Bush wants to ban gay marriage again

[Andrew]

After solving the terrorist, and illegal immigrant issue, and hundreds of other problems with America (and other countries) Bush has decided to go after the 3rd problem that is destroying American society.

Gay Marriage.

GOP renews fight against gay marriage

Those pesky gays are why soldiers are dieing in Iraq, illegal immigrants crossing the border, and also why columbine happened, and a slowing economy.

Every time a gay gets married Jesus cries and God kills kittens.

Quite frankly I think Bush is doing this because

1. He's a Christian who dislikes gays and abortions (and those people are who voted for him)

2. It's a smokescreen for the real problems in America he isn't solving.

Now the other side:

Ok, the only reason why gay marriage is silly, is because why would you want to get married if the religion doesn't accept you? Thus it means that religion must'nt play any part of marriage with gays, probably more of a tradition thing that everyone is brought up with when 2 people love each other and want to show commitment they get married.

Does USA have common law where when 2 people live together after a year or so and they get taxed the same as a married couple (pretty much everything is the same as with married couples)? If that were true, then gays would have commonlaw which is same as marriage (minus the marriage, although in common law, you don't need to get a divorce, so probably more of a commitment thing). Quite frankly gays are silly for wanting to be married when religion doesn't like them, therefor give them civil unions which are the exact same, minus the term married (they can still give each other rings, hold a "wedding" ceremony etc)

Also, should someone be able to go have a jewish or whatever wedding even though they may not be from that religion?

For anyone who is against Gay marriage, please enlighten me. Is it because God doesn't like it (and whipsered so into your ear last night?)? Is banning gay marriage actually progess? Heterosexual couples who don't believe in religion shouldn't get married as well because if you don't beleive in the religion, then God would be upset just as if 2 gays got married ::)?

Ooo, new image up at http://www.oldamericancentury.org/ that fits this subject perfectly.

hmm...

[GUNWOUNDS]

I dont think people actually care about the act of gay marriage, per se.  If two gays wanna hold hands and give each other a ring and live together and have a personal promise to each other, thats their perogative. 

1.) But why should they have legal documents (license) stating they are married? 

2.) Why should they get recognized by the federal government and qualify for benefits (taxes) and spousal rights (pensions, social security)?

To be honest.... marriage is an institution that is defined by the government, since it determines who is able to get a marriage license...and therefore who is able to get tax deductions and spousal rights.  A driver's license is also dictated by the government.  The government says when you can and cannot obtain one and whether you qualify for one.

Therefore if the government wants to ban gays from getting a marriage license they are totally justified in doing so.  Just as they are able to deny someone a driver's license. Or a building permit, or a liquor permit, or a...you get the point.

I really dont see what all the commotion is about.  The gays are not being denied a ceremony, a honeymoon, a ring, etc.  They are being denied a legal document that the government is fully justified in denying due to the license having governmental ties.

Guns

[Dante]

Precisely. And without that document, partners will not have the same rights as a married couple. I'm not sure how it works elsewhere, but here in the UK some examples are:

1) Death duties, aka Inheritance tax. Someone whose partner (by marriage) has died is either free from inheritance tax or the tax percentage is lessened, I can't remember which. This means that two women in a stable relationship for twenty years would still have to pay the same tax if one of them died as they would if they had just been casual aquaintences for a week. A couple that had been married for a week, however, gains all of these benefits should one of them die (which would be rather poor timing).

2) Tax breaks. Simply put, married couples get tax deals that aren't available to unmarried couples.

3) Legal representation. Spouses are allowed to act on behalf of their partner, in some cases. Signing documents or making decisions when they are unable, that kind of thing. Whether to turn off life support, for example.

There are more instances, but you get the idea. The ceremony and the commitment is all well and good, but part of the whole marriage thing is being a recognised couple. Legally and socially. To be denied that recognition is to deny the relationship, or declare it less valid than another. "No, you aren't a couple, you're just two people who live together." That's not very nice.

I haven't looked into the matter, but I believe that the Civil Partnerships thingy available here addresses most of the important issues.

To be honest.... marriage is an institution that is defined by the government, since it determines who is able to get a marriage license...and therefore who is able to get tax deductions and spousal rights.  A driver's license is also dictated by the government.  The government says when you can and cannot obtain one and whether you qualify for one.

Therefore if the government wants to ban gays from getting a marriage license they are totally justified in doing so. Just as they are able to deny someone a driver's license. Or a building permit, or a liquor permit, or a...you get the point.

Mm hm? And if the government decided to prevent black people from marrying? Or immigrants? Or people with red hair? This omnipresent entity known as 'the government' is not somehow unanswerable to the people that it purports to serve. 'The government has the power, therefore it has a right to that power and can grant or deny requests as it pleases.' That's the reasoning of dictators, there.

Extra point: I think the most noteworthy word in the title is 'again.' This issue just keeps popping up, again and again, whenever someone thinks to cram it into the news. It's getting dull. Just let the equality roll, for goodness' sake.

It's is a matter that I don't tend to give much thought to, to be honest. I'm generally in favour, but not so much that I'm one of the placard-waving "It must be called marriage and it must be performed in a church and recognised by the church yadda yadda yadda..." oddballs. Marriage as a religious institution is best left alone, religions are free to create their own wacky rules. Marriage as recognition by the government and society of a couple, in the form of the rights of a couple, should be open to all.

It's a matter of equality, really. All fights for equality, the two most obvious ones being those for women and black people, boil down to one sentiment: We want the same thing that you have.

