Quote Of The Day

“A brother and sister could theoretically have a long and joyous married life. Yet we forbid them to wed, and deny them that chance at happiness. Why? Forget religion; forget constitutionality. It is a decision that society has made in order to enforce a certain social order. In fact, we limit marriage to non-kin largely because of procreative and health issues, which is the chief reason many oppose gay marriage”. –Joe, at Joes Dartblog responding to a response to one of my gay marriage posts

11 Responses to “Quote Of The Day”


  • exactly what “procreative and health issues” does a gay marriage pose? they can’t produce inbred children like a brother and sister would. and std’s can be transmitted through gay couples in the same manner in which they are passed along in heterosexual couples. i don’t see how banning gay marriage would contribute to any social order either.

  • It just further brings to light the fact that marriage is tied to children, it is in that connection that we limit marriage. Both, siblings and homosexual unions are not ordered towards children, hence the ban on both.

    As far as health issues go, while I don’t think it’s central to the anti-gay marriage argument, I do believe that there are health issues to consider. It is a fact that homosexual sex, spcifically male homosexual sex, is inherently more risky to catch AIDS and other STD’s. So in effect, allowing gay marriage has a very real added costs of sanctioning a form of sex that is much more risky to get AIDS. Whether or not you believe that costs is large enough to ban gay marriage is a different issue.

  • sorry hp, i know this is an old debate you have already had with others but i just can’t swallow the pill of logic you are handing me.

    your last comment says, “It just further brings to light the fact that marriage is tied to children, it is in that connection that we limit marriage.” you go on to explain that homosexual unions are not “ordered” towards children. i’m not exactly sure what you mean by “ordered” but i’m guessing it means that all heterosexual couples marry to have children. (and i know a few, where this is not the case.) i also know of quite a few heterosexual people who should just not be pro-creating but they do and often they are not equipped to be good parents. there is an enormous burden of unwanted children in our society. i like to think that some of that burden is eased by gay unions that decide to adopt. but of course the adoption of unwanted children is not the only reason that i support gay marriage. i think sexuality orientation is part of a persons free will–no one should dictate what you should like and not like.

  • No, when I say ‘ordered’, I don’t mean that they are going to have children, but that they have the potential for children. Gay unions, no matter what they do, is not going to result in children. Sure, they may decide to adopt, but so could heterosexual unions. In other words, a heterosexual union could do everything every other union can do, plus one more thing, it is the source of where children come from.

    It is what makes their union above everybody elses, not that they have children, but that that union can result in children, in children that society needs to continue civilization. So the state recognizes that union above all other unions, precisely because it is above all other unions, it is where our civilization continues from.

    But let us suppose that you don’t like that distinction, and you just think it’s a fundamental distinction, but not a critical distinction, certainly not one large enough to deny gays the right to marry. Well, if that is so, than what line do you give? Should we allow sibling marriages? Afterall, some of them may decide not to procreate. What about polygamy, hey, they love each other too? What about homosexual polygamy? What about mere friendship certificates? I mean, if marriage only means love, not the potential for children, than why discriminate against those who ‘love’ each other just as much, yet don’t perform any sexual acts? You see, once you open up the door to gay unions, marriage means nothing more than a love certificate, and once you reduce it to only a love certificate, you can’t deny all of these other groups also seeking marriage, and in the end, marriage is completely broken from its previous connection to children, and marriage is no more important than anything else. etc etc etc

  • “It is a fact that homosexual sex, specifically male homosexual sex, is inherently more risky to catch AIDS and other STD’s. So in effect, allowing gay marriage has a very real added costs of sanctioning a form of sex that is much more risky to get AIDS. Whether or not you believe that costs is large enough to ban gay marriage is a different issue.”

    -HP

    HP, it is statements like these that get you into trouble (lol); that is, you cannot possibly support the wildly reckless and false claim that male homosexual sex, is “inherently” more risky to catch AIDS and other STD’s.” Simply because a man has sex with another man doesn’t mean they are at greater risk for being exposed to HIV or any other STD; rather it is that the percentage of homosexual males that are HIV + is greater (per capita) than heterosexual males that causes the increase in likelihood to transmit a STD sex between homosexual males.

