Gay Marriage 'Rights' By: Thomas Sowell

In all the states where gay marriage was on the ballot this year, the voters voted against it -- as they should have.

Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time. Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options. Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it? The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it. The rhetoric of "equal rights" has become the road to special privilege for all sorts of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as well. It has worked. They have already succeeded in getting far more government money for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people.

The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges -- for anybody -- and gay marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else. Incidentally, it is not even clear how many homosexuals actually want marriage, even though gay activists are pushing it. What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS.

They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called "AIDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality. In some cases, gay activists actually come to the schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids. There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.

[b]Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers' money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable. They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that cramps their style. But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the structure that they don't like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times.[/b]

?2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

[quote]Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers' money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable. They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that cramps their style. But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the structure that they don't like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times.[/quote]

Don't you think he's overreacting a little bit when he talks about dismantling pieces of a structure?

I agree on the point that sometimes gay activists are emphasizing their presence a little too much, but this guy is on the edge of xenophobia here, though he doesn't really look religious to me. I don't see the taking away part here, they just want to be part of something already available to the larger part of the people, and it's not even gonna cost money. This is a moral issue, it's the exclusiveness of marriage that is at stake here.

I also don't see how AIDS education promotes homosexuality, just by explaining some things about it. Knowledge about something doesn't automatically mean you embrace it. Too many blunt assumptions in here, sorry.

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

[quote]Don't you think he's overreacting a little bit when he talks about dismantling pieces of a structure?[/quote]

No, not at all. Societies that have been left in ruins in the past, after growing and prospering through the ages, were crippled by groups seeking equality through results. Not the actual 'level playing field' process.

[quote]I agree on the point that sometimes gay activists are emphasizing their presence a little too much, but this guy is on the edge of xenophobia here, though he doesn't really look religious to me. [/quote]

Xenophobic? Wow, that's a complete distortion of where he is going with this. He doesn't dislike people who think or act different than him, he just doesn't want 'splinter groups' that have an agenda to take every single differential trait of humanity that is not mentioned in law, and make the government recognize them.

[url]http://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html[/url]

Read the whole thing. He describes the aspects of what is going on.

To include "freedom" in the very definition of democracy is to define a process not by its actual characteristics as a process but by its hope for results. This is not only intellectually invalid, it is, in practical terms, blinding oneself in advance to some of the unwanted consequences of the process.

[quote]I don't see the taking away part here, they just want to be part of something already available to the larger part of the people, and it's not even gonna cost money. This is a moral issue, it's the exclusiveness of marriage that is at stake here. [/quote]

You give rights to different groups, other groups will ask for the same. It would never end. The degrees of freedom that exist in other parts of life will give way to the achievements of other areas. Do you know how many characteristics throughout society could be labeled, recognized and sanctioned by the government?

[quote]I also don't see how AIDS education promotes homosexuality, just by explaining some things about it. Knowledge about something doesn't automatically mean you embrace it. Too many blunt assumptions in here, sorry. [/quote]

Aids education isn't supposed to promote homosexuality, but the educational programs here are. Activists travel from school to school to preach to the children about homosexuality. This is nothing new actually.

Just as Sowell mentioned, the activists today are seeking societies approval, more than they are 'gay marriage'.

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

[quote=cosmo]You give rights to different groups, other groups will ask for the same. It would never end. The degrees of freedom that exist in other parts of life will give way to the achievements of other areas. Do you know how many characteristics throughout society could be labeled, recognized and sanctioned by the government? [/quote]

The bottom line my friend is this. . . as a gay man i pay my taxes to local and national government just like everyone else does. My hard earned taxes should be used to the benefit of all members of society as seen fit by what ever government is in power. However, where i get really pissed off is when said government takes that money out of my pocket and continues to discriminate against me.

As a gay man not being able to get married, whilst my straight mates can is discrimination. (Actually Cosmo personally i dont approve of marriage but i support the cause of my fellow lesbian sisters and gay brothers in this fight.)

Now, marriage is one of two things, a religious institution and an institution sanctioned by the state. I can't argue with the religious on whether i should have the right to get married or not - i learnt long ago that its a losing battle. However, when my hard earned taxes are used to prop up state sanctioned marriage i think its only fair that i should, if i wanted to, be able to marry.

Now, obviously there are many people who disapprove of this, so here's a solution. When the state stops sanctioning and legitamising heterosexual marriage then i will stop my demands for lesbians and gay men to be allowed to marry. One way or another we should all be treated equally by the state, which we all equally pay for!

Just some ramblings of a drunk!

Happy New Year matey!

Very well spoken my drunk friend! Cheers!

:drink:

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

[quote=davetlv][quote=cosmo]You give rights to different groups, other groups will ask for the same. It would never end. The degrees of freedom that exist in other parts of life will give way to the achievements of other areas. Do you know how many characteristics throughout society could be labeled, recognized and sanctioned by the government? [/quote]

The bottom line my friend is this. . . as a gay man i pay my taxes to local and national government just like everyone else does. My hard earned taxes should be used to the benefit of all members of society as seen fit by what ever government is in power. However, where i get really pissed off is when said government takes that money out of my pocket and continues to discriminate against me.