[Acriku]

I dont think people actually care about the act of gay marriage, per se.  If two gays wanna hold hands and give each other a ring and live together and have a personal promise to each other, thats their perogative. 

1.) But why should they have legal documents (license) stating they are married? 

2.) Why should they get recognized by the federal government and qualify for benefits (taxes) and spousal rights (pensions, social security)?

Why shouldn't they? Restricting freedoms from minorities and discrimination against them is a past we're all familiar with - why is it happening again? Albeit, it's not as bad as before, but the principle is the same. Besides, the government works for the people - it is not an independent machine able to justify its own means without reason.

Therefore if the government wants to ban gays from getting a marriage license they are totally justified in doing so.  Just as they are able to deny someone a driver's license. Or a building permit, or a liquor permit, or a...you get the point.

It is not the same because denying someone a permit or license is a lot different than denying it to a category of people based on that category, without any justification (which is not a stands-for-itself kind of thing, the government needs a very good reason why it is removing freedoms from a group of people).

[Dunenewt]

Haha have you seen the ad at the bottom of the page?

Do they have *civil unions* in USA?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well of course it will take a majority vote to get the laws changed the way people want them.  If the majority of the US population were people over the age of 80 who all wanted to get together and have the visual acuity test standards lowered or removed to prevent the elderly from being age discriminated against in getting a driver's license.  It could be done.  It could be said the driver's license exams are designed to put the elderly at a disadvantage.

Simply put, getting a driver's license is a privilege not a right, and getting a marriage license that gives tax benefits is a privilege not a right.  The government can and will dictate such things as it sees fit.  The government is not an independent machine that justifies its own means but it does do what the majority of lawmakers wants (which is perceived as what the public wants) .... affirmative action is reverse discrimination yet the majority of lawmakers wanted it... so it became law.  If lawmakers want to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them a license.... they can and will.  It also seems clear that despite the "sexual orientation" clause in minority status descriptions, gays are not given full recognition as minorities as those of race/gender (like blacks or women).

I'd say this is a fundamental problem for gays.... one where people simply dont recognize two gay men as minorities wanting something.  People view them instead as two silly men kissing each other and wanting to exploit the tax laws.  So until they can be taken seriously as a minority i dont think they'll make much progress at all.

Guns

[Ice_Cube]

For anyone who is against Gay marriage, please enlighten me. Is it because God doesn't like it (and whipsered so into your ear last night?)? Is banning gay marriage actually progess? Heterosexual couples who don't believe in religion shouldn't get married as well because if you don't beleive in the religion, then God would be upset just as if 2 gays got married ::)?

Its because its wrong :)

[Dante]

Twit.

And because one-word replies are frowned upon, I'll move on to say that I appreciate the ambiguity of Gunwounds' most recent reply. States the facts without giving an opinion on them. Not that this is always a good thing mind you, but in this case it works quite well. It's not a matter that a lot of people really think about. Me included.

[Acriku]

Well of course it will take a majority vote to get the laws changed the way people want them.  If the majority of the US population were people over the age of 80 who all wanted to get together and have the visual acuity test standards lowered or removed to prevent the elderly from being age discriminated against in getting a driver's license.  It could be done.  It could be said the driver's license exams are designed to put the elderly at a disadvantage.

Which is still different than outright excluding a group of people with no reason other than some form of prejudice (while having elderly people at a disadvantage makes sense, considering the safety in it).

Simply put, getting a driver's license is a privilege not a right, and getting a marriage license that gives tax benefits is a privilege not a right.  The government can and will dictate such things as it sees fit.  The government is not an independent machine that justifies its own means but it does do what the majority of lawmakers wants (which is perceived as what the public wants) .... affirmative action is reverse discrimination yet the majority of lawmakers wanted it... so it became law.  If lawmakers want to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them a license.... they can and will.  It also seems clear that despite the "sexual orientation" clause in minority status descriptions, gays are not given full recognition as minorities as those of race/gender (like blacks or women).

Yes, the government has a lot of kinks to work out (like affirmative action), but that doesn't mean that the government should continue to promote discrimination. Also, given enough time the politically active part of the gay community will probably have enough influence to give the lawmakers a reason to recognize them. But, if you'r right about the lack of recognition then they have a ways to go.

I'd say this is a fundamental problem.... one where people simply dont recognize two gay men as minorities wanting something.  People view them instead as two silly men kissing each other and wanting to exploit the tax laws.  So until they can be taken seriously as a minority i dont think they'll make much progress at all.

Guns

I'm not sure how gay people wanting the tax benefits of marriage is any more exploiting tax laws as straight people wanting the same.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Which is still different than outright excluding a group of people with no reason other than some form of prejudice (while having elderly people at a disadvantage makes sense, considering the safety in it).

I'm sure that many elderly people would vehemently disagree with you  ;)

Yes, the government has a lot of kinks to work out (like affirmative action), but that doesn't mean that the government should continue to promote discrimination. Also, given enough time the politically active part of the gay community will probably have enough influence to give the lawmakers a reason to recognize them. But, if you'r right about the lack of recognition then they have a ways to go.

Well its a fact that the reason the gay marriage issue comes up so much is because the republicans have performed polls and found that the majority of americans are against gay marriage.  So it makes sense they would embrace an issue that so many people have a strong opinion about.  Which makes them look good.  And the gay community has a long way to go in representation as homosexuality is an issue that carries that universal stigma like abortion.  Frankly put, it will never be a popular platform issue.  Because you will always have some Cowboy in Montana or Texas saying "Queers getting married?  Hell no!"  Except for the brokeback mountain cowboys.  But they dont count.

