported the obviously doomed FMA. Aside from that, they're both personally opposed to gay marriage, they both support state amendments banning it, and they both support civil unions.

There's a difference though - Kerry explicitly supports civil unions, whereas it's not clear whether Bush would actually support them or if he's just saying he would allow others to decide if they wanted them. What if, for example, a federal law in support of civil unions was proposed while he was president, or a state law while he was governor?

And there's a clear difference between how the party treats the issue more generally, apart from the specifics of these two men on this particular amendment. For one wing of the Republican party, an important wing, the anti-gay agenda is a big part of their political message.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Quite a flip-flop after he supported a constitutional amendment that would have banned civil unions across the entire country.

No flip-flop here, but nice try there, champ.

He still supports the amendment defining "marriage". Furthermore, Bush has always stated that he felt the issue of civil unions should be left to the states to decide.

Do a little research...

February 25, 2004

President Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment Tuesday that would restrict marriage to two people of the opposite sex but leave open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.

Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment would allow states to establish civil unions for same-sex couples.

"Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage," he said. "There is not a contradiction between these responsibilities."

That position did not sit well with some social conservatives, who want an amendment that would prevent states from recognizing both same-sex marriages and civil unions.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
No flip-flop here, but nice try there, champ.

He still supports the amendment defining "marriage". Furthermore, Bush has always stated that he felt the issue of civil unions should be left to the states to decide.

Do a little research...

You're right. I had already edited my post. But he limits it to "state legislatures" - the amendment wouldn't allow courts to interpret their constitutions as allowing civil unions.

[GORDYmac]

The candidates do not differ on this issue.

[icruise]

Is it just me, or is Bush trying to have it both ways here? He appealed to his conservative base with the attempted constitutional amendment, and now he's making a last ditch attempt to woo the other side with this.

Anyway, the Republican party is FAR from being pro gay rights. Even if Bush supports the right of states to make their own choice in this matter, that doesn't mean that he supports civil unions. That is an important distinction to make.

[jojo gunne]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
No flip-flop here, but nice try there, champ.

yup it is a flip flop. nice try champ.

[tie]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Is it just me, or is Bush trying to have it both ways here? He appealed to his conservative base with the attempted constitutional amendment, and now he's making a last ditch attempt to woo the other side with this.

Anyway, the Republican party is FAR from being pro gay rights. Even if Bush supports the right of states to make their own choice in this matter, that doesn't mean that he supports civil unions. That is an important distinction to make.

Well yes, of course Bush is playing politics with this issue. Go back and look what he had to say about it during the debates. As I recall it was something about, No child left behind is actually a jobs program if you think about it. But so is Kerry playing politics.

Behind the politics are the parties -- the Republican party is against gay rights, and this is quite a difference. Also the record. Bush has been promoting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He says now he might hypothetically possibly maybe support states instituting civil protections, but what has he actually done? Nothing. His words say he is open and won't discriminate, but all his actions have been in just one direction.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Is it just me, or is Bush trying to have it both ways here?

You're right, Bush swings both ways

Frankly I don't give a crap whether he supports civil unions or not, though saying he supports states rights to choose civil unions isn't exactly an endorsement of civil unions. I find it nefarious enough that he endorsed the FMA.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by jojo gunne:
yup it is a flip flop. nice try champ.

You're really not going to last very long around here.

[jojo gunne]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You're really not going to last very long around here.

boo!

only here till nov 2nd to make your life hell.

http://www.halloween.com/

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by jojo gunne:
boo!

only here till nov 2nd to make your life hell.

*SNIP*

Heh. You won't last until Nov 2.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Is it just me, or is Bush trying to have it both ways here? He appealed to his conservative base with the attempted constitutional amendment, and now he's making a last ditch attempt to woo the other side with this.

Kerry says he personally disagrees with gay marriage. He also supports state constitutional amendments banning it. So is he "trying to have it both ways" too?

[olePigeon]

I think Bush wanders MacNN and saw my sig.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
I think Bush wanders MacNN and saw my sig.

Gee, was it your biting wit or your masterful subtlety that won him over?

