Ireland becomes first country to legalize gay marriage via pop vote

[Mike M (the other one)]

I'm amused at many of you hypocrites.
First you say that society has the right to protect itself from harmful diseases. Then do an about face in this thread by supporting same-sex behaviors...

(05-16-2015, 02:30 PM)Steeler Eater Wrote: I for one stand behind this and don't understand why you would put your kids at risk for reasons that aren't ever backed up except with opinions.

(05-16-2015, 03:01 PM)xxlt Wrote: Yeah, if you believe Jeebus or the Easter Bunny is going to protect you from disease and you don't need shots you should go live in Jeebus' tomb or on Easter Bunny Island. There is a cost to live in a society. Want less government intrusion in your life? I suggest you move to Somalia. It is a small goverment paradise.

(05-16-2015, 03:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I  always have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. There is the part of me in favor of smaller government that says that this one is okay because it is at the state level, but on the federal level it would be a gross intrusion on the lives of the citizenry.

But there is the part of me that recognizes just how much harm can come from the public health with only a small percentage of children not being vaccinated.

(05-20-2015, 01:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, when your choices impact on public health and safety this is no longer a choice you are allowed to make.  The exact same logic is why you can't smoke indoors in most of the country.

(05-21-2015, 12:22 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: All children should be vaccinated, and it should not be up to their idiot parents as to whether or not they have the best opportunity to live a healthy life and not spread disease.

(05-24-2015, 05:18 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Great law. Other people shouldn't have to be endangered just because some psychotic ***** Alex Jones fans choose to deny their children protection against disease.

Yet when it comes to protecting the general population from Aids, you're stance on society protecting itself changes. Considering that 3-5% of the US population is gay, and that over half of all new HIV cases come from that segment of people, I'd say that it's quite disproportionate. I don't think the general population should be at risk because of a small segment of people that choose to participate in deviant sexual behaviors.

Aids is one of the top killers for people aged 13-24, basically our kids... yet it's still ok with you all to do nothing about it.

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/reproductive-health/stis/hiv/

•Every 9½ minutes, someone in the U.S. is infected with HIV. It is estimated that there are over 56,000 new cases of HIV in the U.S. each year.
•It is estimated that 1.7 million people in the U.S. have been infected with HIV since 1981 and approximately 1.1 million Americans are currently be living with the infection.
•Gay and bisexual men account for more than half of all new HIV cases and about 48% of those currently living with the virus.

[Belsnickel]

(05-27-2015, 01:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'm amused at many of you hypocrites.
First you say that society has the right to protect itself from harmful diseases. Then do an about face in this thread by supporting same-sex behaviors...

Yet when it comes to protecting the general population from Aids, you're stance on society protecting itself changes. Considering that 3-5% of the US population is gay, and that over half of all new HIV cases come from that segment of people, I'd say that it's quite disproportionate. I don't think the general population should be at risk because of a small segment of people that choose to participate in deviant sexual behaviors.

Aids is one of the top killers for people aged 13-24, basically our kids... yet it's still ok with you all to do nothing about it.

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/reproductive-health/stis/hiv/

•Every 9½ minutes, someone in the U.S. is infected with HIV. It is estimated that there are over 56,000 new cases of HIV in the U.S. each year.
•It is estimated that 1.7 million people in the U.S. have been infected with HIV since 1981 and approximately 1.1 million Americans are currently be living with the infection.
•Gay and bisexual men account for more than half of all new HIV cases and about 48% of those currently living with the virus.

So what do you advocate in an attempt to stem the tide of the stem the tide of HIV?

For the record, this is a false equivalency considering in the vast majority of cases of being infected with HIV it is someone that was an active participant. The issue with the whole vaccination issue is just being in the same subway car, or being in the same cab after someone got out of it, or even coming into contact with someone that came in contact with someone that came in contact with someone that wasn't vaccinated can cause transmission. But please, continue.

[CKwi88]

(05-27-2015, 01:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'm amused at many of you hypocrites.
First you say that society has the right to protect itself from harmful diseases. Then do an about face in this thread by supporting same-sex behaviors...