I'm not sure how gay people wanting the tax benefits of marriage is any more exploiting tax laws as straight people wanting the same.

Well because many gays who would normally not give marriage a second thought would possibly go through with the marriage just to get the stated benefits.... just as an illegal immigrant would marry an american just to get citizenship.  Marriages can be exploitive or they can be genuine.  Perhaps, due to more heterosexual couples tieing the knot than homosexual couples.... it could be perceived that a sudden increase in gay marriages could be for exploitive purposes.  Furthermore, if gay marriages become known as civil unions... then no divorce is necessary to seperate (because its a civil union) and you have people creating and breaking unions at will .... and tax benefits become meaningless.... might as well give them to the single as well as the married at that point.  I guess the government just wants to make their "marital status" box on their tax forms actually mean something.

Guns

[Andrew]

Maybe they should come up with a document and ceremony that is exactly the same as marriage, except replace the word marriage anytime it comes up with "civil union". All the same laws/tax/whatever would normally apply to married couples would be bestowed upon the civil union.

How hard could it be?

(PS. don't be stupid like Canada and forget make any laws about gays getting divorced...)

[Acriku]

I'm sure that many elderly people would vehemently disagree with you  ;)

If they can't see on the roads, it's obvious they shouldn't be driving. There isn't anything at least obviously dangerous about keeping marriage from gay couples.

Well because many gays who would normally not give marriage a second thought would possibly go through with the marriage just to get the stated benefits.... just as an illegal immigrant would marry an american just to get citizenship.  Marriages can be exploitive or they can be genuine. 

Just like heteros could and do, but you're not suggesting keeping marriage from them are you?

Perhaps, due to more heterosexual couples tieing the knot than homosexual couples.... it could be perceived that a sudden increase in gay marriages could be for exploitive purposes.

I thought the more prevalence of heteros tying the knot was due to every state allowing it, as opposed to the gays.

[Acriku]

Maybe they should come up with a document and ceremony that is exactly the same as marriage, except replace the word marriage anytime it comes up with "civil union". All the same laws/tax/whatever would normally apply to married couples would be bestowed upon the civil union.

How hard could it be?

(PS. don't be stupid like Canada and forget make any laws about gays getting divorced...)

I don't think they should because there is nothing inherent in the word marriage that distinctly requires a man and a woman. People like the Christian Right get their definition from the bible. People like that shouldn't be trusted with lawmaking.

Also, America already has a past filled with "separate but equal" problems, why start it up again?

[GUNWOUNDS]

If they can't see on the roads, it's obvious they shouldn't be driving. There isn't anything at least obviously dangerous about keeping marriage from gay couples.

Many old people think they see just fine and that the driving standards are just overzealous conspiracies by the youth to keep them off the road due to deeprooted disrespect of the elderly. Safety is just a diversionary tactic in their opinion.  The elderly would also quote sources that most accidents are caused by teenagers and that the elderly are the best drivers.

Just like heteros could and do, but you're not suggesting keeping marriage from them are you?

I thought the more prevalence of heteros tying the knot was due to every state allowing it, as opposed to the gays.

Statiscally speaking heteros get married due to religious or family tradition.  Gays do not.  Most religions do not accept gays and therefore gay marriage isnt a religious tradition.... also a gay man cannot say he is getting married in family tradition to a man just like his Biological Dad..because his dad married a woman.  Simply put, gay culture is perceived as a rebellious non-traditional community and therefore monogamous relations are quite rare/odd.....since Gays are perceived as being promiscuous and less likely to settle down with one partner, people are more skeptical of gay marriage and perceive it as blatant tax exploitation or abuse of the law.  Does gay marriage cause harm to the US public?  I dunno... does scamming the government out of millions of tax dollars hurt the public...maybe.  Should we ban hetero couples from getting marriage licenses because they are capable of fraud?  No.. because it depends on whether the government sees something as a threat or a problem.  If hetero fraud is low... then they can have licenses.  If homo fraud is high... then they cannot have licenses.  The government is very dynamic and doesnt do black and white decisions, such as "if we keep this away from some people...we should keep it away from all people"  Its more like "threat assessment is valid here...therefore ban this in this situation with these types of people"

Such as the threat of blacks losing jobs to whites is high......so lets have affirmative action.  Or 10 years from now the threat is low...so lets do away with affirmative action.  Its a fluid system based on risk assessment and popular opinion.

I thought the more prevalence of heteros tying the knot was due to every state allowing it, as opposed to the gays.

No... laws dont stop gays from having ceremonies or exchanging rings or kissing or having sex or having honeymoons or living together or being monogamous.  Its gay culture that stops gays from getting married.  Since they are somewhat anti-traditional by default they  are less likely to do something traditional such as get formally married.  If you did a survey on how many gays are unofficially married you could be confident the number would be quite low. Elton John and Dante, clearly state that its the last thing on their minds.  And rightly so.  Most marriages (aside from being religious/family traditions) are for legitimizing children.  Meaning if you arent married then your child is born out of wedlock and therefore a bastard.  However with gays thats not an issue.   Your above statement is the farthest from the truth.  Law has absolutely no bearing on the number of gay marriages.  It only has a bearing on the number of gay marriage licenses.  There is a difference.  I dont need a license to be considered married to my wife.  Our ceremony, our rings, and our personal promises mean the most.  The marriage license was some legal document i never gave a second thought about.  I think i have only looked at it once (when i signed it).  The license is definately the least symbolic thing of a marriage.

