NY passes same sex marriage

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: NY passes same sex marriage

Post by _Buffalo »

why me wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Right, that was representative of the majority, and you never find straight people doing that.

What about lesbians? Don't they have the lowest instances of STDs? I guess god loves them best.


Actually, I think that it was and this was the reason for the spread of the virus. If gays had only one partner, the virus would not have spread as rapidly as it did. Gay sex is about anal sex where the blood can get into sores in the rectum. The rectum was not made for what gay men do to each other. The rectum does not produce a natural fluid to cater to another man. And since the gay lifestyle and culture at that time was multiple partners....well...the virus spread quite fast.

When the HIV virus was discovered, gays were encouraged to change their lifestyle behavior and think more in terms of monogamy. But as I understand it, some are now slipping back into unprotected sex and brief encounters.

Before the HIV crisis, gay men were concerned about hypatitis because of the sex that they do. And it is still a concern for them.


Only gay people have anal sex. Got it.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: NY passes same sex marriage

Post by _Buffalo »

why me wrote:
café crema wrote:
Um... why is Why me so well versed in 1970 gay sexual practices, I though he was spending all his time Mormon Laying all those LDS young ladies. Is there yet another side to Why me and is there another odd name for it?


I spent a lot of time on the streets observing life. And I know what I know.


Nice euphemism
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: NY passes same sex marriage

Post by _stemelbow »

Jason Bourne said,

Oh I was also going to mention the the Church said nothing about this, at least that I heard. Not a peep. Not contact state leaders, yada, yada.


It seems to me the Church wisened up. They realized hardlined opposition on such flimsy grounds only helps their "opponents". Besides gay marriage is inevitable anyway. Its time to start accepting that. Its not going to hurt marriage in general anymore than spousal abuse, child abuse, infidelity, "falling out of love" and all that. Extending liberties to people is a good thing.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Morley
_Emeritus
Posts: 3542
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: NY passes same sex marriage

Post by _Morley »

stemelbow wrote:Jason Bourne said,

Oh I was also going to mention the the Church said nothing about this, at least that I heard. Not a peep. Not contact state leaders, yada, yada.


It seems to me the Church wisened up. They realized hardlined opposition on such flimsy grounds only helps their "opponents". Besides gay marriage is inevitable anyway. Its time to start accepting that. Its not going to hurt marriage in general anymore than spousal abuse, child abuse, infidelity, "falling out of love" and all that. Extending liberties to people is a good thing.


Are you serious, Stem? You're comparing gay marriage to "spousal abuse, child abuse, [and] infidelity"? Really, Stem? I think you forgot 'murder' and 'rape.'
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: NY passes same sex marriage

Post by _stemelbow »

Morley wrote:Are you serious, Stem? You're comparing gay marriage to "spousal abuse, child abuse, [and] infidelity"? Really, Stem? I think you forgot 'murder' and 'rape.'


uh...my point sailed over your head. To answer your question, nope. Let's not get so touchy. I am saying, even if one assumes homosexuality is bad, it can't be any worse than those things. The absurdity that gay marriage is going to ruin marriage more than these is the very point I made.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Morley
_Emeritus
Posts: 3542
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: NY passes same sex marriage

Post by _Morley »

stemelbow wrote:
Morley wrote:Are you serious, Stem? You're comparing gay marriage to "spousal abuse, child abuse, [and] infidelity"? Really, Stem? I think you forgot 'murder' and 'rape.'


uh...my point sailed over your head. To answer your question, nope. Let's not get so touchy. I am saying, even if one assumes homosexuality is bad, it can't be any worse than those things. The absurdity that gay marriage is going to ruin marriage more than these is the very point I made.


So, if I said people shouldn't get too upset about Mormonism, after all it can't be worse than "spousal abuse, child abuse, [and] infidelity," you'd be okay with that, right?
_Yoda

Re: NY passes same sex marriage

Post by _Yoda »

liz3564 wrote:
Why Me wrote:Being in New York in the 1970's before the AIDs crisis, the gay lifestyle was far from mainstream. I still remember the gay bathhouses where gay men would have sex with many partners. Plus the problem of going into a public toilet with gay men attempting to pick up other men in the toilet area.

One reason for the devastation of the gay community in the early 1980's in the Greenwich Village area of NYC was the fact that they slept with many partners. Thus, the HIV problem took many lives.

You have proved my point with your comment about Will and Grace. By hollywood bringing gayness into the living rooms of straight people, the tone was set for a softening of understanding for gay people and their lifestyle.



YOU have also proved MY point, Why Me. You are stereotyping what you believe the gay lifestyle to be in the 21st Century based on your observation of what it was like in the 1970's. You seem to be stuck in that era.

From MY observation of the gay lifestyle in the 21st Century, based on close friendships I have with several people I know who are gay, I can tell you that "the gay lifestyle" for those in monogamous relationships does not differ greatly from straight people in monogamous relationships.

They are generally two income households. Just like any other couple, gay monogamous couples are worried about making house payments, raising children, etc.


Why Me wrote:Well, you are wrong. But I can excuse you because you are from Utah. However, over the mountains and through the woods you will find the gay lifestyle has not changed much.

http://keithecker.com/2009/01/27/gay-se ... t-century/

Now is this guy an expert. Perhaps. But he certainly knows what goes on in gay culture.