Yet when it comes to protecting the general population from Aids, you're stance on society protecting itself changes. Considering that 3-5% of the US population is gay, and that over half of all new HIV cases come from that segment of people, I'd say that it's quite disproportionate. I don't think the general population should be at risk because of a small segment of people that choose to participate in deviant sexual behaviors.

Aids is one of the top killers for people aged 13-24, basically our kids... yet it's still ok with you all to do nothing about it.

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/reproductive-health/stis/hiv/

•Every 9½ minutes, someone in the U.S. is infected with HIV. It is estimated that there are over 56,000 new cases of HIV in the U.S. each year.
•It is estimated that 1.7 million people in the U.S. have been infected with HIV since 1981 and approximately 1.1 million Americans are currently be living with the infection.
•Gay and bisexual men account for more than half of all new HIV cases and about 48% of those currently living with the virus.

I remember you throwing this one out there on the old boards. Pretty much everything here is is much more attributable to unprotected anal sex than to homosexuality. Sounds like if you're actually concerned about the children, you should advocate responsible butt-sex, not preach against homosexuality.

[BmorePat87]

(05-27-2015, 12:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I think that's a problem.   Look at blacks .... Their struggle can be related to single parent homes.

I'm too lazy to google a face palm meme. This is beyond stupid.

[GMDino]

(05-27-2015, 01:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'm amused at many of you hypocrites.
First you say that society has the right to protect itself from harmful diseases. Then do an about face in this thread by supporting same-sex behaviors...







Yet when it comes to protecting the general population from Aids, you're stance on society protecting itself changes. Considering that 3-5% of the US population is gay, and that over half of all new HIV cases come from that segment of people, I'd say that it's quite disproportionate. I don't think the general population should be at risk because of a small segment of people that choose to participate in deviant sexual behaviors.

Aids is one of the top killers for people aged 13-24, basically our kids... yet it's still ok with you all to do nothing about it.

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/reproductive-health/stis/hiv/

•Every 9½ minutes, someone in the U.S. is infected with HIV. It is estimated that there are over 56,000 new cases of HIV in the U.S. each year.
•It is estimated that 1.7 million people in the U.S. have been infected with HIV since 1981 and approximately 1.1 million Americans are currently be living with the infection.
•Gay and bisexual men account for more than half of all new HIV cases and about 48% of those currently living with the virus.

13 year olds are having unsafe butt-sex?!?!

:angry:

Seriously though if you want to compare a disease that is spread through a lifestyle choice versus a measles outbreak you don't understand the conversation we are having about vaccinations. Nor do you understand that allowing gays to be more open and accepted in general society by allowing them to marry legally would HELP with this disease you care so much about.

[BmorePat87]

(05-27-2015, 01:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yet when it comes to protecting the general population from Aids, you're stance on society protecting itself changes. Considering that 3-5% of the US population is gay, and that over half of all new HIV cases come from that segment of people, I'd say that it's quite disproportionate. I don't think the general population should be at risk because of a small segment of people that choose to participate in deviant sexual behaviors.

Aids is one of the top killers for people aged 13-24, basically our kids... yet it's still ok with you all to do nothing about it.

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/reproductive-health/stis/hiv/

•Every 9½ minutes, someone in the U.S. is infected with HIV. It is estimated that there are over 56,000 new cases of HIV in the U.S. each year.
•It is estimated that 1.7 million people in the U.S. have been infected with HIV since 1981 and approximately 1.1 million Americans are currently be living with the infection.
•Gay and bisexual men account for more than half of all new HIV cases and about 48% of those currently living with the virus.

I'm sorry, but what's your point? What are you advocating for?

Being gay doesn't cause AIDS... so what are you asking us to do? Send them to an island like Cher said Bush wanted to do?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-27-2015, 01:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Unaffiliated:  9.2 raised in group.  4.3 left.  

Plus various graphs show that you become more religious as you get older.  

Obviously younger are gonna say not affiliated....  Once given enough time to think they go to religion.  

Look at the chart again. Read the title. Unaffiliated make big gains. I say again, unaffiliated make big gains.  Eighteen percent increase in those that identified as unaffiliated almost double that of any other group.  Look at the net change, up 13.5%. The next largest increase is 1.5%.

