• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
Taylor said:
I didn't read them carefully, but let's say you're correct on all accounts. Risky behavior does not CAUSE HIV it is only a correlate.
Click to expand...

Fine, neither risky behavior nor sexual orientation cause HIV. However, risky behavior increases the probability of contracting HIV, whereas sexual orientation alone does not.
 
Last edited:
This crap is ridiculous. here minus all the hair splitting:

HIV is caused by a virus entering a persons blood stream
Being a homosexual male does not cause this virus to enter the bloodstream
Engaging in unprotected anal sex does cause the virus to enter the bloodstream
 
CriticalThought said:
It is not impossible that an individual can engage in promiscuos, unprotected anal sex their whole life and never contract HIV. Therefore, I can't say say it causes HIV. However, engaging in that behavior puts an individual at a substantially higher risk of contracting HIV, so it isn't correlative. The behavior does effect the likelihood of contracting HIV even if it doesn't directly cause the HIV infection. So as you said, a light causational link.
Click to expand...
How is it not correlative? I'm not sure you understand the term. Compare and contrast "light causational link" with correlate.
 
Taylor said:
How is it not correlative? I'm not sure you understand the term. Compare and contrast "light causational link" with correlate.
Click to expand...

Already answered above.

Neither risky behavior nor sexual orientation cause HIV. However, risky behavior increases the probability of contracting HIV, whereas sexual orientation alone does not.
 
Taylor said:
Not true. "Risky behavior" is no more a cause of HIV than homosexuality. Risky behavior is a correlate.
Click to expand...

For heaven's sake, Taylor. We all aren't statisticians. I didn't say it was the cause of HIV. I said it was a cause of HIV transmission. If you have some other fancy name for it, like correlate, well....perhaps you should be more tolerant of those who speak in layman's terms.
 
marduc said:
This crap is ridiculous. here minus all the hair splitting:

HIV is caused by a virus entering a persons blood stream
Being a homosexual male does not cause this virus to enter the bloodstream
Engaging in unprotected anal sex does cause the virus to enter the bloodstream
Click to expand...
Just to split hairs - engaging in unprotected anal sex doesn't cause the virus to enter the bloodstream. It is associated with a higher likelihood that it will occur. If we're going to go on for 20 pages about causality, let's get it right.
 
Taylor said:
Just to split hairs - engaging in unprotected anal sex doesn't cause the virus to enter the bloodstream. It is associated with a higher likelihood that it will occur. If we're going to go on for 20 pages about causality, let's get it right.
Click to expand...

Alright fine.. shooting a load of infected semen into someones ruptured and or lacerated anal cavity causes the virus to enter the blood stream.

Guess what? anal sex causes this to happen (unless the semen is being pumped in via a syringe or some other means. since we are splitting hairs). Being gay does not.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Just to split hairs - engaging in unprotected anal sex doesn't cause the virus to enter the bloodstream. It is associated with a higher likelihood that it will occur. If we're going to go on for 20 pages about causality, let's get it right.
Click to expand...

Fine, let's speak probability.

A person's sexual orientation alone does not increase the likelihood of them contracting HIV. Whereas engaging in risky sexual behaviors like promiscuous, unprotected anal sex does increase the likelhood of them contracting HIV.

Is that suitable?
 
MaggieD said:
For heaven's sake, Taylor. We all aren't statisticians. I didn't say it was the cause of HIV. I said it was a cause of HIV transmission. If you have some other fancy name for it, like correlate, well....perhaps you should be more tolerant of those who speak in layman's terms.
Click to expand...
Oh believe me, I'm tired of all this causation/correlation crap myself. I only bring it up because people have been going on and on about it in this thread with respect to sexual orientation.
 
This was a decent thread about a legit topic. Someone should really lock it now....

so sad.....
 
What does any of this have to do with gay marriage?????????!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
 
I believe they are trying to claim that gays don't deserve to be married, based on them spreading aids.