[icruise]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Kerry says he personally disagrees with gay marriage. He also supports state constitutional amendments banning it. So is he "trying to have it both ways" too?

Gay marriage is not the same thing as civil unions. But in some ways I do think that he is trying to straddle both side of the issue as well.

[IceBreaker]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Kerry says he personally disagrees with gay marriage. He also supports state constitutional amendments banning it. So is he "trying to have it both ways" too?

What is really sad is that Kerry's amendment to ban gay marriage is actually being inacted into the constitution in the state of Massachusetts.

Bush's amendment rightly died. Kerry's anti-gay amendment is actually being implemented and the gay left is silent on it.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
What is really sad is that Kerry's amendment to ban gay marriage is actually being inacted into the constitution in the state of Massachusetts.

Bush's amendment rightly died. Kerry's anti-gay amendment is actually being implemented and the gay left is silent on it.

The amendment Kerry supported specifically enacted civil unions for gays in Massachusetts.

[IceBreaker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The amendment Kerry supported specifically enacted civil unions for gays in Massachusetts.

That statement is overlooking the obvious, the amendment Kerry supports that is being enacted SPECIFICALLY BANS gay marriage.

Are you against gay marriage like both Bush & Kerry?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
That statement is overlooking the obvious, the amendment Kerry supports that is being enacted SPECIFICALLY BANS gay marriage.

Are you against gay marriage like both Bush & Kerry?

It is obvious, it "SPECIFICALLY BANS" gay marriage. I didn't dispute that. But you folks who want to say there's no difference overlook 1) that Kerry actively supports full legal recognition and rights for gay couples, and 2) that Bush's amendment was a federal amendment for a matter generally left to states to decide.

I personally don't care who gets married, but it doesn't bother me very much that Kerry is opposed to gay marriage, as long as he actively supports full legal equality. Marriage is currently a quasi-religious/quasi-legal construct. As long as it's partially religious, gay marriage isn't going to happen. My church has performed gay unions, but it's in a small and not-very-powerful minority. But if a gay couple can get a civil union and also find a church to perform a ceremony, that's pretty close to gay marriage, given the current constraints.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:


I personally don't care who gets married, but it doesn't bother me very much that Kerry is opposed to gay marriage, as long as he actively supports full legal equality.

Actively supporting "FULL LEGAL EQUALITY" means FULL GAY MARRIAGE. Not some 2nd class "civil union" in the back of the bus.

Accepting "separate but equal" accommodation in the back of the bus seems to please many Kerry supporters.

[icruise]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Actively supporting "FULL LEGAL EQUALITY" means FULL GAY MARRIAGE. Not some 2nd class "civil union" in the back of the bus.

Accepting "separate but equal" accommodation in the back of the bus seems to please many Kerry supporters.

This kind of argument is mind-blowing. Kerry's solution may not be ideal from my point of view, but it acknowledges the political reality that much of America isn't really for something called "gay marriage" but may accept something call "civil unions" that has the same rights and priviledges. How in the world can you argue that Bush is morally superior (if that is indeed what you are doing)?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Actively supporting "FULL LEGAL EQUALITY" means FULL GAY MARRIAGE. Not some 2nd class "civil union" in the back of the bus.

Accepting "separate but equal" accommodation in the back of the bus seems to please many Kerry supporters.

Laws creating full gay marriage are about as likely to happen right now as Ralph Nader is to become president. In a week, many states around the country are banning not only gay marriage but also civil unions. That's going to be where the battle is. In the meantime, I'm going to vote for someone who advocates improving the legal and civil rights of gays.

[plink]

This is dcolton, circimventing my ban for just a moment to say that Bush just lost my vote. I will not be voting for president this year...but I will be voting for family. It is a shame that Bush is selling out family to win an election.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by plink:
I will not be voting for president this year...but I will be voting for family.

Why, are you family?

[NYCFarmboy]

anyone who is so facinated by what gay people do in bed as he is is obviously having some issues on their own.

but hey..the more the merrier

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by plink:
This is dcolton, circimventing my ban for just a moment to say that Bush just lost my vote. I will not be voting for president this year...but I will be voting for family. It is a shame that Bush is selling out family to win an election.

