Why vote ?

6/3/08: A Wisconsin judge has ruled that the state’s marriage protection amendment is constitutional. In November 2006, Wisconsin residents voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Opponents of the amendment – having lost at the ballot box – turned to the courts.

6/3/08: SAN FRANCISCO - An initiative that would again protect traditional marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

So if preventing african american women from marrying because there is such a high rate of aids is racist… what does that make preventing homosexuals from marrying? Orientation-ist?

The only reason anyone wants to ban gay marriage is because it conflicts with their own religion and beliefs. None of the other reasons have a leg to stand on, they are just excuses to hide the fact that some of these religious ideas are non-humantarian.

Every human on this planent deserves the same rights as the next - regardless of race, sex, disability, orientation, orgins etc.

xox Sika

AIDS is not a gay disease.

Read some un-biased sources and you’ll see: the majority of people with new AIDS cases in America are married African-American females.

So Rodney, should we stop black people from getting married?

Continuation of last post.

(5) http://www.aidshealth.org/newsroom/ news/news_archive/N032103c.htm

(6) http://www.ppsinc.org/std/ppstd3.htm

(7) http://www.blessedcause.org/ BlessedCauseNews/BCNews8.htm

(8) http://www.blessedcause.org/protest /Same%20Sex%20Marriages.htm

(9) http://www.aegis.com/news/ newsday/2003/ND030202.html

by Jen Shroder

b/c they want to make the people think they actually care what we think, which is NOT true they dont really care how we think or what we wont…they want to make us feel like they actually care bout us and that they are on our side and when they decide to ignore it they hope we will forget and if we dont they make excuses…when the truth is known that we know how they are and their not fooling anybody

Only if your a racist. . . . Are you a racist? I’m not.

What is “”Oregon’s marriage protection amendment”” protecting?

I bet I would get the answer “”The sanctity of marriage””. Again. It’s the majority’s “”religion and beliefs”” which in my opinion is wrong and like my answer before - non-humanitarian.

Every human on this planet deserves the same rights as the next - regardless of race, sex, disability, orientation, origins etc. Love knows no gender.

xox Sika

Almighty Dollar Wins: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he doesn’t agree with gay marriage, but he has managed to find a silver lining. “You know, I’m wishing everyone good luck with their marriages and I hope that California’s economy is booming because everyone is going to come here and get married,” he said at an Environmental Defense Fund event in Sacramento.

You have to understand that we do not live in a true democracy. Democracy has been likened to two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. We have a constitutional republic with a system of checks and balances where power is shared among the three branches of government.

One of the reasons the Judicial branch exists it to protect unpopular minorities from the tyrany of the masses.

Lots of people are bigoted against gays and lesbians. Should this group not have the same rights as straights just because they are an unpopular minority? The California Supreme Court said no. 50 years ago the majority of Americans would have voted to not let black and whites intermary; does that make it right, just because the majority is for something?

Hey Rodney, perhpas if gays are so promiscuous we should be encouraging them to settle down and tie the knot.

There is much more ot marriage than just providing for children. Many hetero couples never have kids so are you arguing that they should not be allowed to marry? Of course gay and lesbian couples do have kids. I saw a rather large number of lesbian couples pushing baby strolers last time I went to the state fair. My daughter plays with kids who have two daddys instead of a mommy and a daddy. What purpose is served by not allowing couples who want to raise kids marry just because they happen to be the same gender? Should infertile individuals be banned from marrying? Getting married also provides survivorship benefits. There have been cases where gay couples have been together for decades (longer than most hetero marriages), one partner dies and even though he puts his lover in his will the family is able to contest the will and get everything. If the gay couple were married the deceased person’s lover would have legal rights to the marital assets.

Your fear of gays marrying just so one partner can get medical benefits seem unfounded to me. Getting married also has financial implications where partners share communal assets and debts. How many people would be willing to marry someone without a good job to give them medical benefits when it also means that half of any money earned would belong to their partner and they will become equally responsible for their partner’s debts? If you are really so worried about this angle than aren’t you worried about gay men marrying lesbian women for medical benefits (perfectly legal under current law)?

Your litany of links only serves to show your own personal dislike and disapproval of homosexuals. Is there any difference in promiscuity and STD infection between lesbians and male homosexuals? The best I can tell lesbians are not more promiscuous than heteros so by your reasoning should lesbians be allowed to marry but not male homosexuals? Should heteros with a promiscuous background be barred from getting married?