As a gay man not being able to get married, whilst my straight mates can is discrimination. (Actually Cosmo personally i dont approve of marriage but i support the cause of my fellow lesbian sisters and gay brothers in this fight.)

Now, marriage is one of two things, a religious institution and an institution sanctioned by the state. I can't argue with the religious on whether i should have the right to get married or not - i learnt long ago that its a losing battle. However, when my hard earned taxes are used to prop up state sanctioned marriage i think its only fair that i should, if i wanted to, be able to marry.

Now, obviously there are many people who disapprove of this, so here's a solution. When the state stops sanctioning and legitamising heterosexual marriage then i will stop my demands for lesbians and gay men to be allowed to marry. One way or another we should all be treated equally by the state, which we all equally pay for!

Just some ramblings of a drunk!

Happy New Year matey![/quote]

Let's have the government sanction every single group that wants to get married!! Sounds good my friend!! We can add them into the tax code, as to where everyone gets benifits, and our system inevitably would collapse.

That's the only reason that I can think of why other groups want their 'justice'.

If not, I guess they do want societies approval. Why do other groups want the government to sanction them so bad?

Who knows.

I'm hung over. Happy new year!!

Problem here is you are involving 'other' unidentified groups in this discussion, while we are discussing one group only. Second of all, no matter which way I look at it, I think the only thing getting hurt is the ego of a lot of very religious people. If you say the US is a truly free country, then gay people should have the right to marry, just like those opposed groups have the right to do their thing.

I really can't see one group of people getting physically or economically disadvantaged by a decision in favour of gay marriage rights, and if that is not the case I think they should have that right. Maybe they want social approval really bad, but who are we dony them that? Because if we do, we are denying people the same rights as we have. And that my friend, is not something I expect in a country where everyone is supposed to be free...

Nobody is out for a system collapse, that is a ridiculous thought, and I'm hoping you just said that because you were hungover :wink:

[quote=Yao]Problem here is you are involving 'other' unidentified groups in this discussion, while we are discussing one group only. Second of all, no matter which way I look at it, I think the only thing getting hurt is the ego of a lot of very religious people. If you say the US is a truly free country, then gay people should have the right to marry, just like those opposed groups have the right to do their thing.

I really can't see one group of people getting physically or economically disadvantaged by a decision in favour of gay marriage rights, and if that is not the case I think they should have that right. Maybe they want social approval really bad, but who are we dony them that? Because if we do, we are denying people the same rights as we have. And that my friend, is not something I expect in a country where everyone is supposed to be free...

Nobody is out for a system collapse, that is a ridiculous thought, and I'm hoping you just said that because you were hungover :wink:[/quote]

You're speaking in a tone that is somewhat based on anarchy. What exactly is freedom? And who should be able to do what? Just because you have a very small amount of people (4-5%), doesn't necessarily mean that you have to change the law based on their opinion, or their lifestyle. There are many groups out there that make up 2-5% of the population that have a certain vision, that think the government should recognize their goals.

I understand that the US doesn't want gay marriage passed. If we passed it in the legislature, so be it!! That would be great. That would mean the majority agrees. But apparently, it does not.

If a group, say, 7% of the population believe that a grown adult should be able to marry a 10 year old girl or boy, or of the same sex, and had activists involved in trying to promote their lifestyle, should they be given these rights, to be recognized by the government to make their lifestyle, worthy of acceptance?

I know the two lifestyles shouldn't be thrown together as the same thing, but I'm using it as an example. A small minority trying to gain recognition.

What is freedom? And how far should you take it?

I think morally the line between freedom and anarchy is hard to determine, but isn't that why we have laws, to make that line as visible as possible to the people? Those laws apply to each and every individual in a country, at least that is how it is supposed to be, not? But still the Amish and Quakers don't pay taxes and are pretty much left alone by the government.

The difference I see is that Gay marriage rights that don't disadvantage any individual are denied, while it is approved of that those two groups of people, no matter how small they are, are granted exceptions which are to their benefit but to the loss of the community. Rule of law? OK: Quakers and Amish pay taxes like every other citizen, Gay people can marry, like every other citizen. Don't forget, it is the exception in the law that gay people cannot marry, not the standard. Because if law/constitution was consequently applied on every individual, they would have the same rights.

Making the equation with pedophiles is not really appliccable here I think, we're talking about two adults well capable of making their own decisions here.

[quote=Yao]I think morally the line between freedom and anarchy is hard to determine, but isn't that why we have laws, to make that line as visible as possible to the people? Those laws apply to each and every individual in a country, at least that is how it is supposed to be, not? But still the Amish and Quakers don't pay taxes and are pretty much left alone by the government.