Guns

[Dante]

So essentially what you're saying is that the root of the problem is one of culture and perception? In other words, once 'the gays' prove that they are capable of stable, not-exploiting-the-government relationships, the government will rethink the issue? There are already homosexuals that have been in monogamous relationships (this is not "rare/odd") for twenty years or so, what more is required? Hmm, I suppose I could answer my own question. The dispelling of the 'promiscuous' gay stereotype who has a string of relationships and never settles down before dying of AIDs at about 30. Well, if the breeders can shrug off the image of wife-beaters and shrews then maybe there's a chance. Yes, I'm being facetious.

The thing is, it's a minority of the population that fulfill these stereotypes. I've been to two clubs in my life, and never for the purpose of picking some random person up for a night of debauchery (as opposed to some of my straight acquaintances, who were doing just that at sixteen). I think the myth is proving hard to dispell because a lot of straight people just won't be convinced. They don't want to be. It's easier to dislike people if you can demonise them. That and the vocal minority of gay people who actually do act like that, make life rather difficult for the rest of us.

Even so, without some form of proof to back their stance up, the government should not be able to deny anything from certain sections of the population at whim. How can you know that homosexual marriage would be fraud if there haven't been any? The register of civil unions in the UK shows an almost exact same percentage of 'divorces' between gay couples in the first two years as straight ones.

Besides which, it's still discrimination. Big no-no.

Also, if gay marriages were allowed then you could have people getting married like their dads... just wait a generation or so. Tada, instant tradition.

[Andrew]

Let's see what Jon Stewart thinks in a video from his show (sometime this week?) when he debates Bill Bennett about gay marriage.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8614

Might be down atm.

Its because its wrong :)

That's what homophobes say. I've seen a few who flip out whenever any gay topic/joke comes up. "omg it's not normal! <insert gay slur>, wish they'd all die, etc".

[Edric O]

Perhaps the solution to the problem lies in rethinking the legal rights associated with traditional heterosexual marriage - and making them available to unmarried people too, or else getting rid of them altogether. Dante mentioned 3 broad categories of rights available to married people:

1. Inheritance tax breaks.

2. Other tax breaks.

3. Legal representation.

Legal representation, in particular, should be available to anyone in any circumstance. You should be able to say "if anything happens to me and I am incapacitated, I want person X to represent me and make decisions on my behalf". It's only reasonable, and I think you can already do this.

As for tax breaks, I dislike them in general and I believe the tax code should not discriminate between married and unmarried people.

[Andrew]

As for tax breaks, I dislike them in general and I believe the tax code should not discriminate between married and unmarried people.

Canada has that solved with common-law. Live with someone for a year (don't have to be a couple) and get almost all(AFAIK) the same tax breaks as a married couple. Maybe the US should look into it?

[GUNWOUNDS]

So essentially what you're saying is that the root of the problem is one of culture and perception? In other words, once 'the gays' prove that they are capable of stable, not-exploiting-the-government relationships, the government will rethink the issue? There are already homosexuals that have been in monogamous relationships (this is not "rare/odd") for twenty years or so, what more is required? Hmm, I suppose I could answer my own question. The dispelling of the 'promiscuous' gay stereotype who has a string of relationships and never settles down before dying of AIDs at about 30. Well, if the breeders can shrug off the image of wife-beaters and shrews then maybe there's a chance. Yes, I'm being facetious.

The thing is, it's a minority of the population that fulfill these stereotypes. I've been to two clubs in my life, and never for the purpose of picking some random person up for a night of debauchery (as opposed to some of my straight acquaintances, who were doing just that at sixteen). I think the myth is proving hard to dispell because a lot of straight people just won't be convinced. They don't want to be. It's easier to dislike people if you can demonise them. That and the vocal minority of gay people who actually do act like that, make life rather difficult for the rest of us.

Even so, without some form of proof to back their stance up, the government should not be able to deny anything from certain sections of the population at whim. How can you know that homosexual marriage would be fraud if there haven't been any? The register of civil unions in the UK shows an almost exact same percentage of 'divorces' between gay couples in the first two years as straight ones.

Besides which, it's still discrimination. Big no-no.

Also, if gay marriages were allowed then you could have people getting married like their dads... just wait a generation or so. Tada, instant tradition.

I dont think Gay Tea-Rooms were a Myth.  Since your good with History I'm sure you know what they are. Also i believe AIDS was originally predominate in the gay community. So while stereotypes exist.. they usually start from somewhere.  Is it a minority fulfilling the stereotype? Not quite sure about that.  One thing to think about----> and that is men usually are not concerned with chastity (as most women would be) therefore it would seem logical that no artifical barriers (such as chastity) would get in the way of gay sex.  Meaning one could reasonably assume that most gays have sex with zero inhibition. (unlike most hetero-men having to "woo" (or pay) a woman for sex) Therefore promiscuity would not be a stretch for the gay community as one would think a gay man would never have to "woo" (or pay) another man for sex.

Edrico said: "As for tax breaks, I dislike them in general and I believe the tax code should not discriminate between married and unmarried people."

I totally agree.... give everyone a tax break .... who cares really.....  or if they must stratify tax benefits,  do it solely based on the amount of children (dependents) one has to take care of (which i think is already part of the system.

Guns

[Khan]

Just had to pick up on one point, gay men never having to woo or pay for sex? Please tell us what this is based on. Your extensive sociological research? And if Gay men never have to pay for sex what about rent boys? And I think gay men do go on dates, not so sure about that so disprove me please and I'm sorry if I'm wrong but it seems you're making some massive assumptions and generalisations in your argument.

