Ireland becomes first country to legalize gay marriage via pop vote

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-27-2015, 09:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

Too be fair someone else was suggesting that allowing same sex marriage would INCREASE the prevalence of diseases among homosexuals. But I agree with you it's a ridiculous argument either way. Allowing same sex marriage is going to have 0 effect on the rate of STD's among homosexuals or the population as a whole (someone else was suggesting that one also).

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-27-2015, 09:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

What you read was a facetious comment to a ridiculous argument.

[treee]

(05-27-2015, 09:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

Does that not logically make sense to you? You don't think legalizing gay marriage will lead to more monogamy in the gay community? Would that not reduce the chance of getting an STD?

[BmorePat87]

(05-27-2015, 09:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What you read was a facetious comment to a ridiculous argument.

Yea, he laid it on pretty thick too.

[GMDino]

(05-27-2015, 09:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

No you are not.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2015, 10:10 PM)treee Wrote: Does that not logically make sense to you? You don't think legalizing gay marriage will lead to more monogamy in the gay community? Would that not reduce the chance of getting an STD?

Not to open a can of worms; but no. Do you suggest a piece of paper will make homosexual couples more committed to each other? Sorta like suggesting "Hey we can get married, so I'm going to play the field until we can".

Marriage would affect heterosexual couples much more in this monogamy slant, mainly because a high percentage of hetero marriages are based on religion and the textbook states Adultery is a sin. Not sure the gay couple is that concerned with those and other lessons in the textbook.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2015, 09:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What you read was a facetious comment to a ridiculous argument.

(05-27-2015, 10:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, he laid it on pretty thick too.

(05-27-2015, 10:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: No you are not.

Looks like a few more are being "facetious".

(05-27-2015, 02:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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.

(05-27-2015, 03:45 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Therefore, the more homosexuals in monogamous marriages would actually decrease the spread of HIV by reducing the number of sexual partners and promiscuity.

(05-27-2015, 03:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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. S

(05-27-2015, 10:10 PM)treee Wrote: Does that not logically make sense to you? You don't think legalizing gay marriage will lead to more monogamy in the gay community? Would that not reduce the chance of getting an STD?

[BmorePat87]

(05-27-2015, 10:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not to open a can of worms; but no. Do you suggest a piece of paper will make homosexual couples more committed to each other? Sorta like suggesting "Hey we can get married, so I'm going to play the field until we can".

Marriage would affect heterosexual couples much more in this monogamy slant, mainly because a high percentage of hetero marriages are based on religion and the textbook states Adultery is a sin. Not sure the gay couple is that concerned with those and other lessons in the textbook.

A couple of things. The idea of a (presumably) life long binding contract with each other recognized by the government means the same exact things to a married gay couple as it does to a married straight couple. Likewise, the flexibility that unmarried straight couples feel in their relationships is the same with gay couples. You're not committed so infidelity is more likely.

Cheating on your spouse is also just a horrible thing to do. I think most people who are faithful are faithful because they don't want to hurt their spouse, not because some people wrote it in a book thousands of years ago. Suggesting that most people who stay faithful do so for religious reasons is just ***** stupid.

That aside, a majority of gay people identify with a religion (granted a slim majority,but a majority nonetheless), so would those religious reasons not be as important? All people sin, right? There's really no contradiction in being religious and gay. My gay brother is very active in his local parish. While he still attends Catholic mass, he has become more active in the local Episcopal church given their more open views.

[BmorePat87]

and if we want to say that men cheat more, only 13% more of straight men are religious than gay men (64% to 51%). Also, as many religious leaders have shown us, claiming that your religious doesn't mean shit when it comes to following those beliefs.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2015, 10:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A couple of things. The idea of a (presumably) life long binding contract with each other recognized by the government means the same exact things to a married gay couple as it does to a married straight couple. Likewise, the flexibility that unmarried straight couples feel in their relationships is the same with gay couples. You're not committed so infidelity is more likely.

