Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 112
Of all the money donated to pass Prop 8 in California, an estimated $20 million of that came from Mormons (more than half of the estimated $35.8 million total).

What could they have done instead? Well, with $20 million, you can do all of the following at the same time:


* Protect 120,000 children from diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, measles, childhood tuberculosis, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and Vitamin A deficiency ($30 per child through UNICEF)

* Provide 175,000 bednets to protect against malaria ($10 per net through Nothing But Nets)

* Provide free cleft surgery for 1,000 children ($250 average cost per surgery through Smile Train)

* Provide 80 MILLION packs of birth control in third world or developing nations, enough to prevent unwanted pregnancy in over 615,000 women for a full decade (about 15 cents per cycle through dktinternational.org)

* Buy around 20 years worth of Copaxone therapy for 12 people with multiple sclerosis ($10,000 per year per person, assuming the drug company gives no discount and no generic is ever made)




But, yeah, making sure a state Constitution ensconces gay people as second class citizens is waaaay more important than all that.


They may as well have bought 70 Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4's and set them on fire to more eloquently symbolize exactly how little they care about the poor.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Can I use this to mail to my local paper?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Point taken. I've no doubt that the uses you outline are truly more valuable than opposing a proposition that basically doesn't affect heterosexual people one way or another.
Yet, $20 million is approximately what Jay Leno and Rush Limbaugh make in a year. Would you call upon them to donate a year's salary too? Or for the government to spare 0.003% of TARP money?
Why do you think we have any business setting priorities for a church's money but not money belonging to other entities?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
than opposing a proposition

Sorry, that should be supporting a proposition
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 47
Why do you think we have any business setting priorities for a church's money but not money belonging to other entities?


Churches don't pay taxes, so they don't get to involve themselves in politics. If they want to get involved in politics, they can reorganize as a political action committee and abide by the rules regarding PACs. And they're supposedly Christian, so why would they even have to be reminded about what Jesus would probably want them doing with their money?

I'm not sure what religion Jay Leno and Rush Limbaugh are, so I can't opine on that, but at least they pay taxes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Can I use this to mail to my local paper?


Yeah, that's fine, but you should know the dollar amounts used for some of that (especially the price of the MS drugs) are a year or two old and might be higher or lower now.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 30
Why do you think we have any business setting priorities for a church's money but not money belonging to other entities?

That wasn't said or implied.

The original message pointed out that the money could have been used for something useful and socially responsible. Something that would have improved many people's lives and addressed (unrelated) issues of social justice (something churches are notionally strongly in favor of). With the obvious and legitimate implication that the Mormon and Catholic churches are not in fact serious about matters of social justice, raising the question of exactly what their role in society is or ought to be.

So why did they spend this money on a bigoted and socially regressive/oppressive cause, rather than something that would improve people's lives?

The legitimacy of their throwing money at this proposition was questioned elsewhere, where it has (legitimately) been questioned what the church is doing lobbying and engaging in political discourse, possibly in violation of the statutes exempting them from taxes.

rj
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
But, yeah, making sure a state Constitution ensconces gay people as second class citizens is waaaay more important than all that.

Your post is naiive. It ignores the real costs of undeserved "spousal" benefits which businesses would be accountable for, which no doubt would be measured in the billions. Not to mention the cost in damage to our society.

And what would the benefit to society be of encouraging unions which can never result in children, by definition, and which presage reduced life expectancy for both pertners?

The value is clearly not there.

MOntecfo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 91
Your post is naiive. It ignores the real costs of undeserved "spousal" benefits which businesses would be accountable for, which no doubt would be measured in the billions. Not to mention the cost in damage to our society.

Infuriating.

What exactly...and I mean exactly...constitutes a citizen to be "undeserving" of the same civil rights that the rest of us enjoy? Please explain, point by point, how you justify that statement with anything other than bigotry.

It is the equivilent of me stating that Catholics are undeserving of owning guns because the religious document that I subscribe to states that Catholics are an abomination undeserving of gun rights. There is no difference whatsoever. None. Zip. Oh, except that Catholics choose to be Catholics and gays are born the way they are.

Personally, I hate guns. I think all guns should be banned...but you know what? The Constitution as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court states that gun ownership is a right that we ALL have. Until that changes I therefore stand for that right, and if a group or movement emerged demanding that some other group or sect, whether they are minority due to how they were born into this world (African Americans, gays) or due to choice (Catholics, Republicans), I would defend their right to own a gun with fervor.

Marriage is right. Gays are as deserving of it as the rest of us. Take your bigotry back into the closet where it belongs, please.

And what would the benefit to society be of encouraging unions which can never result in children

So...we should refuse marriage licenses to heterosexuals that cannot have children due to ovarian cancer or sterility? Nice.

and which presage reduced life expectancy for both pertners?

Link?

The value is clearly not there.

To you.

I wonder how you would feel to be in love with someone and be told by society that your love has "no value".