[chatfsh]

I tried to stay away from this topic for as long as I could for a couple of reasons.  One is that my knowledge of the gay world ends and begins with the TV show

[Dante]

I dont think Gay Tea-Rooms were a Myth. Since your good with History I'm sure you know what they are. Also i believe AIDS was originally predominate in the gay community. So while stereotypes exist.. they usually start from somewhere. Is it a minority fulfilling the stereotype? Not quite sure about that. One thing to think about----> and that is men usually are not concerned with chastity (as most women would be) therefore it would seem logical that no artifical barriers (such as chastity) would get in the way of gay sex.  Meaning one could reasonably assume that most gays have sex with zero inhibition. (unlike most hetero-men having to "woo" (or pay) a woman for sex) Therefore promiscuity would not be a stretch for the gay community as one would think a gay man would never have to "woo" (or pay) another man for sex.

Ok, you were going well right up until the chastity bit. Stereotypes have to come from somewhere, and some people do indeed fulfill them. But 'the gays' are just as diverse a fraction of society as 'the women,' or 'the people who wear shoes.' I shouldn't have to explain further than that.

Oh, and 'since your good with history'? You be careful what you imply there.

"Meaning one could reasonably assume that most gays have sex with zero inhibition." Absurd. There are thousands of people who have sex with little or no inhibition, both straight and gay. In fact in my experience the straight people were more likely to sleep around. I know none of my gay friends are, and I certainly don't. Furthermore, the word 'most' is something of an insult to those who are somewhat less promiscuous than the stereotype would suggest.

The problem here is that a large community (substantially larger than most people believe) is being judged on the actions of a (relatively) small minority. And even then, that minority has many forces working on it that fashion its behaviour. Some gay people themselves have not yet dispelled the notion that theirs is a sordid, shameful lifestyle. Hence they take part in sordid activities. Or some see the stereotype and think that this is what it means to be gay, so they try to live up to a role that is not theirs. And of course there is the fact that homosexuality is still very much viewed negatively by the world. So the gay community (part of it) goes underground and hides, acting differently I think as a form of rebellion against society more than through any actual desire. I am of the opinion that should homosexuality be accepted by society as a whole, the 'dirtier' elements would all but disappear. Not completely of course.

I tried to stay away from this topic for as long as I could for a couple of reasons. One is that my knowledge of the gay world ends and begins with the TV show "Will and Grace". In other words, I know very little about it. The other reason is, I did not wish to offend anyone with my views on the topic.

I was wondering. Don't worry about either reason. People don't generally worry about causing offense here, and ignorance of the topic has never stopped some people from arguing. ;)

Given my limited knowledge, perhaps you in this forum could enlighten me. If the promiscuous gay stereotype is only exhibited by a minority, why did AIDS spread like wild fire through the gay community? I remember in the early 90's gay people saying that they had reconciled themselves to the fact that they were going to die of AIDS. It was rampant in the community and therefore they felt it was inevitable that they would contract it. I realize that AIDS has reached the heterosexual population as well. As I understand it, it's through blood donated by HIV positive people, through men who brought it home to their wives after having sexual intercourse with a gay man (infected with AIDS), and finally through the sharing of needles. All of the reasons it's spread to the heterosexual community seem to stem in one way or the other back to the gay community (accept for the needle sharing).

The simple answer is that it's a big minority. And all it takes is one slip (perhaps without even being aware of being infected) to infect someone else, who then has any number of ways to pass it on.

The more complicated answer involves a neat parallel: syphilis. The disease itself is believed to have evolved from a pathogen found only in sheep. It doesn't take a mentat to compute the connection here. But not everyone infected with syphilis throughout the ages had sexual contact with a sheep. Most likely none of their partners did either. The disease is now - and has been for some time - passed almost solely from human to human, without any sheepy intervention. The same can be said of AIDs. It may have started in the gay community (perhaps), and thus spread there first, but it is now a disease of everyone. And just as you do not need to sleep around to get syphilis, you do not need to sleep around to get AIDs.

Some countries in Africa, where homosexuality is generally illegal, have populations that are one third HIV-positive. A third of some entire countries. Now even the most generous estimations of the number of gay people in society put it as one seventh, and in Africa where homosexuality is still a sin and a crime... Methinks sleeping around is not just for the stereotypes.

I think there is somewhat of a double standard though. Meaning one night stands between heterosexuals happen all the time.  (Personally, have NEVER participated in this activity, I find it revolting.) Is it more prevalent in the gay community? Once again, I've never bothered to do any research on this, never cared to. However, since the "chastity" factor is removed from the equation amongst gay men, I would tend to believe that the occurrence of sexual promiscuity would be significantly higher. And I am not saying that there are no gay men who believe chastity, I am saying that our culture inculcates females with the belief that they should resist sexual advances of men. With men (straight or gay), the mentality is get as much sex as you can from as many different partners as you can.

I have observed this, but only in straight men (and to a lesser extent in women, of both sexualities). All of the gay men I know are either single (and not sleeping around, though the occasional one night stand) or in long-term relationships. Besides which, this does nothing to include the phenomenon of lesbians.

I'd never heard of the Tea rooms until Gunwounds just mentioned it earlier.  So I Googled "gay tea rooms."  Needless to say, I was shocked and appalled at what occurs at these establishments. I guess the most noteworthy case was the George Michael thing a few years back.  At the risk of ignoring the double standard thing, I know that there are female prostitutes and houses of prostitution that straight men frequent. However, this seems to be more of a business transaction as opposed to two random horny people showing up at some wretched place for the purpose of engaging in sexual depravity. You just don't typically hear about straight men hanging outside women's bathrooms hoping there's some horny woman inside waiting to get it on. There's just in innate creepy factor to the gay tea room scenario  (at least based upon what I just read in the articles.)

