|
On June 30 2015 00:03 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 13:57 Grand Symphony wrote:On June 29 2015 13:51 Kickstart wrote:
I honestly try to keep away from most places that discuss this because in most online places the only people bothering to come on and rant are the fundies. But even from this thread you can see they are already going on about different issues relating to 'gays' in general. Or pulling nonsense like 'the gays wont be happy with just this victory' or equally silly things. They would prefer that the entire issue was dealt with like it was not long ago where society in general didn't want to know about it and if they found out about it the involved parties were expected to either kill themselves, go to prison, or be subjected to whatever other punishments were deemed appropriate. Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses. I've seen this argument before from opponents of homosexuality, and I've never understood it. Why are conservatives all across the country suddenly showing concern for the rectums and overall health of gay men in this country? I'm pretty sure, if they are participating in homosexual sex, gay men are familiar with the process and know what risks it entails. I don't see anyone in this camp making similar efforts to protect smokers from destroying their lungs with their "unnatural ways" or alcoholics from destroying their livers. People are allowed to do unhealthy things in the name of freedom, that's what we're all about isn't it? So admit it, you don't actually give a shit about the health of homosexual men, you are just looking for another excuse to argue that it is immoral, unnatural, or disgusting. And that's pretty pathetic.
Well a few posts above you someone quoted his actual, full-fledged argument, so I don't think you really need to 'read between the lines' here. I would celebrate these posts if anything; so long as the studies are legitimate they point out a real problem that gay people should generally be aware of. That's only a good thing; I mean if a doctor posted this I think a lot of people would have radically different reactions, yet the message of the post is the exact same, and its a helpful message that promotes safe sex.
So, uh, thanks to Grand Symphony. We'll do our best to help inform gay people about the dangers of sex without a condom, so that their marriages can be safe and happy ones. Also helpful reading material for Mr. Symphony, about the difference between civil marriage as a legal institution and the only alternative thus far, civil unions. Religion is something totally separate! Link
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 29 2015 13:57 Grand Symphony wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 13:51 Kickstart wrote:
I honestly try to keep away from most places that discuss this because in most online places the only people bothering to come on and rant are the fundies. But even from this thread you can see they are already going on about different issues relating to 'gays' in general. Or pulling nonsense like 'the gays wont be happy with just this victory' or equally silly things. They would prefer that the entire issue was dealt with like it was not long ago where society in general didn't want to know about it and if they found out about it the involved parties were expected to either kill themselves, go to prison, or be subjected to whatever other punishments were deemed appropriate. Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
Sexual Orientation and Cancer Rates
More than 7,200 women and nearly 3,700 men reported being diagnosed with cancer as an adult. When the scientists looked at specific cancer types, they found some differences by sexual orientation.
Gay men had significantly lower rates of prostate cancer but higher rates of other cancers.
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20110509/cancer-diagnosis-rates-differ-for-gays-heterosexuals
The rectum is not designed for sex.
Prostate gland says hi
|
Whether or not buttfucking is unhealthy (seriously, how could it be healthy?) is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
First of all, straights do it too. Guys get finger banged by their girlfriends all the time, some even get dildoed.
Secondly, health issues don't determine if something is legal or not, especially not in the US. I'm pretty sure high fructose corn syrup and tobacco kill more people than enjoying the occasional ass-play.
|
This thread has gone amazing places. I look forward to the debate of gay sex vs fake sugar and booze. I would also point out that the sun isn't healthy either.
|
I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
|
On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote:
I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
You might want to look up how that process works before you throw around claims like that.
|
On June 30 2015 01:50 Plansix wrote:
This thread has gone amazing places. I look forward to the debate of gay sex vs fake sugar and booze. I would also point out that the sun isn't healthy either.
The sun is incredibly healthy for you, in moderation.
|
On June 30 2015 02:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 01:50 Plansix wrote:
This thread has gone amazing places. I look forward to the debate of gay sex vs fake sugar and booze. I would also point out that the sun isn't healthy either. The sun is incredibly healthy for you, in moderation.
US Supreme Court: Gay is OK, in Moderation
|
On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote:
I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected.
|
On June 30 2015 02:22 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote:
I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president). Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected.
No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions.
And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation?
Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding?
There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances.
|
On June 30 2015 02:41 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 02:22 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote:
I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president). Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected. No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions. And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation? Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding? There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances.
Judicial activism is the worst for the majority. For minorities that are ignored by the majority or straight up repressed, its pretty great. The process you are talking about could take 10-15 years or longer depending on how long the legislator remains dysfunctional.
Of course, when folks are not part of the group who's basic rights are being denied, it is easy to complain about activist judges.
|
And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation?
The way of interpreting the constitution has to change every generation or two, simply because in time, things make us think differently. Rules get outdated, ideologies change and paradigms shift. If you don't update your constitution every so often, you'll become North Korea's brother really fast.
|
On June 30 2015 02:41 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 02:22 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote:
I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president). Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected. No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions. And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation? Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding? There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances.
Pragmatically they ended it in one fell swoop rather than dragging it out ruling marriage bans unconstitutional one at a time at the expense of the citizens and their tax dollars. In case you haven't noticed, gay marriage bans have a terrible success rate in federal/supreme court. Delaying the inevitable to pander to moral panic is not the supreme court's job. States were infringing on the rights of the federal government and now that has been rectified.
Also, on the butthurt part about "no constitutional basis", the majority holds that there is a constitutional basis, as do the majority of federal courts. Try not to be a sore loser 
|
On June 30 2015 03:05 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation? The way of interpreting the constitution has to change every generation or two, simply because in time, things make us think differently. Rules get outdated, ideologies change and paradigms shift. If you don't update your constitution every so often, you'll become North Korea's brother really fast.
Even Scalia said the Constitution was a dead document for him and would remain so until he left the bench. He never precludes that it can't be a living document for other justices or the person who replaces him.
|
On June 30 2015 01:48 SixStrings wrote:
Whether or not buttfucking is unhealthy (seriously, how could it be healthy?) is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
First of all, straights do it too. Guys get finger banged by their girlfriends all the time, some even get dildoed.
Secondly, health issues don't determine if something is legal or not, especially not in the US. I'm pretty sure high fructose corn syrup and tobacco kill more people than enjoying the occasional ass-play.
The answer to your question is right above your post I guess. And yeah you're completely right on your second point. I'm always amazed when people use "it's not healthy" arguments to discriminate individuals based on some practices they do, while ignoring completely wayyyy more prevalent and costly health issues.
|
On June 30 2015 02:41 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 02:22 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote:
I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president). Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected. No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions. And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation? Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding? There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances.
State governments were discriminating against gay couples by refusing them the state and federal benefits tied to marriage that are given to straight couples.
This is a textbook violation of the 14th amendment.
Oh, and it's some pretty weak logic to say that, "4 judges dissented and agreed with me, therefore I'm right" when more judges on that very same court disagreed with you, as did a whole lot of other judges in lower courts.
|
Can anyone link me some ridiculously stupid real articles against gay marriage. I love to read stuff like that it makes me laugh.
|
I hope people realise that although it's a huge victory, it's far from over: there are still many LGBT issues with legal aspects, for instance, regarding discrimination at work (including being fired), LGBT adoption, and especially transgender issues (in particular, many states not allowing one to get their gendermarker changed on their birth certificate, not even after them having had gender reassignment surgery).
|
|
|
That's essentially an article saying it is what it is, it's worked for all these years, no reason to change anything. Same with its comments, pretty apalling display of closemindedness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