It takes some balls to judge that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 22
To you.

I wonder how you would feel to be in love with someone and be told by society that your love has "no value".



unofficial welcome to the Board

great rant ..but FYI --you're talking to a poster Famous for Making Up St*** (MUS'g) ...

and SO desperate for attention, he just says whatever he thinks will rile up the Atheists (and he's TOO TOO often successful at that.


=b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
and which presage reduced life expectancy for both pertners?

Link?



His link will be a 20+ year old study, which the researchers have already stated, their findings were in no way connected to any point the poster uses(which is based on bigotry), and they have also said those points are not valid in this day and age.

But he will still use them. Just be warned....he doesn't let relevant facts get in the way.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
What exactly...and I mean exactly...constitutes a citizen to be "undeserving" of the same civil rights that the rest of us enjoy? Please explain, point by point, how you justify that statement with anything other than bigotry.

Quite simply, there is no such thing as homosexual "marriage". It is simply a concept made up by adherents to a deviant lifestyle, which they wish to elevate for political ends. Society does not benefit in the least from homosexual "marriage".

Our society, quite to the contrary, was built upon marriage, and heterosexual, by definition, is the only kind.

The purposes of marriage are for procreation, raising children with their father and mother for training, safety and protection. Homsexual "marriage", purely a political construct, does not advance these goals.

It is the equivilent of me stating that Catholics are undeserving of owning guns because the religious document that I subscribe to states that Catholics are an abomination undeserving of gun rights. There is no difference whatsoever. None. Zip.

One key difference: my position is based upon facts, not politics or religious hatred, as the one you describe.

Oh, except that Catholics choose to be Catholics and gays are born the way they are.

There is no evidence of a gay "gene" despite much wishful thinking on the part of activists and left-leaning researchers. It stands to reason: such a gene would be quickly discarded in the gene pool since such individuals would not reproduce.

Marriage is right. Gays are as deserving of it as the rest of us.

Marriage is not a right. The Constitution does not guarantee rights to marriage to anyone. If such a right were in the Constitution, then homosexuals, polygamists, bestialists, pedophiles, etc would all have exercised their Constitutional rights to do so by now.

Take your bigotry back into the closet where it belongs, please.

I would suggest you add some facts to your bluster.

Personally, I hate guns.

They do not hate you back. Hate is an ugly word don't you think?

I think all guns should be banned...but you know what? The Constitution as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court states that gun ownership is a right that we ALL have. Until that changes I therefore stand for that right, and if a group or movement emerged demanding that some other group or sect, whether they are minority due to how they were born into this world (African Americans, gays) or due to choice (Catholics, Republicans), I would defend their right to own a gun with fervor.

All commentators agree, the right to bear arms is in the Constitution.

Marriage is right. Gays are as deserving of it as the rest of us. Take your bigotry back into the closet where it belongs, please.


As I said, marriage is not a right. Society can record no benefit from homosexual "marriage".

So...we should refuse marriage licenses to heterosexuals that cannot have children due to ovarian cancer or sterility? Nice.

Certainly not. It is impossible or impractical to attempt to determine if marriages will be blessed with children. A clear difference is homosexual "marriage", for which biological children are impossible. Despite your attempt at hairsplitting, every person alive was born of a heterosexual union. No one alive was born of a homosexual one.


and which presage reduced life expectancy for both pertners?

Link?

According to the International Journal of Epidemiology:

"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. "

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657

The value is clearly not there.

To you.

To anyone willing to look at the real costs, and the lack of benefits to society. Are you willing to ? or are you simply an ideologue?

I wonder how you would feel to be in love with someone and be told by society that your love has "no value".

First of all, this is not about "love". It is about politics. If it were indeed about "love" you would be crusading for polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia, and not just the narrow focus of homosexuals. You would be arguing for sister, brothers, aunt-nephew, uncle-niece, and grandmother-grandson "marriages". Certainly these are loving, enduring, committed relationships. But society sanctions just one such relationship as marriage, for the reasons I stated.

Second, it is not that "love has no value". Certainly it has value to the individuals. But see above.

It takes some balls to judge that.

Telling the truth can be an act of courage inn the narrow insular pica of the world that you have stumbled into. In most parts of the world it is not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If it were indeed about "love" you would be crusading for polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia



Pedophilia is not about love. It is about power, specifically the abuse of power. Beastiality is also not about love, as one of the partners is not capable of comprehending what love is.

Polygamy may be about love. In the end I still can't imagine why someone wants more than one spouse. But I have no real issue with it.

Charlie
...also glad to see you are still using 20+ year data that has been discounted by the researchers...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
...also glad to see you are still using 20+ year data that has been discounted by the researchers...

The article I cited was a peer-reviewed study published in 1994. it has been cited frequently. No study has been done that concludes homosexuality is a safe lifetyle. In fact, according to published reports, all insurance companies regard AIDS as rendering a person uninsurable, despite the advent of new drugs etc. And of course homosexual populations are notorious for risky sex which can lead to AIDS and other dangerous diseases.

