The Gallup Polls – Fake or Real? 54% of Americans support gay marriage? (moved)

[Armoured]

So you have one HUGE error first, the claim this is religious in nature. Its not. Lots of people with no religion at all oppose SSM. This proves the entire debate is dishonest to the core, at least in this Country. Not sure how the squickiness factor will be accounted for? Secondly, your question about causal links will be dealt with before the SCOTUS. The best any of us here can hope for is that both sides be represented thoroughly, which is what an adversarial system is all about.

The squickiness factor and the legitimate concern about future generations are inseparably linked. SCOTUS will not hear this case this year but next, at the earliest. This raises a third lie about this issue, that the gays are winning. Any "gains" have a stay, which will remain until such time as SCOTUS hands down a verdict. They really could go either way.

I really don't think I'm the one to do their casework for them. The best we could do while we wait is to remove false ideas about what's been going on.

Um... what? Where did I mention religion? So you see a link between squickiness and future generations. Could you, perhaps, clarify exactly what your concern in this regard is?

 

[Armoured]

Asked and answered, 1,000 times, and easy to see. You're just playing dumb. Or if you're really asking that question, you have a reprobate mind. Sorry, not playing those games.

I've seen plenty of people ask this question, I've never once seen it answered, at least not in a relevant or coherent fashion. I don't think I have a reprobate mind, and I'm not playing games, I seriously do not know what affect you think allowing SSM will have either for society or on kids. Is a straight answer too much to ask for? I'm sorry if you feel you've provided a response before, I know that can be frustrating, but please? Because I honestly don't know.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

The squickiness factor and the legitimate concern about future generations are inseparably linked. SCOTUS will not hear this case this year but next, at the earliest. This raises a third lie about this issue, that the gays are winning. Any "gains" have a stay, which will remain until such time as SCOTUS hands down a verdict. They really could go either way.

No, they are certainly separable. As time goes on, the newer, younger generation matures, fewer and fewer people will have quite such a "squick" reaction. And those that do will slowly and more steadily ignore it in favor of freedom. The same as for inter-racial couples in the past.

And how do you not consider it "winning" that 'the gays' already have recognition of marriages performed by the federal government as well as by the states that perform them?

The US federal gov't did not recognize them a couple years ago. No state in the US recognized SSM 11 years ago. No country recognized them until 2001 - now some 13 countries or so perform same-sex marriages (at least in some regions, if not as a whole). I would say that is major progress.

I would say that seems to be winning the issue. Slowly at first, but seriously picking up steam and speed the last few years.

Also, the issue of SSM in the US is very unlikely to be revoked and changed in a negative way by SCOTUS - who only over a year ago removed the barriers to the US Federal Gov't recognizing it. And are set to here cases that could, potentially, end the issue altogether - by making removing what is left of DOMA, causing all US states to at least recognize SSM.

 

[Skaloop]

Asked and answered, 1,000 times, and easy to see. You're just playing dumb. Or if you're really asking that question, you have a reprobate mind. Sorry, not playing those games.

Answered by whom? Not by you. Not by anyone.

Ask me a question, I'll answer it. Why won't you? I'm neither dumb nor reprobate, so if you can't support your claims then that's on you.

 

[Skybringr]

The majority of HIV rests in our small population of homosexuals.

I won't even bother to post the statistics, we all know this reality.

How is there nothing wrong with that

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The majority of HIV rests in our small population of homosexuals.

I won't even bother to post the statistics, we all know this reality.

How is there nothing wrong with that

Have you heard the term safe sex? HIV isn't something you just catch by being gay or even by having gay sex.

Literally, anyone can contract HIV if they aren't careful. Perfect example, Magic Johnson.

 

[Armoured]

Answered by whom? Not by you. Not by anyone.

Ask me a question, I'll answer it. Why won't you? I'm neither dumb nor reprobate, so if you can't support your claims then that's on you.

If it's so easy to see, why are they so averse to answering?

 

[trunks2k]

The majority of HIV rests in our small population of homosexuals.

I won't even bother to post the statistics, we all know this reality.

How is there nothing wrong with that

Yes, most HIV infections are by males infecting each other via promiscuous sex (or at least the single largest group).
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

However, that leaves a few questions:

Why single out HIV as some sort of litmus test?

What does that say about lesbians, which are the least likely sexuality to be infected by HIV? They don't even make the chart. If we can use HIV infections to compare heterosexuals to homosexual men, why can't we use it to also compare heterosexuals to homosexual women?

Wouldn't you want to promote a culture amongst gay men that encourages long term monogamy (i.e. marriage) to help cut back on infection?

Heterosexual African Americans are disproportionately represented amongst HIV infections, does that mean there is something "wrong" with african americans? If not, why is there not anything "wrong" with that population because there is a disproportionate representation, why is there something "wrong" with gay men?

