ForumGarden

magenta flame;611201 wrote:


the next of kin in a homosexual relationship is quite different.

How do you figure?

magenta flame;611201 wrote: What do you mean "A woman makes a choice to get married and shouldn't take a man for all he's got because they get divorced." A marriage certificate is a legal binding contract . don't go into it if you don't like what may happen if it doesn't turn out well.

The laws are predominantly there to stop men leaving a string of kids and women destitute all over the place. women are entitled to half of the estate because they are half the interest of that said estate. Even common law wives are entitled to this.





Ok what if the husband dies ........his next of kin is his wife, she gets everything, and so she should, the next of kin in a homosexual relationship is quite different.



Just playing devils advocate:D


Yes, marriage is a legal binding contract. But, here in the US, women tend to get much more than half. Take my fiance. He was married to a money grubbing you know what, but when they got married, he was all in it, 100%. But then she was on his ass about money all the time, and he was working 3 jobs, and it still wasn't enough for her. So he divorced her. He has the kids more than half the time and pays half of everything for them, and yet, he's still paying child support as though he never sees them. Also, the stupid b*tch got the house...which he built and owned long before she ever came around. Ugh... that's what I mean. Women tend to get a lot more out of a divorce then they're really entitled to.

I'm with RG, why would the next of kin in a homosexual relationship be any different than in a straight one?? Just because the next of kin might not be a woman?? And so what if it's not?

I am against Gay Marriage, now do not get all uptight I wish your brother and his partner all the happiness in the world, and what they do behind closed doors is of no matter to me. There are some simple facts. The Gay life style does come with some medical dangers. I know I know lots of lifestyles have different risk but I do not justify one thing by pointing to something else. With gay marriage come the consequence of increased insurance cost. Then the risk of other marriages comes into play. Such as marriage to animals, . Do not laugh in Seattle they already had a women marry a dolphin where would it stop. I am ok with civil unions and laws that increase penalitys for hate crimes. Beating someone up just because they are Gay Black or whatever is truly silly. In the end I do think in the USA states should decide and not the Feds.

learpilot;624039 wrote: [...]Then the risk of other marriages comes into play. Such as marriage to animals, . Do not laugh in Seattle they already had a women marry a dolphin where would it stop.How about stopping it at competence and age of consent. Homosexual relationships involve adult human beings. That slop is not slippery, so don't "justify one thing by pointing to something else."



BTW, you imply that she successfully married the dolphin. Was this with a legal marriage license??



learpilot wrote: I am ok with civil unions and laws that increase penalitys for hate crimes. Beating someone up just because they are Gay Black or whatever is truly silly.
Hate crime legislation is just as silly. Beating a person unconcious for being homosexual is no more heinous than beating a person unconcious for cutting you off in traffic.





Welcome and glad you're here! Alway good to have fresh ideas in the Garden. :-6

learpilot;624039 wrote: I am against Gay Marriage, now do not get all uptight I wish your brother and his partner all the happiness in the world, and what they do behind closed doors is of no matter to me. There are some simple facts. The Gay life style does come with some medical dangers. I know I know lots of lifestyles have different risk but I do not justify one thing by pointing to something else. With gay marriage come the consequence of increased insurance cost. Then the risk of other marriages comes into play. Such as marriage to animals, . Do not laugh in Seattle they already had a women marry a dolphin where would it stop. I am ok with civil unions and laws that increase penalitys for hate crimes. Beating someone up just because they are Gay Black or whatever is truly silly. In the end I do think in the USA states should decide and not the Feds.


You mentioned gay males when it came to medical dangers. So do you think female homosexuality is okay since the transference of AIDS and such isn't as high like it is with men? Just wondering.

As for asking where the term "married" would end. Come on. I know several people who use the marrying animals argument and it never works for me. There is a world of difference between marrying someone of the same sex who is a human and trying to marry outside of your species, for god's sake. Are you saying that homosexuality is the same or as wrong as bestiality? Puh-leeze.

hello everyone.. i am new here...

umm i just have one thing to say..

Its free will.. people should be able to do whatever they please, who are we to judge? If a man feels happy marrying another man, let him do so...