Insurers know this.

"The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states in a June 2007 report, "HIV/AIDS Among Men Who Have Sex with Men," that men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 71 percent of adult and adolescent males diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in 2005, thus rendering them ineligible for life insurance coverage at any price. Five to 7 percent of adult and adolescent men identify themselves as MSM, according to the report, so obviously MSM have a much higher risk of contracting the disease — they are anywhere from 32.5 to 46.5 times more likely than other men to be diagnosed. But insurance companies check for the disease, not the behavior."

http://www.insure.com/articles/lifeinsurance/hiv-mortality.h...


"Meanwhile, cases of HIV/AIDS are increasing among gay men. Between 2001 and 2005, there was a 13 percent increase in HIV cases among gay men in the United States."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/110597.php

And, further to my point, here is another peer-reviewed study, which appears in the January, 2009 American Journal of Public Health.

It also concludes that mortality rates among gays/lesbians exceed those of the general populace.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.133801v1

Certainly further study needs to be done to further verify the cost of this risky behavior.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What exactly...and I mean exactly...constitutes a citizen to be "undeserving" of the same civil rights that the rest of us enjoy? Please explain, point by point, how you justify that statement with anything other than bigotry.

I want to know the answer to this question as well.

Donna
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 56
As I said, marriage is not a right.

If it is not specifically denied by our laws or constitutions, then it is a right – IMHO. You know – part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Society can record no benefit from homosexual "marriage".

150 years ago, I’m sure the argument was made that society wouldn’t benefit from freeing slaves. I think society benefits any time it terminates a civil injustice.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
unofficial welcome to the Board

great rant ..but FYI --you're talking to a poster Famous for Making Up St*** (MUS'g) ...

and SO desperate for attention, he just says whatever he thinks will rile up the Atheists (and he's TOO TOO often successful at that.


=b

------------------------


True, that.
I recommend that you p-box him - and be done with him.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
As I said, marriage is not a right.

If it is not specifically denied by our laws or constitutions, then it is a right – IMHO. You know – part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That is not correct. This is why we needed the Bill of Rights.

Society can record no benefit from homosexual "marriage".

150 years ago, I’m sure the argument was made that society wouldn’t benefit from freeing slaves. I think society benefits any time it terminates a civil injustice.

Attempting to compare homosexual marriage to the black civil rights movement in the country does your argument a grave disservice. African Americans fought for the right to vote, the right to access to facilities, the right to all personal freedoms in fact. African Americans were killed at gunpoint, at the end of a noose, and by dragging, among others.

Homosexuals have all the same rights as other Americans. They want a new right never before exercised in this country, by anyone. Comparing that to blacks in chains and dying not only rings hollow, it is profoundly insulting to all Americans, but especially African Americans.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
that men who have sex with men (MSM)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I thought "MSM" = "main stream media."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Too complicated.

A simpler reason is that gays have been unable to persuade a majority of the population in many areas of the country, of the rightness of their cause. The reasons why are interesting only from the standpoint of trying to figure out a way to overcome those reasons. The default mechanism for interest groups to get favorable treatment in our system is via politicking/getting the votes.

That's where the real gap in perception is here. It's not about religion, it's not about health, it's about politics. Radical gay activists believe that their cause is so just that they can transcend the practicalities of politics. This is completely misguided. When you lose an election as with Prop. 8, the appropriate response is not to take to the streets, accusing the majority who defeated your political objectives of being "bigots." You never win in our country unless you have a majority on your side. That even applies if you take the issue to court--you still need a majority of the judges of that court to agree with you.

Gays want to change the status quo to where same-sex relationships are given equality to heterosexual marriages. That's a legitimate political objective. However, they make a huge mistake by pretending that they are NOT trying to change the status quo. Clearly they are. If they weren't attempting to change the status quo, then no action would be necessary. A simple reality check which many refuse to grasp.

Gays are a small but very vocal and influential minority of the entire population. That means most of their votes will have to come through persuasion of people who don't have a personal interest in their objectives. This requires political guile, sublety, and discretion, not taking to the streets like "sore losers" when a vote or a court case goes against their political objectives.

So, if gay folks feel that much of the political opposition is from religious fundamentalists, it makes absolutely no sense to antagonize these people and call them bigots etc. If you want to get those votes turned around, you have to figure out a method of persuasion, not coercion, not threats.

The simple fact of the matter has been that the various arguments provided by gays for the recognition of same-sex marriage have, in many cases, simply not been sufficiently persuasive to gain political support from a sufficient number of people. Simply declaring that people have the fundamental right to be in a same-sex marriage doesn't really accomplish anything.

O.K. I agree that people in same-sex relationships should have the exact same marital rights as heterosexuals.

