It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More than $83 million spent on Prop 8

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko


I'm sorry sir, but this source you keep posting is obviously, blatantly propoganda. It's sad that something trying so hard to be Christian can come so far from being that.

From your source:


* It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us


And then:


Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.


So in the four years since gay marriage became legal in Mass., approximately 1.5 more people got infected with HIV/AIDS? That is actually an amazing reduction in infection rates.



Isn't just like a gay marriage supporter to to put a whole shoe store in his mouth regarding Christians.

Isn't just like a gay marriage supporter to think it's always about homophobia and hate when anyone tries to tell them the facts of their disease prone high risk lifestyle and the increased health care costs their brand of "love" caring and attachment ends up costing all of us.

You call it propaganda, in fact even making this information public can be called a hate crime if gays are offended by it.

They can call it anything they want, but if the rest of you with even HALF a wit in your brains were smart and if I have said anything at all you should pay attention to, it is the facts I have given and they are many, for not making the same mistake allowing Gay Marriage.



I'm sorry sir, but this source you keep posting is obviously, blatantly propoganda. It's sad that something trying so hard to be Christian can come so far from being that.

Open wide smart guy and enjoy the shoe leather

Massachusetts Hispanics, Blacks Have Higher Infant Mortality, HIV/AIDS-Related Mortality Rates, Report Finds
Main Category: Pediatrics / Children's Health
Also Included In: HIV / AIDS
Article Date: 30 Nov 2007 - 6:00 PDT


Hispanics and blacks living in Massachusetts are disproportionately affected by diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, and have a higher infant mortality rate, according to a report released Wednesday by the state Executive Office of Health and Human Services

www.mass.gov...

the Boston Globe www.boston.com...> reports (Smith, Boston Globe, 11/29). The 300-page report is being called the most comprehensive data available on health care disparities in the state, according to the Springfield Republican www.masslive.com.../base/news-11/1196324505260350.xml&coll=1

The report found that Hispanics in western Massachusetts had the highest mortality rate from HIV/AIDS-related causes of any race in the state. From 2003 to 2005, there were 29.3 deaths from such causes among blacks per 100,000 residents -- almost 10 times the state average of three HIV/AIDS-related deaths per 100,000 residents.



[David Holtgrave, PhD] Well, Jesse, the HIV transmission rate is really a measure of the speed at which the HIV epidemic is spreading in the United States. It also can be used to help us gauge the success of HIV prevention messages. And, in epidemiological terms, what we mean is that the transmission rate is defined as follows -- for every 100 people living with HIV, the transmission rate is the number of infections that are transmitted to HIV negative partners. So if we think about 100 people living with HIV, it's the number of infections among partners in a given year.
www2a.cdc.gov...


Now you obviously have no clue about how these HIV / AIDS rates are calculated so do yourself a favor, before you think you know what you are talking about, it is best to KNOW what you are talking about, before ACTING like you know what you are talking about.

Fact is, YOU DON'T.

Same facts Center of Disease Control, Rates the CIA Fact Book and Mass, own Boston Globe



This entry gives an estimate of the percentage of adults (aged 15-49) living with HIV/AIDS. The adult prevalence rate is calculated by dividing the estimated number of adults living with HIV/AIDS at yearend by the total adult population at yearend.
www.cia.gov...



Before Gay Marriage:
As of July 1, 2003, there were 14,160 people living with HIV/AIDS in Massachusetts.
• The majority of people living with HIV/AIDS in Massachusetts are male (71%).
• Twenty-seven percent of people living with HIV/AIDS in Massachusetts are Black
(non-Hispanic), 24% Hispanic, 1% Asian/Pacific Islander, and less than 1% are



After Gay Marriage:
As of October 1, 2008,• ithere are 25,000 – 27,000 individuals currently living with HIV/AIDS in the Commonwealth.

www.mass.gov... ces+A+-+J&sid=Eeohhs2&b=terminalcontent&f=dph_cdc_g_aids_program&csid=Eeohhs2


Any Questions?