The difference I see is that Gay marriage rights that don't disadvantage any individual are denied, while it is approved of that those two groups of people, no matter how small they are, are granted exceptions which are to their benefit but to the loss of the community. Rule of law? OK: Quakers and Amish pay taxes like every other citizen, Gay people can marry, like every other citizen. Don't forget, it is the exception in the law that gay people cannot marry, not the standard. Because if law/constitution was consequently applied on every individual, they would have the same rights.

Making the equation with pedophiles is not really appliccable here I think, we're talking about two adults well capable of making their own decisions here.[/quote]

What, children aren't capable of making their own decicions? Why not? There are some out there that think they are, esp when it comes to abortion, and keeping it [i]from[/i] their parents.

I was more seeing it from the other side: adults do have a psychological advantage over children, and physically it is virtually impossile for a child to resist.

And children are to a certain extent capable of making their own decisions, but no, I don't they are totally capable of doing that. But we're going off topic here, I think....

[quote=Yao]I was more seeing it from the other side: adults do have a psychological advantage over children, and physically it is virtually impossile for a child to resist.

And children are to a certain extent capable of making their own decisions, but no, I don't they are totally capable of doing that. But we're going off topic here, I think....[/quote]

A special intrest group is a special intrest group. :?

A huge number of gay people here in America don't even care if gay marriage legislation is written. They are happy the way they are living as of now.

I will see if I can track down the story that goes in depth on the topic.

Cool, thanx.

But when speaking of special interest groups, I think the equation with Quakers and Amish is a better one, when looking at it from a judicial angle. Now I don't study law, but what I said is something that should be known to everyone I think.

Regardless of my personal opinion, when exceptions can me made, it can't be that hard to undo an exception, right?

[quote=Yao]Cool, thanx.

But when speaking of special interest groups, I think the equation with Quakers and Amish is a better one, when looking at it from a judicial angle. Now I don't study law, but what I said is something that should be known to everyone I think.

Regardless of my personal opinion, when exceptions can me made, it can't be that hard to undo an exception, right?[/quote]

Quakers, and Amish where? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Uhh...in America...

Deeply religious groups, that have been discharged of the taxes every other individual in the US pays to the government. The Amish still live like it's the colonial period, they reject the use of any modern piece of equipment or tool.

The point was: an exception can be made to these people, but it's not okay for gay people to be taken into the law regarding marriage? That is removing the exceptional status of the group imo.

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

[quote=cosmo] You give rights to different groups, other groups will ask for the same. [/quote]

I'm completely OK with this. Everyone ought to have the same rights and opportunities regardless of sex, sexuality, race, religion, etc. Isn't that what we're supposedly all about here in the US?

It bears mention, I think, that homosexuals as a "group," like women, African Americans and other "groups" that have been discriminated against in the past, have not joined this "group" by their own volition. I suppose this raises a whole other discussion, but I have never believed that gay people "choose" to be gay or "become" gay over time -- you're either gay or you're not, and my impression has always been that the individual doesn't have a lot of say in the matter. After all, why would a straight person, who is the beneficiary of all that society has to offer, willfully adopt a lifestyle that would ensure that he or she would be discriminated against, lose certain rights, and draw the ire of close-minded people? It isn't rational.

With the foregoing in mind, I have trouble viewing opposition to gay marriage as anything other than brazen and unabashed discrimination.

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

[quote]I'm completely OK with this. Everyone ought to have the same rights and opportunities regardless of sex, sexuality, race, religion, etc. Isn't that what we're supposedly all about here in the US?[/quote]

Everyone DOES have the same rights here in America. But just because, as I said earlier, there are small groups that think new laws should be passed for utter recognition of their lifestyle, doesn't mean that they should be passed. Maybe I should get a group together to oppose driving on the right side of the road, because I believe it's wrong to keep me on the right side of the dotted line. Where is the freedom? I should have that right. I'm absolutely offended for the fact that I'm constrained to just one side of a two way street. Look at all that room over there!!

I for one, do not mind 2 people of the same sex get married. Find the chapel, gather the friends and family, and get hitched. But to have the government recognize a separate lifestyle that involves 2-4% of the country, I don't know. I think it's being blown way out of proportion here. Because there are many groups wanting new rights to be recognized by the government.

[quote]After all, why would a straight person, who is the beneficiary of all that society has to offer, willfully adopt a lifestyle that would ensure that he or she would be discriminated against, lose certain rights, and draw the ire of close-minded people? It isn't rational. [/quote]

What rights would be lost? They have the right to marry of the opposite sex, but I don't see any rights being lost, because it was never there to begin with.

[quote]With the foregoing in mind, I have trouble viewing opposition to gay marriage as anything other than brazen and unabashed discrimination.[/quote]

It's easier to call it discrimination, than to find out the true nature of passing innumerable laws for a society that is everchanging, and contains millions of different characteristics and traits. Having a government sanction all of these traits is not the governments buisness, if you ask me.

