Originally posted by Bentley
If the goal is to convince people heterosexual marriage is important, it should be made appealing instead of making everything else illegal.Those with religious conviction against secular practice now have to act on their beliefs and increase their social responsability instead of using the government as a tool. It's very socialist to make laws that limit freedom to solve cultural difficulties.
It's not like we were hauling same sex marriage couples off to jail.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Ok Legend you have got to stop. I'm a religious Jew and even I recognize a ridiculous religious argument when I see one. Same sex couples obviously do not here to a religious belief, or at least one codified within any bible. I've made my stance clear many times. A belief in religion doesn't preclude the acceptance of those who do not believe in religion and are therefore free to do as they choose. I am bound by my bible that I believe in, so I will choose to live my life a different way.
CDC reports reveal that gay and bisexual men are most vulnerable to HIV related diseases. Since homosexuality is being legalized and promiscuity (including bisexuality) is becoming a norm in relationships, these developments will promote homosexuality and bisexuality and spread of HIV related diseases consequently.
At some point in the future, if half of the nation is practicing homosexuality and bisexuality, imagine the medical implications of this development. This means that nearly half of the nation will be suffering from HIV related diseases.
Originally posted by Robtard
Your issue with HIV has nothing to do with marriage, as pointed out. It's meant as little more than a scare tactic since you can't intelligently debate your point.Yes, I already told you that as you were ignorant before.
Have anything else?
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/hrc-issue-brief-hiv-aids-and-the-lgbt-community
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/hiv-continues-to-spread-among-gay-men-studies-show/
As the world's leading AIDS researchers gather for the International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C., scientists report that despite gains in controlling the spread of HIV, the disease has continued to spread at an alarming rate in the very population in which it first appeared — gay men.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDYou've made it pretty clear that your argument is based on intolerance and hatred. It's already been plainly explained that HIV is not intrinsic to a homosexual relationship, that healthy homosexual relationships can exist without incurring HIV.
My argument is not based on religious norms but on long-term implications of promotion of homosexuality.CDC reports reveal that gay and bisexual men are most vulnerable to HIV related diseases. Since homosexuality is being legalized and promiscuity (including bisexuality) is becoming a norm in relationships, these developments will promote homosexuality and bisexuality and spread of HIV related diseases resultantly.
At some point in the future, if half of the nation is practicing homosexuality and bisexuality, imagine the medical implications of this development. This means that nearly half of the nation will be suffering from HIV related diseases.
The only basis you have for not wanting to pursue that ideal is again, intolerance and hatred towards the very concept itself, and an inability to understand the unfairness of illegalising a healthy and loving relationships on the basis of what might happen, despite it being preventable.
Originally posted by BeniboyblingPretty much sums his stance up, yeah. 👆
You've made it pretty clear that your argument is based on intolerance and hatred. It's already been plainly explained that HIV is not intrinsic to a homosexual relationship, that healthy homosexual relationships can exist without incurring HIV.The only basis you have for not wanting to pursue that ideal is again, intolerance and hatred towards the very concept itself, and an inability to understand the unfairness of illegalising a healthy and loving relationships on the basis of what might happen, despite it being preventable.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
You've made it pretty clear that your argument is based on intolerance and hatred. It's already been plainly explained that HIV is not intrinsic to a homosexual relationship, that healthy homosexual relationships can exist without incurring HIV.The only basis you have for not wanting to pursue that ideal is again, intolerance and hatred towards the very concept itself, and an inability to understand the unfairness of illegalising a healthy and loving relationships on the basis of what might happen, despite it being preventable.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/
While attempts are being made to control the spread of HIV, they are not working:
As the world's leading AIDS researchers gather for the International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C., scientists report that despite gains in controlling the spread of HIV, the disease has continued to spread at an alarming rate in the very population in which it first appeared - gay men.
Source: hiv-continues-to-spread-among-gay-men-studies-show
---
Homosexuals and bisexuals are most likely to become infected with HIV related diseases. Point is that these type of relationships are not healthy for people involved and should not be legally promoted just like incest.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States.Source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/
While attempts are being made to control the spread of HIV, they are not working:
As the world's leading AIDS researchers gather for the International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C., scientists report that despite gains in controlling the spread of HIV, the disease has continued to spread at an alarming rate in the very population in which it first appeared - gay men.
Source: hiv-continues-to-spread-among-gay-men-studies-show
---
Homosexuals and bisexuals are most likely to become infected with HIV related diseases. Point is that these type of relationships are not healthy for people involved and should not be legally promoted just like incest.
Heterosexuals are more likely than homosexual women, so by the same logic only homosexual women should be allowed to marry, not heterosexuals.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I understand it quite perfectly, but as I and many others have explained, that's not grounds for illegalising homosexual relationships. So stop spamming your irrelevant sources and start providing an actual argument, or rather remove yourself and your ignorance from this thread. 👆
Point is that these type of relationships are not healthy for people involved and should not be legally promoted just like incest.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDPromotion of homosexuality and associated medical issues should be a major concern:
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/hrc-issue-brief-hiv-aids-and-the-lgbt-community
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/hiv-continues-to-spread-among-gay-men-studies-show/
As the world's leading AIDS researchers gather for the International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C., scientists report that despite gains in controlling the spread of HIV, the disease has continued to spread at an alarming rate in the very population in which it first appeared — gay men.
Another spin. Those same homosexuals that can get married today, were homosexual before the SC decision. So marriage equality is not "promoting homosexuality" or turning hetero people into homosexuals.
Your HIV thing as noted is little more than a distraction and scare tactic. Maybe you should find the relationship between marriage, promiscuity rates and HIV. ie Something possibly relevant.
Any other flips?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Heterosexuals are more likely than homosexual women, so by the same logic only homosexual women should be allowed to marry, not heterosexuals.
As far as numbers are considered, only 2% men in USA have been identified as homosexuals and/or bisexuals. If treated as a sub-population, a large number of these men are infected.
If more heterosexual people are infected in absolute numbers in comparison, this is due to the fact that heterosexual people massively outgun homosexuals and/or bisexuals in sheer numbers. But if treated as a sub-population, a small number of heterosexual people are infected.
Clear now?
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
HIV related diseases spread due to multiple reasons. However, homosexuals and bisexuals are more likely to get infected then strictly heterosexuals.As far as numbers are considered, only 2% men in USA have been identified as homosexuals and/or bisexuals. If treated as a sub-population, a large number of these men are infected.
And what about homosexual women?