Are we done now?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
African Americans were killed at gunpoint, at the end of a noose, and by dragging, among others.
=========================================================================

As have gay people. It is a very apt comparison.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
So, if gay folks feel that much of the political opposition is from religious fundamentalists, it makes absolutely no sense to antagonize these people and call them bigots etc. If you want to get those votes turned around, you have to figure out a method of persuasion, not coercion, not threats.
======================================================================

Here's the deal.....we have done that. We have played the game fairly as we are supposed to. The other side has resorted to fear and lies. Guess what, if you get pushed around enough, you have to expect to get a push back. Welcome to the push back.

the religious right and others are in fact fighting same sex marriage from a point of bigotry. I have no problem calling a spade a spade. Sometimes you have to expose the bigots with a light. That light is now being shown.

No more Mr. Nice Gay.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I thought "MSM" = "main stream media."

And I thought it meant

Methyl sulfonyl methane

;)

StarWarrior Rie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Attempting to compare homosexual marriage to the black civil rights movement in the country does your argument a grave disservice. African Americans fought for the right to vote, the right to access to facilities, the right to all personal freedoms in fact. African Americans were killed at gunpoint, at the end of a noose, and by dragging, among others.

Homosexuals have all the same rights as other Americans. They want a new right never before exercised in this country, by anyone. Comparing that to blacks in chains and dying not only rings hollow, it is profoundly insulting to all Americans, but especially African Americans.


I see both civil rights and human rights in our country as intertwined issues that continue to evolve. Comparing these movements does no disservice to anyone. Is the abolishment of slavery for African-Americans more important that the abolishment of slavery for persons of all colors, including whites? Is the right to vote, to own property, to be paid for work more important for African-Americans than it is for women? Do you hold to the belief that interracial marriages should have been kept illegal because “They want a new right never before exercised in this country”? Can you conceptualize the parallel between illegal interracial marriages and illegal homosexual marriages?

It may take time, but this country will eventually recognize this as the civil rights and human rights issue it is.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
African Americans were killed at gunpoint, at the end of a noose, and by dragging, among others.

As have gay people. It is a very apt comparison.

Usually you make emotional points that are unsustained by facts. I now see that yo uare also capable of simply making things up.

Montecfo

(somehow doubtful the liberal media failed to report on the homosexual homocaust)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
(somehow doubtful the liberal media failed to report on the homosexual homocaust)

I know you're just baiting, but I'm a dumb ole fish:

There were 7,624 hate crimes reported in 2007, down 1 percent from 2006. Crimes based on sexual orientation -- 1,265 in 2007 -- have been rising since 2005.

http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200810...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Homosexuals have all the same rights as other Americans. They want a new right never before exercised in this country, by anyone. Comparing that to blacks in chains and dying not only rings hollow, it is profoundly insulting to all Americans, but especially African Americans.

I see both civil rights and human rights in our country as intertwined issues that continue to evolve. Comparing these movements does no disservice to anyone. Is the abolishment of slavery for African-Americans more important that the abolishment of slavery for persons of all colors, including whites? Is the right to vote, to own property, to be paid for work more important for African-Americans than it is for women?

These are quite different. Not being able to vote is not the same as being in chains. Pretending that two dudes being unable to "marry" is similar to being captive or killed due to immutable skin color is repugnant.

Do you hold to the belief that interracial marriages should have been kept illegal because “They want a new right never before exercised in this country”?

No, I don't. But your statement is, of course, untrue. Interracial marriage was restricted in certain states only. And again, my point was that marriage sanction is not similar to dying or being held captive due to your skin color, or do you disagree with that?

Can you conceptualize the parallel between illegal interracial marriages and illegal homosexual marriages?

I find the comparison falls down rather rapidly. Interracial marriage was just another type of race discrimination. Men and women of all races marry and there is a logical basis for society sanctioning those relationships, which is consistent for all marriages.

Homosexual "marriage", contrarily, has no logical consistent basis for societal sanction. In fact, if homosexual "marriage" is to be legal, then virtually all "loving" relationships should theroetically qualify for the sanction of marriage, as I have outlined previously. So obviously this expansion of marriage rights involves far more than homosexuals.

It may take time, but this country will eventually recognize this as the civil rights and human rights issue it is. </i.

Doubtful. But it could happen. Our society will be weakened structurally and financially if that takes place. Accordingly I and most Americans hope that is not the case.

Montecfo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No more Mr. Nice Gay.

Charlie

Charlie, please stop rising to every taunt this poster dangles in front of you. He is yanking you, and you respond like Pavlov's dogs. It is not becoming to someone of your intelligence and high standards.

cliff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hear hear! I couldn't agree more.

Churches don't pay taxes, so they don't get to involve themselves in politics.

If they are breaking the tax law, IRS will go after them. You and I don't get to curtail the church's free speech right - unless you are retaliating against them curtailing yours.

Gay people need to eduficate the populace why their cause is just. It may be obvious (as it is to me) but obviously not to a majority of Californians.

