Blastman said:
On the topic of marriage laws. It needs to be pointed out that the are fundamental human rights like the right to life and social rights -- like voting, marriage and practicing medicine ….etc. If voting was a fundamental human right then we wouldn't exclude people under 18 from voting, would we. And for the good of society we have social rights accorded to some people and denied others due to various times and circumstances. For the good of society we don't let anyone practice medicine -- only those that have degrees and that are board certified. It’s pretty easy to understand the reasoning behind that. Marriage is also a social right (of the state) which is set up for the good of society. That's why the state doesn't allow some people (like 10 year olds) to marry. Not allowing homosexuals to marry is not trampling on your fundamental human rights anymore than not allowing women to vote was. (which someone mentioned earlier in the thread). They're social rights.
See Loving vs Virginia. The Supreme Court of The United States disagrees with you. They described it as a fundamental civil right of man in their decision.
Blastman said:
In Canada we have a public health system so the unhealthy extremely promiscuous lifestyle that is generally associated with homosexuality costs taxpayers (me) money.
77.9%… of the AIDS cases in men (Canada) are attributable to the gay lifestyle , not to mention all the
…other … increased health/disease problems associated with that lifestyle. So yes, what you do behind closed doors does affect me. And when you vote you may vote for a gay politician that might enact laws that that I'm against. Again, acting on your belief that homosexuality is ok does affect me. Simply put, allowing gays to marry amounts to promoting in society what many people view as a sexual perversion and a unhealthy lifestyle.
Oh great. "Family Facts" and "Christian Coalition International" are the bastions of unbiased reporting when it comes to gays and lesbians.
How about the official Canadian Government's health site?
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/diseases/aids.html
77.9% of AIDS cases in men were attributed to MSM, cumulative. What that site doesn't report is that the percentage after the 1985-1996 period dropped from 70% to 35% in 1997, and has stayed in the 35% to 42% range since then. After the 1985-1996 period, where heterosexual men accounted for 9% of the cases, that increased to 20% in 1997, and is hovering above 30%.
Your sites also don't disclose the fact that the fastest rising risk group are heterosexual women. They certainly aren't getting it from gay men. The same holds true in the United States. The group with the highest risk for HIV in this country are heterosexual women. Again, not getting it from gay men are they? Checking the United States' counterpart, i.e. CDC.gov, shows an even higher skewing toward heterosexual women.
And of course, there's the worldwide epidemic of AIDS which is devastating Africa (28 Million living with HIV) and becoming an epidemic in China (1 Million living with HIV, though the chinese government has a strong reputation for hiding true infection statistics on all diseases it faces. estimates are that those living with HIV in truth is probably 3-5x higher) and India (4.58 Million living with HIV, second only to Africa, and climbing).
50% of new cases worldwide are Heterosexual Women, and rising fast, with Unsafe Heterosexual Sex being the driving force behind it.
While you may want to continue to live in the 80s and blame gay men for HIV, the simple fact of the numbers shows an alarming increase among heterosexuals in all countries worldwide that is driving the infection rates of this disease far beyond anything homosexuals could engender alone. But if you want to keep your head in the sand, that's your prerogative. HIV is everyone's problem.
