Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News >> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/23/2004 1:43:01 PM   
Voltare


Posts: 841
Joined: 1/1/2004
From: Santiago, Chile
Status: offline

I'll have a more complete response later, bu tthe first blush here...

A pivotal arguement revolves around creating laws in response to public health. The notion that same sex marriage isn't a public health threat, could be debunked by (and this is going to start a huge snit I know) data regarding the spread of AIDS. The perception that homosexuality is a direct and overwhelming contributor of the spread of the AIDS virus is actually supported by the Center for Disease Control statistics on the subject.

(source: http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm)

At the end of the December 2002, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported approximately 384, 906 persons in the United States living with AIDS.

Of these,


Of the 298,248 men (of 13 years or older) who were living with AIDS

57% were men who had sex with men (MSM),
23% were intravenous durg users (IDU)
10% were exposed through heterosexual contact
8% were both MSM and IDU

Of the 82,764 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,

61% were exposed through heterosexual contact
36% were exposed through intravenous drug use

What these numbers say, is that nearly sixty percent of HIV infections in men, were caused by male homosexual contact (aprox 165,000 case), and that over sixty per cent of HIV infections in women were caused by heterosexual contact (49,000 cases.) Statistically, if sixty percent of men acquire the disease through Male to Male contact, and sixty percent of women acquire the disease from contact with women, it would reason that 30,000 of the Female to Male infections were the direct result of Male to Male sexual contact - bringing the total cost to almost 250,000 cases of AIDS due to Male to Male contact. To bring this into perspective, this is more cases then people died in the Vietnam War (58,262) Korean War (54,246) Desert Storm (148) Iraq recently (904) and the (aprox) number of deaths from suicide in the past four years (120,000). Or, the number of murders committed in the US over the past 10 years.

My personal belief, is that same sex marriage should be the perview of the religious authorities that perform such ceremonies. I also personally believe that civil unions should be permitted to any couple that desires them. I only list the arguement because I -also- believe that just because I think this way, that the world should not revolve around my expectations. Morality of a society is greater then any one person. I think calling someone a supporter of hate for their religious or ideological beliefs is the worst form of hypocrisy - and born of hate as well. For any sort of civil dialouge, the goal should be to persuade. Telling someone that their point of view is nothing but hate does not persuade - it alienates.

Stephan


_____________________________

http://www.vv3b.com/

"There is always some madness in love, but there is always some reason in madness." - F. Nietzsche

(in reply to CuriousPuppy)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 8/1/2004 9:41:01 PM   
subman29


Posts: 7
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Voltare


I'll have a more complete response later, bu tthe first blush here...

The notion that same sex marriage isn't a public health threat, could be debunked by (and this is going to start a huge snit I know) data regarding the spread of AIDS.


The evidence you go on to cite shows that the lack of same-sex marriage is a public health threat. Same-sex marriage promotes monogamy. Monogamy stops this and other STDs. The federal and all state governments (except Massachusetts) allow gay sex, but do not fully encourage stable, monogamous unions between homosexual people.

quote:

The perception that homosexuality is a direct and overwhelming contributor of the spread of the AIDS virus is actually supported by the Center for Disease Control statistics on the subject.


This is as useless as saying that heterosexuality is an overwhelming contributor of the spread of cervical cancer.

While it's true that a higher percentage of "MSM" have HIV than non-"MSM"s, no reasonable person could attempt to legislate away homosexuality (it's as old as civilization -- reference the pottery of ancient Greece painted with pictures of men having sex with men). We can, though, create a culture that encourages stable, monogamous relationships by providing marriage as an option for gay and lesbian people.

And on an only slightly related note, has anyone else noticed that previous generations lived comfortably on one salary, and we now have lots of people struggling with two incomes? What's happening there?

(And a previous poster mentioned "activist judges" -- I hate these talk-radio buzzwords, like "flip-flop" and "faith-based" -- but we have so-called "judicial activism" to thank for desegregation, interracial marriage and public education of the mentally handicapped, among much else. The courts sometimes recognize what is correct before a majority of citizens do. The citizens have recourse in the form of amending the constitution, which is a wonderfully slow and difficult process.)

P.S. My comments about supporting monogamy are in no way meant to disrespect the polyamorous out there. When people refer to "traditional marriage," I want to remind them that some of the earliest traditions involved one man and many wives.

Our "traditional marriage"-loving governor here in Massachusetts is a Mormon. Oh, the irony!

< Message edited by subman29 -- 8/1/2004 10:16:56 PM >

(in reply to Voltare)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 8/1/2004 10:09:10 PM   
Estring


Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
subman, I wonder how you feel about these wise judges when their judgements contradict your beliefs?

(in reply to subman29)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 8/2/2004 6:44:08 AM   
subman29


Posts: 7
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

subman, I wonder how you feel about these wise judges when their judgements contradict your beliefs?


That happens fairly often. Sometimes I'm seething about it for years. Other times, upon reading the decisions (or reading about them), I change my mind. Here are three examples of the federal court's actions in the recent past:

(a) They stopped a recount of votes in Florida, effectively installing the presidental candidtate who received fewer votes.
(b) They ruled that the Boy Scouts could refuse membership of an otherwise qualified applicant simply because he was gay.
(c) They have supported (so far) the creation of "free-speech zones" by police, which at the recent DNC in Boston, had any dissenting voices behind razorwire and unable to communicate with convention delegates.

In (a), although I was furious at the time and still think they might have been operating from a political bias, I've come to admire that our system facilitates peaceful transition of power. Had we no court in that case, we might have descended into chaos.

In (b), I think the Boy Scouts are setting a bad example for their young members by wasting the talents of qualified leaders because of ignorant prejudice. At first I was opposed to the court's decision, but I've come to understand it as a protection of the rights of private groups. In this case I disagree with the effects of the decision, but can apprectiate the reasoning behind it. (It would come in handy, for example, should there be a campaign by Jerry Falwell's people to destroy BDSM groups by joining en masse and overwhelming their membership roles.)

In (c), I think a fundamental part of our national value system has been violated. Our whole country was established as a free speech zone in 1791, and restricting these rights to cages is unAmerican (do your slaves have free speech in their cages?). I hope enough people are outraged and elect representatives who will change the law on this. And I hope our next president will appoint judges who realize the importance of protecting civil liberties.

Although as a group they do sometimes make wise decisions, I wouldn't be comfortable calling all judges wise. I do think it was wise of the framers to create a governmental three-headed monster through the separation of powers. If one head starts breathing fire, the other two might persuade the body to go back to the cave for a time-out.

Also, in spite of all the talk about the trouncing of majority rule, in Massachsetts -- the only state where gay marriage is currently legal -- the public supports or is evenly divided on the issue:
http://www.gmax.co.za/look/11/24-USmarriage.html
http://lgrl.sitestreet.com/news/article.asp?id=1389

And, if anyone's interested in reading the actual decision that got this started:
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html

(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 64
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News >> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.055