Fortunately, American laws are not based on one sect’s idea of “sin”. Neither does homosexuality imply promiscuity or irresponsibility. If there were any legitimate secular reason to deny homosexuals equal rights, I’m sure we would have already heard it. The truth is the push to keep gays from marrying is a religious push and we don’t make our laws based on religion alone. If we start doing that, we might as well shred the Constitution and reinstate the Inquisition.

Gay activist demands for homosexual marriage force opponents to point out distasteful facts:

FACT: Statistics prove the average homosexual is highly promiscuous. In a 6-month long study, gays averaged 110 sex partners a year. (1) & see below

FACT: AIDS/HIV is predominantly caused by gay activities/life style. (below)

FACT: Only 1/3 of the members of the American Psychiatric Assoc. participated in the vote to “normalize” homosexuality in 1973. A study four years later showed 69% of the APA disagreed! (2)

Homosexual Promiscuity: Anne Peplau, a psychology professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, acknowledges that homosexuals are far more commonly involved in infidelity, which she justifies by claiming it is not harmful in an open relationship. (2)

A Seattle AIDS group admits homosexual culpability: “Gay, Bisexual, and other men who have sex with men must act against the behaviors and attitudes responsible for the increased spread of these diseases. Today, one in seven Gay, Bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are infected with HIV. Among Gay men in King County, syphilis rates are 100 times higher than in the general heterosexual population, and are estimated to be 1000 times higher among HIV positive Gay men than among the general heterosexual population. These rates show we have stopped doing the things that protect us and our sex partners from needless infection.” (3)

Even back in 1994, before homosexuality gained popularity, America’s largest gay magazine The Advocate admitted: “Fifty-seven percent of gay readers claimed more than thirty sexual partners during their lifetime. Thirty-five percent claimed more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. Forty-eight percent admitted having a ‘three-way’ sexual encounter during the past five years. Twenty-nine percent admitted to meeting their partners in a bathhouse or a sex club.” (2)

Admitting the Primary Transmitter, Homosexuals Research from the University of Chicago shows that “AIDS and HIV infection are likely to remain largely confined to gay men and intravenous drug users, their sexual partners and their children.” (4)

Gunter Freehill, spokesperson for the county Office of AIDS Policy and Programs, campaigning for more AIDs funding, said that in Los Angeles the complexity of treating HIV-positive people and the high percentage of gay and bisexual men living with HIV/AIDS in the county add to the severity of need. Eighty-five to 88% of the AIDS cases in the county are among men.” -AIDS Healthcare Foundation. (5)

“In the past, gay men have tended to have an above-average rate of infection with STDs. This is largely attributed to promiscuity,” wrote Pharmacist Planning Service, Inc. “Additionally, some men are secretly bisexual. If a man picks up an STD from a homosexual encounter, he may then pass the infection on to unsuspecting heterosexual partners.” (6)

Marriage & Medical Benefits: Marriage was meant to provide for children, not matrimonial hop-scotch to procure medical benefits for the reckless lust of homosexuals who care more about their partner-of-the-month than their own medical safety. As described in Part 1, there are approximately 120,000 in California with HIV/AIDS, an extremely expensive illness to treat which will have a huge impact on medical insurance costs. Dr. Ron Valdeserri of the CDC confirmed the fear of mutant viruses and states HIV infections are on the rise, “This could be an indication that the drugs that have revolutionized HIV care in the United States are losing their efficacy due to mutant viruses.” (9)

Activists contacted me and claimed “California state law already provides medical benefits to same-sex partners.” This simply isn’t true. California law, AB 25, requires the POSSIBILITY of medical benefits is offered to employers by the insurance companies as a package for domestic partnerships IF EMPLOYERS so choose. Activists then claimed that many employers are already providing benefits to domestic partnerships, in fact, “everyone they know” which causes me to wonder if that is why medical insurance has been skyrocketing in California recently, with more employees paying co-payments while receiving less coverage. Less employers are offering medical benefits at all! This bill (thanks to Davis) recently passed in 2001.