FilmFestGuy said:
What does any of this have to do with gay marriage?????????!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Click to expand...
 
BDBoop said:
I believe they are trying to claim that gays don't deserve to be married, based on them spreading aids.
Click to expand...

I tried to make the point earlier that if gays are getting married and settling down, wouldn't that actually prevent the spread of HIV?

Obviously not every couple will be monogomous (because as we all know not every straight couple is monogomous), but marriage cuts down STDs across all communities - thus HIV infection rates would lower.

That only makes sense. But why do we have to have 20 pages about causality and correlation in HIV transmission.

This has gotten stupid.

Imperfect, yes - but married people largely don't spread STDs. Trying to limit marriage on that is just f'ing stupid. Sorry, but it's stupid and nothing more.
 
BDBoop said:
I believe they are trying to claim that gays don't deserve to be married, based on them spreading aids.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong. My God people how many times has this been described and you simply did not read it?

Our side NEVER brought in benefits to society vs negatives when deciding who should be allowed to marry. That was and still is CC

And he did it because someone rightly pointed out that if you use the equal protection clause to allow gays to marry you cannot exclude Polygamists. CC claimed you could and based his argument on a draconian practice of claiming you can judge who can be married based on positive and negative contributions to a society. He then claimed that is how you could keep polygamists out which is a ridiculous argument. All we did was point out homosexuals especially gay men have a higher risk factor of contracting HIV and backed it up with an article from the CDC. Then instead of admitting his mistake he tried every trick in the book from bringing up condoms to monogamous partners, nothing of which changes the facts of the CDC report.

This began with CC. Please read more carefully before jumping to conclusions.
 
So you're fine with gay people getting married?

texmaster said:
You couldn't be more wrong. My God people how many times has this been described and you simply did not read it?

Our side NEVER brought in benefits to society vs negatives when deciding who should be allowed to marry. That was and still is CC

And he did it because someone rightly pointed out that if you use the equal protection clause to allow gays to marry you cannot exclude Polygamists. CC claimed you could and based his argument on a draconian practice of claiming you can judge who can be married based on positive and negative contributions. He then claimed that is how you could keep polygamists out which is a ridiculous argument. All we did was point out homosexuals especially gay men have a higher risk factor of contracting HIV and backed it up with an article from the CDC. Then instead of admitting his mistake he tried every trick in the book from bringing up condoms to monogamous partners, nothing of which changes the facts of the CDC report.

This began with CC. Please read more carefully before jumping to conclusions.
Click to expand...
 
BDBoop said:
So you're fine with gay people getting married?
Click to expand...

If its done through law I have no problem with it. When activist judges write new law without legal backing I do have a problem with it. That is the problem with claiming equal protection covers marriage. It doesn't and never has. And if it did you could not exclude any sexual orientation from wanting the same thing based on the same finding. That is why we have laws and ammendments.
 
texmaster said:
All we did was point out homosexuals especially gay men have a higher risk factor of contracting HIV and backed it up with an article from the CDC.
Click to expand...

Well for starters, you are wrong. Gay men do not have a higher risk factor of contracting HIV. They have a higher risk factor of engaging in risky behaviors that increase their likelihood of contracting HIV. That is exactly what the CDC says. Men who have sex with men are more likely to engage in behaviors like promiscuous, unprotected anal sex and in turn, are more likely to contract HIV. However, marriage is incompatible with engaging in such a risky behavior, and common sense would argue that if gay men were allowed to marry, then they would engage in less promiscuous, unprotected anal sex, and HIV infections would thus go down. So your argument that HIV is a negative of homosexuality as an orientation is false.

As for whether orientations should be judged by what positive and negative contributions they make to society, I think CC is correct. There is a wealth of evidence to support the positive contributions that same sex marriage can make to society. There is no such evidence for polygamy. And I'm not sure how "Draconian" it is, because it hasn't been done before.
 
