1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaIf you endorse something you promote it. That's what endorsement is. I suppose your going to say that gay sex and gay marriage are mutually exclusive, however, it is presumed that it is an endorsement of monogomous gay sex.
I'll bite. How is the APA's endorsement of same-sex marriage effectively an endorsement of a sexual practice? And how is the APA's endorsement of same-sex marriage an endorsement of an unhealthy practice?
And while you're at it, go ahead and resolve for me your paternalistic concern for homosexuals affected by the HIV epidemic and your ever-present fear of government encroachment on individual liberty, too.
As I said, if gay marriage decreases the continued epedimic of AIDS in the gay population, then perhaps it can be argued a "success". However, if not then it is obvoiusly and inherent unhealthy lifestyle and the APA is endorsing it anyway.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWell I'm glad you cleared that up for me. I was under the impression that the APA was simply commenting on the psychological benefits of marriage (i.e., a potentially loving and caring relationship) between two individuals. It's good to know that they were in fact making a moral statement on gay sex.
If you endorse something you promote it. That's what endorsement is. I suppose your going to say that gay sex and gay marriage are mutually exclusive, however, it is presumed that it is an endorsement of monogomous gay sex.
As I said, if gay marriage decreases the continued epedimic of AIDS in the gay population, then perhaps it can be argued a "success" ...[text shortened]... not then it is obvoiusly and inherent unhealthy lifestyle and the APA is endorsing it anyway.
Anyway, where's your condemnation of the APA's implicit endorsement of heterosexual marriage (excuse me, I meant to say, "straight sex" )? HIV/AIDS and other STDs affect heterosexuals, too.
Originally posted by wittywonkaI'm sorry, did they endorse heterosexual marriage as well? If so, when?
Well I'm glad you cleared that up for me. I was under the impression that the APA was simply commenting on the psychological benefits of marriage (i.e., a potentially loving and caring relationship) between two individuals. It's good to know that they were in fact making a moral statement on gay sex.
Anyway, where's your condemnation of the APA's imp ...[text shortened]... me, I meant to say, "straight sex" )? HIV/AIDS and other STDs affect heterosexuals, too.
Also, the gay population makes up only 2% of the population, but account for over half of all AIDS cases. Clearly this is a high risk life style.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyFrom the article:
I'm sorry, did they endorse heterosexual marriage as well? If so, when?
Also, the gay population makes up only 2% of the population, but account for over half of all AIDS cases. Clearly this is a high risk life style.
"We knew that marriage benefits heterosexual people in very significant ways, but we didn't know if that would be true for same-sex couples," said Anderson, who is also director of the APA's Office on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns.
I'll look for a full-fledged endorsement if you're too burdened to do so yourself.
And if you're really going to base your judgment of a behavior by a minority on a prejudice, then surely you'd be unrestrained in your enthusiasm at the prospect that homosexuals might finally have a legal incentive to engage in monogamous marriage (sorry, gay sexual act).
Originally posted by whodeyStill beating that dead horse, whodster? As before, this new-found utilitarianism strikes me as wholly unconvincing; it would be good if you would admit that your animosity towards homosexuals and homosexual marriage is not at all based on the 'healthiness' or otherwise of such a lifestyle and that this is but 'ammunition'. I shan't hold my breath, because we all know your difficulties with honesty.
If you endorse something you promote it. That's what endorsement is. I suppose your going to say that gay sex and gay marriage are mutually exclusive, however, it is presumed that it is an endorsement of monogomous gay sex.
As I said, if gay marriage decreases the continued epedimic of AIDS in the gay population, then perhaps it can be argued a "success" ...[text shortened]... not then it is obvoiusly and inherent unhealthy lifestyle and the APA is endorsing it anyway.
In any event, there are probably three outcomes according to your criteria:
1. the institution of homosexual marriage does lead to a decrease in HIV transmission.
2. the institution of homosexual marriage does not alter the rate of new HIV infections, perhaps because it would be largely monogamous couples less likely to be exposed to HIV for that reason who would marry. This I would propose as the most likely outcome. (Above, you elide the difference between a sexual practice and marriage: evidently the EPA have accepted the empirical fact of homosexuality and, rather than 'endorsing' that or otherwise, endorse people who indulge in that sexual practice and wish to commit to marriage. There simply is a difference, and it is germane to your own argument.)
3. the institution of homosexuality leads to an increase in new HIV infections (I must admit I am struggling to see how this would happen, but will admit it as a possibility).