Didn't think so.

you may apologize anytime however, your arrogance gives me the impression I shouldn't,

hold my breath



[edit on 5-2-2009 by Aermacchi]




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Please elaborate how I put my foot in my mouth. Please, in the source you list, name exactly where it talks about HIV infection in Hispanics and Blacks as it relates to gay marriage.

Please, elaborate as to how exactly HIV infections in minorities correlate to homosexual marriage. Or are you just trying desperately to connect dots that aren't there? Or is it that hispanic and black gays are the ones getting married and not the white ones? Elaborate for us, please!

While you were trying your best to insult me, you completely ignored the point of my post. I was pointing out how ridiculously wrong your "13 argument" own source is. It's not my fault you can't grasp the simple sarcasm I was using in pointing out how your own anti-gay source looks when under scrutiny.

Once again, I'll ask you to read slowly and take in my point:

YOUR 13 ARGUMENT SOURCE is the one that makes it look like HIV rates are practically in decline in Mass.

The rate at which Hispanics and Blacks acquire HIV HAS NO BEARING ON GAY MARRIAGE.

None of the sources you listed in your little tirade even MENTIONS homosexuality or gay marriage. Why? Because it has NOTHING to do with it, if it did it the rates would increase proportionately within all ethnic circles.


Now, exactly what should I be apologizing for? The fact that your original source is still laughably incorrect and untrue, or for the fact that minorities contract HIV at a faster rate than caucasians because of poorer access to education, lack of decent sexual protection, and higher incidence of drug use?

Please, I'll be waiting with bated breath.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Avenginggecko]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko

Now, exactly what should I be apologizing for? The fact that your original source is still laughably incorrect and untrue, or for the fact that minorities contract HIV at a faster rate than caucasians because of poorer access to education, lack of decent sexual protection, and higher incidence of drug use?

Please, I'll be waiting with bated breath.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Avenginggecko]


Oh I wasn't expecting you too Genius but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that while Hiv / AIDS has stablized and / or declined in all other states, the state of Mass. has had over a 30% increase in rates since Gay marriage. I know JUST a coincedence huh

yeah riiight.

As for the apology?? Pfft that is something I'd expect from a Christian and would get it but you???

ha ha Noooo

not you

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
This is what my interlocutors have been asking for and I am only too happy to give it to them

Enjoy the Reasoned rationality of critical thinking and undeniable logic

Best Arguments against Gay Marriage

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Gays are welcome to sharing caring, loving and attachching all they want

Gays can also get married as I have said no one is denying them that

BUT, two people of the same sex getting married cannot and their is a very logical reason for this.

IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!

DEAL WITH IT!



Well, Aermacchi, in your rabid diatribes, you seem very eager to respond to anything involving gay sexual contact, yet you completely dodge any arguments involving logic or a desire to live a life without government interference.

The closest you come is that oh-so-eloquent statement quoted above. (Which, mercifully, is almost free from spelling errors.)

Supporters of gay marriage are dealing with it - by attempting to change the law. Supporters of gay marriage are also attempting to explain to you how allowing gay marriage doesn't impact your life, and in a practical manner, increases your personal freedoms from government control.

Any time your counter-argument involves the type or frequency of homosexual contact, you're off message. If people are free as the please, and gays are free to have "all the caring, loving and attachching [sic] they want", then none of your statistics about gay sex are relevant. Plus, it just makes you look like a foolish bigot campaigning against all homosexuals everywhere, which isn't useful for discussion.

The issue at stake is liberty and equality. And your anti-gay marriage arguments sound dangerously akin to religious fundamentalists attempting to dictate how everyone else should live. If you cannot tolerate different people, you cannot expect respect and tolerance in return. And it's that tolerance that's at the root of the secular argument for gay marriage.