Control freaks of any stripe bug the hell out of me. Don't tell the church what they should do with their money, do something with yours. Let's say the Mormon church is a backwards 19th century obscurantist theocratic gimme-10% abomination. Don't lecture them, defeat them. Legally, without guns. By pursuading the majority why it's not humane to deny two people the right to marry.

Oh and believe it or not, you will need pursuade the unwashed masses why gay marriage is not a slippery slope to marriage between a brother and a sister or between man and goat. And you will need to work against such disingenuous arguments as put forth by Roger Hedgcock, a prominent San Diego talk show host - "gays are free to marry - to anyone of opposite sex. Same as us heterosexuals."

No one said it was easy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
(somehow doubtful the liberal media failed to report on the homosexual homocaust)

I know you're just baiting, but I'm a dumb ole fish:

"Crimes based on sexual orientation -- 1,265 in 2007 -- have been rising since 2005."

My point was not that homosexuals are never victims of hate crimes. My point was: How many of these "hate crimes" were death by gunshot, dragging, or hanging? How many of these hate crime victims were imprisoned by others who considered them their "property".

(Note, given the subject matter, I have to distinguish between blacks who were considered slaves and legally owned by slavemasters, with a homosexual who may consider himself to be a "slave" to another not in a legal sense but as part of aberrant sexual practices. Such arrangements, however, repugnant, are not hate crimes, though they may break other laws.)

Montecfo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Charlie, please stop rising to every taunt this poster dangles in front of you. He is yanking you, and you respond like Pavlov's dogs. It is not becoming to someone of your intelligence and high standards.



but to be a little bit fair --not just Charlie ..there's a whole fishload of folkers feeding the tr****



(>:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Usually you make emotional points that are unsustained by facts. I now see that yo uare also capable of simply making things up.

=======================================================================

Matthew Shepard
Harvey Milk

Are the two most notable. There are many of these instances. the F.B.I. keeps records of reported crimes against gay people, and is easily accessible. If you need help looking those up, let me know. The city of Chicago also keeps tabs on the physical assaults against gay people.

At least any facts I do raise are relevant.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
At least any facts I do raise are relevant.

Charlie

-----------------



Charlie -- please stop playing Bigot Ball.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Wait a minute.

Did not Jesus say (somewhere in the Bible--I'm not sure of the exact verse): "The only things I care about are
no abortion and punishing homosexuals"? I feel sure he did.

Your message seems to imply that Jesus was interested in the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the weak...

I am quite certain keeping one @#!%&*< from marrying another is more important to Our Savior than healing some hypothetical child.

get real! try reading the bible before you post your trash.


nl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Usually you make emotional points that are unsustained by facts. I now see that you are also capable of simply making things up.

Matthew Shepard
Harvey Milk

Are the two most notable. There are many of these instances. the F.B.I. keeps records of reported crimes against gay people, and is easily accessible. If you need help looking those up, let me know. The city of Chicago also keeps tabs on the physical assaults against gay people.


Harvey Milk's death was not a hate crime. When someone is killed who happens to be homosexual, it does not make it a hate crime. Matthew Shephard's death was widely publicized and used as a tool to push hate crime legislation. However, it is unclear if his death was motivated by hate, robery, revenge, or something else. If we presume it was motivated by hate, it is also a single incident, which of course does not compare to the thousands of lynchings of blacks, not to mention draggings, shootings and drownings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States#S...

Homosexuals of course also commit hate crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Dirkhising
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc6EyGFcJTM&feature=relat...

At least any facts I do raise are relevant.

In a very tangential way. You have not shown any true basis for comparison between the black civil rights struggle and the "struggle" for homosexual "marriage" "rights". Your attempts are repugnant to most of us who are aware of the facts.

Montecfo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Quite simply, there is no such thing as homosexual "marriage".
Perhaps you're right -- although it's unclear what you mean. OTOH, there clearly is such a thing as homosexual marriage. More and more jurisdictions have come to recognize exactly this.

The purposes of marriage are for procreation, raising children with their father and mother for training, safety and protection.

Marriage, as you say can serve numerous purposes. Some couples can't have children. But they can still get married. (OTOH it's possible that a father and a daughter could produce children, although no one argues that they should be able to get married. Being able to procreate is neither a necessary condition nor a sufficient condition for having the right to marry.) Marriage can serve numerous purposes.

Homsexual "marriage", purely a political construct, does not advance these goals.

It's not clear what a political construct is -- whether it would include heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, monogamy, polygamy, etc. Various political units and societies have practiced all of these (and others).

I'm really wondering what a political construct is, and why it matters. Is adoption a political construct? Is the Office of the President of the United States a political construct? Is the U.S. itself a political construct? Is Massachusetts a political construct? Are dollars and cents political constructs? I guess I'm not sure how to tell something that is a political construct from something that isn't -- and what difference (if any) this is supposed to make.

One guess on my part is that things that are found in the animal kingdom -- e.g., homosexuality and adoption --- are not political constructs.

