[Dave]

not in principle. The default position is that people do things and the law interferes when it is reasonable and ethical for it to do so.

Not in your principle, whatever that may be. An existing convention is already established, and thus the burden of proof is on those who wish to overturn it. There may also be reasons to restrict something even if it is alleged to be reasonable and ethical. Ugly architecture for instance is neither unreasonable nor unethical in the strict sense, but it is an eyesore and people benefit for it being banned.

As to the rest of your post your objection is really more against liberalism than gays marrying.

Indeed. Liberalism must be attacked on every front by any means necessary. I don't see any reason why homosexuals, another tool of liberals, should be exempted.

It is however, a minor point in my eyes as it does not justify restricting gay marriage but promoting successful family models or at the most limiting gay adoption.

The raising of more "tolerant" persons is not a minor point, as Western civilization is currently in slow-motion self destruction brought on by a plague of "tolerance".

[PBVBROOK]

The raising of more "tolerant" persons is not a minor point, as Western civilization is currently in slow-motion self destruction brought on by a plague of "tolerance".

I do not necessarily disagree. The problem with your argument is that the real issue is not tolerance in general but tolerance of what. Western civilization will not fall because gays marry. It may fall to radical Islam, or poor eduction, or a decaying middle class or corporatism or a variety of other issues. Who is sleeping with who? Not so much.

[Dave]

I do not necessarily disagree. The problem with your argument is that the real issue is not tolerance in general but tolerance of what.

Exactly--a civilized man is defined by what he chooses to tolerate and also by what he does not tolerate.

Western civilization will not fall because gays marry.

Oh of course not, it's a minor issue, and it's mostly lesbians who want to marry anyway and lesbianism is fake. Gays are interested in the ceremony of marriage, but the last thing gay culture is about is monogamy.

It may fall to radical Islam, or poor eduction, or a decaying middle class or corporatism or a variety of other issues. Who is sleeping with who? Not so much.

Who is sleeping with who is not exactly unimportant, as I think you'll agree that promiscuity, venereal disease, bastards, broken homes, etc. are serious issues. This is why healthy societies have always regulated marriage and sexuality.

[DanDaMan]

Remember lightman that Dandaman and his ilk could care less about a logical thought process though they lay claim to it like a birthright.

My thought process looks long term.
I have a problem with schools teaching boys that sex with other males is no longer taboo and now they have no reason not to experiment while having sex with girls.
This only spreads death and disease to the girls and the children they may have.

[ninurta]

Who then catches diseases spread by boys/men sodomizing each other when schools teach sodomy between the same sex is no longer taboo?

More people get STD's through straight sex than gay sex, and can we ease up on the topic. Can't tell which makes me more light-headed, sodomy or imagining someones (censored) all diseased. Is it more dangerous? No, there is just more straight people. My point being, its not who you have sex with that gives you an STD, it is what your partner does or doesn't have that gives you one.

So how is this even relavant to gay marriage? We are talking about 2 people having sex, not one person having a one night stand or anything to that nature.

Can't find your other post, but gay men don't give women nor girls an STD, unless they went against themselves for a society that considers homosexuality taboo, to try to look not gay.

As for HIV/AIDs, it began with a man banging a female chimpanzee I do believe, and that is a real reason to be agaisnt bestiality, because animals get diseases from everywhere we do and where we don't. Also, the reason it got so well known was because it became present in gay person or gay people who became famous cases. Now since all STD's are a risk to both heterosexuals and homosexuals and bisexuals, can we talk about something other than what adam and steve do to eachother?

God....I hate getting into other peoples bedrooms, especially when I don't like whats brewing beneath the sheets.

[DanDaMan]

More people get STD's through straight sex than gay sex, and can we ease up on the topic.

You are wrong.
If you were correct, blood banks would be barring heterosexuals from donating blood.
As it is, both British and American banks ban men who have sex with men, intravenous drug users and whores.
Care to guess why?


And homosexuals want public schools to teach sodomy between men is no longer taboo.
So it's no longer kept behind bedroom doors.

[PBVBROOK]

My thought process looks long term.

To whom?

[DanDaMan]

My thought process looks long term.

To whom?