Not being part of that particular sub-sect of society, I don't have any in-depth knowledge of the community. However, I'd venture that such behaviour first arose out of the necessity to conduct homosexual matters in secret, and it has evolved into something else. Perhaps people like breaking taboos. Perhaps because in comparison, there are not very many male prostitutes around.

I wouldn't say it's creepy exactly. It's not like anyone gets hurt as a matter of course. I think that the rituals, for want of a better word, just evolved out of different practices. And that they are perhaps hard to understand for the rest of us, but not particularly harmful. Except perhaps to the image of homosexuals in general.

I've never been a proponent of any of the gay agendas, just hasn't been my political stance. On the other hand, I would tend to think that if society altered their perception of homosexuality as being such a filthy, deplorable, abominable practice, then gay people would not be forced to carry on their activity on "the down low", in dirty, disgusting places. How can that perception be changed? I honestly don't think it ever will.

Ok, firstly the only 'agenda' is to be treated equally. That's what it all boils down to. It requires effort on both parts. If the straight community would stop condemning, insulting, murdering (etc) homosexuals, then perhaps the more 'underground' elements would fade away. Then again, if those elements were to fade anyway (or at least be toned down a bit) anyway, then the straight community is more likely to be accepting. This is of course ignoring the various religious matters, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Given that no homosexual has yet rounded up thousands of straight people in order to have them shipped off to concentration camps, there to perofrm back-breaking labour until an early death, I think we deserve a bit more benefit of the doubt.

Admittedly, I don't know much about it.  Mostly because, I don't know any gay people (other than on this site) and therefore had no real reason to acquaint myself with any of their issues.

Fair enough. Not perfect though. I don't know any black people but I'd hardly ignore any attempt to forbid them from marrying.

That aside, the internet is very useful for introducing people to each other. I'm hardly going to wear an "I'm gay, ask me about it!" badge, but still, first-hand experience here...

Oh, the last time I even had to think about the matter was last year when planning a trip to Jamaica. It was to a couples only resort. In the fine print it clearly stated, "No same sex couples allowed."  I was really surprised by that. My mind screamed out, they can't do that, that's discrimination! But apparently they can do that and they did. Naturally, being  part of a heterosexual couple this had absolutely no impact on me. But as I sat there on the beautiful Jamaican beach, sipping a pina colada as the sun sank into the horizon, I had to wonder if it was wrong of me to support this discrimination.

Perhaps a little, but who's going to turn down a holiday for the sake of a few piffling moral qualms? I know I wouldn't (I assure you there is absolutely no sarcasm in those two sentances).

But the question that followed was, if I have a choice to go to a beach where there would be a high presence of gay couples or one without, which would I prefer to go to? Which would you? (Consider the beaches equal in all other aspects, beauty, amenities, cleanliness.)

Well... I don't like beaches. And I don't like being around many couples, straight or gay. They remind me that I'm single. But I would prefer, if I had to leave the pleasantly cool ivory tower that I inhabit most of the time, to go to a beach with no limits on who could enter. Straight couples, gay couples, and us poor singles as well.

I hope this still qualifies as being on topic. And I truly hope that I haven't said anything to offend anyone because it certainly was not my intention. :)

Sometimes what is not intented comes to pass anyway. But there is an important difference between unintentional offence and deliberate maliciousness. I personally am very forgiving of the former, so no offence taken.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Given my limited knowledge, perhaps you in this forum could enlighten me.  If the promiscuous gay stereotype is only exhibited by a minority, why did AIDS spread like wild fire through the gay community?  I remember in the early 90

[GUNWOUNDS]

On the other hand, I would tend to think that if society altered their perception of homosexuality as being such a filthy, deplorable, abominable practice, then gay people would not be forced to carry on their activity on "the down low", in dirty, disgusting places. How can that perception be changed? I honestly don't think it ever will.

You yourself said that you found the behavior in the tea rooms to be deplorable and shocking and disgusting.  And you know what?  You had every right to feel that way.  Why should you alter your perception about something you feel is innately disgusting?  Homosexuals are NOT "forced" to have sex in bathrooms.  They do it for CONVENIENCE.  They know that if they pop in the tea room they can grab a quicky and go.

I mean atleast heteros go to a bar and try to buy the girl a drink or dinner first or atleast "woo" the person.  I mean Imagine a guy walking up to you on the street (or a bar) and saying "lets go to the bathroom ...now"...no wooing... just wham bam.  You would look at him like he was crazy.  Yet many gays have no problem with this.

Can society honestly change their perception?.... can you make yourself think that murder is sweet or that molestation is yummy?  No.  And as a decent human being its natural to be disgusted by disgusting behavior in a disgusting place. (ie taking a POZ LOAD in a public restroom).  So isnt it an insult to society to ask people to accept something that repulses them?  Discrimination is something you can ask to be stopped.  Genuine repulsion cannot be asked to be stopped.  SO if society sees something as a filthy, deplorable, abominable practice... how can you dare ask them to embrace it?

Chatfish said

"I honestly don't think it ever will"

Yea i agree.

Guns

[Dante]

Dante is waaay off on his answer to you. It not becuz Gays are a "large minority". The reason that HIV is spread so much fast by gays is due to the type of sex they engage in. With Anal sex the inner lining of the rectum is almost always ripped. Thus they bleed inside. And the HIV infected semen is able to seep into the wound and infect.  In addition the rectum has porous tissue full of capillaries. This makes it easy for anything placed in the rectum to be easily absorbed.  HIV in semen included.  Thus it is the very nature of Homosexual sex that caused the spread to be so rampant.