Cheating on your spouse is also just a horrible thing to do. I think most people who are faithful are faithful because they don't want to hurt their spouse, not because some people wrote it in a book thousands of years ago. Suggesting that most people who stay faithful do so for religious reasons is just ***** stupid.

That aside, a majority of gay people identify with a religion (granted a slim majority,but a majority nonetheless), so would those religious reasons not be as important? All people sin, right? There's really no contradiction in being religious and gay. My gay brother is very active in his local parish. While he still attends Catholic mass, he has become more active in the local Episcopal church given their more open views.

Are you being facetious?

[Belsnickel]

(05-27-2015, 10:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Looks like a few more are being "facetious".

Well, not mine. Though I did say there would not likely be any change in the rate of infection.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2015, 10:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, not mine. Though I did say there would not likely be any change in the rate of infection.

....While decreasing the spread?

[BmorePat87]

(05-27-2015, 10:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are you being facetious?

No, but Fred was. He laid it on pretty thick too. I honestly didn't read anyone's post prior to that, though, as anyone who quoted Mike M was skipped over.

I did just read everyone's responses. Dino would be incorrect in saying that you read that wrong assuming you meant STDs. I agree with what they said. If we accept that married couples are more monogamous and that monogamy leads to less STDs, then gay marriage would mean less STDs among the gay community. It makes sense.

Anything you want to address about my previous post or should I assume the response I am quoting was you agreeing with it?

[BmorePat87]

(05-27-2015, 11:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ....While decreasing the spread?

He said there won't likely be a change. However, if there happened to be one, it would be a decrease and not an increase as Mike suggested.

Honestly, I'm surprised that you're more shocked that people said STDs would decrease with gay marriage than you are with Mike saying that AIDS would increase in all communities (straight children included as he suggested). One follows logic while the other makes no god damn sense. But not making sense is expected of Mike M.

[Belsnickel]

(05-27-2015, 11:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ....While decreasing the spread?

No. That there would not likely be a change, though if there was, it would be a decrease.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2015, 11:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He said there won't likely be a change. However, if there happened to be one, it would be a decrease and not an increase as Mike suggested.

(05-27-2015, 11:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. That there would not likely be a change, though if there was, it would be a decrease.

My bad I read this and thought Matt was suggesting same-sex marriage would decrease the rate:

(05-27-2015, 11:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It has already been pointed out that marriage promotes monogamy which would slow down the rates.

Obviously he was just saying.

[GMDino]

(05-27-2015, 10:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Looks like a few more are being "facetious".

(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.

I am suggesting it may help...although how much depends on the people.

But given your strict anti-gay marriage posts you can take it however you would like.

[GMDino]

(05-27-2015, 11:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, but Fred was. He laid it on pretty thick too. I honestly didn't read anyone's post prior to that, though, as anyone who quoted Mike M was skipped over.

I did just read everyone's responses. Dino would be incorrect in saying that you read that wrong assuming you meant STDs. I agree with what they said. If we accept that married couples are more monogamous and that monogamy leads to less STDs, then gay marriage would mean less STDs among the gay community. It makes sense.

Anything you want to address about my previous post or should I assume the response I am quoting was you agreeing with it?

Honestly I didn't even go back and look...Larry is usually just wrong.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2015, 11:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Honestly I didn't even go back and look...Larry is usually just wrong.  

Guy, you actually had one of the posts I quoted.

[GMDino]

(05-27-2015, 11:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My bad I read this and thought Matt was suggesting same-sex marriage would decrease the rate:

Obviously he was just saying.

I am very sarcastic...and I love irony and satire.

But what you try to do with your "responses" is just brilliant trolling. Take a line or a phrase and try to prove the emphasis to make a point. You must work for hours at it.

99% of people can read those two sentences and understand exactly what Matt meant and said...but because it goes against your stance on "wrong sex" you have to try and make it seem like everyone ELSE is wrong.

Just brilliant on your part.

Wrong. But brilliant.