Its a free world right?

PrincessJazmin;624718 wrote: hello everyone.. i am new here...

umm i just have one thing to say..

Its free will.. people should be able to do whatever they please, who are we to judge? If a man feels happy marrying another man, let him do so...

Its a free world right?


Personally, I don't think people should be able to do whatever they please. It would please some people to kill others. So I disagree with the "do whatever you please" argument.

As for it being a free world... it should be, to an extent.

Not saying I'm against gay marriage. There are other things about the homosexual lifestyle that bothers me, particularly male homosexuality, but gay marriage isn't one them. It bothers me more that AIDS is a protected disease in the U.S. and one of the major ways of spreading HIV/AIDS is through male-male sex.

I have no problem with gays getting married,But i do feel it is not just the gays because of there life style that is a one of the big cause of AIDS i think it is the whole world on the hole.I think it is lack of education.

I think everyone has a right to live there life how they want but also respect others

neffy;634864 wrote: I have no problem with gays getting married,But i do feel it is not just the gays because of there life style that is a one of the big cause of AIDS i think it is the whole world on the hole.I think it is lack of education.

I think everyone has a right to live there life how they want but also respect others


You don't think homosexuality is a huge cause of HIV/AIDS? Sure, there are other ways to become infected. But a very large number of cases originated through male-male intercourse. Education? Sure. But condoms break all the time. They aren't foolproof. And many have unprotected sex even though they are aware of all the risks. Many people who have HIV don't even know it and may not have any symptoms. What about gay men who have sex with other men and then bring home whatever diseases they may pick up to their wives? This happens much more than some might think.

I really don't have anything against people loving who they want to. But let's not kid ourselves about the very real consequences of that particular lifestyle. Like I said, marriage should be the least of our concerns when it comes to homosexuality. If HIV/AIDS didn't exist or was a rampant health concern, I wouldn't have a problem whatsoever.

You might could say the same thing about basic STDs. I realize that AIDS is a world apart from gonorrhea or whatever in the way of fatality but the logic is the same.

RedGlitter;635464 wrote: You might could say the same thing about basic STDs. I realize that AIDS is a world apart from gonorrhea or whatever in the way of fatality but the logic is the same.


Perhaps, but gonorrhea isn't a protected disease, as AIDS is, simply to protect a certain lifestyle.

Laneybug, I don't understand what you mean when you say "protected disease." Could you explain please?

RedGlitter;635490 wrote: Laneybug, I don't understand what you mean when you say "protected disease." Could you explain please?


What I'm quoting is from here: http://www.house.gov/waxman/issues/heal ... _12_87.htm

The fight is more a civil-rights dispute than an argument over a health issue, and the central question will be this: To what extent should the federal government take coercive action to combat the disease?

Conservatives are outraged in a way that flips the traditional roles of left and right upside down. Liberals are showing uncharacteristic concern about the dangers of an aggressive government role in dealing with AIDS. "We'll never defeat the disease unless we protect those who harbor the virus from painful and irrational consequences," Kennedy contends. Conservative, who generally oppose coercive government action except in law enforcement, want to force individuals to submit to testing -- and perhaps even quarantines -- for the good of all. "The thrust of [liberals'] arguments is that the protection of privacy is a higher priority than the protection of public health," says the Conservative Caucus' Howard Phillips.

Critics of the Waxman-Kennedy approach also fear that it is a backhanded way to ban discrimination against homosexuals. "Some want to use AIDS to push through what in other times would have been called gay rights," says White House domestic policy adviser Gary L. Bauer. Adds Representative William E. Dannemeyer (R-Calif.): "AIDS may become the first politically protected disease in the history of the country."

I just posted the major parts of the article. The rest is at the address above. Hope that answers the question somewhat.

Thanks for the info and link, Laneybug.

I'm unsure right now of where I sit with this. I put a deep value on a person's privacy yet we are talking about a potentially fatal illness. So I don't know. I have to think on it. What's your take?

laneybug;635494 wrote: What I'm quoting is from here: http://www.house.gov/waxman/issues/heal ... _12_87.htm

The fight is more a civil-rights dispute than an argument over a health issue, and the central question will be this: To what extent should the federal government take coercive action to combat the disease?