Oh and the youtube video is true. It was a wild time in NYC back then for the gay men and as the the gay journalist says: it hasn't changed much.


You moron. I'm not from Utah. I'm from California. I did live in Utah for a little while, but I'm not from there.

And you're going off of one article as proof positive that the gay lifestyle has not changed? How about personal experience? How many people do you know in the gay community?
_Bond James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 2690
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: NY passes same sex marriage

Post by _Bond James Bond »

why me wrote:Well, what can I say...you weren't where I was. Gay bathhouses were a dime a dozen in New York. And one could go there for a small fee. Now I would gladly pay a small fee to enter the grotto on a hot friday night but my chances are slim.


You stepped over my whole point about "regular joe" promiscuity between heterosexuals. "Key parties", affairs, girlfriends on the side of marriage, etc., happened and continue to happen and that whole point is meant to undermine the idea that gay promiscuity was some anomaly. But that's cool.

For the heteros the main fear was genital herpes. Time did a cover story of it right before the AIDS crisis. All the heteros were trying to find out if their new possible partner had herpes. And even today, a large percentage of the American population have genital herpes. Now good Mormons mainly escaped the herpes problem and the HIV problem. And one could not get herpes or HIV from a Mormon lay.


Yep.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotes
I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.
I avoid church religiously.
This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: NY passes same sex marriage

Post by _stemelbow »

Morley wrote:So, if I said people shouldn't get too upset about Mormonism, after all it can't be worse than "spousal abuse, child abuse, [and] infidelity," you'd be okay with that, right?


Its a true statement in my mind. I'd more than okay with that, I might employ it at some point (with your permission?). Thanks.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: NY passes same sex marriage

Post by _harmony »

EAllusion wrote:You seem to be arguing that simply because a law passes, it is a wise, just law. That's inane, but what other argument are you offering with this repeated statement? Gay marriage bans have passed by wide majorities in numerous states, but you aren't here defending that.


You have yet to prove that clean indoor air laws aren't wise and just. Just because you don't agree with a law doesn't mean it's not wise and just. I can point to lowered health risks and lowered costs to businesses. What can you point to? (It helps to remember there is no right to endanger the public with a known carcinogen. What a person does in their own home is, of course, up to them. If they choose to lower their property values, endanger their loved ones, and generally mess up their health, that's up to them.)

Here's the difference between my solution and yours. In my world, people who want establishments that offer the opportunity to smoke can exist along side those that don't.


Got that. As long as you understand that the public and the science supports the ban, you can wish for your own hell.

As long as both groups' have a large enough population and desire, different establishments will exist to cater to boths' interests. This maximizes people's chance to find what works best for them individually. In your world, you plan working to force people to make the choice that you personally like with their only recourse being to seize back bayonet of the government.


You seem to think smoking is a right. It's not.

Actually, in my world, I work to protect the public from a known carcinogen, just like I would work to protect them from nuclear radiation or diseased meat. Unless you're saying that nuclear power plants should be able to contaminate the air and water supply with impunity? And cattle with mad cow disease have just as much right to be in your grocery store as any other cow?

Public health protects the public. Clean indoor air is part of public health, since the science supports the removal of smoke from an enclosed space where the public can enter.

I fail to see what this has to do with harm to others, which is what I was replying to. I realize you have two distinct arguments here. 1) Secondhand smoke is dangerous to others and 2) Smoking causes heath care costs to go up, justifying people regulating their behavior.

My point was in response to the former. As for the latter, since smokers tend to die younger their health care costs are nearly a wash. But even if they weren't, you are setting a dangerous and ill-considered precedent if you favor stripping people of their freedom if their choices result in a slight increase in insurance premiums.


I repeat: smoking is not a right. Are you seriously now advocating for an agonizing premature death after half a lifetime of lost production time, multiple insurance claims, not to mention repeatedly exposing non-smoking family, friends, and co-workers to a known carcinogen?

You seem to be advocating a particular position that you want John Q. Public to adopt that entails running businesses for them. You made an argument that banning smoking will be a good business decision. If that's the case, businesses are free to adopt it without legal bans. It's increasingly clear that you think John Q. Public is justified in forcing people to do pretty much anything in the name of their personal health, but the point is if your argument was persuasive, then it wouldn't be necessary to invoke the law.


Actually, I'm advocating for the public's health. All that smoke is like pee in a pool.

The heck? Then why are you Ok with people being allowed to smoke in their own homes? In fact your who line of argumentation here implies you favor banning smoking everywhere. Smoking doesn't stop being dangerous to people in houses.
[/quote]

You mistake me. I'm not concerned about the fool who chooses to negatively impact his/her own health, as long as 1) the public doesn't have to pay for his/her stupidity through public insurance claims for smoking related illnesses and higher economic costs based on production levels and increased insurance rates, or 2) the public doesn't have to breathe known carcinogens. 2 has been pretty much accomplished; still working on 1. People are free to kill themselves via whatever means they want to, in their own homes. When they spread their carcinogens over the general public though, the public is entitled to regulate. Clean air is a right; smoking is not.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Post Reply