Somewhere up in this lengthy thread, you are caterwauling about being discriminated against. You're not being discriminated against, you're just making it extremely difficult for others to get along with you.

From a legal standpoint, there's an ugly slippery slope that comes into play any time we as citizens let the government define what we can or cannot do with our personal lives. And any time religious practice is the primary motivation behind a law, bad things inevitably follow. Keep the government out of my church, and keep the church out of my government, and the logical extension of that axiom allows for gays to get married. You don't have to like it, you don't have to approve, but since you're not gay, it's really not your battle to fight. It's a fairly simple chain of thought that you don't seem to follow.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by detroitslim
And your anti-gay marriage arguments sound dangerously akin to religious fundamentalists attempting to dictate how everyone else should live


No, wrong again, Remember, it is our 5000-year tradition YOU are trying to impose YOUR way on in an attempt to change what WE have voted to the tune of millions is the way we want it to stay. I cannot help it that gays cannot accept that but that is the difference between people who can tolerate rejection of ideas and those gays who cannot. I hope that they will learn the quality of humility and tolerance.


. Keep the government out of my church, and keep the church out of my government,


The Church is nice looking building usually with a steeple and I am a voter and that is why your not making any sense. Oh and by the way,, it's "OUR" Government, not yours.


since you're not gay, it's really not your battle to fight.


Nope but it is OURS to defend and that WE will tooth and nail.


If you cannot tolerate different people, you cannot expect respect and tolerance in return. And it's that tolerance that's at the root of the secular argument for gay marriage.


First, I don't EXPECT anything, life was given to us free of charge, so it doesn't owe us a dime. If you want to believe the Government should legislate attitudes, then be my guest but that would be another issue, I would fight hard to keep from ever becoming law.


Supporters of gay marriage are also attempting to explain to you how allowing gay marriage doesn't impact your life, and in a practical manner, increases your personal freedoms from government control.


I have already proven I have looked at this issue inside out, top to bottom and it doesn't hold up logically nor does it make for a logical argument in human, civil or equal rights and I have furnished an exhaustive comprehensive reference that quite frankly exploits the numerous flaws, failings, foibles and fables of the same sex marriage logical fallacy


Plus, it just makes you look like a foolish bigot campaigning against all homosexuals everywhere, which isn't useful for discussion.


No, and once again for the fifth time, it is only those advocating same sex marriage and if I didn't have a right to over issues like this, neither would you.


If people are free as the please, and gays are free to have "all the caring, loving and attachching [sic] they want", then none of your statistics about gay sex are relevant.


That is assuming I said that in the context of my opinion but I didn't. I said that in the context of what they are perfectly within their legal rights to do. I may not agree with it and the consequences that impact all of us may be the reason I don't but when someone says I would deny them those creature comforts, I can only say that which I must comply with under the law and accept it without prejudice. A philosophy Gays are unwilling to tolerate.



you completely dodge any arguments involving logic or a desire to live a life without government interference.


Guy, that flowery monosyllabic diatribe might bode well for you and the rest of those wanting to impose your will and redefine marriage but what you fail to understand is, OUR way of defining it is what you are trying to force YOUR way on, in an attempt to make it YOUR way.


you're just making it extremely difficult for others to get along with you.


And what is it you think you are being?

A walk to the ole fishin hole with Opie Taylor?

I am not here to make friends as much as I am for making a point where I see it has many, too timid by the protocols of the politically correct and allegedly progressive agenda to change public policy. That is their right,, same as mine.


the logical extension of that axiom allows gays to get married. You don't have to like it, you don't have to approve,


I don't even have to worry about it.

It's against the law,

Remember?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Haha wow.

I didnt think I would actually reply to this thread...but it seems that noone has REALLY gotten to my issue with gay marriage. I am gay and at a young age, precisely 19, and have never been so ridiculously disgusted by both parties. Pro-gay and anti-gay parties efforts at presuading the citizens of California really take the cake.

