Is anyone actually harmed by gay marriage?

[Freiheit Reich]

Actually, I think the best situation is abolishing any govt. involvement in all marriages.

The 2nd best solution is abolishing govt. recognition of same-sex marriages.
The 2nd option would have a better chance of being approved by the general public although it seems this is seen as too moderate. Most people are either anti-gay marriage or they are pro-govt. recognized gay marriage. My idea is a compromise between both sides.

1. What's so good about that 2nd option?
2. How is abolish civil marriage or not recognizing same-sex marriages compromise?

2. Because it is allowing gay marriage to occur, the govt. just ignores them instead of punishing gays for them. In some nations, gays would be arrested if they tried to get publically get married to each other.

This is more tolerant than several nations:

http://76crimes.com/76-countries-where- ... s-illegal/

[Mkuki]

Can't straight people get AIDS too?

Going by numbers, there's more straight people with AIDS than there are homosexuals with AIDS. Therefore AIDS is a heterosexual thing.

Except homosexuals are affected by it at much higher rates than heterosexuals.

[Distruzio]

Especially when you know that the largest sects don't take so militant a stance on the matter as the Protestants.

The Protestants base their beliefs on private interpretation, so you can't really group them all into the homophobic group.

So... you didn't seewutIdidthere?

[Luveria]

Going by numbers, there's more straight people with AIDS than there are homosexuals with AIDS. Therefore AIDS is a heterosexual thing.

Except homosexuals are affected by it at much higher rates than heterosexuals.

Going by that logic:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM),1 particularly young black/African American MSM, are most seriously affected by HIV.

So AIDS is really a black disease, not a gay one.

[Mkuki]

Except homosexuals are affected by it at much higher rates than heterosexuals.

Going by that logic:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM),1 particularly young black/African American MSM, are most seriously affected by HIV.

So AIDS is really a black disease, not a gay one.

I'm not going by any logic. I'm providing facts.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

The Protestants base their beliefs on private interpretation, so you can't really group them all into the homophobic group.

So... you didn't seewutIdidthere?

*carefully examines post*

Uh... I'm not seeing it.

[Luveria]

Going by that logic:



So AIDS is really a black disease, not a gay one.

I'm not going by any logic. I'm providing facts.

And my point was heterosexuals are also affected by AIDS.

[Blasveck]

Going by numbers, there's more straight people with AIDS than there are homosexuals with AIDS. Therefore AIDS is a heterosexual thing.

Except homosexuals are affected by it at much higher rates than heterosexuals.

Note "rate"

If you have 1000 heterosexuals, and 100 of them got AIDS, that you be a 10 percent affliction rate.
If you have 100 homosexuals, and 20 of them got AIDS, that you be a 20 percent affliction rate, even though it affects more heterosexuals than homosexuals.

[4years]

I heard an "argument" per-se, the other day, that AIDS is God's punishment for the gays.

He's a bit cray.

If AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuals, then I now endorse Satanism.

Archbishop Tutu will be worshiping Satan with you, I'm sure. As for me, I wonder if a coup d'etat against god would work better if a human instead if an angel tried it.

[Galloism]

Going by that logic:



So AIDS is really a black disease, not a gay one.

I'm not going by any logic. I'm providing facts.

I'm 90% sure this statement was made unironically.

[Freiheit Reich]

Actually, I think the best situation is abolishing any govt. involvement in all marriages.

The 2nd best solution is abolishing govt. recognition of same-sex marriages.

The 1st one is not very likely to pass (people love big govt. and feel their marriage is worthless unless daddy govt. says it matters)

The 2nd option would have a better chance of being approved by the general public although it seems this is seen as too moderate. Most people are either anti-gay marriage or they are pro-govt. recognized gay marriage. My idea is a compromise between both sides.

Marriage has hundreds of legal benefits. You know nothing about marriage, to say it's worthless unless it's government recognized. That is ridiculous considering marriage is a legal contract with hundreds of benefits and you don't seem to understand that concept at all.

Marriage isn't going to be abolished. Your idea isn't a compromise. Your idea is because you are so hostile to the thought of gays being married, you would rather see marriage abolished entirely.

There are legal benefits to marriage and legal disadvantages as well. Look at the headaches when married couples try to divorce. Many couples spend thousands to get divorced. My idea would eliminate this mess.

