Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Teaching kids acceptance is so overrated anyway

agreed.. overstated as well.. that is part of the PC horseshit.. that and "criss-cross applesauce" .. choosing to accept or support (as I do being a contributing member of HRC, though not gay myself) isn't part of that, it's part of realizing that the world is bigger than yourself and recognizing the diversity of the people around you.. a lot of people aren't used to imagining that there are those not like them and that it doesn't make those people evil or less deserving of something that many others get to practice

[saden1]

Question...would any of you who don't like the idea of gay marriage vote against a proposition similar to prop 8 if it were on your state ballet?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by saden1

Question...would any of you who don't like the idea of gay marriage vote against a proposition similar to prop 8 if it were on your state ballet?

After all of the "I don't like it but the gov shouldn't be out of the business of marriage" no one wants to answer this question.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by saden1

Question...would any of you who don't like the idea of gay marriage vote against a proposition similar to prop 8 if it were on your state ballet?

it was ridiculous how many in VA thought that it was a ban it vs make it legal vote

[saden1]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

it was ridiculous how many in VA thought that it was a ban it vs make it legal vote

What is even more ridiculous is the cowardis displayed in answering this question.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Question...would any of you who don't like the idea of gay marriage vote against a proposition similar to prop 8 if it were on your state ballet?

In VA, it would depend on how the law was written, but I could vote against it.

(Not to completely derail the thread)That being said, I would be much more inclined to do so, if I knew as a quid pro quo those that support gay marriage would then support a national ban on third trimester abortion, except in the cases of a threat to the life of the mother.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

In VA, it would depend on how the law was written, but I could vote against it.

(Not to completely derail the thread)That being said, I would be much more inclined to do so, if I knew as a quid pro quo those that support gay marriage would then support a national ban on third trimester abortion, except in the cases of a threat to the life of the mother.

This is the text of Prop 8, let's go with that.

Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

(Not to completely derail the thread)That being said, I would be much more inclined to do so, if I knew as a quid pro quo those that support gay marriage would then support a national ban on third trimester abortion, except in the cases of a threat to the life of the mother.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here unless you get something in return? You have a right to put up a prop on the ballet.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

This is the text of Prop 8, let's go with that.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here unless you get something in return? You have a right to put up a prop on the ballet.

First part, yes. I could vote against that.

Second part, life is a negotiation. Why would I give my support to something I'm morally against without a quid pro quo. And since we're asking hypothetical questions....if I was successful in putting a prop on the ballot in Washington State outlawing third trimester abortion do you support it? If not, and there's a gay marriage support prop on the ballot and conservatives in Wash St. agree to support the gay marriage prop, do you then support the third trimester abortion ban?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

First part, yes. I could vote against that.

Second part, life is a negotiation. Why would I give my support to something I'm morally against without a quid pro quo. And since we're asking hypothetical questions....if I was successful in putting a prop on the ballot in Washington State outlawing third trimester abortion do you support it? If not, and there's a gay marriage support prop on the ballot and conservatives in Wash St. agree to support the gay marriage prop, do you then support the third trimester abortion ban?

We are voters not legislators able to cut deals. I tend to base my vote on things I believe or don't believe in not whether I can get something in return or how others vote. I believe in a ban on partial birth abortion as long as there is no health issue, including mental health. It is a reasonable...you got 4 months to make a decision, make one and live with it.

Do the right thing, always, and if you think gay marriage is morally wrong but a ban on it constitutionally indefensible you need to make a choice where you stand and how you vote. Don't try to bargain and hold people hostage because it makes it easier for you to make a choice and feel good about your choice.

[KLHJ2]

[Chico23231]

I say equal rights for everyone. Gay marriage and to serve openly in the military like the vast majority of the rest of the world. Its all about tolerance. Doesnt bother me, plus nothing is hotter than two smoking lesbians

[Mechanix544]

Oh, and yeah, lets let all of these people with communicable diseases into the Army, where I as a medic am going to be at a RIDICULOUSLY increased risk of contracting HIV/AIDS/HERPES/HEPSATITIS/all other STD's when dealing with these gays on the battlefield where open blood is commonplace.

Sorry, stay at home and go to your parades. Id rather die from the enemy than die from some gay ally who gave me aids while I was bandaging him up. Just the risk from exposure should ban them from military service. And knowing their sexuality increases the likeliehood of them contracting an STD and passing along the military ranks, come on, gimme a break.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

Oh, and yeah, lets let all of these people with communicable diseases into the Army, where I as a medic am going to be at a RIDICULOUSLY increased risk of contracting HIV/AIDS/HERPES/HEPSATITIS/all other STD's when dealing with these gays on the battlefield where open blood is commonplace.

Sorry, stay at home and go to your parades. Id rather die from the enemy than die from some gay ally who gave me aids while I was bandaging him up. Just the risk from exposure should ban them from military service. And knowing their sexuality increases the likeliehood of them contracting an STD and passing along the military ranks, come on, gimme a break.

Wow.

[Mechanix544]

And a couple more..........
To date, the Bagley & Tremblay (1997) study remains as the only study to have used a household-based random sampling technique - stratified random sampling - producing both a sample of homosexually oriented males and of their heterosexual counterparts for comparison purposes. This study replicated the Bell & Weinberg (1978) results and is also the best and most recent indicator available of the "self-harm" at risk status of homosexually oriented males. Compared to heterosexual males, homosexually oriented males (12.7% of sample) accounted for 26% of males in the "self-harm" category (including suicide attempts) and 62.5% of suicide attempters. They were 3-times more at risk for reporting "self-harm" and almost 14-times more at risk for reporting having attempted suicide.
---------------------
In 2008, CDC estimated that approximately 56,300 people were newly infected with HIV in 20061 (the most recent year that data are available). Over half (53%) of these new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men. Black/African American men and women were also strongly affected and were estimated to have an incidence rate than was 7 times as high as the incidence rate among whites.



Just a coincidence though, right?

Wait, probably some problem with my sources. I am sure that the United States CDC is conservatively biased. You know what, thats true, its prolly just a bunch of hogwash. I think we should all embrace homosexuality, and all of the drugs, diseases, suicide and legal constipation it brings...............lol

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

And a couple more..........
To date, the Bagley & Tremblay (1997) study remains as the only study to have used a household-based random sampling technique - stratified random sampling - producing both a sample of homosexually oriented males and of their heterosexual counterparts for comparison purposes. This study replicated the Bell & Weinberg (1978) results and is also the best and most recent indicator available of the "self-harm" at risk status of homosexually oriented males. Compared to heterosexual males, homosexually oriented males (12.7% of sample) accounted for 26% of males in the "self-harm" category (including suicide attempts) and 62.5% of suicide attempters. They were 3-times more at risk for reporting "self-harm" and almost 14-times more at risk for reporting having attempted suicide.
---------------------
In 2008, CDC estimated that approximately 56,300 people were newly infected with HIV in 20061 (the most recent year that data are available). Over half (53%) of these new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men. Black/African American men and women were also strongly affected and were estimated to have an incidence rate than was 7 times as high as the incidence rate among whites.



Just a coincidence though, right?

Wait, probably some problem with my sources. I am sure that the United States CDC is conservatively biased. You know what, thats true, its prolly just a bunch of hogwash. I think we should all embrace homosexuality, and all of the drugs, diseases, suicide and legal constipation it brings...............lol

I can't understand why they would feel suicidal. I mean they're so easily accepted in society. It just makes no sense.