Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[Jon Miller]

There is no reason to attack Ben on the point of STDs, there are many many studies showing that unsafe sex is extremely high among gay males (I have no clue about gay females).

Not sure if there is any community of homosexuals that have had society supported marriage for any length of time, though.

JM

[Kontiki]

Ben's whole argument really rests on the assumption that you can stop people from being gay, or at the very least, force them to be celibate and/or pretend they're straight.

[Drake Tungsten]

Gay marriage just ALLOWS it... not promote it.

The accompanying tax breaks don't count as "promotion"? Stop being a ******...

[MrFun]

There is no reason to attack Ben on the point of STDs, there are many many studies showing that unsafe sex is extremely high among gay males (I have no clue about gay females).

Not sure if there is any community of homosexuals that have had society supported marriage for any length of time, though.

JM

I remember in a news report interview one time, that someone (who is an experienced, knowledgeable activist raising awareness of HIV/AIDS) said that among minority races such as blacks, Hispanics, that HIV/AIDS is a heterosexual disease much more so now days.

[Jon Miller]

It shifted heavily that way, but I heard that after the 90s that many gay men returned to risky behaviors.

And I agree with Drake that gay marriage is promotion, but I want to promote long term stable relationships among gay men and women.

JM
(Stay safe Asher and MrFun!)

[Drake Tungsten]

I want to promote long term stable relationships among gay men and women.

That's a perfectly defensible position.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't want to promote either. **** shoving my preferences down other people's throats. If they want to **** everything that moves then good for them.

[Ming]

Gay marriage just ALLOWS it... not promote it.

The accompanying tax breaks don't count as "promotion"? Stop being a ******...

Stop being a moron... those same tax breaks are available to straights.
It's not like running an ad campaign to promote gay sex as BK and you are suggesting.

[Drake Tungsten]

those same tax breaks are available to straights.

Yes, to promote marriage. You ****.

[Ming]

As always... insults from you instead of real thoughts.
Those tax breaks were originally put in place to get votes... like all things political.

[Drake Tungsten]

Prove it. I think you're lying.

[Ming]

Prove that it is meant to promote marriage... I think your lying.

[Drake Tungsten]

Intent doesn't matter with regards to the issue of whether or not tax breaks promote marriage. The mere existence of an economic incentive promotes marriage, whether it was intended or not.

[Berzerker]

You are assuming there's only two ways. Gays in a long term relationship, and gay people who are not.

Obviously there will be cheaters and long term relationships we'd call "open" (swingers etc) but the ones who do settle down will have fewer problems. And their example helps reduce risky behavior within the community, thats how stigmas are created and evolve - think about the stigmas married people have created for risky behavior and how they apply to single people too. The people in stable relationships are the best pathmakers for the people engaged in risky behavior. Thats the logic of parents raising kids... Therefore outlawing and demonizing gays and gay marriage reduces stability and health...

From a health standpoint, there are 4. Gays who are celibate, gay people who get married to a woman and have kids, gay people in a long term relationship, and gay people who are not.

Plenty of overlap, Larry Craig of Idaho - married with children. Why did we end up with that situation? Demonize gays and many gays will try to live as straights to avoid the persecution.

The ranking is 2,1,3,4, with 4 being the worst outcome of all. If you are advising a gay man on how he can keep healthy, 2 and 1 are his best choices. They may not like it, but seldom does anyone like a health regime which fosters diet and exercise either.

2 is living a lie, that aint healthy and we can see thru Larry Craig and his family where that can lead. 1 is unrealistic, as Jesus said, let those who can, do, but those who cannot are not obliged. I dont know where the Vatican got the idea anyone, even priests, has to remain celibate - that was optional with Jesus. Now you divided those options up into 2 you consider "healthy" and 2 that are not, I think the best option is 3 and it certainly does not deserve grouping with option 4. But this is all basically true for heterosexuality, single straight people engage in riskier behavior than married people, and married people raising children engage in even less risky behavior. Old people engage in the least risk... Like me

Well the other part of the argument, is that if you encourage something you get more of it. If fewer people get married, then the health outcome for society as a whole has a worse outcome.

Thats the same argument, better health = more marriages = more stability = more monogamy. So why outlaw gay marriage?

[Berzerker]

Intent doesn't matter with regards to the issue of whether or not tax breaks promote marriage. The mere existence of an economic incentive promotes marriage, whether it was intended or not.

why does it matter?

I mean, I dont like any law thats written for one person or group at the expense of others - kinda defeats the notion of equal treatment. But if its good to promote marriage with tax breaks, why does it become bad when the married people are gay? More marriages enhances health, that certainly makes up for the tax revenue lost to the promotion. Frankly I'd argue against tax breaks for gay marriage because gays are usually not tied down with kids so they're more able to make money. The gays who are raising kids get the tax breaks... Thats if I was a social engineer