Correct in word if not in spirit. It's true that anal sex is more dangerous than other forms, but unprotected sex between a man and a woman is also certain to pass on infection because the disease is carried in all bodily fluids. Badda boom.

Also many gays are obsessed with a dangerous type of behaviour that even exists today. Its called taking a POZ LOAD. Google POZ LOAD chatfish...google it and be horrified. Its basically where a gay man fantasizes about taking a HIV Positive semen load from another gay man with AIDS. I DOUBT you will see that behavior with any heteros.

You get quite jumpy when you talk about that, don't you? You know the only person I have ever, ever heard talking about this phenomenon is you, Gunwounds? Now I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, just that perhaps it's not so prevalent as you seem to believe. 'Many' gays? I hardly think so. If that were the case, we'd be dying out.

And as I have said before, this is a minority. Personally I think the underlying reason is that of community. A group of people linked by habit and by shared stigma, and what better way to enforce that feeling of being part of a group than to share in its most stigmatising trait? Heterosexuals may not engage in this behaviour (that we know of, and I am certainly not going to research the matter), but they don't exactly need to. No community to be part of. No 'belonging' to reaffirm. Of course this is just a theory. It may simply be a psycholgical problem. Some gay people are psychologically damaged due to the various traumas that could come with being gay. Social ostracising, lonliness, the various beliefs regarding hell, the pressure of keeping a secret, blah blah... some people just can't take the accumulated stress and social hatred that unfortunately comes with the lifestyle.

I also agree that this type of behaviour is creepy. You dont see Men waiting outside the women's restrooms hoping to see if any are horny enough to do anything. If a hetero man did such a thing he would most likely wait for months outside that bathroom. I read about a guy who said that he was in college and decided to become gay. He went and had sex with 60+ other men in one week (all different ones). He said he was unable to walk normally for quite some time. I doubt you would find a woman (who wasnt a paid pornstar) who could sleep with 60+ men in one week (all different ones). And i doubt you could find a man who could have sex with 60+ women (all different ones) in one week  (without having to pay hookers).

I doubt that man was telling the truth. Although there is one recorded case of someone dying from exhaustion after having too much sex... Heterosexual woman, incidentally.

As as side note, you don't 'decide' to be gay. You can choose to act gay and have sex with people of the same gender, but believe it or not that doesn't make you gay.

You don't see men waiting outside women's bathrooms simply because women don't go there for sex. It isn't a social norm, for any community that I can think of. No, they go to street corners. Because that's where women do go for sex. See what I'm saying here? People will go to where they believe they can get sex. In the case of straight men, that's street corners and prostitute houses. Other people, being a little further down the stigma ladder, have to go elsewhere. There's really not much difference.

Simply put, the homosexual community has shown that it has one hell of a libido ... and the stereotype of gay men being overzealous sex fiends may not be entirely off base. Especially with the Tea room example as well as the insane partner turnover rate.

It's a stereotype. One that a lot of people play on, I might add. A stereotype that many people deliberately adopt in order to seperate themselves from the rank and file of the straight community. A stereotype that continues to exist because a small minority is dictating the bahaviour (and image) of a much larger group of people. The alternative of course is that all men are like this, but only the gay ones feel free enough to express it. Now there's an interesting thought... Certainly it would match with many of my own observations.

Sure Sure Sure.... there may be some nice decent homosexuals like the ones we see on Will and Grace... or maybe introverted ones like Dante who are intimidated by sex.

Excuse me?

Ok, firstly, I've told you before not to make assumptions about me.

Secondly, I'm quite aware that this is an impossible situation. If I agree then I admit to being in the minority, if I disagree then I'm confirming the stereotype, yes? Pff. You should turn your talents to writing, with that kind of ability to make up fantasies about fairies.

Note the deliberate use of that word. Self-mocking is another little habit that some of us indulge in.

But they most likely are the minority.... because IF they were the majority.... then the Stereotypes of Homosexuals being overzealous sex fiends would NOT exist and instead the stereotype of homosexuals being  shy, cautious of chastity, and averse to intercourse would exist.

Mm hm? So tell me, why is the stereotype of English nobility always involving tea and monocles? Why does the stereotypical Frenchman wear a beret and carry garlic? What drives the stereotypcial Scotsman to wear a kilt and interject 'och!' into every sentance at least twice? Because if these people were in the minority, then surely the stereotype would be something different, right?

But a few Frenchmen do wear berets. A few Scotsman wear kilts a lot. I've even known a very few to be a bit heavy on the ochs. And so this relatively small group of people comes to represent a much larger more varied group, because they are more easily noticed.

The thing about being quiet is that people don't tend to notice you. Away from the glare of the media, hundreds of thousands of homosexual men and women are leading quiet lives, all but indistinguishable from the lives of straight people. But nobody writes about this because it isn't interesting, thus fuelling the image. If all you were ever shown of Germany was evidence taken from the nazi era, methinks you would have a very heavily biased (and inaccurate) opinion of the place.

Stereotypes usually arise out of the most common form of behavior observed by another. People from India are stereotyped as being owners of 7-11's and taxi cab drivers in New York. Yes thats a stereotype. But i now live 30 minutes near New York City, and i can say with Confidence that almost every 7-11 or cab i have ever been in has been owned by someone who was from India. Stereotypes are not completely baseless. Sometimes things are created or perceived a certain way for a reason...and in this case you have to honestly ask yourself if that reason was due to the behavior of the gay community.