But, in any case, many homosexual marriage do indeed promote some of the goals you listed. Jonathan Rauch has an interesting book about how gay marriage is beneficial to society in general. (See: http://www.amazon.com/Gay-Marriage-Good-Straights-America/dp... One of the benefits he mentions has to do with raising children in a loving (and married) environment. (This is one of the goals specified above; it is not necessary that every married couple act so as to promote all the goals, or as many as possible.)

One of the interesting things about Rauch's book was the number of children with gay parents (who are not in a heterosexual relationship.) The parents may have acquired these children through a previous heterosexual relationship, through adoption, or via medical procedures. He also stresses the benefits that society derives from the settled and stable relationships that are available to its married gay and lesbian citizens. Interesting read!

--SirTas
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Does the term "gay-bashing" not mean anything to you? Do you think it means that people just talk meanly about their fashion choices behind their backs?

No, they talk meanly to their face. Many hate crimes consit of, you guessed it, "name-calling". Of course, many here on Atheist Fools, such as yourself, are also guilty of name-calling. Religiously themed name-calling is a recurring sport here at Atheist Fools.

African-Americans, on the other hand, have been subjected to inprisonment in chains, shootings, lynchings (thousands documented), drownings, and draggings.

Even today, statistically, the are more victims of religious hate crimes than sexual orientation hate crimes, and far more victims of racial hate crimes than either of the other two categories.

That you see that as similar to a homosexual being called a rude name says a lot. Your response, though incivil and emotional, contained no documented facts to rebut this. Coincidence? I think not.

Montecfo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Perhaps you're right -- although it's unclear what you mean. OTOH, there clearly is such a thing as homosexual marriage. More and more jurisdictions have come to recognize exactly this.

As a made up concept, sure. But logically speaking, homosexual "marriage" is a contradiction in terms. Like these:

Jumbo shrimp
genuine replica
Rapid City, South Dakota

The purposes of marriage are for procreation, raising children with their father and mother for training, safety and protection

Marriage, as you say can serve numerous purposes.

Yes, the specific purposes I stated, not just any old purposes. Extremists wish to recast it as a fashion accessory, unrelated to procreation and family, or as a tool to validate aberrant behaviors and relationships. These are outside the beneficial purposes of marriage and become mere political objectives of extremists.

It's not clear what a political construct is -- whether it would include heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, monogamy, polygamy, etc. Various political units and societies have practiced all of these (and others).

A political construct is something created for political expediency, in this case to advance narrow goals, not those that benefit society at large.

Homosexual activists often state a desire to marry due to "love" and a desire to "spend the rest of my life" with a partner. Of course, marriage is not required to do these things. In fact most loving relationships are not those sanctioned as marriage by society. Homosexual activists along with pedophiles, polygamists and others would like to have their relationships sanctioned as marriage in order to legitimize aberrant behavior. This is at odds with the goals of society.

One guess on my part is that things that are found in the animal kingdom -- e.g., homosexuality and adoption --- are not political constructs.

Homosexuality, in the sense that you mean, is not found in the animal kingdom. Animals do not seek lifelong monogamous unions with same sex individuals, although they may have social behaviors involving the same sex which are used as play or a show of dominance. None of these behaviors indicate homosexual lifestyle is in any way natural. In fact they are in marked contrast with human homosexuality. Adoption might be a good topic for another thread.

One of the interesting things about Rauch's book was the number of children with gay parents (who are not in a heterosexual relationship.) The parents may have acquired these children through a previous heterosexual relationship, through adoption, or via medical procedures. He also stresses the benefits that society derives from the settled and stable relationships that are available to its married gay and lesbian citizens. Interesting read!

I believe it probably is. However, society has no need to experiment with its children. The ideal is still to be raised by father and mother. Psychologists and socioligists identify key roles for each which are important for childhood, including modeling productive and safe relationships as they get older.

The fact that these homosexual couples have children from previous relationships reveals homosexuality as a behavior, not an immutable characterists. The growing numbers of former homosexuals bears witness to this same fact.

For children, it may be better to live under a bridge than in a box. But living under a bridge is still far from ideal. Similarly, living with 2 "dads" may be an improvement over being homeless, but it is certainly not the best we should want for our children.

Thanks for the comments.

Montecfo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
The article I cited was a peer-reviewed study published in 1994. it has been cited frequently

Sure. And if it's been cited as frequently as you think, then I'm sure this more updated research (2001) written by the same group is cited even more frequently; namely this one that was located just below the article itself that you cite:

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

Gay life expectancy revisited

Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s.1 From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.


<snip>

In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, 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.4
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It also concludes that mortality rates among gays/lesbians exceed those of the general populace.

The study doesn't conclude anything.