I for one have no problem accepting a domestic partnership, as the word marriage has been a religious act for many years and am fine with that. What I really want is the benefits that "married" couples get. If I get all those benefits in a domestic partnership then so be it, then I will get a domestic partnership. I in no way want to be associated with being heterosexual, because I am not. (That in no way means that I have anything negative to say about heterosexual relationships). The opportunities I want are the same legal benefits as legally married couples do, no matter what my partnership is called

Now for the Christian issue. Not once have I ever ran into a christian that thinks the act of receiving equal rights is wrong. They may say that gay "marriage" is wrong because it goes against their religious beliefs, and I totally agree. That is what they believe and thats it. Sure I can change that, but it would go against millions of peoples beliefs. Homosexuality is also an issue with most of the christians I have spoke to. Some believe it is wrong, some believe that it is okay, and others just dont know what to believe because the Bible never really gives a clear stance on the issue of being gay, nor will it ever. We may never now which is really right or wrong and will just have to forever live with the fact that there is always going to be someone thats different from who we are.

Now this thread has been a pointless 10 pages because there are some who will most likely never change their opinions on a subject and it is pointless to try and persuade them. People just have to agree to disagree.

I hope that in the near future we wont have to worry about these kinds of issues and let the government worry about more important things that effect all of humanity. I just dont know why we can not be equal. Let others frown upon you but never let yourself frown upon them. Thats what my great grandfather said to me, and thats definitely one of the things I hold most dear in my life. My acceptance.

All in all, I could really care less if people hate what I do, nor should they care if I hate what they do. What we really should care about is if our government is really giving equal opportunity to everyone no matter what others think. I dont see that happening.

Just as an FYI the one who has been gay bashing this entire time really needs to take a chill pill and agree to disagree.....the only reason you seem to have any authority is your constant and reptative attempts to covertly insult those of us who are gay, and reward those who are of the same sexual orientation as you are. Have you ever seen the Orah episode with the brown-eyed people against the blue-eyed and green-eyed people. You seem to have the same strategy that she had. I totally accept why you dont like gay marriage or gays for that matter, but please dont spread it across the entire internet. You say you want us gays to show some "class" and "sophistication" in our arguments, why dont you practice what you preach.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dances With Angels


So think about it, 83 million dollars to stop two consenting adults who love each other from getting married. Think about all that money these so called "christian" churches could have used to stop poverty and help depressed people around the world. But NO! Gay marriage killed the dinosaurs so we can't let it happen, EVER! (Sarcasm)

Saying this as a straight female, it still bothers me because people are entitled to have equal rights, regardless of sex, race, age, gender, religion, etc. Civil unions are just another way of saying, separate but equal. I though we were supposed to be over that forty years ago?

Allison

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Proposition 8 was more than a "gay rights" marriage issue. It was also about telling the courts that they cannot make laws and overturn laws passed by the people because they are politically incorrect.

Judges who act like legislators violate the Constitution just as much as Presidents/Governors that act like legislators or judges.

If marriage isn't just between one man and one woman, why can't a man have more than one wife?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
If marriage isn't just between one man and one woman, why can't a man have more than one wife?


A person's ability to enter into an exclusive contract with multiple parties is inherently a legal issue, and has nothing to do with this issue. The ability of two parties to sign an exclusive contract based on their sex is a civil rights issue, and isn't comparable.

Glad I could clear that up for you ^_^

[edit on 6-2-2009 by maus80]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Dances With Angels
 


As a Christian it amazes me how many people are deluded into thinking flaming "lust" is love! That's the whole point. And when does lust ever become perversion? Or is that word obsolete in our society if we put the love label on it?? Furthermore I hear "love" being abused even further in the name of a righteous God of the Bible to condone carnal lust by saying "God is Love, God is Love, God is Love, you -SNIP- Well God is also "righteousness", "pure unadulterated Love", and "Justice" in the light of wrong doing!! But you'll never hear that!!