The divorce rate of 50%, and the hypocrites who cheat and lie to their spouses and children sold out the family a long time ago. This is just a convenient excuse for you to pretend that you have an argument that's based on something.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by KarlG:
The divorce rate of 50%, and the hypocrites who cheat and lie to their spouses and children sold out the family a long time ago. This is just a convenient excuse for you to pretend that you have an argument that's based on something.

1st of all, your numbers are skewed. 50% is not an accurate depiction of the divorce rate.

2nd, despite the divorce rate, it is not justification for legitimizing the gay lifestyle.

The gay agenda's talking points are pretty convienient excuses to pretend justification for same sex marriages exist.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dcolton:
1st of all, your numbers are skewed. 50% is not an accurate depiction of the divorce rate.

2nd, despite the divorce rate, it is not justification for legitimizing the gay lifestyle.

The gay agenda's talking points are pretty convienient excuses to pretend justification for same sex marriages exist.

So was that really you above? And you're not voting for Bush because he doesn't wan to outlaw civil unions?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
1st of all, your numbers are skewed. 50% is not an accurate depiction of the divorce rate.

2nd, despite the divorce rate, it is not justification for legitimizing the gay lifestyle.

The gay agenda's talking points are pretty convienient excuses to pretend justification for same sex marriages exist.

This is the crux of the argument right there, the question of civil union's or same-sex marriage
is only a ruse. Dcolton pre-supposes heterosexuality as normal and is really opposed to the
homosexual "lifestyle".
So, are we going to continue debating same-sex marriage or debate your true beliefs about homosexuality?

I believe homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice but an in-grained traits from birth. Therefore,
I have no problem giving homosexuals the same legal rights as heterosexuals in regards to state
recognition of a union of two persons. My preference would be that NO state performs marriages
and that they only perform civil unions for everybody. Those couples wishing to get married
could do so if their religious faith provides them with such an option. If not, then either they don't
get married or they look for another religion to practice.

(edited to add a self-congratulatory pat on the back for reaching post # 600.
I forgot to do this at 500 but am not missing my chance now. )

[dcolton]

It was really me. I am still trying to decide whether or not I am going to vote in the Presidential election. I guess I will figure it out in the voting booth. NO MAN IS STRONG ENOUGH TO BE PRESIDENT IF HE WILL LET THE GAY LEFT INTIMIDATE HIM INTO CHANGING HIS POSITION. My opinion of Bush has lessened considerably. At this point, he is either a liar or a flip flopper...and I am ashamed that I hope he is a liar at this point. What kind of man has the morals to fight stem cell research then throws those same morals away to a faction that wants to legitimize an unhealthy lifestyle that has proven to reduce a gay males lifespan by 20+ years.

Wow, a day before the election and I am questioning who I am going to vote for. For 4+ years I have supported Bush through thick and thin and now...well, I will probably still vote for him while I check YES to keeping traditional families in KY and refusing Bush, Kerry and the other gay left cohorts the satisfaction of redefining an age old institution as well as the ideal of family.

[BRussell]

Voters are getting these phone calls in Michigan.

"When you vote this Tuesday remember to legalize gay marriage by supporting John Kerry. We need John Kerry in order to make gay marriage legal for our city. Gay marriage is a right we all want. It's a basic Democrat principle. It's time to move forward and be progressive. Without John Kerry, George Bush (news - web sites) will stop gay marriage. That's why we need Kerry. So Tuesday, stand up for gay marriage by supporting John Kerry."

Haha. "It's a basic Democrat principle." No Democrat would use the typical Republican conversion of "Democrat" into an adjective like that. Scum-sucking liars.

[icruise]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Voters are getting these phone calls in Michigan.

Haha. "It's a basic Democrat principle." No Democrat would use the typical Republican conversion of "Democrat" into an adjective like that. Scum-sucking liars.

Yeah, it's funny. Democrats never use the word Democrat in that way. Republicans do it because they want to separate Democrats from democracy, and it becomes ingrained, I guess. I've caught people online pretending to be democrats talking like this or using other Republican catchphrases. A dead giveaway.