Conservatives are outraged in a way that flips the traditional roles of left and right upside down. Liberals are showing uncharacteristic concern about the dangers of an aggressive government role in dealing with AIDS. "We'll never defeat the disease unless we protect those who harbor the virus from painful and irrational consequences," Kennedy contends. Conservative, who generally oppose coercive government action except in law enforcement, want to force individuals to submit to testing -- and perhaps even quarantines -- for the good of all. "The thrust of [liberals'] arguments is that the protection of privacy is a higher priority than the protection of public health," says the Conservative Caucus' Howard Phillips.

Critics of the Waxman-Kennedy approach also fear that it is a backhanded way to ban discrimination against homosexuals. "Some want to use AIDS to push through what in other times would have been called gay rights," says White House domestic policy adviser Gary L. Bauer. Adds Representative William E. Dannemeyer (R-Calif.): "AIDS may become the first politically protected disease in the history of the country."

I just posted the major parts of the article. The rest is at the address above. Hope that answers the question somewhat.


No it really does'nt answer it. Not forcing people to be tested by the government is a far cry from "protecting" the disease. What kind of precedent would that set? The government can force us all to be tested for any STD? The operative concern here is letting the government "force" anything.

World wide aids is primarily a heterosexual disease.

Prejudice against homosexuals led to it being classified as a "gay" disease-gay cancer, gay plague with many taking great delight seeing it as a judgement from god. With the result that many were infected through blood transfusions because medical authorities refused to examine the medical evidence objectively preferring the idea of a gay plague.

http://www.paulmichaelglaser.org/egpaf.html

In 1981, Elizabeth Glaser, wife of director / actor Paul Michael Glaser was infected with HIV through a blood transfusion after giving birth to their daughter Ariel. Unknowingly the AIDS virus was transmitted to her daughter Ariel through her breast milk and to her son Jake in utero. Devastated by Ariel's death in 1988, Elizabeth along with her friends Susie Zeegen and Susan DeLaurentis created a foundation to support pediatric HIV/AIDS research. Confounded by the fact that little to no research was being done on pediatric AIDS, they developed the concept of individual scientists collaborating to create and interdisciplinary research, a sharing of ideas, and the creation of a greater pool of knowledge. An incredible and first of its kind achievement which continues to have a significant impact on not only HIV/AIDS research, but how HIV relates to other diseases.


This was the first case where it was a high profile non gay celebrity that caught the disease. The doctors kept the diagnosis from her rather than give up their prejudice.

There have also been many haemophiliacs infected for the same reason with transfusions being given AFTER they knew it was transmitted through blood.

If anything STD amongst the gay population is less than the heterosexual community because they are more aware of what they consequences can be.

The blind spot of hatred against gays led to a great deal of harm and it still goes on. The same groups with "high" moral values are often also the ones that don't want sex education in schools or having children being told about STD's for the absurd reason that they believe it encourages sexual promiscuity with the result that teenagers go ahead and have sex anyway because it's natural but they can't access contraceptives or condoms that would help prevent STD's because religious nutters think they have the right to dictate the way people behave.

Evidence from countries where a more liberal attitude prevails that demonstrate that early sex education results in fewer teenage pregnancies just gets ignored because the facts stand no chance against a good prejudice and moral indignation that anyone should have sex when they feel like it.

I don't care for a gay lifestyle and cannot understand the attraction but so long as they don't insist I join in I have no issue with it. If they want to get married and some church will let them then good for them. At the end of the day I doubt very much anyone claiming to understand the word of god and can speak for him actually can or does. I am not religious but if anyone is not going to get to heaven I would like to think it is the sanctimonious smug gits that get their kicks out of pointing fingers and saying bad man you will go to hell.

I don't give a toss.

gmc;635637 wrote: World wide aids is primarily a heterosexual disease.