Assemblyman Dennis L. Mountjoy exposed the porn materials used by Los Angeles School District in sex education classes about homosexuality which include: “A note of encouragement follows profanity-laced tips on performing anal sex: ‘You may have to practice a bit before it starts feeling really good.’” see article at:(7) Militant gay groups are actively pursuing our children in public school. Lawsuits have curtailed some of it but the activists keep pounding for more access of our children.

After writing “Devastating Consequences of Same Sex Marriage”(8) I have been named “full of hate” and “intolerant” by liberal activists. Ironically one group, knowing I receive threats, has posted information simplifying my location for those who would want to hurt me. This from the tolerant? To those activist groups that label me, I will make a deal with you. I will be quiet about gay promiscuity, culpability for AIDS, and your demands of medical benefits through same sex marriage when you take your homosexual training out of public school. (hands on hips) Take your inductive plays and your campaigns to invite our ever-younger children into your medically unsafe lifestyle, your claims that anal sex is normal and should be tried, and get out. The gloves are off. I’m turning over tables. You have no right to our children.

I apologize for my bluntness, I have gay friends, I’ve lost some to AIDS, I’ve watched first hand how they suffer, I’ve wept over them and I’ve washed their feet. Homosexuals are to be loved and prayed for. But to demand homosexual marriage and promote homosexuality to children is an abomination. This lifestyle is proven deadly and any politician that furthers the cause and supports homosexual marriage does not care about America, society or our children.

(1) http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet3.html

(2) http://www.reclaimamerica.org/pages/ NEWS/newspage.asp?story=1296

(3) http://www.homohealth.org/taskforce/index.htm

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35994

(4) http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/941013/sex.shtml

If 75% of a state decided to ban African-Americans from frequenting the same establishments as white people, would they have the right to make that into a law? If a state that had twice as many men as women voted to ban women’s rights, should that be allowed into law? If we could decide everything in this country based on majority rules then it would truly be a scary place to live. The argument made by the supreme court that opposed the ban on gay marriage was based on equal rights and equal treatment to all the citizens of this state. Homosexuality is not illegal nor condemned in the public unless it involves prostitution (Just ask Republican Larry Craig). To “ban” gay marriage is to say that homosexuals are less of citizens than heterosexuals, which is discrimination and conflicts with civil rights.

For those making the “Christian” argument, remember that “Marriage” by and by is not solely a “Christian” institution. If two Muslims, Buddhists, or Hindus wed in this country, would that not be the same? Who owns the union of marriage as a ceremony or a right in this country? If the answer is that the American people have the right to marry, then you cannot discriminate against law-abiding citizens of this country. The Puritans came to this country to escape persecution to live in a land that they could practice their beliefs in peace without the threat of others deciding what they should believe. Please do not spit on the beliefs of our forefathers by supporting a “ban on gay marriage”. By this same “majority-rule” belief you have stated, San Francisco could vote to deny Catholics from getting social security benefits because of the immorality of past clergy that have presented over the country. If this was voted into law by a majority, would it truly be lawful? Or should the laws just be used when they convenience all of you the most?

The supreme court has a powerful veto over our will. We do not understand that the way we see our country run is not the actual way it runs. If you go back to your highschool history class, you will remember that even though the house of representatives usually votes the way the peopl want, they do not have to. A valid point was made earlier with the checks and balances in a trifold government.

We see democracy as the people making the descisions, but it is really elected officials who have the say. We do not have as much control as we would like to think we do.

That being said, with an issue of gay marrieage…

on the one hand, you have the minority issue. Those who would like a gay marriage are in a very small minority in this country. They believe they should have the same rights as everyone else. Other young people in love are getting married all around them. They have already been made to feel ashamed of their actions, and now they feel discrimination against them as well.

On the other hand you have the Christians, who shudder at the thought of the word of God being ignored, and fear of the repercusions. Christians do not believe it is wrong for a man to love another man, or a woman another woman, it is the sexuality that comes into play. In the bible, it states that it should not happen and Christians believe the bible.

Two groups, two schools of thought. But neither is to be blamed for the way they feel, because feelings cannot be helped. They may change over time, but you cannot help but feel a certain way.

The courts make their ruilngs based upon who they feel is being treated unfairly. I guess that is just the way things went.

I cannot say, as a Christian that I agree with gay marriage, because I certainly don’t. I just want to say in lamans terms how the courts look at the issue.

Thank you for citing your sources so well. I sincerely appreciate it when people give me links to let me read for myself.