PS unaffiliated does not mean athiest necessarily

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-27-2015, 02:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So what do you advocate in an attempt to stem the tide of the stem the tide of HIV?

For the record, this is a false equivalency considering in the vast majority of cases of being infected with HIV it is someone that was an active participant. The issue with the whole vaccination issue is just being in the same subway car, or being in the same cab after someone got out of it, or even coming into contact with someone that came in contact with someone that came in contact with someone that wasn't vaccinated can cause transmission. But please, continue.

I advocate for not legitimizing same-sex marriage. Legitimizing it says your sexually deviant behavior is "ok", it's "not ok", there's consequences associated with using your body in ways that it was not designed to be used.

The end results is the same, both result in deaths from diseases that are spread into the general population.
You specifically said: "how much harm can come from the public health with only a small percentage of children not being vaccinated."
It's the same as saying: How much harm can come from such a small percentage of homosexual's sexually deviant behavior.
I showed you via charts straight from the government's websites how much harm it does create.
Butt please continue to believe that you're not in the double standard crowd.

(05-27-2015, 02:12 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I remember you throwing this one out there on the old boards. Pretty much everything here is is much more attributable to unprotected anal sex than to homosexuality. Sounds like if you're actually concerned about the children, you should advocate responsible butt-sex, not preach against homosexuality.

I'm not religious so I can't "preach" in the literal sense. By being against homosexuality, I am not glorifying homosexuality.

(05-27-2015, 02:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: 13 year olds are having unsafe butt-sex?!?!

:angry:

Seriously though if you want to compare a disease that is spread through a lifestyle choice versus a measles outbreak you don't understand the conversation we are having about vaccinations. Nor do you understand that allowing gays to be more open and accepted in general society by allowing them to marry legally would HELP with this disease you care so much about.

Yes, 13 year olds got included, I didn't make the chart.
Isn't parents that do not want their children being vaccinated all about a lifestyle choice? Both have consequences that are deadly to the general population. What do you not understand about that? Or do you just want to deny the stats that I pulled straight from an un-biased Gov site because it doesn't fit your personal agenda?

(05-27-2015, 02:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm sorry, but what's your point? What are you advocating for?

Being gay doesn't cause AIDS... so what are you asking us to do? Send them to an island like Cher said Bush wanted to do?

No it doesn't cause it, butt it is the number one means of spreading it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-27-2015, 01:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'm amused at many of you hypocrites.
First you say that society has the right to protect itself from harmful diseases. Then do an about face in this thread by supporting same-sex behaviors...







Yet when it comes to protecting the general population from Aids, you're stance on society protecting itself changes. Considering that 3-5% of the US population is gay, and that over half of all new HIV cases come from that segment of people, I'd say that it's quite disproportionate. I don't think the general population should be at risk because of a small segment of people that choose to participate in deviant sexual behaviors.

Aids is one of the top killers for people aged 13-24, basically our kids... yet it's still ok with you all to do nothing about it.

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/reproductive-health/stis/hiv/

•Every 9½ minutes, someone in the U.S. is infected with HIV. It is estimated that there are over 56,000 new cases of HIV in the U.S. each year.
•It is estimated that 1.7 million people in the U.S. have been infected with HIV since 1981 and approximately 1.1 million Americans are currently be living with the infection.
•Gay and bisexual men account for more than half of all new HIV cases and about 48% of those currently living with the virus.

Most heterosexual marriages are monogamous. I would assume most homosexual marriages would be monogamous, also. Therefore, the more homosexuals in monogamous marriages would actually decrease the spread of HIV by reducing the number of sexual partners and promiscuity.

Bam. Problem solved.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

I'm confused as to how being an advocate for marriage equality means that you're a hypocrite for promoting vaccinations. Being pro-equality =/= being pro-Aids. What an insanely ridiculous point....

[Belsnickel]

(05-27-2015, 03:39 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I advocate for not legitimizing same-sex marriage. Legitimizing it says your sexually deviant behavior is "ok", it's "not ok", there's consequences associated with using your body in ways that it was not designed to be used.