Our children.
Already the Liberal agenda has given us a 25% infection rate of STD's on teen girls. (50% for black girls)
If you add schools also teaching sodomy between males as natural sex.... how many MORE of those girls and their children will live with even more disease spread from the anus?

[PBVBROOK]

You are quite a piece of work. I know you are deliberately trolling. I am surprised few do.

But if you are not trolling, you may be a deeply disturbed woman.

[ninurta]

[]More people get STD's through straight sex than gay sex, and can we ease up on the topic.[]
You are wrong.
If you were correct, blood banks would be barring heterosexuals from donating blood.
As it is, both British and American banks ban men who have sex with men, intravenous drug users and whores.
Care to guess why?

Because they could have been infected, but also because of prejudices and other reason I assume. Though since straight people outnumber homosexuals, I know i am right. If 25% of teenage girls have it, and 25% is not gay/bi, then how does it get to that number? Obviously, straight sex. Whether a bisexual had it with the opposite sex or not, its still straight sex.

That does not mean that you are more at risk if you are straight. You are at risk if your partner is promiscuous (even if its with others of the opposite sex, or same), or if you don't make sure your partner doesnt have any.

And shouldn't we be doing a better job teaching teens to keep their jeans zipped rather than have a war on homosexuality for it?

And homosexuals want public schools to teach sodomy between men is no longer taboo.
So it's no longer kept behind bedroom doors.

STD's can be spread either way. The only way you can get an STD is if the other person is affected, it doesnt matter what their gender is.

If two men have sex, neither having an STD, it is impossible for them to get or give an STD to the other. As I said, its not relavent to marriage.

Also, how does banning homosexual marriage affect straight people getting STD's? If you are cheating on your spouse you are at risk either way.

And to save teens, how about we teach them better to stay abstinent, how would teaching them that homosexuality is taboo (in which you should know, they already see it as such and constantly trash and trash talk LBGT people), and its not helping. Actually those statistics say nothing about allowing such behaviour because its already taboo. You cant taboo it further, unless you take Iran's approach, and believe me, it doesn't stop it there either. I saw a documentary of people who face death to be gay.

Can we get off gay sex now? I clearly explained why its irrelevant, and its not something I enjoy discussing and its something that is just disturbing me to think about what two men do to eachother.

[]My thought process looks long term.[] []To whom?[]
Our children.
Already the Liberal agenda has given us a 25% infection rate of STD's on teen girls. (50% for black girls)
If you add schools also teaching sodomy between males as natural sex.... how many MORE of those girls and their children will live with even more disease spread from the anus?

Let gay people be gay and let them marry, no more anus juice in straight women, problem solved.

You are quite a piece of work. I know you are deliberately trolling. I am surprised few do.

But if you are not trolling, you may be a deeply disturbed woman.

He's not trolling, just is very ignorant and constantly enlarging on a irrelevant topic that disturbs more than the women, also me. Can we talk about something else? Like gay marriage?

[DanDaMan]

Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and Answers

What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?

Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive 2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccin ... 108186.htm

[ninurta]

AIDS stigmatized as the gay disease, so they assume you get it from being gay. My friend was able to donate blood, and Sarah is gay. So that doesn't seem to apply. Either that or the law is just another discriminative law no different then the ones that once said "equal but different" or whatever the pro-segregation laws said.

[DanDaMan]

AIDS stigmatized as the gay disease, so they assume you get it from being gay. My friend was able to donate blood, and Sarah is gay. So that doesn't seem to apply. Either that or the law is just another discriminative law no different then the ones that once said "equal but different" or whatever the pro-segregation laws said.

Lesbians are not gay men.
Blood banks don't discriminate homosexuals. Just men who have sex with men (homosexual men).

[Godstud]

Blood banks don't discriminate homosexuals. Just men who have sex with men (homosexual men).

Thanks for supporting the idea that this is discrimination, DanDaMan! You just said they don't discriminate and then the following sentence showed us discrimination.

It seems ironic to ask for blood donations out of high demand and to ban people with no health problems from donating. Healthy homosexuals should not be barred from giving blood.

Having them show they've been HIV tested prior to donating could be a requirement, and I'm sure those who want to give might do that anyhow. Mind you, they already test each sample of blood for HIV prior to giving it to a patient, so this is sort of redundant. It's an out-dated policy based on fear and not logic. It's discrimination based on sexual orientation and nothing more.