The excess mortality is restricted to the first few years after a marriage, presumably reflecting preexisting illness at the time of marriage. Although further study is needed, the claims of drastically increased overall mortality in gay men and lesbians appear unjustified.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET AWAY FROM MONTY?
Do I have to leave the board altogether?
Do I have to p-box everyone that talks to him? Even my favorites?

AM
....totally bummed....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
AM--

-- just clarifying the research that's being misrepresented.

That is all.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Psssst!
Let me clue you in....
Clarifying everything that guy misrepresents is a lifetime occupation.
Are you sure you have the time to devote to it?

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Psssst!
Let me clue you in....
Clarifying everything that guy misrepresents is a lifetime occupation.
Are you sure you have the time to devote to it?
_______________

Naaa.. I was merely showing updated research, and revealing that the other article cited was inconclusive in its research.. no biggie. I'm done now. :p
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sure. And if it's been cited as frequently as you think, then I'm sure this more updated research (2001) written by the same group is cited even more frequently; namely this one that was located just below the article itself that you cite:

yes, except there is no such updated research. Just some editorial comments and speculation. However, the 2009 article I cited in this same thread reaches similar conclusions. As did the two articles I cited about homsexuaal mortality from a health and insurance perspective. All are recent.

So why do you cite editorial comments from 7 years ago, which includes no new facts?

Montecfo
(no shock, FoolinSc has an axe to grind)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET AWAY FROM ****?

Do I have to leave the board altogether?
Do I have to p-box everyone that talks to him? Even my favorites?



pretty much.

the former and you won't the pee-box anyone ..

the latter and you and i and Cliff can talk here.



-b
.....semi-bummed
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Idiocy run amok by the poster of the above. I did not say his death was a hate crime. You cited that gay people are not victims as African Americans have been.

My apologies for giving you the benefit of the doubt. My point is that blacks were victims of violence BECAUSE they are black. Your rebuttal, apparently, is that homosexuals are victims of violence, for reasons unconnected to their sexuality. I agree. But it does nothing to rebut my point, which I now much conclude that you agree with.

I cited two of the most notable, that in no way means they are the only ones. You are not only acting dense, mkore of your bigotry is being shown.

I will let you have the last word, as I know you crave it.

I welcome any response from you that is not emotional or off-topic.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It also concludes that mortality rates among gays/lesbians exceed those of the general populace.

The study doesn't conclude anything.

Oh really? I guess you managed to skip past the section marked "conclusions". I quoted it almost verbatim. I will do so again:

"Conclusions. Despite recent marked reduction in mortality among gay men, Danish men and women in same-sex marriages still have mortality rates that exceed those of the general population."

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.133801v1
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm done now.

Now THAT is true.

No biggie.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
FoolinSC: -- just playing monte ball.

That is all.

There, I fixed that for you.

cliff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
FoolinSC: -- just playing ****** ball.

That is all.

There, I fixed that for you.




yeah. but.

good way to get yerownse'f sent to the corner



(>:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Do I have to p-box everyone that talks to him? Even my favorites?

AM
....totally bummed....


I don't talk to him, but he does seem to love to reply to my posts to others and therefore appears time-to-time in my replies list which I always ignore.

g2w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Welcome,

and remember that arguing with a fencepost is futile,
hitting your mind against a wall of ignorance hurts only you,
wrestling with a pig only get you muddy and the pig likes it.

In other words, as other posters I am sure have informed you, don't waste the BTU's of brain power and emotional angst on our pet rock.

Now using the wall to bounce good and well thought out ideas on is useful,
making sure the pig is committed to breakfast (i.e. eaten) is nutritious, and ignoring the fencepost and paying attention to the barbed wire tacked onto it is wise.

Alas though my advice is worth exactly what you have paid for it....nada.

Oh, and remember, do not make anyone (or thier opinions) more important in your life than they deserve. Feel free to research backwards on posters by reading some of thier old posts to get the flavor as it were.

For me I recommend my "Winters Ghosts", "Darkest Day", and "looking for God..." posts.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=25854378
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=25070994
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=23465285

md
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
the latter and you and i and Cliff can talk here.

And me!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
the latter and you and i and Cliff can talk here.

And me!



Yes!

one more and we can play Bridge.



(>:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
one more and we can play Bridge.

We already gots enough for Pinochle. Or we could play Cribbage. I don't know Bridge.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
one more and we can play Bridge.

We already gots enough for Pinochle. Or we could play Cribbage. I don't know Bridge.


o well

i don't know Pinochle or Cribbage ..have forgotten Bridge and thought you 4 could re-learn me


(>:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
the latter and you and i and Cliff can talk here.

<waving hand from a distance>

Ooh, me too?

</whfad>

Also pee'd off that he gets so much oxygen.

Starve him, I say.

Lawtie
three-fourths bummed
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Me too!!

No Trolls for flyerboys. I even had this thread blocked for awhile. Lot and lots of grey.

I mean damn folks!! PERSONAL HYGIENE IS IMPORTANT!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We already gots enough for Pinochle. Or we could play Cribbage. I don't know Bridge.

t.

