An Alternative to Redefining Marriage

[Catholic13]

Many of those most vehemently opposed to homosexuality turn out to be gay themselves, .

Are you saying many practicing Catholics are gay? You aren’t making any sense.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

After that the mortality rate drops to that of the general population.

So what? The first half of the control group succumbs to AIDS or some other God-awful genital infections and the survivors manage to reach a mortality rate equal to the general population.

Good heavens man…are you saying that since only half of the group died…it is a good thing???

In other words same sex marriages saves lives.

That is a very brave statement. And one that should require sociological evidence as proof. However…

It would be true if world health organizations began promoting same sex marriages as a life saving relationship for one and all. But I don’t see any public health authority encouraging same sex marriages…even for gays.

Hooray! A break through!

So same sex marriage does not spread disease!

Whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Well…if it were heterosexual…it wouldn’t be a same sex marriage…would it?

…and you are back to fantasy land.

What evidence do you have that ‘gay marriage’ necessarily involves a ‘deviant sexual behavior’ that spreads disease?

Message from fantasy land:

If a gay marriage does not involve a deviant behavior…what is the purpose of a gay marriage in the first place???

Why would a Danish study be less reliable? And none of your posts have shown that same sex marriage spreads disease - which the Danish study contradicts.

My posts show that unnatural sexual behavior ( including that associated with same sex marriage) has spread sexually transmitted disease at epidemic rates throughout the gay community.

The Danish study is attempting to justify homosexual behavior by trying to show that “married” homosexuals are equivalent to the general population. The study fails and they admit it. "same-sex marriages still have mortality rates that exceed those of the general population."

You brought it up, and have repeatedly asserted that it is homosexual behaviour, as opposed to (say) promiscuity regardless of gender, that spreads disease.

Yes I did bring that up. Glad you noticed because it is a fact.

The spread of STDs are at epidemic levels in the gay community. Why?

Well, its not reading ‘Gay Times’ or dancing to Katy Perry or singing in the London Gay Men’s Chorus.

Must be something else they are doing…RIGHT?

Now it is difficult for gay sophists to deal with an STD epidemic so they say: “Hey…there are STDs in the heterosexual community also… so gay sexual behavior should be encouraged.” NO…because that assumes equivalency between normal sexual relations and abnormal sexual relations…they are not equivalent.

Now we have STDs spreading in the gay community at a higher rate than the heterosexual community. Why is that? Simple…if there was not wild promiscuity within the gay community the rates of the spread of disease would be equal…but they are not.

So promoting monogamy among gay men reduces disease. Ssimples.

YOU try to promote monogamy among gay men…

Sorry Doc. It’s the behavior that must be adjusted…nothing else.

Since many of even the most committed and stable gay relationships are sexually open, it is ludicrous to think that calling a gay relationship a marriage will lead to marital fidelity and reduce the spread of disease.

Have you tried not being a homophobe?

I can’t help it…I was born this way.

Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt View Post
Homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. It’s just a matter of choice.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, that is a meaningless assertion for any accepted definition of ‘heterosexual’.

Then please point out any physical or biological differences between heterosexuals and self identified homosexuals. If you can…

As you could deny being Catholic. For that matter, as I have pointed out before, it probably would be possible to detect homosexuality fairly reliably with fMRI.

For some reason I just cannot picture the Ugandan Army hauling around the necessary medical equipment to do MRI’s of suspected homosexuals. More likely they just take names at the local Gay Pride Day Parade.

 

[cena]

So in the first few years there is an increased mortality. This is a well known effect of people who know they are about to die choosing to get married as a direct result - like the british author Ian Banks who poignantly asked his long time girlfriend Adele if she would consent to become his widow.

After that the mortality rate drops to that of the general population.

In other words same sex marriages saves lives. You are trying to prevent this.

What part of this confuses you?

Hooray! A break through!

So same sex marriage does not spread disease!

Whether heterosexual or homosexual.

…and you are back to fantasy land.

What evidence do you have that ‘gay marriage’ necessarily involves a ‘deviant sexual behavior’ that spreads disease?

Why would a Danish study be less reliable? And none of your posts have shown that same sex marriage spreads disease - which the Danish study contradicts.

You brought it up, and have repeatedly asserted that it is homosexual behaviour, as opposed to (say) promiscuity regardless of gender, that spreads disease.

So promoting monogamy among gay men reduces disease. Ssimples.