I saw that African American women have 20 times the possibility of having HIV. Can you imagine the uproar if they started banning African American women from giving blood? The ban is based on sexual orientation and nothing more.

And African American women are nearly 20 times more likely to acquire the deadly virus than white women.
http://www.epigee.org/health/hiv_aa.html

[DanDaMan]

Having them show they've been HIV tested prior to donating could be a requirement, and I'm sure those who want to give might do that anyhow. Mind you, they already test each sample of blood for HIV prior to giving it to a patient, so this is sort of redundant.

Redundancy is not the issue.
It's the fact that as a group gay men are more infected.
This means rejections are high for them.
And if you want to cut down on operating expense you remove the group with the highest rejection rates in order to save money.

[ninurta]

[]AIDS stigmatized as the gay disease, so they assume you get it from being gay. My friend was able to donate blood, and Sarah is gay. So that doesn't seem to apply. Either that or the law is just another discriminative law no different then the ones that once said "equal but different" or whatever the pro-segregation laws said.[]
Lesbians are not gay men.
Blood banks don't discriminate homosexuals. Just men who have sex with men (homosexual men).

And discriminating against homosexual men is any better than doing so against lesbians how?

Thank my gods I am a libertarian and not a republican. Their logic is warped.

[]Having them show they've been HIV tested prior to donating could be a requirement, and I'm sure those who want to give might do that anyhow. Mind you, they already test each sample of blood for HIV prior to giving it to a patient, so this is sort of redundant.[]
It's the fact that as a group gay men are more infected.

And they have to make sure the blood has no problems with it anyway, so its a nonissue. Just make sure there is nothing wrong with the blood. Don't penalize those who can't get blood because there isn't enough due to the fact that gays are barred from it for no real reason.

This means rejections are high for them.
And if you want to cut down on operating expense you remove the group with the highest rejection rates in order to save money.

Yeah, and not have to test every sample for HIV and AIDS, and have everyone get HIV/AIDS from the straight people who have it instead. Real smart.

[Invictus_88]

How on earth is AIDS relevant to a discussion of gay marriage?

[Godstud]

So answer me this. Are they banning African American women from giving blood yet? Statistically speaking they are far more likely to have HIV. As a group(by your reckoning) African American women should not be allowed to give blood.

It's not about operating expenses. That's a strawman. They are ALREADY doing the tests to keep blood safe. They could allow homosexual men to donate and through the questionnaire determine their ability to donate, just like they do with everyone else. They are always LOW on blood donors and so storage sure isn't a problem. Money is not a determining factor.

How on earth is AIDS relevant to a discussion of gay marriage?

It's linked to discrimination based on fear and ignorance, just as homosexual adopting and marriage. I am not sure how it turned to it either.

[ninurta]

So answer me this. Are they banning African American women from giving blood yet? Statistically speaking they are far more likely to have HIV. As a group(by your reckoning) African American women should not be allowed to give blood.

It's not about operating expenses. That's a strawman. They are ALREADY doing the tests to keep blood safe. They could allow homosexual men to donate and through the questionnaire determine their ability to donate, just like they do with everyone else. They are always LOW on blood donors and so storage sure isn't a problem. Money is not a determining factor.

Especially since some blood types are rare.

[]How on earth is AIDS relevant to a discussion of gay marriage?[]
It's linked to discrimination based on fear and ignorance, just as homosexual adopting and marriage. I am not sure how it turned to it either.

Well said!


DDM, imagine a person has a rare blood type. And there is a gay guy who has that same blood type the person needs, and the blood banks didn't have it. How do you suppose he gets blood? Do you think its right that a man should die because of others would rather be prejudiced than let a gay man donate blood to save another man?

[DanDaMan]

DDM, imagine a person has a rare blood type. And there is a gay guy who has that same blood type the person needs, and the blood banks didn't have it. How do you suppose he gets blood?

I think if it's rare the blood banks would of course warrant the expense. That's just common sense.
Just like it's common sense to exclude common blood form a group more likely to be rejected.

Although if you take Britains acceptance test
http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/flash_questions.html
you find out they do not ask you your blood type!