[cpt kangarooski]

NYCFarmboy--

anyone who is so facinated by what gay people do in bed as he is is obviously having some issues on their own.

My understanding is that the chief activity of gay people in bed is to sleep. Watching TV, reading, and eating crackers are high on the list as well.

[tie]

Originally posted by dcolton:
1st of all, your numbers are skewed. 50% is not an accurate depiction of the divorce rate.

2nd, despite the divorce rate, it is not justification for legitimizing the gay lifestyle.

The gay agenda's talking points are pretty convienient excuses to pretend justification for same sex marriages exist.

Bush's debate position was really tailored toward getting your vote. Remember he said, "Listen, the No Child Left Behind Act is really a jobs act when you think about it." Oops, wrong dumb quote. Just a sec. Here it is:

• You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know.
  Bush, replying to, Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

Bush (or possibly Rove, through an earpiece) took great care to fashion his answer to attract bigots. And now you aren't even going to vote for him?! What a shame!

[Xeo]

nm, i can't read gud

[Twilly Spree]

Gays should not be allowed to marry. Shouldn't be allowed civil union either. I was very pleased when President Bush pushed for an amendment but I don't like hearing this. Very disappointing. Homosexuality is biologically, religiously and morally wrong. While it shouldn't be persecuted any more than other genetic/social diseases like Down's syndrome or schitzophrenia it shouldn't be encouraged.

Vote Bush!!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Gays should not be allowed to marry. Shouldn't be allowed civil union either. I was very pleased when President Bush pushed for an amendment but I don't like hearing this. Very disappointing. Homosexuality is biologically, religiously and morally wrong. While it shouldn't be persecuted any more than other genetic/social diseases like Down's syndrome or schitzophrenia it shouldn't be encouraged.

Vote Bush!!

Homosexuality is morally and biologically fine. Many species exhibit homosexual behavior. Religion is another thing but it doesn't really enter into it because most countries (the US included) have a clear seperation between church and state.

[cpt kangarooski]

Twilly Spree--

Homosexuality is biologically, religiously and morally wrong. While it shouldn't be persecuted any more than other genetic/social diseases like Down's syndrome or schitzophrenia it shouldn't be encouraged.

Religious considerations are not an acceptable reason for public policy in the US, given our fundamental precept of not establishing religion. While I don't care whether you think other people's beliefs or activities are religiously wrong (you have a right of free exercise after all), that doesn't mean that the government should get to do anything about it.

This leaves biology and morality.

You say that homosexuality is a disease. Diseases are not immoral, they are amoral. The flu, for example, doesn't only infect evil people, or only good people, or even make moral decisions about who to infect. The idea of an immoral disease is as silly as saying that all those hurricanes that hit Florida this year did so because the hurricanes themselves decided to do so for some reason. It's nonsensical.

So that leaves biology.

How is homosexuality biologically wrong? In particular, how is it more biologically wrong than all the other things humans do that we didn't do naturally? For example, most of us here probably drive around in cars. I'm pretty confident that it is something that has no foundation in biology other than that we're capable of it. But since our capabilities include homosexuality, that's doesn't distinguish it. I'll be very curious to hear how you explain your statement as to this bit.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Twilly Spree--
ow is homosexuality biologically wrong? In particular, how is it more biologically wrong than all the other things humans do that we didn't do naturally? For example, most of us here probably drive around in cars. I'm pretty confident that it is something that has no foundation in biology other than that we're capable of it. But since our capabilities include homosexuality, that's doesn't distinguish it. I'll be very curious to hear how you explain your statement as to this bit.

The human body is the first indication that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong. Without getting too graphic, an exit is an exit, and when that exit is used as an entrance, the body doesn't like it. It opens the body up to disease, shock, and trauma. This is why the llife expectancy of a homosexual male is debatable, but clearly 20 - 40 years less than that of a heterosexual. I believe that whether you are religious or not, any rational person would admit that the body has the final say.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/ar.../ho0075.html#07
http://www.worldandihomeschool.com/...ly/wis22372.asp
http://www.seafox.com/lifespan.html

And what about gays that don't practice anal intercourse? Read the links and you will see that homosexual behavior in general is a detriment to ones health. And, of course, heteros who participate in the same sex acts are practicing unhealthy sex and risk the same consequences...but this does not change the fact that homosexuals have a lower life expectancy rate than heterosexuals.