If 1 or 2 come to pass, then the 'endorsement' will have had either no effect or a positive effect by your own new-found pseudo-criteria, since what the EPA endorse is same-sex marriage. Even if there is no effect, then in what way, according to the AIDS criteria you have invented in your head for the purposes of your homophobia, would the 'endorsement' have been a negative thing? Unless the effect is 3, I fail to see your point.
Although, as I say, I rather suspect you are being more than a little disingenuous.
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFI would not expect the secular state to endorse my views on the matter, simply because they are religion based. However, the fueling of the AIDS epidemic is another thing entirely. If #3 comes to fruition, that is, the endorsement of marriage leads to increased levels of HIV, then I think we have a bigger problem on our hands, don't you? The only way I can fathom this happening, would be for the culture to embrace the lifestyle further, leading to even more gay relaitionships. Then you may find yourself in a position like we saw in ancient Greece where the majority of the populace endorsed the lifestyle and participated in it.
Still beating that dead horse, whodster? As before, this new-found utilitarianism strikes me as wholly unconvincing; it would be good if you would admit that your animosity towards homosexuals and homosexual marriage is not at all based on the 'healthiness' or otherwise of such a lifestyle and that this is but 'ammunition'. I shan't hold my breath, because we a
Although, as I say, I rather suspect you are being more than a little disingenuous.
Then again, we already know that being gay increases your risk for HIV exponentially, but who cares, right?
Originally posted by whodeyDo you expect to be sharing the same sexual partners as gay people?
I would not expect the secular state to endorse my views on the matter, simply because they are religion based. However, the fueling of the AIDS epidemic is another thing entirely. If #3 comes to fruition, that is, the endorsement of marriage leads to increased levels of HIV, then I think we have a bigger problem on our hands, don't you? The only way I can ...[text shortened]... we already know that being gay increases your risk for HIV exponentially, but who cares, right?
If not, then what do you care?
Originally posted by whodeyWell of course the "secular state" wouldn't share your views on homosexual marriage... because you say the state has no place to recognize homosexual or heterosexual marriage in the first place, remember?
I would not expect the secular state to endorse my views on the matter, simply because they are religion based. However, the fueling of the AIDS epidemic is another thing entirely. If #3 comes to fruition, that is, the endorsement of marriage leads to increased levels of HIV, then I think we have a bigger problem on our hands, don't you? The only way I can ...[text shortened]... we already know that being gay increases your risk for HIV exponentially, but who cares, right?
As far as your admittedly farfetched scenario in which validation of homosexual marriage would increase HIV prevalence: what the hell are you talking about? Are you suggesting that heterosexuals will see that the government finally endorses homosexual marriage and spontaneously decide that they want to marry (or have sex with) homosexuals?
Originally posted by whodeyHIV prevalence rate:
I would not expect the secular state to endorse my views on the matter, simply because they are religion based. However, the fueling of the AIDS epidemic is another thing entirely. If #3 comes to fruition, that is, the endorsement of marriage leads to increased levels of HIV, then I think we have a bigger problem on our hands, don't you? The only way I can ...[text shortened]... we already know that being gay increases your risk for HIV exponentially, but who cares, right?
United States: 0.6%
Netherlands: 0.2%
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hiv_aid_adu_pre_rat-hiv-aids-adult-prevalence-rate (source: CIA World Factbook)
Originally posted by whodeyI can see your point. I mean, encouraging an institution that is grounded in monogamy with one partner for life is just asking for the AIDS epidemic to explode.
I would not expect the secular state to endorse my views on the matter, simply because they are religion based. However, the fueling of the AIDS epidemic is another thing entirely. If #3 comes to fruition, that is, the endorsement of marriage leads to increased levels of HIV, then I think we have a bigger problem on our hands, don't you? The only way I can ...[text shortened]... we already know that being gay increases your risk for HIV exponentially, but who cares, right?
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeySo is your, ahem, 'principled objection' to gay marriage based on a belief that granting homosexuals the right to marry will result in more HIV infections? Or what?
I would not expect the secular state to endorse my views on the matter, simply because they are religion based. However, the fueling of the AIDS epidemic is another thing entirely. If #3 comes to fruition, that is, the endorsement of marriage leads to increased levels of HIV, then I think we have a bigger problem on our hands, don't you? The only way I can ...[text shortened]... we already know that being gay increases your risk for HIV exponentially, but who cares, right?