I found good information at the California website regarding statistics. HIV/AIDS is most prevalent among men who have sex with men and bisexual males. That should be no surprise considering how HIV is transmitted. I notice that lesbians didn’t even make the list as a separate category so that tells you how few lesbians contract HIV from sex. So, as a whole, this does not condemn “gay sex” - just male homosexual and bisexual sex - as risky. How many of these bisexual males are pretending to be straight and doing guys on the side? I imagine quite a few but my opinion here is really irrelevant. Any road, gay marriage should encourage lifelong commitment which would reduce promiscuity and lower these statistics. Of course, it’s possible that gay couples are just as bad at fidelity as we straight couples are.

I also noticed that the incident of HIV/AIDS is much larger in the white population than in any other. Perhaps we shouldn’t allow whites to have sex or medical insurance. (please note sarcasm)

As for the other links, they are all religious and highly biased. Blessedcause.org didn’t even work. Reclaiming America and FRC are both conservative Christian organizations who do not carry out their own objective research. I cannot trust anything they say to be fact.

Aside from the obvious spiritual, moral and “structure of society” reasons, lets look at the cold hard financial effect of same sex marriage in California.

Statistics show it is a FACT that the average gay couple does not last long. In San Francisco, flooded with bath houses and all the activities that go with the average gay life style, you have a people determined to have their sex regardless of the consequences, which are now being reaped, including AIDS and many other STDs. These diseases can become very costly. “Among Gay men in King County, syphilis rates are 100 times higher than in the general heterosexual population, and are estimated to be 1000 times higher among HIV positive Gay men than among the general heterosexual population.” As of 10/2003, there are over 50,000 Californians with full blown AIDS and it continues to increase. There are 107,837 to 124,305 estimated in California with HIV/AIDS. Compounding the problem, Dr. Max Essex, chair of the Harvard AIDS Institute, warned congress that “AIDS has already led to other kinds of dangerous epidemics…If AIDS is not eliminated, other new lethal microbes will emerge, and neither safe sex nor drug free practices will prevent them.” So if you’re newly diagnosed with HIV, and you don’t have health insurance, what can you do?

You get married. BOOM. Medical benefits.

Would it be hard to find a casual gay partner to marry to help with medical costs? How many “in name onlys” do you think might crop up? How many “understandings” will be joined so that the woes of homosexuality can be treated? How many gay men or women, who have clearly ignored what the Bible says, will hesitate to take a vow in order to cash in for medical benefits?

Who cares, right? After all, it’s just some insurance company that’s going to foot the bill. Right?

Medical benefits are getting harder to find. Employees are already asked to pay more co-payments. If and when homosexual marriages begin, the insurance companies are going to be flooded with claims for partners that will probably come and go with the wind, marriages of medical convenience with no care about the sanctity of marriage, or the joining of souls, which is purposed to provide for little children.

How many legitimately married couples are going to lose their medical benefits because companies can no longer afford the skyrocketing cost of medical insurance, footing the bill for all the AIDS and STD victims who cared more about the partner of the month than they did their own medical safety?

How many children will be in sincere need of medical care, but there won’t be any, because medical benefits became too expensive, taking care of every STD victim suffering because of their determination to satisfy their lust no matter what the consequences?

WE DO NEED TO HELP AIDS VICTIMS AND THOSE SUFFERING WITH STDs, and we need to love and reach out to homosexuals, but reducing the sanctity of marriage to a game of matrimonial hop-scotch to see who-marries-who to gain medical benefits, all the while GLSEN infiltrating our public schools and (in my opinion) recruiting boytoys (3) to share in this lifestyle of pain and despair, perpetuating the problem and increasing the number of victims…

well, I was thinking about objecting…but I’m afraid of being called “homophobic” so maybe I’ll just go hide in this corner…

Not.

a) Homosexuals admit AIDS culpability/Study seen as community’s 1st honest look at lifestyle consequences http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/ Homosexuals%20Admit%20AIDS%20Cupability.htm

1. California’s State Statistics http://www.sfaf.org/aboutaids/statistics/

2. From “The Medical Consequences of Homosexuality” this post will shock you http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet3.html

3. Militant Gay Movement in Public Schools Index: http://www.blessedcause.org/TOC/Militant%20Homosexual%20March.htm