Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-23-2012, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,373 posts, read 3,228,436 times
Reputation: 1041

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by me in RI View Post
I am a middle school teacher...and my students all admit they don 't know how they feel! It has nothing to do with how I feel...I am speaking for my students!
No, you're speaking for yourself with the DELUSIONAL thought that you're speaking for your students.

Your students can speak for themselves and it's only natural that a young adult - teenagers are confused at that age! You can't expect a young teenager, let alone middle school students to automatically know what they want to do during their period as a young teen!

Speak for yourself, NOT your students.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2012, 07:32 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,345 posts, read 51,937,226 times
Reputation: 23746
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartalx View Post
We are talking about a group of people who are BANNED from giving blood! What? Why would they be banned? Is the FDA bigoted? Of course not. Their job is to protect the blood supply, and the CDC tells us that men who have sex with men account for 61% of all new HIV cases each year. The CDC says that homosexuals are 44 times more likely to catch HIV because of their behavior. THAT is why they are not allowed to give blood. Their behavior.
If you're so concerned with "fallacies" and inaccuracies, you might want to rethink this statement... only sexually active gay men are restricted from donating blood, not to mention they've already repealed that restriction in the UK and have been working to repeal it here. HIV rates among gay men have dropped in the last 10-20 years, while it was steadily rising among heterosexual women. And what about lesbians or chaste gay men? They're not restricted from donating blood, so I assume you're okay with them marrying? Sheesh, it's like you haven't read a study since 1985.

FYI: You're also barred from donating blood if you've been tattooed in the last year, if you've traveled to certain countries, you're under 110lbs, or have certain genetic conditions in your family. Guess we should also restrict these folks from marrying, since they're clearly a threat to public health. And if you really only care about the health aspects of homosexuality, I'd think you would APPLAUD those who want to make monogamous legal commitments. Or would you rather encourage promiscuity?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 07:44 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,345 posts, read 51,937,226 times
Reputation: 23746
P.S. Even The Red Cross & medical experts recognize the discriminatory nature of this blood donation rule...

"The ban has remained in place even though the FDA doesn't restrict even the most promiscuous heterosexuals from giving blood. And it imposes only a one-year waiting period on men who have had sex with a prostitute or a woman known to be infected with HIV.
"It is clear discrimination … written into policy," said Chris Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign in Louisville. "It's a continued vestige of the fear and prejudice that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community face."

But three blood-related organizations -- the Red Cross, America's Blood Centers and the transfusion and cellular therapy organization AABB -- say modern HIV detection methods make the lifetime ban on blood donation unnecessary and are calling for it to be shortened to a year from the time a man last had sex with another man.
Some gay rights groups and medical ethicists, meanwhile, contend the policy is not needed at all.
"It's a policy that is poor and out of date relative to the science. It represents more fear of homosexuals than it does any type of reasonable attempt to protect safety," said Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics. "We need blood donors. I think it's a mistake to risk not having enough blood in pursuit of a tiny, tiny bit more safety.""

Gay men stopped from blood donation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 08:00 PM
 
Location: MW
1,440 posts, read 1,169,843 times
Reputation: 549
Why I don't care:

Marriage isn't a government issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,205,611 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by shpanda View Post
Why I don't care:

Marriage isn't a government issue.
As long as the government issues marriage licenses, and grants rights, and privileges to married couples, it IS a government issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 08:17 PM
 
Location: University City, Philadelphia
22,632 posts, read 14,941,676 times
Reputation: 15935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatles4evr View Post


Homosexuals can already marry, as long as it is someone of the opposite sex. It may not be what they want, but it is idential to the rules that apply to hetro's.

What a stupid statement.

Gay men and Lesbians want to right to marry the person they love ... not some random person of the opposite gender.

Same sex couples are seeking the recognition and the respect that opposite-sex couples are awarded through legal marriage.

Recognition and respect.

That is what it is about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Normal
161 posts, read 211,554 times
Reputation: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park View Post
What a stupid statement.

Gay men and Lesbians want to right to marry the person they love ... not some random person of the opposite gender.

Same sex couples are seeking the recognition and the respect that opposite-sex couples are awarded through legal marriage.

Recognition and respect.

That is what it is about.
As long as the current politicians, especially the Republicans, are in power, they will not get any recognition or respect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 09:27 PM
 
Location: University City, Philadelphia
22,632 posts, read 14,941,676 times
Reputation: 15935
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprtrpr View Post
As long as the current politicians, especially the Republicans, are in power, they will not get any recognition or respect.
It's not necessarily a Republican vs. Democrat thing. In New York State we have seen some Republicans vote in favor of legal same-sex marriage. There have been some Democrats elsewhere that have opposed it.

If I am not mistaken both Laura Bush and Lynne Cheney - both Republicans - have spoken openly in favor of legalized same-sex marriage.

What is really laughable - to me - about this marriage debate is that Trailer Park Bubba and Bar Fly Babs can meet one night and get married in Vegas the next day, and they will be afforded all the privileges and responsibilities that a legal marriage brings, and be celebrated as having something that has "sanctity" (whatever that means .... actually I know what is means, it has to do with religion and sacredness). Yet, to these intolerant, prejudiced Neanderthals who are contemptuous of LGBT people and despise same-sex marriage the marriage of someone like actor George Takkei (you know, Mr. Sulu on Star Trek) who legally married his husband Brad in 2008 after they had been together for 18 years is not worthy of any kind of recognition and respect.

Sheesh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 09:45 PM
 
Location: MW
1,440 posts, read 1,169,843 times
Reputation: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
As long as the government issues marriage licenses, and grants rights, and privileges to married couples, it IS a government issue.
That was my point. It's not a government issue, therefore, the government should stay out of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,373 posts, read 3,228,436 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by shpanda View Post
That was my point. It's not a government issue, therefore, the government should stay out of it.
Uh...I'm fairly positive that a judge (which you know works for the government) is the one who performs the marriage ceremony along with priests and those 5-minute drive thru weddings.

It IS a government issue because the government in one way or another has a hand in it.

Maybe not a big great deal of a government issue, but an issue nonetheless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:07 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top