    But anyway, let’s say that your above quote is entirely correct, it would seem like the logical conclusion would be, not only to disallow “gay marriage,” but also outlaw sexual relations between homosexual males. Of course, males who are not “homosexual” and want to engage in a one-time homosexual act would presumably be ok, since they, because they are not homosexuals, are not at greater risk of transmitting HIV or other STD than the general population.

    But let’s extend your logic further; that is group A is at greater risk for transmitting a STD than the “general population;” therefore, group A should not be allowed to wed. Accordingly, any group that fits into your model, that is, any group that is at a greater risk of transmitting STDs would not be allowed to marry. I understand that many “minorities,” particularly those in the inner-city, are at greater risk for transmitting STDs; would you argue that they too not be allowed to marry? Or are those “cost,” what ever they may be, expectable to you?

  • Observer,

    My statement is factually true. For example, it is a fact that in any sexual act, women have a higher chance of contracting AIDs than men do, this is because the AIDs virus can more easily survive in a womens ‘environment’ (to avoid getting specific on this family blog), than it can in the men’s ‘environment’. It is in that mind set that I say that homosexual sex, specifically between males, is inherently riskier of catching AIDs. It is a scientific fact that the act of anal sex, specifically because of its environment and contact to the human body, is inherently riskier to catching AIDs, and this is independent of the percentage of male homosexuals with AIDs.

    Here, let me try to explain it better with an example. Lets say that there was a man and a women about to have sex, one had AIDs and the other didn’t. With everything else being equal, the women would have a higher chance of catching AIDs from the man than the man would have of catching AIDs from the women. In addition, if they were to perform anal sex, as opposed to non-anal sex, the chances of transmitting AIDs are higher, that is my point.

    So in allowing gay marriage, specifically for male homosexuals, the government would be sanctioning a form of sex that is inherently riskier to transmit AIDs. Now, as far as your objections go, they make the fundamental error that just because the government refuses to sanction something, than that must necessarily mean the government should ban it. These are two separate questions, that are answered separately. In addition, I made no reference to probabilities of those who have AIDs and those who don’t, my only focus is with the act itself.

  • LOL @ environment’ What you can’t write vagina? C’mon say IT!!! vaaaa-gi-naaaa. Kids say “worse” than that by the 1st grade.

    First let me say that some of the mental images this dialogue conjures up in my “mind” is a lil unsettling.

    But I do see my errors in regards to your post.

    “So in allowing gay marriage, specifically for male homosexuals, the government would be sanctioning a form of sex that is inherently riskier to transmit AIDs.”

    -HP

    It is HIV that gets transmitted not AIDS, there is a difference. And please direct me to a site that can support the fact that sex “between males, is inherently riskier of catching AIDs.” I have an idea why that might be, but a more scholarly scientific reason would be nice to read. I guess that if “safe sex” measures were used in “gay sex” it would be less risky than if safe sex measures were not employed in heterosexual (non anal)

    Again, but I don’t think that by allowing or recognizing gay marriages that the government some how “sanctions” anal sex. Does the government “sanction” anal sex between men and women, or fellatio because it allows them to legally wed? It seems to me political nonsense to say that the government would be “sanctioning” a more unhealthy manner of sexual intercourse if it allowed gay marriages.

  • Anal sex is riskier than all other forms of sex period, with every variable being equal, here is the ‘scholarly’ citation.

  • Btw, I knew ‘environment’ would get your attention. LOL!!

  • ‘environment’ lol. that was funny. i didn’t know this was a family blog.

    i’ll respectfully bow out now. not that i feel you won this argument but we each have our own opinions and i respect your way of thinking and we can go back and forth until we are both blue in the face and not change each others minds about this.

  • I was J/K with the environment family blog thing, I just like to mess with Observer every now and than…

Leave a Reply