[cpt kangarooski]

dcolton--

The human body is the first indication that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong. Without getting too graphic, an exit is an exit, and when that exit is used as an entrance, the body doesn't like it. It opens the body up to disease, shock, and trauma.

So you're basically saying that 1) Only homosexuals of both genders have anal sex, and 2) They don't have any other kind of sex?

I find that your claim lacks credibility.

I would be surprised to find out that homosexual men and women didn't engage in any other sexual practices. I'd be surprised to find out that heterosexuals couldn't engage in the same or approximately the same practices. And I'd be surprised to find out that that was the only sexual practice which was unhealthy in some manner.

Furthermore, you still haven't addressed the point that a great deal of what humans do these days is unnatural. The mere fact that something does not occur in nature doesn't seem to me to be sufficient to make it bad. And similarly, many things that do occur in nature (e.g. being eaten by ravenous jaguars) are probably bad.

Health problems resulting from poor diet and lack of exercise pretty likely constitutes a greater health risk to more people. In order to discourage this, should we adopt invasive levels of government interference with people's lives? We could discourage it by banning unhealthy foods from being made and sold. We could actively work against it by having the government tell people how much, and what, individuals were allowed to eat, and by backing up these regulations with harsh penalties such as jail time for illegal snacking.

If you're interested in health issues, and feel the government should be able to do whatever it likes in the name of telling people what's good for them, whatever the degree of dangerous activity people are engaging in, then surely you would support this.

Personally, I think that whatever beneficial effects it might have, it's simply not acceptable, at the very least for fairly minor, private harms consensually suffered merely by oneself. As a general rule, I don't think there's room in bed for the government.

Of course, I also don't see any notable connection between same sex marriage and this specific sexual practice. Firstly, same sex marriage is not limited solely to homosexuals; heterosexuals can marry persons of the same gender (just as homosexuals can marry persons of opposite gender). Secondly, people can and often do have sex outside of marriage. I don't think that there would be a notable upswing in anal sex merely because the number of potential spouses for everyone approximately doubles. I think that you haven't shown how the one would lead to the other. That there might be some kind of association isn't enough; you need actual and proximate causation.

Incidentally, the first two links you posted leads to 404 errors. I had not known that homosexuals who didn't have anal sex tended to go to nonexistent web pages. I guess you learn something every day.

The third talks about 'homosexual acts.' I find this curious. Clearly they cannot merely be talking about promiscuity, as plenty of heterosexuals and bisexuals are promiscuous as well.

Rather, they must be referring to acts that could only be engaged in by two persons of the same gender; substitute one of the persons for another of opposite gender, and the act cannot occur. (I say only, since I can't imagine that there's anything that both homo- and heterosexual pairings are able to do that isn't fairly commonly engaged in by both, taking into account that there are likely fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals, and that therefore not many heterosexuals would have to be doing it for it to be just as notable)

I did like the part where the summary indicated that homosexuals are 18 times more likely to die in traffic accidents. I'm not quite sure how that happens, precisely, though. Does one's sexual preference affect one's ability to drive safely? Could some of the homosexuals reading the thread comment on whether they disclosed their orientation to their auto insurer, and if their rates went up as a result?

The main problem though is that there is no study at the third link. There are just claims, with nothing provided to support them, and with what strike me as dubious data collection methods. Plus of course, nothing ever seems to indicate a link to homosexuality. The best that can possibly be said is that promiscuity is the issue, but they don't show that homosexuality causes promiscuous behavior.

In short, your sole bit of support is utter tripe.

And even if one word in it were true, including 'and' and 'the,' it still would pretty certainly not be enough to justify intrusive governmental activity or a denial of equal rights.

Frankly it wouldn't bother me if you were merely to say that you didn't like homsexuals or homosexual activity for irrational reasons such as being creeped out, or because your religion arbitrarily says so. It's just that as foundations for public policy go, it isn't one. At all.