Prejudice against homosexuals led to it being classified as a "gay" disease-gay cancer, gay plague with many taking great delight seeing it as a judgement from god. With the result that many were infected through blood transfusions because medical authorities refused to examine the medical evidence objectively preferring the idea of a gay plague.




http://sinaicentral.com/gendercentral/G ... iciary.htm

Quoting from above:

The Gay Lobby achieved very early on its most cherished desire, to be treated on a different plane than ordinary Americans. When American laws afflict the lifestyle of gays, they simply get liberals and ignorant conservatives to write into law that they are different, and that is that. For instance, right after the beginning of the Gay Movement, in the seventies and eighties, America suffered from a plague of AIDS and HIV, promoted by the homosexuals and their sexual lifestyle. Not only did the gays refuse to stop infecting other people, but they got New York State and other Gay Lobby states to make laws protecting their right to infect and kill other people. These HIV Confidentiality Laws permitted the explosion of AIDS and HIV, until New York State spends fortunes for its HIV and AIDS population, because it has passed laws prohibiting the government from stopping the epidemic. As one gay activist put it, in a case relating to gay pornography, "We are who we are." Leave us alone. We are going to live our style, even if it is illegal and dangerous for other people, because we are gay and privileged. This achievement, in the eighties, has never been reversed. Even today, AIDS and HIV are not on the official infectious disease list of New York State, and incredibly enough, nobody knows it, and nobody cares. In such a climate, the gays are unstoppable.

What other group of people could infect 100,000 people in one state and make the state pay for it, while forcing the state to stay away from those who spread the epidemic, because of Gay Rights? That is what happens in New York State. The money drains away the strength of the state, and its fiscal resources, not to mention its health.

Primarily a heterosexual disease? If it wasn't a "gay disease" why would the gay lobby want to pass these laws??

Bigotry and hatred even if justified by religious belief is still bigotry and hatred. The conviction that aids was solely a gay disease caused much harm and allowed the disease to spread. World wide aids is a mainly heterosexual disease

from the you cited.

Throughout much of the Western world, gay rights severely restricts the voice of biblical religions. Things will only get worse. The only hope is for a new civil rights movement, declaring that biblical religion and true family values are compelling state interests. We might also add, if it is not considered too radical, that protecting the health of people from AIDS and HIV is also a compelling state interest. The Gay Lobby would never allow it. When will we learn from it how to fight for what we are, and what we believe?


If you want to live in a medieval theocracy good luck to you. The day some bible thumping radical gets up and says he is all for tolerance and understanding of others no matter who or what they are they might have something to say worth listening to.

gmc;635637 wrote: World wide aids is primarily a heterosexual disease.


Worldwide, I don't know. In Western Europe, it's mainly found (from various data sources) in male homosexuals, bisexuals, and intravenous drug users. In Africa, it is endemic - there has been a transmission to the population as a whole from wherever the disease started. It seems to me that the cause of the spread of AIDS is promiscuity, whatever the population group under consideration.

Bill Sikes;636411 wrote: Worldwide, I don't know. In Western Europe, it's mainly found (from various data sources) in male homosexuals, bisexuals, and intravenous drug users. In Africa, it is endemic - there has been a transmission to the population as a whole from wherever the disease started. It seems to me that the cause of the spread of AIDS is promiscuity, whatever the population group under consideration.
Well said.

I hate to bring it up again, but exactly how many partners makes one promiscuous?!

gmc;636407 wrote: Bigotry and hatred even if justified by religious belief is still bigotry and hatred. The conviction that aids was solely a gay disease caused much harm and allowed the disease to spread. World wide aids is a mainly heterosexual disease

from the you cited.



If you want to live in a medieval theocracy good luck to you. The day some bible thumping radical gets up and says he is all for tolerance and understanding of others no matter who or what they are they might have something to say worth listening to.


First of all, gmc, just because I cited from a text that contained religious beliefs about homosexuality does not mean I agree solely from a religious aspect or that the facts stated are tainted somehow. The point remains the same. There are many secular, non-religious articles that state the same, but I chose to use that one. So sue me.