----------------



OOOOooooo Pinochle!
I loves Pinochle!
You play single deck?
I can play either way....
But I prefer the Navy way -- Double deck and give the nines to the kids. :)

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think I only ever played single deck - it's been a long time.

I'd be happy to learn another flavor, though.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You play single deck?
I can play either way....
But I prefer the Navy way -- Double deck and give the nines to the kids. :)



hmmm.... i get this image: take two decks of cards, pull the 8 niines and give them to the kids.

and Navy kids are so dumb they think you can play a card game with 8 cards of same value



(>:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You play single deck?
I can play either way....
But I prefer the Navy way -- Double deck and give the nines to the kids. :)



hmmm.... i get this image: take two decks of cards, pull the 8 niines and give them to the kids.

and Navy kids are so dumb they think you can play a card game with 8 cards of same value

-------------------


Was thinking of my early years - married to a Navy guy.
Was thinking of the LITTLE kids who mostly either eat the cards or slobber on them. :)

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
and Navy kids are so dumb they think you can play a card game with 8 cards of same value

-------------------


Was thinking of my early years - married to a Navy guy.
Was thinking of the LITTLE kids who mostly either eat the cards or slobber on them. :)



like i said .... <G>



=
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
and Navy kids are so dumb they think you can play a card game with 8 cards of same value



(>:


Heh. Bet me. :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
and Navy kids are so dumb they think you can play a card game with 8 cards of same value



(>:

Heh. Bet me. :)



if i were lucky at Cards, i wouldn't be loosing my sox in the stock market



(>:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
and Navy kids are so dumb they think you can play a card game with 8 cards of same value



(>:

Heh. Bet me. :)
---------------------


Ha!
You tell him, spooky! :)

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
if i were lucky at Cards, i wouldn't be loosing my sox in the stock market

Exactly.

Let's put it another way. Try playing spades with a bosuns mate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Try playing spades with a bosuns mate.

I don't play with other peoples' mates. That's just wrong.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
if i were lucky at Cards, i wouldn't be loosing my sox in the stock market

Exactly.

Let's put it another way. Try playing spades with a bosuns mate.


i suspect that within hours he'd not only own all my sox ..but the sox of all my friends and family.



(>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't play with other peoples' mates. That's just wrong.

Pansy. Morals are for the weak.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
i suspect that within hours he'd not only own all my sox ..but the sox of all my friends and family.

Good. As long as you have proper respect for Navy card playing ability, we can continue to peacefully coexist.

-spookysquid
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Good. As long as you have proper respect for Navy card cheating ability, we can continue to peacefully coexist.

-spookysquid



absolutely

i figure with all those months at Sea with only Sheep and Marines ..they have to be good at something


-b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Weak I am.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Weak I am.

Well, at least you're honest with yourself.

-spookysquid
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
absolutely

i figure with all those months at Sea with only Sheep and Marines ..they have to be good at something


No marines on carriers generally. The ones with the VMFA's (Marine air squadrons) are the exception, not the rule.

And it's socks, not sheep.

-spookysquid,
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't play with other peoples' mates. That's just wrong.

Who are you to deny evolution?

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3362,n,n
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And it's socks, not sheep.

-spookysquid,





Well, THAT was enlightening. <blush>

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, THAT was enlightening. <blush>

AM


Sorry. :(

-spookysquid
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<blush>

AM


THAT's funny. I always thought you WERE a sailor.


Montecfo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Who are you to deny evolution?

Which is why you must find me the dreadlocked Calgarian before before some Palinesque moose shooting type gets her claws into him!!!!!!!!!

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Who are you to deny evolution?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3362,n,n

-----

Whee... bravo evolution! How cool that it's even evident in something as mundane as a mere discussion board. I just love that natural mechanism which eventually trumps all the useless, degenerative, and self-destructive deviations of homo erectus who would stunt humanity's progress. Forward looking, open-minded principles, critical thinking and progressive action will always (albeit sometimes far too slowly) toss aside that which impedes positive growth and development. Tossed aside to wither & die on the dungheap of impotent ideas and other various failed sacred cows.




ten
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0


i figure with all those months at Sea with only Sheep and Marines ..they have to be good at something
---
No marines on carriers generally. The ones with the VMFA's (Marine air squadrons) are the exception, not the rule.


o ..... seem to always be Marines on ships in the movies ..as 'security' .. "Get the Marines to drag this SOB off the bridge and lock him in the bilge" ..kind of stuff.



And it's socks, not sheep.


ah ..... much cheaper


=b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, THAT was enlightening. <blush>

AM

Sorry. :(



part of why there's still that male-bonding/hangin'out thing --

when we start talking animal-husbandry, the ladies blush


(> bb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
part of why there's still that male-bonding/hangin'out thing --

when we start talking animal-husbandry, the ladies blush


(> bb


The weaker sex, to be sure.

-spookysquid
Print the post Back To Top