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

Sowell misses two major factual problems in his argument:

1. Sowell assumes that gay couples are free to enter into contracts which would allow them to gain some of the benefits of married couples. Sowell apparently does not realize that 9 of the 11 gay marriage amendments he's supporting strip this liberty away(specific disallowal of contracts entered into by gay couples which confer any facet of the benefits from a marriage).
2. Sowell mistakenly assumes that extending a set of special privlidges that one group enjoys upon another group is some sort of favoritism, and not what it really is, destroying a system of favoritism that already exists.

Sowell sets up a strawman so he can feel really proud about knocking it over. The idea that homosexuals are seeking approval with marriage is a joke. They're no more seeking approval than straight couples are. Anyone has the right to hold opinions about other people in whatever way they wish.
When you show me someone actually asking for a law requiring people to accept their lifestyle, I'll join you in shooting them down. What is being asked for is not approval, but simply equal legal footing, which is supposed to be guaranteed

Some people like to argue that black people are an inferior race, and, while bigoted, they have a right to their opinion. This right, however, stops the minute they act upon said opinion, and try to force their worldview upon others. A world where it was not OK to not be gay is as bad as a world in which it is not OK to be gay, assuming we're speaking of "not OK" in a legal sense, and not a personal judgement sense. To force your worldview upon anyone else's opinion is immoral and should be illegal, and it bites both ways. Just as straight people can be upset at gay people, gay people can be upset at homophobes, but for either group to attempt to use the government to promote their world view is wrong. If you want to think "Oh, fags can burn in hell, fucking faggots", I'm not going to stop you, because you get to think what you want. I might think you're wrong, misguided, and even a bigot, but I have no right to use the government to suppress your views any more than you have the right to use the government to suppress the views of homosexuals. However, once again, you need to note that its only in the use of the government where this goes wrong, and people may do what they wish, within the bounds of the law, in order to have their message heard by others.

Just when it seems like Sowell's scraping the bottom of the barrel, he actually breaks through the bottom with his inane line about how society has an interest in hetero couples and not same-sex couples. This is a tired and cliched argument that doesn't even apply to the damn situation. Some, and, lets say for the sake of argument, many hetero couples produce children. However, if the reason for the special privlidges heaped upon hetero couples is for child-rearing, then why are we pinning these privlidges to marriage in the first place? There are hetero couples who wish to not have children, and there are gay couples who adopt. If the purpose of benefits from marriage is to help with rearing children, then tying the benefits to marriage is pointless.

We have group A, which consists of straight people, and is further divided into groups F and G. F consists of hetero couples who want to/have children, and G consists of hetero couples who wish to not have children. We then have group B, which consists of gay couples, and sub-groups D(gay couple, with children) and E(gay couple, no children). If marriage benefits are about aid in child rearing, then the appropriate groups to grant benefits to are F and D. Under the current system, group A gets the benefits, and group B is left out in the cold, despite D being a mirror image of F, and being a group we obviously would want to grant child-rearing benefits to, and E being a mirror image of G, who do not deserve the benefits but get them anyway, all based on a line of demarcation which fails to satisfy any logical inquiries as to why the line exists there.

Then, Sowell digs himself a hole halfway to hell with the entire line about AIDS. Thomas Sowell, are you aware that the segment of the population which is seeing the highest rate of infection of HIV is women, and not men? I'm sure its just because all those women are muff-divers, right? Close to half the world's population of AIDS victims are women, but I'm sure its just all dykes, right? Give it a fucking rest already. Stick to economics, I hear that you actually make halfway decent arguments in that area that don't crumble to pieces the minute logic enters the arena.

[quote=cosmo]Everyone DOES have the same rights here in America. But just because, as I said earlier, there are small groups that think new laws should be passed for utter recognition of their lifestyle, doesn't mean that they should be passed. Maybe I should get a group together to oppose driving on the right side of the road, because I believe it's wrong to keep me on the right side of the dotted line. Where is the freedom? I should have that right. I'm absolutely offended for the fact that I'm constrained to just one side of a two way street. Look at all that room over there!!

I for one, do not mind 2 people of the same sex get married. Find the chapel, gather the friends and family, and get hitched. But to have the government recognize a separate lifestyle that involves 2-4% of the country, I don't know. I think it's being blown way out of proportion here. Because there are many groups wanting new rights to be recognized by the government. [/quote]

You miss the big picture. You ask why 2-4% of the population must be included in the Governmentally Sponsored Reindeer Games of the majority of the population, and I'm asking what reason you can present to keep the 2-4% of the population out of your Governmentally Sponsored Reindeer Games. Without a compelling reason for exclusion, a policy of inclusion must be follwed, and this is what equal protection is there to do. If you don't want your Reindeer Games to have to follow the rule of inclusion, then the solution is simple: do it privately, and without the guiding hand of the government behind it.

Quick note, there's no reason whatsoever to be bringing percentages up like this. Our system of government was formed the way it was to avoid the tyranny of the majority, so the fact that only 2-4% of the population is being oppressed matters not, even with a majority supporting their oppression, because a part of the population is being oppressed contrary to the promises of the Constitution. If you do not like this system, you can try to change our system of government, or leave to live in another country where unpopular viewpoints being expressed ends in incarceration or death.