By the way, just because someone may believe that homosexuality is wrong does not automatically mean they hate gay people. That, gmc, is medieval theocracy. My mother, for example, believes being gay is naturally against the way we are made, whether through God or evolution or whatever. She believes that men and women are meant to be together, they are equipped differently so as to be together. Yet, one of her best friends is a lesbian. Sexuality does not make the entire person, and my mom knows that. So do I. So to say that disagreeing with a lifestyle, especially a lifestyle that has so much stigma around it, equals hatred is complete and utter BS.

I don't believe AIDS is simply a "gay disease." Of course there are many, many other ways to be infected. I work in healthcare, I'm fully aware of this. But for you to say it's mainly a heterosexual disease is just laughable. If you're talking about Africa, perhaps, since the living conditions and the awareness is so poor, but, there is plenty of proof to suggest otherwise here in America or in Europe, etc. Are you not aware that it is a fairly common practice for a gay man to marry a woman to "cover" his homosexuality and then contracts AIDS through his infidelity and then brings it home to his wife and unborn children? You wouldn't believe how often that happens and how many cases I've read where that is just the case. Just putting it out there.

And just to clarify, I am not a bible thumping radical. I want to clear that up even if that wasn't what you were implying about me directly. I don't give a crap what the religious people say about homosexuality. I can figure out my own beliefs based on the evidence given to me just fine, thank you.

Bill Sikes;636411 wrote: Worldwide, I don't know. In Western Europe, it's mainly found (from various data sources) in male homosexuals, bisexuals, and intravenous drug users. In Africa, it is endemic - there has been a transmission to the population as a whole from wherever the disease started. It seems to me that the cause of the spread of AIDS is promiscuity, whatever the population group under consideration.


I agree with 100%, except for the fact about promiscuity. Someone could have sex or use needles once, and only once, and become infected. Bam, HIV/AIDS for life. Or, someone could have only 5-10 partners in their lifetime, which I don't consider promiscuous at all, and end up with AIDS. Promiscuity may or may not be a factor, although it certainly doesn't help.

I'm not sure if all are aware here, but there is actually a culture where homosexual men willingly and knowingly pass on HIV to others who are actually willing to contract it. Look it up online. There are whole websites devoted to this practice. I've seen some of them. It's quite disturbing. I can't remember what these demented people call this practice, but it's quite the little cult. Among these people it's a badge of honor. I don't know of one heterosexual person who has said, "I want to contract AIDS, anyone wanna give it to me?"

RedGlitter;637451 wrote: I hate to bring it up again, but exactly how many partners makes one promiscuous?!


I remember that thread, Red, and all I can say is, I think it's all a matter of perception. To the man or woman who doesn't believe in sex before marriage, 2 people could be considered promiscuous. To others, it could be 10, 20, 100, or more.

As for me, I think promiscuity is more of a mindset. The mindset of "I'm gonna throw myself out there to anyone who's willing to take me," with no discretion or regard to consequences. That's my opinion.

I think it's a matter of how many lovers you have at one time. Maybe I have a loose grasp on the concept though. :yh_tong2

laneybug;637780 wrote: I agree with 100%, except for the fact about promiscuity. Someone could have sex or use needles once, and only once, and become infected. Bam, HIV/AIDS for life. Or, someone could have only 5-10 partners in their lifetime, which I don't consider promiscuous at all, and end up with AIDS. Promiscuity may or may not be a factor, although it certainly doesn't help.

I'm not sure if all are aware here, but there is actually a culture where homosexual men willingly and knowingly pass on HIV to others who are actually willing to contract it. Look it up online. There are whole websites devoted to this practice. I've seen some of them. It's quite disturbing. I can't remember what these demented people call this practice, but it's quite the little cult. Among these people it's a badge of honor. I don't know of one heterosexual person who has said, "I want to contract AIDS, anyone wanna give it to me?"


I read about that some years back, Laneybug. That is some sick stuff.

And I agree with you on the promiscuity thing.

laneybug;637780 wrote: I agree with 100%, except for the fact about promiscuity. Someone could have sex or use needles once, and only once, and become infected.