The end results is the same, both result in deaths from diseases that are spread into the general population.
You specifically said: "how much harm can come from the public health with only a small percentage of children not being vaccinated."
It's the same as saying: How much harm can come from such a small percentage of homosexual's sexually deviant behavior.
I showed you via charts straight from the government's websites how much harm it does create.
Butt please continue to believe that you're not in the double standard crowd.

Same-sex marriage and high-risk sexual behaviors do not share the relationship you think they do. It has already been pointed out that marriage promotes monogamy which would slow down the rates. There will not likely be any change in the rate of infection, but if there is it would be a decrease, with the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, I ask again, what do you propose to stem the tide of HIV infections?

And again, you have a false equivalence. If you cannot comprehend the difference in the risk to the public health when you compare an airborne disease to one that requires direct contact that is almost blood to blood, then I don't know what to tell you. You can catch the diseases we were discussing in the other thread by being near someone, or even near someone that was near someone that had it. Meanwhile you have to be anally penetrated by someone with HIV/AIDS to contract the disease (for the most part, there are other scenarios but they are far less likely to lead to contraction and still highly unlikely to happen, and not environmental in nature). If you seriously think that something you have to engage in intercourse to contract poses the same risk as something that you only have to stand near someone to contract then you have gone round the bend.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-27-2015, 04:22 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Obviously we are talking about a wedding ceremony.   Stop being silly.

You didn't indicate what type of ceremony you meant.  There are many secular ceremonies.  A marriage ceremony can be secular or religious.  Your definition of marriage includes your religion.  Emphasis on "your."  Not everyone shares your definition.  I'm not being silly at all.  Would you like to read something funny?

God said to Moses "You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud . . . And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you."

Which means no BBQ pork ribs, no bacon, and no Christmas ham.  There is no way God said no bacon!

[BmorePat87]

(05-27-2015, 03:39 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No it doesn't cause it, butt it is the number one means of spreading it.

Freudian slip?

And, no, unprotected sex is. Being gay while having sex doesn't make it more likely to spread, but some riskier sexual practices in the gay community (primarily because of the fact that people didn't know that AIDS and HIV was something to be afraid of) led to many gay people having it.

But what exactly are you suggesting we do? You didn't clarify that.

[GMDino]

(05-27-2015, 03:45 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Most heterosexual marriages are monogamous.  I would assume most homosexual marriages would be monogamous, also.  Therefore, the more homosexuals in monogamous marriages would actually decrease the spread of HIV by reducing the number of sexual partners and promiscuity.

Bam.  Problem solved.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but not having unprotected sex is even better than being in a monogamous relationship.

Not having sex outside of a monogamous relationship is very good too.

But just allowing same sex marriage won't solve the problem. As I said earlier it might allow more within the community to stay in relationships but the ones who want to screw around will. Same as straight people.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-27-2015, 04:29 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah but then no one would get fired up over the attempt to take over a religious thing.... Which marriage is....   Anyone can write up a partnerahip.     Everyone wins ... religious people get their ways respected and gays get these marriage "benefits" they are so ever clammoring for....    Eveyone wins.

Marriage is not inherently religious.

(05-27-2015, 04:31 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Marriage is not a right.  Anyone can be married.   Just say your married.   Gov marriage is a joke anyway.   Which should be put out to pasture.   We don't need gov marriage to keep interracial marriages from happening any longer.

Did you really write, "Just say your [sic] married"?  Now who is being silly?  Just tell the IRS you're married on your tax return when you're not and see how that works out.

Assuming your presupposition is correct; why can heterosexuals marry while you're in favor of discriminating against homosexuals based upon their sexual orientation?

(05-27-2015, 04:35 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Single parenting is awful.  And has been a blight on society.   It's a shame how many kids have had to grow up in a single parent homes.    But that excuse isn't enough to say 2 mom's or 2 dads is ideal.   Yeah I guess it's better than no parents...   But nothing Beats a mom and a dad.  And the only people who dont think so.... Never expierenced it ...

There is no banning.   But we should educate that having a mom and a dad is ideal for children.  Exceptions to violence ofc.

I experienced a mom and a dad.  Dad was an excellent example of a bad example.  A single parent or two moms would have been better.