Don't even TRY to bring up these stupid arbirtrary "freedoms" that are being abridged, because they're not even analogous. Your road analogy might work to some small degree if, lets say, people who have any color of eyes but blue were allowed to do it. Then you might have a right to complain. As it is, no favoritism is taking place, because the policy is unequivocal.

The quibble here is in equal protection. If we have laws that grant special privlidges and immunities to sectors of the community, it should require a very good reason to exclude people from these privlidges. I've yet to see a single compelling secular argument to this end. Discrimination by private instutions is OK; discrimination by government is never OK without a compelling argument for said discrimination.

However, if special rights are going to be afforded to married couples, then it should require a compelling state interest to be able to bar couples from taking advantage of these privlidges, and, as many times as I've had this debate, I've yet to hear a single compelling secular argument as to why homosexuals must be barred from marriage. The problem you have thus far is that you're assuming that gay couples marrying is a special privlidge, while assuming that straight couples marrying is not a special privlidge, which it most certainly is. So, I posit to you, since you want to abolish special privlidge, can I safely assume you're on my side of the fence of wanting no legal recognition of marriages of any sort? After all, if you're not, then you're not really against special privlidges, are you?

My solution is simple: No legal marriages for anyone, governmentally-recognized civil unions for all persons who can give informed consent, and benefits for couples who are rearing children, be the couple married or unmarried, and be the children adopted or the biological children of the couple. Then, we pass one piece of legislation that essentially says "Whereever the term 'marriage' is used in any acts which are currently active across the land, it shall be hereby changed to 'civil union'." Bingo, now we've demolished this sort of "separate but equal(but not really cause they're fags lol)" attitude that a lot of this country has and laid everyone on the same legal footing. Anyone who may give informed consent may enter into a civil union, but not everyone may enter into a marriage. However, as marriage confers no special benefits upon anyone, and it is private organizations and not governmental bodies which do this sort of discrimination, this is acceptable.

I've also toyed with the idea of marriages being enforced as a contract signed by all sides, with "til death do us part" being quite literally in the language of the contract. This would leave divorce proceedings to only move in one direction: dissolvement of the contract due to breach of contract. It would be the end of no-fault divorce. Of course, by this point, marriage is a private institution, so these matters are handled in civil courts, and marriage contracts are designed by private institutions(and thus can carry whatever sort of language they wish to the extent the law allows).

EDIT: deleted a paragraph that was redundant.

With the exception of the last chapter...this says all I've ever wanted to say on this topic, but ten times better. I also support the 'civil union' idea and the other propositions. That is some well-thought over stuff here.

[quote]1) Sowell assumes that gay couples are free to enter into contracts which would allow them to gain some of the benefits of married couples. Sowell apparently does not realize that 9 of the 11 gay marriage amendments he's supporting strip this liberty away(specific disallowal of contracts entered into by gay couples which confer any facet of the benefits from a marriage).[/quote]

As always, people who want to push a proposition in order to get it passed do not ask for everything [i]all at once[/i]. They get the primary bill or 'right' passed, and then start tacking benifits and other rights on top of it. For example, Hillary Care. Hillary was an idiot, and tried to write her Universal health care package that involved TONS of benifits, and it didn't pass. If she wanted it, she should have passed a small package that would inevitably grow in size.

[quote]2) Sowell mistakenly assumes that extending a set of special privlidges that one group enjoys upon another group is some sort of favoritism, and not what it really is, destroying a system of favoritism that already exists.[/quote]

No, you are looking at it as something that is supposed to be there in the first place, when it isn't. What he's saying, is that when special groups start seeking social justice and special rights, other groups will have to seek their justice as well [i]in other areas[/i]. When that justice is reached, it starts all over again, and the rule of law will be ever-changing, and will contain no foundation. Considering how many different groups have how many different sets of values, that road leads to anarchy.

[quote]Sowell sets up a strawman so he can feel really proud about knocking it over. The idea that homosexuals are seeking approval with marriage is a joke. They're no more seeking approval than straight couples are. Anyone has the right to hold opinions about other people in whatever way they wish. [/quote]

He is not using a strawman. That's why he singled out the 'activists'.

[quote]When you show me someone actually asking for a law requiring people to accept their lifestyle, I'll join you in shooting them down. What is being asked for is not approval, but simply equal legal footing, which is supposed to be guaranteed.[/quote]

Here we go again with 'guaranteed'!! I don't see how a small group of individuals with a different lifestyle can claim special rights out of the clear blue sky. That will always be the case. It's not about holding someone down, it's about Anarchy. Maybe it seems to be 'a bit of the norm' for you, because the debate is always present, but I tend to block that out, because I see it for what it is.