Mod Edit: Please Review This Link



2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.
Terms and Conditions


[edit on 6-2-2009 by MemoryShock]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by maus80

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
If marriage isn't just between one man and one woman, why can't a man have more than one wife?


A person's ability to enter into an exclusive contract with multiple parties is inherently a legal issue, and has nothing to do with this issue. The ability of two parties to sign an exclusive contract based on their sex is a civil rights issue, and isn't comparable.

Glad I could clear that up for you ^_^

[edit on 6-2-2009 by maus80]



You may search the Constitution of the United States all you like and you will NOT find anywhere in there a "fundamental right to marry," or even for a mention of marriage.

There's no civil right to marry whomever you wish. Gay and lesbian couples aren't the only ones who can't get marriage licenses. You can't get a license to marry your brother or sister. You can't get a license to marry more than one person at a time. You can't get a license to marry a 9-year-old child or your horse or your car your boat or your son or daughter

Every man and woman has the exact same right to get married. It just has to be to an individual of the opposite sex who is of age, is not a close relative and is human. THAT IS IT! Gays don't want equal rights they want SPECIAL rights just for them and their "special love". Anyone with an iota of intelligence can feel sorry for them or pity them or sympathize with them but when you look at this for what it is, the idea this is an equal rights, civil rights or human rights issue is pure baloney and their whining about prop-8 is just plane sour grapes. I think they all need to grow up and get past this issue.

If men and women are treated the same, there's no sex discrimination unless you hold that gay men and lesbian women are the third and fourth genders. There's a lot of legal ground to plow between here and there.

Far less likely will one be to discover in the Constitution any "right" to marry whomever one wishes based on particular self-alleged varieties of sexuality alone.

The argument that it doesn't "impact" my life was never our argument, gays just assume this but regardless of whether it is or not, saying anything that doesn't impact my life has a right to get married is still a very very illogical reason to pass legislation to allow it.

Saying the Church should stay out of it is another silly argument when it is basically an Idea that has been performed by the same entity (the church) for over a millenia and Gays not only want to change it to their way but want that same church to shut up about it and not complain too.

in the same voice they get in our faces saying "Bigotry and haters and homophobes while not seeing the monumental hypocrisy in this type of tact much less the opposition it justly deserved



[edit on 7-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by shauk100
 


Like heterosexual couples what flaming lust exists when one has been
coupled for 5 years, 10, 20, 30? The oldest gay couple I know have been together for 40 years. How much lust could they still have? Or is it that they do love one another to stick around that long?



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
California Prop. 8 wasn't about gay marriage, it was about constitutional process. The liberals in California have a habit of ignoring the will of the voters, as well as the process of law, whenever it suits them.

California law currently provides equal rights to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, with regards to marriage. As a heterosexual male I cannot legally marry another man, and the same law applies to any homosexual male. So how is there discrimination? And why is it that liberals can't follow this basic logical argument?

I have no problem with homosexuals getting married. But the law is the law! If liberals want to change the law, then they need to do it through the proper legislative process. And not through dictatorial, judicial fiat.

Finally, I got no particular love for the Mormons. But with their support of Prop. 8, at least they pursued it honestly. The anti-prop 8 crowd outspent the pro side by a huge margin, and still lost big. And millions of the anti-prop 8 funding came from the California public teachers union. Explain to me why the teacher's union spent millions of dollars of union member dues to fight Prop. 8?

Prop. 8 is just the latest outrage against voter will in the state of California. There was also Prop. 13, Prop. 187, Prop. 209. And why is it that when liberals can't make a logical, coherent argument, they resort to the intellectual coward's tactic of accusing their opponents of "hate speech"?

Big thanks to the moderators of this thread for allowing it to go on. At least you're showing more courage than the liberals in Congress with their "fairness doctrine".

Regards,
Riff



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join