You're probably going to have to live with the fact that society may not be perfect by your standards. In that, I say welcome to the club. It's a compromise we all have to tolerate in order to have functional society at all. Someday, you might understand that.

Anyhow, here's a nickel; go get yourself a rational argument where your support isn't entirely laughably insipid.

[Spheric Harlot]

Bravo, captain.

A true waste of time and effort, but bravo, nonetheless.

[dcolton]

For my argument not being rational, you sure have invested a lot of time into disucssing it. I noticed you spent a considerale amount of your post skating the issue and talking about diet and what not...but nothing to debunk my post. I will check the links

[dcolton]

http://www.worldandihomeschool.com/p...y/wis22372.asp

While tolerance of homosexuality is increasingly taught in America's schools, very little is said about the extreme health risks associated with it. Life expectancy of homosexuals has been found to be approximately 41 years, according to a 1994 study of obituaries in gay publications.

A 1997 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology reported that the life span of a 20-year-old homosexual or bisexual man in a Canadian metropolitan area is 8 to 20 years less than the average male. The study's authors wrote: "If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871."

In 1998, another study, this one in the journal Psychological Reports, used four contemporary databases to conclude that homosexual activity may diminish life expectancy by 20 to 30 years. By comparison, the National Cancer Institute says that cigarette use lops 7 to 10 years from the average smoker's life.

Even before the devastating AIDS epidemic broke on the homosexual scene in the early 1980s, gays' life spans were severely truncated by comparison with the national average. In 1977, the largest survey of homosexuals up to that time reported only 0.2 percent of lesbians and 0.8 percent of gay males were age 65 or older. Also, as long ago as the 1930s and '40s, sex researcher and sex-liberation pioneer Alfred Kinsey reported that less than 1 percent of the homosexuals he studied were over age 65.

The reasons for the vastly reduced life expectancy are the large number of life-threatening and debilitating diseases prevalent in the homosexual community and the high rates of transmission through dangerous sexual practices common among gays.

Today, for example, homosexuals account for roughly half of all syphilis cases in America. They are 5,000 times more likely than heterosexuals to contract AIDS and are 8 times more susceptible to deadly, liver-destroying hepatitis viruses. Ninety percent of gay men have chronic or recurrent viral infections with herpes, cytomegalovirus, or hepatitis B. Also, around half of homosexuals have been found to be afflicted by a group of otherwise rare bowel diseases, collectively known as gay bowel syndrome, that include amebiasis and

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
http://www.worldandihomeschool.com/p...y/wis22372.asp

Bunk studies.

Even if they were scientifically valid studies, they would argue for gay marriage, not against it. One of the best ways to prevent communicable disease is to encourage monogamy. Marriage promotes monogamy. Therefore, if you are so concerned about the health of gay men (why thank you!), you should be promoting gay marriage.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Bunk studies.

Even if they were true, they would argue for gay marriage, not against it. One of the best ways to prevent communicable disease is to encourage monogamy. Marriage promotes monogamy. Therefore, if you are so concerned about the health of gay men (why thank you!), you should be promoting gay marriage.

There is more coming.

But, I don't understand how marriage will all of a sudden make gay men monagaumos(sp). If they can't remain in a committed relationship now, what is marriage going to do...or is all of this about something other than marriage?

[icruise]

Originally posted by dcolton:
There is more coming.

But, I don't understand how marriage will all of a sudden make gay men monagaumos(sp). If they can't remain in a committed relationship now, what is marriage going to do...or is all of this about something other than marriage?

Uh... The only ones wanting to get married are the ones who want to be in a committed relationship, by definition.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
There is more coming.

But, I don't understand how marriage will all of a sudden make gay men monagaumos(sp). If they can't remain in a committed relationship now, what is marriage going to do...or is all of this about something other than marriage?

Gay marriage is a positive thing for exactly the same reason society encourages marriage for heterosexuals. Marriage increases the costs of infidelity. It adds a societal pressure to remain faithful to the one partner you have publicly committed to, and serves as a signal for others to respect the relationship.

Thus, marriage promotes monogamous behavior, and helps stabilize relationships. A conservative ought to be in favor of that, and against promiscuity.