So what is your point? It's quite obvious that your example they are not behaving in a promiscuous manner, but it is also true that they will not spread the disease further. QED.

laneybug;637780 wrote: I'm not sure if all are aware here, but there is actually a culture where homosexual men willingly and knowingly pass on HIV to others who are actually willing to contract it.


There have been prosecutions in the UK of people who knowingly pass on the disease, to people who are unaware. Both men and women have been locked up for doing this - in my view, not for long enough by half.

I'm not sure what my stance on gay marriage is...the Bible is interpreted so many different ways by so many different people, and on top of that I'm not even sure if I should follow it, that I don't know what to believe. I do think, though, that gay married people shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child. I think the balance between paternal and maternal influence is important.

fortutoputo;638046 wrote: I'm not sure what my stance on gay marriage is...the Bible is interpreted so many different ways by so many different people, and on top of that I'm not even sure if I should follow it, that I don't know what to believe. I do think, though, that gay married people shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child. I think the balance between paternal and maternal influence is important.


I agree and disagree with the part I highlighted, I haven't made my mind up on this one. The jury is still out for me. On the one hand, there are many, many children who need loving homes. Even though a loving home may consist of same sex parents, it's still a loving home. I don't deny the fact that gay people can give love just as well as straight people. On the other hand, I agree very strongly about needing both paternal and maternal influences to raise a healthy child. But let's face it. Even in amongst the straight there is an unbalance. Single parents, divorced parents, the mother who watches as the father beats her children or vice versa. In a perfect world, yes, man and woman would only marry and would become mother and father. It's not a perfect world, obviously.

So, in the end, I guess my stance on this one is, I do not have the right to say who has the capacity to love a child right and who doesn't. If it's two gay men, two gay women, a straight couple, or a single parent, if the child is loved and nurtured and given a safe home then it's better than all these poor starving, homeless children in the world.

Bill Sikes;637834 wrote: So what is your point? It's quite obvious that your example they are not behaving in a promiscuous manner, but it is also true that they will not spread the disease further. QED.


So they may not spread the disease further but they are still going to die from it because of having intercourse with someone who did spread it further. They are still life lost. Are you saying that since they will not infect 5, 10, or 20 more people that their dying from AIDS does not count?

It's hypothetical, of course, and probably does not happen very often, but a response from you would still be interesting.

laneybug;638190 wrote: So they may not spread the disease further but they are still going to die from it because of having intercourse with someone who did spread it further. They are still life lost. Are you saying that since they will not infect 5, 10, or 20 more people that their dying from AIDS does not count?


Well, they won't spread it if they keep themselves to themselves, will they. That is what the whole point was, if you remember.

fortutoputo;638046 wrote: I'm not sure what my stance on gay marriage is...the Bible is interpreted so many different ways by so many different people, and on top of that I'm not even sure if I should follow it, that I don't know what to believe. I do think, though, that gay married people shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child. I think the balance between paternal and maternal influence is important.


laneybug;638179 wrote: I agree and disagree with the part I highlighted, I haven't made my mind up on this one. The jury is still out for me. On the one hand, there are many, many children who need loving homes. Even though a loving home may consist of same sex parents, it's still a loving home. I don't deny the fact that gay people can give love just as well as straight people. On the other hand, I agree very strongly about needing both paternal and maternal influences to raise a healthy child. But let's face it. Even in amongst the straight there is an unbalance. Single parents, divorced parents, the mother who watches as the father beats her children or vice versa. In a perfect world, yes, man and woman would only marry and would become mother and father. It's not a perfect world, obviously.



So, in the end, I guess my stance on this one is, I do not have the right to say who has the capacity to love a child right and who doesn't. If it's two gay men, two gay women, a straight couple, or a single parent, if the child is loved and nurtured and given a safe home then it's better than all these poor starving, homeless children in the world.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... p?p=211115

Lulu2;519733 wrote: Honestly, why would you care/object/be happy for them?

My brother and his partner of six years would marry, if it were legal.

They're wonderful people...you'd like them! They have friends and family who'd just LOVE to see them marry, for the joy of recognizing their union!

Why would you object to this?

Or would you like to come to the wedding?


To Each His / Her Own , People Should Stay Out Of Other Business / Bedroom !