It is a damn shame so many kids have grown up in single parent homes because heterosexuals can't follow the divorce rules in the Bible.  Why aren't there religious divorce ceremonies?  When ya'll can follow your own rules then maybe you can tell others who they can and can't marry.

(05-27-2015, 04:41 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I do not believe a private citizen or business should be forced to comply with any regulation forcing service to anyone.   There are a variety of valid reasons to not provide service to anyone.   And regardless ... It's their choice who they wanna do business with of they exclude people then they face the issue of losing business and going out of business.    

Individual rights trump all.  Because we all have the same individual rights.   It's the ONLY "fair" way.

Which means you support discrimination in the name of freedom at the expense of justice.  Individual rights aren't unlimited.

(05-27-2015, 04:46 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Huckabee is Teddy Roosevelt ... Gonna tell you how to live, gonna tell you what's best for you.   A Teddy Roosevelt progressive.  

He doesn't speak for me? I am a christian who believes in God but I have made it clear .... Your salvation is your business, and mine is mine.   So I don't advocate forcing my beliefs on anyon else.... In my view they will have their awakening when God speaks to them.  

Stats have shown atheists are losing numbers.  So as you get older you get in touch with your spiritual self.

You have completely missed the point.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/07/3643680/florida-adoption-affirm-homosexuality/

Here a politician explains the motives of his vote, “I don’t hate anybody. I don’t want to discriminate against anybody. I’m not phobic, but I simply can’t affirm homosexuality. My compass won’t go there, knowing what I know biblically."

He cast his vote based upon the Bible.  If you think this is strictly a government ban in which religion doesn't play a part you are fooling yourself or naive.

(05-27-2015, 12:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Look at blacks .... Their struggle can be related to single parent homes.

Seriously?  Can you tell me what you call stereotypes based upon race?  I'll give you a hint.  It rhymes with racism.

(05-27-2015, 12:18 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So why get married?

For the same reasons you did.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-27-2015, 04:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not to put too fine a point on this, but not having unprotected sex is even better than being in a monogamous relationship.

Not having sex outside of a monogamous relationship is very good too.

But just allowing same sex marriage won't solve the problem.  As I said earlier it might allow more within the community to stay in relationships but the ones who want to screw around will.  Same as straight people.

Good points.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-27-2015, 03:39 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I advocate for not legitimizing same-sex marriage. Legitimizing it says your sexually deviant behavior is "ok", it's "not ok", there's consequences associated with using your body in ways that it was not designed to be used.

The end results is the same, both result in deaths from diseases that are spread into the general population.
You specifically said: "how much harm can come from the public health with only a small percentage of children not being vaccinated."
It's the same as saying: How much harm can come from such a small percentage of homosexual's sexually deviant behavior.
I showed you via charts straight from the government's websites how much harm it does create.
Butt please continue to believe that you're not in the double standard crowd.


I'm not religious so I can't "preach" in the literal sense. By being against homosexuality, I am not glorifying homosexuality.


Yes, 13 year olds got included, I didn't make the chart.
Isn't parents that do not want their children being vaccinated all about a lifestyle choice? Both have consequences that are deadly to the general population. What do you not understand about that? Or do you just want to deny the stats that I pulled straight from an un-biased Gov site because it doesn't fit your personal agenda?


No it doesn't cause it, butt it is the number one means of spreading it.

Have you ever experienced oral sex? Do you believe oral sex is deviant sexual behavior? According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice consensual oral sex between two heterosexual adults is a crime.

[fredtoast]

Marriage causes AIDS?

What am I missing here?

What about all of the STDs spread by heterosexual sex? Do we need to outlaw heterosexual marriage in order to decrease those health risks?


This is the silliest argument I have ever heard.

"IF THEY CAN'T GET MARRIED THEY CAN'T SPREAD AIDS!!!!!"

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-27-2015, 07:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  Do we need to outlaw heterosexual marriage in order to decrease those health risks?

Unfortunately I don't think outlawing heterosexual marriage will keep people from having kids.

[*bfine32*]

Just when you think you've heard everything on these boards you hear something new.

The latest is allowing gay marriage will cut down on the prevalence of diseases among homosexuals.

Am I reading this right?