Marriage is not worthless if the govt. ignores it. Marriage is about pleasing God, your family, and telling the world you love each other and are committed to each other. The govt. is not needed for these benefits.

Power of attorney can be obtained. I want to end benefits for married people, it seems unfair they should get benefits over unmarried couples.

I am against govt. marriage but not because I oppose gays. Gay marriage is actually a minor political issue for me since it doesn't affect me. It seems to get heavyweight in NSG though compared to many other political issues.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Except homosexuals are affected by it at much higher rates than heterosexuals.

Note "rate"

If you have 1000 heterosexuals, and 100 of them got AIDS, that you be a 10 percent affliction rate.
If you have 100 homosexuals, and 20 of them got AIDS, that you be a 20 percent affliction rate, even though it affects more heterosexuals than homosexuals.

And? It means that homosexuals, on average, are more likely to get AIDS.

[Lupelia]

If AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuals, then I now endorse Satanism.

Archbishop Tutu will be worshiping Satan with you, I'm sure. As for me, I wonder if a coup d'etat against god would work better if a human instead if an angel tried it.

Maybe Satan never couped god in the first place? Maybe god struck down Satan for not agreeing with his homophobic plan for the world?

[Luveria]

Note "rate"

If you have 1000 heterosexuals, and 100 of them got AIDS, that you be a 10 percent affliction rate.
If you have 100 homosexuals, and 20 of them got AIDS, that you be a 20 percent affliction rate, even though it affects more heterosexuals than homosexuals.

And? It means that homosexuals, on average, are more likely to get AIDS.

Why does everyone overlook how blacks are the most likely to get AIDS?

[Blasveck]

Note "rate"

If you have 1000 heterosexuals, and 100 of them got AIDS, that you be a 10 percent affliction rate.
If you have 100 homosexuals, and 20 of them got AIDS, that you be a 20 percent affliction rate, even though it affects more heterosexuals than homosexuals.

And? It means that homosexuals, on average, are more likely to get AIDS.

The original post, from Luv I believe, claimed that there are more cases of AIDS among heterosexuals than homosexuals. Mkuki was talking about how homosexuals are affected at a higher rate, of course, because there is a smaller population of homosexuals than hetero. I just felt it needed pointing out.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

And? It means that homosexuals, on average, are more likely to get AIDS.

Why does everyone overlook how blacks are the most likely to get AIDS?

I don't and I'm not.

[Blasveck]

Archbishop Tutu will be worshiping Satan with you, I'm sure. As for me, I wonder if a coup d'etat against god would work better if a human instead if an angel tried it.

Maybe Satan never couped god in the first place? Maybe god struck down Satan for not agreeing with his homophobic plan for the world?

So THAT'S why Satan makes people gay.

He wants them all for himself...

[Mkuki]

I'm not going by any logic. I'm providing facts.

And my point was heterosexuals are also affected by AIDS.

And I never said otherwise.

And? It means that homosexuals, on average, are more likely to get AIDS.

Why does everyone overlook how blacks are the most likely to get AIDS?

If you really want to sound like an asshole, which you are doing a good job of right now, Luveria, then we could look at the actual information and see that white, homosexual males suffer the highest rates of AIDS contraction.

It's a good thing we aren't doing that, though.

Can we move this thread back on track, now?

[Luveria]

And my point was heterosexuals are also affected by AIDS.

And I never said otherwise.

I said more heterosexuals are affected, not that it affects heterosexuals at a higher rate.

If you really want to sound like an asshole, which you are doing a good job of right now, Luveria, then we could look at the actual information and see that white, homosexual males suffer the highest rates of AIDS contraction.

It's a good thing we aren't doing that, though.

See above post.

[Microsol]

America.

[Rocopurr]

America.

Not really, no.

[Liriena]

Going by numbers, there's more straight people with AIDS than there are homosexuals with AIDS. Therefore AIDS is a heterosexual thing.

Except homosexuals are affected by it at much higher rates than heterosexuals.

In the United States, at least, yes.

[Luveria]

America.

No, it isn't. But LGBT people in the USA are harmed by same-sex marriage not being legal.

[Liriena]

America.

Nope.

[Liriena]

Maybe Satan never couped god in the first place? Maybe god struck down Satan for not agreeing with his homophobic plan for the world?

So THAT'S why Satan makes people gay.

He wants them all for himself...

Well, can't blame him. Lots of cute gay guys out there.