 

[Armoured]

Have you heard the term safe sex? HIV isn't something you just catch by being gay or even by having gay sex.

Literally, anyone can contract HIV if they aren't careful. Perfect example, Magic Johnson.

I always enjoy seeing people use the "disease rates=immorality" argument. Especially when you point out that STD transmission is virtually unknown among lesbians, or that black people have higher rates of heart disease and diabetes, while white people have higher rates of sickle cell anaemia, and on and on. The special pleading and rapid goal post shifting is beautiful to watch.

 

[Skybringr]

African Americans are disproportionately represented amongst HIV infections, does that mean there is something "wrong" with african americans? If not, why is there not anything "wrong" with that population because there is a disproportionate representation, why is there something "wrong" with gay men?

The vast majority of African Americans are liberal in their philosophy.

I'm not racist or misogynist or anything in my views. I simply just do not labor under political correctness. I am a realist, as well as everyone should be.
So please do not tread down that idea.

 

[Skaloop]

The majority of HIV rests in our small population of homosexuals.

No, it doesn't.

I won't even bother to post the statistics, we all know this reality.

You won't because you can't.

How is there nothing wrong with that

Because even if it were true, that would only make HIV/AIDS transmission wrong, not being gay. The majority of people who die in car crashes are heterosexuals. Is there anything wrong with driving?

 

[trunks2k]

No, it doesn't.

To be fair, at least as of 2010, 78% of new HIV infections in the US were transmitted via male to male sexual encounters

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The vast majority of African Americans are liberal in their philosophy.

Not when it comes to homosexuality. They are among the largest opposition to SSM and homosexuality in general.

 

[Skybringr]

Not when it comes to homosexuality. They are among the largest opposition to SSM and homosexuality in general.

Whether that's a fact or not, I'll admit I do not know.
I will say that I know not one black person who is against homosexuality. At least not any who would ever vote or make an official standing on it.

 

[Skaloop]

To be fair, at least as of 2010, 78% of new HIV infections in the US were transmitted via male to male sexual encounters

Sure, but that doesn't mean they were homosexual. Also, worldwide, homosexuality is not the biggest demographic of HIV infections.

 

[Skybringr]

Sure, but that doesn't mean they were homosexual. Also, worldwide, homosexuality is not the biggest demographic of HIV infections.

Consider the countries and disposition, though. It's inevitable.

 

[trunks2k]

Not when it comes to homosexuality. They are among the largest opposition to SSM and homosexuality in general.

I guess the implication is that when it comes to heterosexuality in the African American population, they like to sleep around?

Even if we accepted that premise - it still doesn't explain why a disproportionate representation of HIV in gay men somehow demonstrates the "wrongness" of being gay, but a a disproportionate representation of HIV in the African American population does not demonstrate some sort of "wrongness" of being African American, but rather a wrongness of some other attribute that is more common amongst that population.

It can be one or the other, it cannot be both. Either it's "gay men and african americans are somehow morally 'wrong'", or it's "gay men and african americans tend to be more promiscuous on average, and that should change".

Again, we are utterly ignoring homosexual women.

 

[trunks2k]

I will say that I know not one black person who is against homosexuality. At least not any who would ever vote or make an official standing on it.

Blacks support same sex marriage at an overall rate of roughly 39%, compared with 60% for whites, and 53% for hispanics.

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(yes a wikipedia link, but the relevant studies are there)

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I guess the implication is that when it comes to heterosexuality in the African American population, they like to sleep around?

Even if we accepted that premise - it still doesn't explain why a disproportionate representation of HIV in gay men somehow demonstrates the "wrongness" of being gay, but a a disproportionate representation of HIV in the African American population does not demonstrate some sort of "wrongness" of being African American, but rather a wrongness of some other attribute that is more common amongst that population.

It can be one or the other, it cannot be both. Either it's "gay men and african americans are somehow morally 'wrong'", or it's "gay men and african americans tend to be more promiscuous on average, and that should change".

Agreed. There is no direct connection between "gayness" or "blackness" and contracting HIV. Clearly the problem comes from culture. That is something that would have to be addressed the same way we deal with STDs in heterosexual individuals. Through education.

Again, we are utterly ignoring homosexual women.

That's because they kinda screw up the argument for people opposing SSM. Heck, even the bible seems to be okay with lesbians.

 

[trunks2k]

It can be one or the other, it cannot be both. Either it's "gay men and african americans are somehow morally 'wrong'", or it's "gay men and african americans tend to be more promiscuous on average, and that should change".

I should have said this:


It can be one or the other, it cannot be both. Either it's "gay men and african americans are somehow morally 'wrong'", or it's "gay men and african americans tend to have, on average, more promiscuous unprotected sex, and that should change".

The unprotected sex part is what is really relevant. Consistent, correct condom usage cuts HIV transmission to near zero.