Wildly unsupported and vitriolic assertion.
Ninety-year-old gay couple marries in Iowa after 72 years together
Together nearly 49 years – married at last after civil partnership conversion
And those are just the first two that popped up on Google.

Have you tried not being a homophobe?

As has been pointed out repeatedly, that is a meaningless assertion for any accepted definition of ‘heterosexual’.

As you could deny being Catholic. For that matter, as I have pointed out before, it probably would be possible to detect homosexuality fairly reliably with fMRI.

Same sex “marriage” does not save lives.

Homosexual actions are immoral. The consequences don’t determine the morality of an action. If someone sleeps around with a bunch of people and they don’t get an STD, it doesn’t make those actions okay.

 

[DrTaffy]

Are you saying many practicing Catholics are gay?

You tell me. Can you quote what I said that, according to you, translates as “many practicing Catholics are gay”?

For that matter, had I said that, would you contest that assertion?

You aren’t making any sense.

Back atcha. :ehh:

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12625547:

After that the mortality rate drops to that of the general population

.

So what?

So same sex marriage reduces mortality in the homosexual population.

It saves lives.

You are trying to stop this. That you are failing barely mitigates the immorality of trying to cause deaths in order to satisfy your personal subjective beliefs.

The first half of the control group succumbs to AIDS or some other God-awful genital infections and the survivors manage to reach a mortality rate equal to the general population.

Good heavens man…are you saying that since only half of the group died…it is a good thing???

Nothing like half the group died. Math skills are not your forte, are they?

I am saying that since same sex marriage reduced the mortality of gays, this is evidence that allowing them legally recognised marriages is a good thing.

Unless of course you see homosexuals dying as a positive goal you seek to maximise.

In other words same sex marriages saves lives

… you have already been given that proof, so you suddenly realise that you have scored an own goal with this piece of rhetoric?

Hooray! A break through!

Good grief, so now you have started editing my posts in order to completely change their meaning and criticising me for that new meaning? That is a new low! :nope:

For what I actually wrote, insert:

Irresponsible sexual relations and deviant sexual behavior spreads disease.

Before the word ‘whether’ - rather changes the sense, doesn’t it?

Message from fantasy land:

If a gay marriage does not involve a deviant behavior…what is the purpose of a gay marriage in the first place???

So according to you, ‘deviant behavior’ is the only purpose of marriage?
The fact remains that you have frequently asserted but constantly failed to prove that same sex marriage spreads disease. Contrary to the evidence I posted.

The Danish study is attempting to justify homosexual behavior by trying to show that “married” homosexuals are equivalent to the general population.

In specific terms of mortality, yes. In other words marriage curbs the lamentable tendency of ‘the homosexual community’ to promiscuity and substance abuse. Why is this a bad thing?

The study fails and they admit it. "same-sex marriages still have mortality rates that exceed those of the general population."

You continue to misrepresent the findings of the study - which at this point starts to look deliberate.

The excess mortality rates only continue for the first few years. In addition to the phenomenon of the mortally ill choosing to get married while they can, did you expect marriage to be a magic wand that instantly cured pre-existing medical issues?

But after a few years married homosexuals are as healthy as the general population, unlike unmarried ones.

I personally see saving lives (‘even’ homosexual ones!) as a good thing.

Then please point out any physical or biological differences between heterosexuals and self identified homosexuals. If you can…

The homosexuals are attracted to the same sex as themselves, the heterosexuals to the opposite sex.

This is biologically verifiable, and really not a tricky concept to get your head around. Unlike your assertion that ‘homosexuals are heterosexuals’. :nope:

For some reason I just cannot picture the Ugandan Army hauling around the necessary medical equipment to do MRI’s of suspected homosexuals.

Which does not change the fact that your assertion is false.

 

[Catholic13]

You tell me. Can you quote what I said that, according to you, translates as “many practicing Catholics are gay”?

:

You said many people who vehemently oppose homosexuality turn out to be gay. There are many Catholics who vehemently oppose homosexuality. So you must be accusing all of them of being gay.

 

[DrTaffy]

You said many people who vehemently oppose homosexuality turn out to be gay. There are many Catholics who vehemently oppose homosexuality. So you must be accusing all of them of being gay.

:doh2:

… this is a wind up, isn’t it?

 

[Catholic13]

:doh2:

… this is a wind up, isn’t it?

So your statement doesn’t include Catholics or does? You made the statement and now you can’t explain it.