Last edited:
I've been waiting, and again, no one has addressed my question. If gay marriage is illegal to oppose. And if it's wrong to uphold a marital definition that excludes homosexual unions because that is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. Then why can't other sexualities and their unions also be recognized? Why does homosexuality deserve special treatment? Wouldn't it also be wrong to exclude other sexualities and their unions from marriage? Are not other sexualities protected by the equal protection clause in this instance?
 
I've barely been skimming this thread and it is my understanding that if "other sexualities" (such as?) *because people are born gay - but afaik they are not born polygamous* want their issue addressed then they need to file suit as well.

digsbe said:
I've been waiting, and again, no one has addressed my question. If gay marriage is illegal to oppose. And if it's wrong to uphold a marital definition that excludes homosexual unions because that is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. Then why can't other sexualities and their unions also be recognized? Why does homosexuality deserve special treatment? Wouldn't it also be wrong to exclude other sexualities and their unions from marriage? Are not other sexualities protected by the equal protection clause in this instance?
Click to expand...
 
BDBoop said:
I've barely been skimming this thread and it is my understanding that if "other sexualities" (such as?) *because people are born gay - but afaik they are not born polygamous* want their issue addressed then they need to file suit as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about polygamy. I'm talking about other sexual orientations such as pansexuals, bestiality, bisexuals, or any other sexuality that someone could claim to have. Why is that sexuality unequal to homosexuality? And if the logic is that homosexual unions fall under the equal protection clause, why can't others as well?
 
digsbe said:
I've been waiting, and again, no one has addressed my question. If gay marriage is illegal to oppose. And if it's wrong to uphold a marital definition that excludes homosexual unions because that is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. Then why can't other sexualities and their unions also be recognized? Why does homosexuality deserve special treatment? Wouldn't it also be wrong to exclude other sexualities and their unions from marriage? Are not other sexualities protected by the equal protection clause in this instance?
Click to expand...

No one has addressed your question because it's irrelevant.

It's not "gay" marriage, it's SAME SEX marriage, which means that it's discrimination based on gender when men are allowed to marry women and I - a woman - am not. My sexual orientation is really quite irrelevant to the legality of marriage since homosexuals can and do get married legally now. They just currently have to marry the opposite sex.

The point is, when you get a marriage license, they don't ****ing ask you your sexual orientation. They do, however, ask you your gender. So, whatever orientations it is that you're referring to (and polyamory isn't an orientation) CAN get married right now. No one is stopping them.



digsbe said:
I'm not talking about polygamy. I'm talking about other sexual orientations such as pansexuals, bestiality, bisexuals, or any other sexuality that someone could claim to have. Why is that sexuality unequal to homosexuality? And if the logic is that homosexual unions fall under the equal protection clause, why can't others as well?
Click to expand...

If and when horses are legally allowed to enter into contracts, you'll have a point. Until that time, however, you do not. As it is now, both men and women are allowed to enter into contracts. But for some reason, men are forbidden to enter into a specific contract with another man when they are allowed to do so with a woman. This is gender discrimination.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
I've been waiting, and again, no one has addressed my question. If gay marriage is illegal to oppose. And if it's wrong to uphold a marital definition that excludes homosexual unions because that is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. Then why can't other sexualities and their unions also be recognized? Why does homosexuality deserve special treatment? Wouldn't it also be wrong to exclude other sexualities and their unions from marriage? Are not other sexualities protected by the equal protection clause in this instance?
Click to expand...

You would have to specify what other "sexualities". If your other "sexualities" are things like pedophilia and zoophilia, then it is because the law holds that partners must be able to consent to enter a contract like marriage. Animals and children are unable to consent. If your other "sexualities" are things like polygamy, then I'm sure down the road one will file a lawsuit. However, unlike same sex marriage which has a wealth of evidence to support the benefits it can contribute to society, there is no such evidence for polygamy. Whether marriage, as a civil right, can be restricted by benefits to society, will probably be seen down the road. However, the entire justification for government being involved in marriage to begin with is that the state has an interest in the benefits that marriage provides to society.
 