Sure. Och.

And i highly doubt that Homosexuals are being persecuted because of actions performed by a minority of their community. That's just a copout.

Sure. And the holocaust, that was a prime example of the ordinary political workings of Germany, yes? Or the thousands of years of persecution due to the Christian religion, among others, that was because a few people have a thing about leather?

"Straight people kill each other more than gay people! OMGWTF, Straight people are all MURDERERES!!!1!!1"

I really dont mean to offend.... despite what Dante may think.....

Yeah, but somehow or other you do. What a mystery. Though in fairness you were doing well right up until this reply.

if gays want to be gay... then fine.... but I dislike it when when people aren't intellectually honestly about things. Sure I'll admit to discrimination by society on some things.... even with gays. But i am not about to let discrimination and stereotypes be used as a 100% copout excuse for why gays are perceived as they are. They have much to answer for their own behavior and why they are perceived they way they are perceived. Period.

No, we don't. You're judging an entire people by the actions of a few. Even if it were the majority acting like this, you would still be judging people unfairly by lumping them with others that they might have very little in common with. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, they prove that all Chinese, Austrian and Russian leaders are killers, yes?

There is no inherent lifestyle that accompanies being gay. The very suggestion is ludicrous, both socially and biologically. Social behaviour is developed as a result of external conditions. Now it may people that a lot of people are led into a stereotypical lifestyle for reasons that I have already described. After all, stereotypes have to come from somewhere. But that is certainly no reason to judge us all by the actions of a particularly vocal but certainly outnumbered minority.

Also, a word of warning. This is a very emotive subject for some people, and a lot of sources out there will be biased. This is easy to explain. A great many people want others to hate homosexuals. There are various reasons for this. Partly to spread their own dogma. Partly in order to justify said dogma to themselves. Some may even do it out of a misguided sense of altruism (these are probably the worst). And of course the 'pro-gay' faction reacts in kind to biased reporting, doing the same thing itself. Therefore when searching for sources one tends to find two extremes: the hatred and the pure acceptance.

I like to think that I don't fall into either group. I know that a lot of gay people have lifestyles that are somewhat... different from most of society, and that perhaps these habits may need to be adapted if they wish to be respected. At the same time, I firmly believe that a lot of straight people demonise homosexuals in order to satisfy their own, vindictive agenda. The main problem is that there is no 'gay community.' There are hundreds of them. Thousands. Each as diverse as the next, and inextricably linked with straight lifestyles. These are not two seperate camps, we are all humans with as many different approaches to life as there are individuals. But some people insist on saying "The gays act like this." Think about it, could that statement ever work with another social group?

"The Jews are all bankers."

"The blacks are all rappers."

"The women are all inferior."

"The gays are all promiscuous."

It is (or more accurately was) a socially accepted norm in many places, but that doesn't mean that it's correct.

You yourself said that you found the behavior in the tea rooms to be deplorable and shocking and disgusting.  And you know what? You had every right to feel that way.  Why should you alter your perception about something you feel is innately disgusting? Homosexuals are NOT "forced" to have sex in bathrooms. They do it for CONVENIENCE. They know that if they pop in the tea room they can grab a quicky and go.

No. Wrong. Not 'homosexuals,' people. Just people. You're not only judging an entire social group (which arguably doesn't exist) by the actions of a few, you're assuming that you know how these people think.

Now granted I don't know exactly what the thought processes are either, but given that I'm not automatically crying shock and disgust, I think I'm a little closer to their feelings than you are.

"Why should you alter your perception about something you feel is innately disgusting?" Because sometimes you have to recognise that not everyone has the same opinions as you. Personally I find the thought (and occasional sight, I am a biology student after all) of a vagina to be truly revolting. I mean really, it looks hideous. Why anyone would want to stick any part of their anatomy in one is a concept that I sometimes find truly mind-boggling. But I recognise that some people's tastes are different from my own, so I alter my perception. It's not disgusting, just different.

Also, because I know that the comeback to that paragraph will involve anal sex, I'll just go ahead and state now that I've never taken part in that. Some of us prefer not to, you know. There's another stereotype going byebye.

I mean atleast heteros go to a bar and try to buy the girl a drink or dinner first or atleast "woo" the person. I mean Imagine a guy walking up to you on the street (or a bar) and saying "lets go to the bathroom ...now"...no wooing... just wham bam. You would look at him like he was crazy. Yet many gays have no problem with this.

You have clearly never tried to seduce a man before. It is substantially more difficult than that.

Can society honestly change their perception?.... can you make yourself think that murder is sweet or that molestation is yummy? No. And as a decent human being its natural to be disgusted by disgusting behavior in a disgusting place. (ie taking a POZ LOAD in a public restroom). So isnt it an insult to society to ask people to accept something that repulses them?

Society needs to learn tolerance. A few centuries ago it was black people who were considered repulsive by the ruling caste of society.

Discrimination is something you can ask to be stopped. Genuine repulsion cannot be asked to be stopped. SO if society sees something as a filthy, deplorable, abominable practice... how can you dare ask them to embrace it?

Live and let live. Accept and be accepted. Stopping discrimination is a start. Then we can tackle the deep-rooted and irrational hatred. Progressive policies in education would be a start. If people can overcome their hatred of each other once, twice, a thousand thousand times, then they can do it again.

Chatfish said

"I honestly don't think it ever will"

Yea i agree.

Well you would. You're a homophobic bigot.

(Sorry Nema)