[quote]Then, Sowell digs himself a hole halfway to hell with the entire line about AIDS. Thomas Sowell, are you aware that the segment of the population which is seeing the highest rate of infection of HIV is women, and not men? I'm sure its just because all those women are muff-divers, right? Close to half the world's population of AIDS victims are women, but I'm sure its just all dykes, right? Give it a fucking rest already. [/quote]

Did you even read what he said about the Aids issue?

[quote]Stick to economics, I hear that you actually make halfway decent arguments in that area that don't crumble to pieces the minute logic enters the arena.[/quote]

Acutally, he studied under economics, behavioral studies, and history. He understands what happens when small splinter groups try to claim 'special rights' in order to get recognized by the government. This isn't the first time something like this has happened.

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

[quote]What [b]thefncrow[/b] said[/quote]

Well put, dude. I agree with Yao that with the exception of that last little bit, your analysis of the issue is spot on. Kudos.

[quote]benefits for couples who are rearing children[/quote]

what about single people who are rearing children.

michael jackson?

ok, i'll get my coat. :oops:

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

[quote=thefncrow] Then, Sowell digs himself a hole halfway to hell with the entire line about AIDS. Thomas Sowell, are you aware that the segment of the population which is seeing the highest rate of infection of HIV is women, and not men? I'm sure its just because all those women are muff-divers, right? Close to half the world's population of AIDS victims are women, but I'm sure its just all dykes, right? Give it a fucking rest already. Stick to economics, I hear that you actually make halfway decent arguments in that area that don't crumble to pieces the minute logic enters the arena.[/quote]

Although a lot of your comments are logical and your arguments I can even respect, this is where I just have to chime in. Its evident that your spouting statistics without any real knowledge of the situation. The HIV rate in women isn't even close to that of men, and is barely growing at all. In fact its pretty much the same in women diagnosed with it every year, and growing exponentially in men. To think that AIDs doesn't grow, MAINLY, because of Gay men is a naive statement to say the least.

[url]http://www.avert.org/statindx.htm[/url]

Statistics there from around the world. But I will be using only the statistics for here in the United States.

Here is the statistical summary for the USA. [url]http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm[/url]

[quote]Of the adults and adolescents with AIDS, 77% were men. Of these men,

* 58% were men who had sex with men (MSM)
* 22% were injection drug users (IDU)
* 11% were exposed through heterosexual contact
* 8% were both MSM and IDU.

[/quote]

Read those numbers and then spout off some more of your liberal rhetoric. The highest rate of infection is women not men?? :lol: Your opinions may be valid, but when you try to back them up with facts I think its you thats falling down the hole, or reaching the bottom of the barrel there.

To further prove my point, you can refer here [url]http://www.avert.org/womstata.htm[/url]

In the HIV diagnoses by exposure category, it breaks down as follows:

Totals

2000 - 8,899 2001 - 8,630 (decline) 2002 - 8,633 (same as before) 2003 - 8,733 (barely inclined)

And then you have male to female comparissons in the AIDs exposure category (obviously different then HIV diagnoses)

2003 diagnoses - 31,614 male to 11,498 female, where as (as stated above) well above 50% of that is from male to male intercourse. There there are the cumulative numbers. 749,887 male to 170,679 female 440,887 of that 749,887 were from Gay intercourse.

These stats speak for themselves. You should be aware that I am GoogleMan, and none of your blatent statistical lies will sneak past everyone around here. :lol:

[quote=cosmo] Here we go again with 'guaranteed'!! I don't see how a small group of individuals with a different lifestyle can claim special rights out of the clear blue sky. That will always be the case. It's not about holding someone down, it's about Anarchy. Maybe it seems to be 'a bit of the norm' for you, because the debate is always present, but I tend to block that out, because I see it for what it is.[/quote]

Cosmo, a couple of points if i may:

First off you are fixated with this notion that we (gay men and lesbians) are a group demanding special rights. We're not. Special rights infer rights that are not open to everyone in society. What we want is equal rights. Plain and simple.

Secondly being gay or lesbian, like being hetrosexual, is not a lifestyle - something that implies you make a choice in how you lead your life. I'm gay. Simple. I don't know why i'm gay. I know that being gay was not a choice i made - after all with all the predjuice againsts lesbians and gay men only a true mashochist would choose to be gay or lesbian, and believe me my friend i am no masochist.

My sexuality, no doubt like yours, is an element of who I, David, am, and believe me i am far more than just my sexuality.

Thirdly, i don't, at least is hope i don't, differentiate between people because of their sexuality. I don't consider gay or lesbian people as any different as heterosexual people and vis a versa. I believe every human adult can and should make decisions about their lives without governmental interference. The government (and i know i'm not American here but you can substitue most western countries here) however does make the difference. It says that because i was born gay, with an attraction to my own gender, i should be treated differently in the eyes of the law. Government says my relationships are not of equal weight in civil society as yours or my parents for that matter.

I have not set out to be different, i am who i am, government however ensures that i am different when in reality i just want to be treated by society in the same why you are.