Last edited:
Bestiality is deviant, homosexuality is not.

digsbe said:
I'm not talking about polygamy. I'm talking about other sexual orientations such as pansexuals, bestiality, bisexuals, or any other sexuality that someone could claim to have. Why is that sexuality unequal to homosexuality? And if the logic is that homosexual unions fall under the equal protection clause, why can't others as well?
Click to expand...
 
texmaster said:
You couldn't be more wrong. My God people how many times has this been described and you simply did not read it?

Our side NEVER brought in benefits to society vs negatives when deciding who should be allowed to marry. That was and still is CC

And he did it because someone rightly pointed out that if you use the equal protection clause to allow gays to marry you cannot exclude Polygamists. CC claimed you could and based his argument on a draconian practice of claiming you can judge who can be married based on positive and negative contributions to a society. He then claimed that is how you could keep polygamists out which is a ridiculous argument. All we did was point out homosexuals especially gay men have a higher risk factor of contracting HIV and backed it up with an article from the CDC. Then instead of admitting his mistake he tried every trick in the book from bringing up condoms to monogamous partners, nothing of which changes the facts of the CDC report.

This began with CC. Please read more carefully before jumping to conclusions.
Click to expand...

Please tell us tex. When are you going to educate yourself enough on this issue so that you learn that polygamy is NOT a sexual orientation? When you finally do that, you will realize that you waste everyone's time with idiotic presentations as you did above.

Oh, and everything else you said above completely lacks logic. As usual for you. But please keep posting it. Each time you do so, what you post looks bad enough that it bolsters my position.
 
rivrrat said:
No one has addressed your question because it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It is very relevant, no one has addressed it because there is no logical explanation.
It's not "gay" marriage, it's SAME SEX marriage, which means that it's discrimination based on gender when men are allowed to marry women and I - a woman - am not. My sexual orientation is really quite irrelevant to the legality of marriage since homosexuals can and do get married legally now. They just currently have to marry the opposite sex.
Click to expand...
Same thing, just a different definition. Why is it ok to discriminate based on species or based on living objects? If sexuality is irrelevant to the legality of marriage, than why can't other sexualities have their unions imposed upon the definition of marriage?
The point is, when you get a marriage license, they don't ****ing ask you your sexual orientation. They do, however, ask you your gender. So, whatever orientations it is that you're referring to (and polyamory isn't an orientation) CAN get married right now. No one is stopping them.
Click to expand...

So a zoophile can marry a horse, and a pansexual can parry his bed?
CriticalThought said:
You would have to specify what other "sexualities". If your other "sexualities" are things like pedophilia and zoophilia, then it is because the law holds that partners must be able to consent to enter a contract like marriage. Animals and children are unable to consent. If your other "sexualities" are things like polygamy, then I'm sure down the road one will file a lawsuit. However, unlike same sex marriage which has a wealth of evidence to support the benefits of society, there is no such evidence for polygamy. Whether marriage, as a civil right, can be restritcted by benefits to society, will probably be seen down the road. However, the entire justification for government being involved in marriage to be with is that the state has an interest in the benefits that marriage provides to society.
Click to expand...
Did I mention pedophilia? And why can't an animal consent? Why can't a child consent? There is no magical maturation that goes on between 17 and 18. Animals can consent, just not the same way humans can. My point isn't the legality of it, it's the logic behind imposing homosexual unions upon everyone because sexuality is protected under the equal protection clause. If a man wants to marry a blow up doll, why can't he? It's non living. The ability to consent is a moral stance. It's a moral belief that you can't marry a dog, or doll, because they "can't" consent. When pansexuals and zoophiles would all tell you that they can and that you have no right to impose your morality on them.

BDBoop said:
Bestiality is deviant, homosexuality is not.
Click to expand...

For many, homosexuality is considered deviant, that is a moral stance.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom