If you think for one second the Thomas Jefferson would tolerate LET ALONE support gays not to mention their marriage you are beyond naive.

and you know him personally to know that?

Thomas Jefferson still owned slaves.

-Rudey

Legalities depend on the state in which you live. Some, if not all, of these items are still illegal, depending on where you live. As far as parents and children, as long as one is sterile, then it is okay for them to have sex. The point I was trying to make is that if gay men and women can get married, then other challenges to the institute of marriage will follow. Again, because I really do not know, I ask why it is so important for gay people to be joined together in marriage, and why the same argument does not apply to other couples considered outside the "norm".

I do not appreciate the ugliness that has ensued from my comments. If you disagree with me or others, please try to be adult about it. This issue is something that many people feel very strongly about. Hopefully the boards can be a place for us all to express and challenge our beliefs in a non threatening manner, in the hopes of finding some enlightenment from others points of view.

The man owned slaves, he didn't think blacks were equal, it probably never occured to him that anyone would be interested in the same sex or that the nation would fall to such a low that it would ever be accept it as somehow natural...Granted most of America doesn't...

See also: http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=44932
Colonist said much the same there. Went awful quiet after a while though.

My argument had nothing to do with which demographics are more prone to new infections. I was talking about who is currently infected. The CDC table in this link will back me up :D

link

I admit the data here is a little dated. However, out of the 718,002 cases reported to the CDC in 2002, 420,790 were reported to be by way of male to male sexual contact. 59,719 were male to male and injected drug use. By my count that's well over half.

This compares to the cases that were reported contracted through heterosexual contact of only 50,793.

There would have to be some freak occurance for those two numbers to be anywhere near close at this point.

I don't think it's a huge leap to say that if benefits are made available to spouses of homosexuals who are infected with HIV that it'll hit the employer's benefits provider in the pocketbook.

But that was the only way I could see this even remotely effecting most of us.

I think you'd agree though with what I said... Even though I accept the above as true, I don't think it's a large enough issue to really make anyone oppose this.

Yep aurora_borealis, links leading from ktsnake's link confirm what you correctly surmised. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5306a3.htm (U.S only not Global statistic).

eta: Further such docs at the index page: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/dhap.htm

eta: The Global info is at http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/epidemiology.asp . I glanced at the AIDS epidemic update 2003 report, scary stuff. :eek: The Sub Saharan Africa stats are WAY higher than is proportionate to their size. It's a big report but a brief glance saw a lot of other striking things too.

[/end hijack]

I got this from another board. I agree with the person:

Isn't that what I essentially said, and was slammed for?

Why do people keep saying if we allow gay marriage we will then allow people to hurt children or animals.

Lets say I am gay (which I am not, but lets pretend), and I want to marry my life partner. That does not mean on my honey moon I will be in Billy The Goat and little suzy for the fun.


One has nothing to do with an other.

Having sex with children is illegal because if f*** with their head and they are not at the "legal" age to be a mature voting person.

Beastality(sp) is illegal becuase WE ARE NOT THE SAME SPECIES!!!!!

Have sexual activies may not be what "God" or whom ever wanted for us nor it is "naturall" in the concept that we can not reporduce that way. But just think, gay people are not bring UNWANTED, UNLOVED CHILDREN!!!

Maybe we as American should worry about a 14 year old being on food stamps becuase she got knocked up then a two women wanting to be together legaly.

I think our priorities are wrong. Can we just let people be happy?

Did anyone see the opening spoof for SNL tonight? I swear they stole this thread! Too funny!

Article in today's Newsweek
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4340270/

Couples: State of Our Unions
If marriage is in trouble, don't blame gays. Straights changed the rules

By Barbara Kantrowitz
Newsweek

March 1 issue - Amber Settle, a 35-year-old associate professor of computer science at DePaul University in Chicago, is eight months pregnant and unmarried. Not so long ago, that would have been downright scandalous. But Settle and Andre Berthiaume, 35, also an associate professor at DePaul, feel no pressure to make their eight-year relationship official, despite the imminent arrival of their baby. Instead, they've drawn up powers of attorney and custody, and child-support agreements in case of a breakup. They also plan to update their wills. A marriage license? Not any time soon. More important than that "piece of paper," says Settle, "is that we make sure our relationship is strong ... We will be Mom and Dad in every way that's important."

While critics contend that same-sex weddings will destroy the "sanctity" of traditional unions, researchers say that it's actually heterosexual couples like Settle and Berthiaume who are redefining marriage—not only in this country but throughout the Western world. Over the past few decades, they've made walking down the aisle just another lifestyle choice. The old model—marriage and then kids—has given way to a dizzying array of family arrangements that reflect more lenient attitudes about cohabitation, divorce and children born out of wedlock. In fact, says University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite, author of "The Case for Marriage," gay couples are "really swimming against the tide. What they want is something that maybe heterosexual couples take for granted: the social, religious and legal recognition of a union—to be able to say to the clerk at the grocery store, 'My husband is right behind me. He has the money'."

This increasingly diverse family album could be a reason why gay marriage has struck a nerve. The institution of marriage is so battered that many consider gay unions the last straw, says Princeton historian Hendrik Hartog, author of "Man and Wife in America." "They see gay marriage as a boundary case"; in other words, a line too far. But if the past is a guide, that line is going to keep moving no matter who objects.


Scholars say the evolution of marriage is nothing new; it's an institution in constant flux, always responding to the particular needs of each era. "Throughout much of history, if you acted like you were married, then you were treated like you were married," says Stephanie Coontz of Evergreen State University, a historian of marriage. Religion, a major part of the current defense of traditional marriage in this country, didn't even enter the picture, Coontz says, until the ninth century, and then only to prevent European aristocrats from marrying close relatives. The goal was not to stop incest but to make sure noble families didn't consolidate too much power. (Commoners could still hook up with anyone they fancied.)

Even a century ago, a time that many people might look upon with nostalgia, marriage was hardly the stuff of hearts and flowers. In this country, women were essentially the property of their husbands, with few rights. If an American woman married a foreigner, she automatically lost her citizenship; a man who did the same kept his. Until the 1970s, there was no concept of marital rape because husbands "owned" their wives' sexuality. Interracial marriages and birth control were illegal in many states until the late 1960s.

To see what the future holds, Americans could look to Europe, where marriage rates are plummeting and illegitimate births are the norm—prompting widespread concern about how to promote family stability, especially for children. "We've moved from de jure to de facto marriage," says Kathleen Kiernan of the London School of Economics. She estimates that 50 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds in Europe are cohabiting. The numbers are highest, perhaps 70 percent, in Scandinavia, especially Sweden. The Swedes have even created their own term for someone who cohabits: "sambo," a word that appears on official forms besides the options "married" and "single." Another new word, "sarbo," refers to people who consider themselves a couple but live apart.

Europeans lead the way on gay marriage as well. The Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriages, in 2001; Belgium followed a year ago. Many countries, including Norway, Sweden, Denmark and its province Greenland, have registered partnership laws for heterosexual couples that extend some benefits to gays. Germany has quietly expanded rights for cohabiting couples, while in 1998, France approved the Pacte Civil de Solidarite—a kind of intermediate step between casual cohabitation and formal marriage that provides tax and health benefits.

In this country, marriage still remains the ideal for most people, although a lifetime with one person is increasingly elusive. Marriage is a symbol, says sociologist Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University, "that you have created a good personal life." It's also good for a family's wealth and emotional health. Married couples have more assets, says Evelyn Lehrer, a professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago. It's also a hedge. "There's a pooling of risks," Lehrer says. "If one spouse becomes unemployed, the other can respond and increase the level of work." Married couples also live longer and are better adjusted. Having someone around to watch out for you helps, Lehrer says. There's also considerable research showing that children reared in stable, two-parent families thrive; having kids is still a big reason many people ultimately head down the aisle.

PHOTO GALLERY
Marriage with...Controversy
• Same-sex couples endured bad weather and protests to exchange wedding vows in San Francisco. Launch Flash presentation


Although there are no national statistics on how many people marry in religious ceremonies today, most experts believe that the number is steadily declining, as fewer Americans describe themselves as affiliated with a religion. But religion can keep couples together. Studies show that people who marry within a religious community are somewhat more likely to stay married than people with no affiliation. Marrying someone of the same or similar religion also improves the odds of staying together, says Lehrer, even if one partner converts. Drawing on research on Roman Catholics and Protestants, she says, "couples [from] the same religion through conversion are at least as stable as when they're raised in the same faith."

While popular shows like "The Bachelor" make a fetish of courtship rituals, most people say what they're really looking for is a partner who can share life's burdens. Educated women used to be the least likely to get married; now they're the most likely because of their earning power. "Marriage today is less of an ego trip and more of an economic bargain for men," says Cherlin. Women with low levels of education are the least likely to find a spouse—a troubling situation since they are also most in need of the financial support that a husband could provide. A big problem is that the men most available to them as partners tend to be of the same educational level and therefore have limited earning potential, which also makes them less desirable husband material.

Even for people from nontraditional backgrounds, the romantic ideal of marriage endures. Hillary Gross, 24, grew up with four unmarried parents. Her biological parents divorced when she was a year old and quickly entered into new relationships that have endured for decades. Still, she longs to marry. "I'd really like to have one person that I give my all to," she says. She was recently in a long-term relationship that she thought might end in a wedding. It didn't, and she's readjusting her dream. Same plot, with a new leading man—and maybe even a happy ending.

With Pat Wingert, Karen Springen, Julie Scelfo, Joan Raymond and bureau reports

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

It really doesn't matter what he imagined would ever happen or not. He and our founders espoused equality for all humans and wrote it right into the Constitution. If modern times have brought to our attention issues that have helped us decide that, after all, not all people are created equal, then admit it.

That's my beef with conservatives on this one. Whatever the reasoning behind all this, they are quite clearly calling for the refusal of certain rights to certain people which is not consistent with equal rights for all humans. Whether that's ok or not, I just think they should admit it and deal with it. I think it is hypocritical and unfair that these people can say they live in the greatest country in the wolrd and are 100% behind equality for everyone, then when they realize there are people they don't want to give eqaulity to, they try to shove it under the carpet.

I personally am supportive of gay marriage, but if we refuse to give a certain set of people rights, while giving another set of people those same refused rights, I think we should all be grown-ups and agree that the US is not a place of equal opportunity for all. Again, whether that is morally right or wrong doesn't matter, but you shouldn't get to say it if you really don't espouse it!

What you consider rights, someone else might not.

-Rudey