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

[quote]Everyone DOES have the same rights here in America. But just because, as I said earlier, there are small groups that think new laws should be passed for utter recognition of their lifestyle, doesn't mean that they should be passed. Maybe I should get a group together to oppose driving on the right side of the road, because I believe it's wrong to keep me on the right side of the dotted line. Where is the freedom? I should have that right. I'm absolutely offended for the fact that I'm constrained to just one side of a two way street. Look at all that room over there!! [/quote]

this is so true about society. just look at rasta lifestyle. technically it is a recoginzed religion in a few places, but since most of the mdernized nations view weed as illegal, they wont recognize the religion. however, since gay people dont do anything that the modern world views as illegal, they are accepted by lawmakers. let em live.

[quote=davetlv] My sexuality, no doubt like yours, is an element of who I, David, am, and believe me i am far more than just my sexuality. [/quote]

I've always thought this was a great, but often overlooked, point. Of the average day (or week, or month, or year, or whatever), how much time do we actually spend having sex? Not as much as we'd like, I'm sure, :Naughty:, but in all seriousness it makes up a miniscule percentage of what we do and who we are. It has never made any sense to me to view someone as wholly different and unworthy of the same rights that I have by virtue of a difference that is really pretty minor in the greater scheme of things.

doesn't the average man think about something sexual every 8.something seconds? doesn't that make sex a pretty big part of our life? i'm with ya toasty, it doesn't make sense to me to view someone differently and unworthy of rights based on anything...just pointing that out...sex is a big part of our life.

[quote=Jenks]doesn't the average man think about something sexual every 8.something seconds? doesn't that make sex a pretty big part of our life? i'm with ya toasty, it doesn't make sense to me to view someone differently and unworthy of rights based on anything...just pointing that out...sex is a big part of our life.[/quote]

yeah, but it isn't ultimately who we are. When I introduce myself to someone, I never say, "Hi, I'm toasty, and I like to have sex with women." If someone were to ask me to describe myself, neither my sexuality nor my sexual experiences would even make the list. I define myself by my interests, the way I treat other people, what I do for fun, my ideology, etc.

On this board, for example, I never assume that people are gay or straight. I suspect that those on this board that have an impression of me probably think of me as, "that fucking liberal" before they think of me as "that straight guy."

Yes, I think about sex and it is a big part of my life, but I don't think homosexuals are different in this respect.

I guess the overarching point is that I -- as do most people -- have far more in common with homosexuals than I have differences.

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

^agreed.

btw, i've hung out with you, you sooo do introduce yourself like that..."Hi, i'm toasty, i like to have sex with women!"

i've seen you in action in the courtroom too...

"Your Honor, the insurance company owes my client 4 million dollars, and i like sex with women!"

i might wear a t-shirt that has ""hi, im seansightless, i like to have sex with women" out this weekend. :Naughty:

the only things i "dislike"(not the best word) about the gay society are those few standouts that do nothing to help out there "group"(can't think of a better term, im not calling gays a society, they are part of our society). people like the "queer eye" guys seriously go out and try to say " hey look at me, im gay and im changing the world to gay" , they intentionally give 100% to act different. my friend tom is gay, and he even says that outside of drag queens, there is nothing he cant deal withless than those cats. he says"they cant just be gay, they have to be flaming" i kinda understand him. :? touchy topic. have your opinions. just dont harm others.

[quote=thesightless]i might wear a t-shirt that has ""hi, im seansightless, i like to have sex with women" out this weekend. :Naughty:

the only things i "dislike"(not the best word) about the gay society are those few standouts that do nothing to help out there "group"(can't think of a better term, im not calling gays a society, they are part of our society). people like the "queer eye" guys seriously go out and try to say " hey look at me, im gay and im changing the world to gay" , they intentionally give 100% to act different. my friend tom is gay, and he even says that outside of drag queens, there is nothing he cant deal withless than those cats. he says"they cant just be gay, they have to be flaming" i kinda understand him. :? touchy topic. have your opinions. just dont harm others.[/quote]

Sightless, I damn well agree on that. My cousin is gay, and I have no problem whatsoever with that, but it does annoy me when he's at a party acting like some dumb blonde chick in overdrive waving his hand in every direction. Or when there's a gay parade in my hometown with men walking around in pink trousers split open up to the waist shaking their asses and stuff like that. Being gay is okay, but this flaming kind of being gay, no way. But most gay people I know (and I know a few, damn, a roommate of mine is gay and always saying I have such a nice ass...:Rolling:) really hate those guys. They are actually ruining it for all those normal gay people, just trying to live their life like everyone else. That kind of behaviour will only stunt the process of acceptation.

i didnt mean it in the way of how certain gay people act or dress, more in the sense of when they intentionally and repeatedly call attention to themselves and try to sell it.

i dont run around saying "" hey why dont you dress like a white kid from long island, listen to techno and house music, play video games, wear clothes from bloomingdales, banana republic and guess, and comb your hair like me."

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

[quote=cosmo]As always, people who want to push a proposition in order to get it passed do not ask for everything [i]all at once[/i]. They get the primary bill or 'right' passed, and then start tacking benifits and other rights on top of it. For example, Hillary Care. Hillary was an idiot, and tried to write her Universal health care package that involved TONS of benifits, and it didn't pass. If she wanted it, she should have passed a small package that would inevitably grow in size. [/quote]

... Your logic here is baffling. Let me try to reconstruct this argument for you.

1. Sowell says that people should have rightfully voted for the anti-gay marriage amendments, because they may confer these rights through a set of legal contracts.
2. Nine of the gay marriage amendments which have passed include clauses barring gay couples from entering into contracts which confer any rights which come from marriage.
3. This is OK because you can't ask for everything at once. (?)

Are you actually trying to argue that he hasn't contradicted himself here? He wants the gay marriage amendments passed to force gay couples to use means of conferring rights which were banned by the gay marriage amendment?

Actually, it seems you're even backwards here. Most of the gay marriage amendments weren't attempts to pick up one thing or the other, they were an entire package of ideals. They ban gay marriage, civil unions, and any other sort of contract which would confer any of the things conferred by marriages. They were aimed at making any sort of legal conferrence of any sort of union for gay people illegal, including simple contracts to confer simple things that couples living together should have.

[quote=cosmo][quote]Sowell sets up a strawman so he can feel really proud about knocking it over. The idea that homosexuals are seeking approval with marriage is a joke. They're no more seeking approval than straight couples are. Anyone has the right to hold opinions about other people in whatever way they wish. [/quote]

He is not using a strawman. That's why he singled out the 'activists'. [/quote]

No, you've missed the point. He picks out an unnamed group 'activists', who are supposedly arguing a point never heard in the public discourse, without any evidence that anyone is arguing this, and then proceeds to pick apart 'their' argument piece by piece. Its the very definition of a strawman.

[quote=cosmo][quote]2) Sowell mistakenly assumes that extending a set of special privlidges that one group enjoys upon another group is some sort of favoritism, and not what it really is, destroying a system of favoritism that already exists.[/quote]

No, you are looking at it as something that is supposed to be there in the first place, when it isn't. What he's saying, is that when special groups start seeking social justice and special rights, other groups will have to seek their justice as well [i]in other areas[/i]. When that justice is reached, it starts all over again, and the rule of law will be ever-changing, and will contain no foundation. Considering how many different groups have how many different sets of values, that road leads to anarchy.[/quote]

[quote=cosmo][quote]When you show me someone actually asking for a law requiring people to accept their lifestyle, I'll join you in shooting them down. What is being asked for is not approval, but simply equal legal footing, which is supposed to be guaranteed.[/quote]

Here we go again with 'guaranteed'!! I don't see how a small group of individuals with a different lifestyle can claim special rights out of the clear blue sky. That will always be the case. It's not about holding someone down, it's about Anarchy. Maybe it seems to be 'a bit of the norm' for you, because the debate is always present, but I tend to block that out, because I see it for what it is. [/quote]

An equal opportunity is afforded to all, and that's only, oh, THE BASIS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Its the reason we have things like equal protection. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The situation is either one of the following:

1. Marriage is a special right. Gay people lack this special right. They are asking for the special right to marriage. Straight people already have the special right to marriage.

2. Marriage is not a special right. Gay people lack this right. They ask for a right extended to most of the country to be extended to them, or for an actual compelling state interest as to why they should be denied this right. Neither side has special rights, and neither side is asking for special rights.

If marriage is a special right, then we already have an existing system of favoritism which may either be destroyed or extended. If marriage is not a special right, then we're denying basic rights to people based on sexuality without a compelling state interest. Which is it?

A quick hint for you, so you can see the way the US judiciary sees it. In Zablocki v. Redhail[US Supreme Court, 1979], the court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. I'm going to assume you know what a fundamental right is in a legal manner, and why this is important.

[quote=cosmo][quote]Then, Sowell digs himself a hole halfway to hell with the entire line about AIDS. Thomas Sowell, are you aware that the segment of the population which is seeing the highest rate of infection of HIV is women, and not men? I'm sure its just because all those women are muff-divers, right? Close to half the world's population of AIDS victims are women, but I'm sure its just all dykes, right? Give it a fucking rest already. [/quote]

Did you even read what he said about the Aids issue? [/quote]

I certainly did. Here, I'll even reprint it for you, so you don't have to go back up:

[quote]What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS.

They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called "AIDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality. In some cases, gay activists actually come to the schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids. There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.[/quote]

The entire point stems from two things:

1. Being gay is going to kill you(AIDS/Deathstyle/I really really want to write for Metallica)
2. School-sanctioned gay people hanging out at schools directing kids to gay hangouts and encouraging them to be gay. I'd have a problem with this, if Sowell could actually prove it was occurring. Without some sort of cite, or news article, or some sort of evidence whatseover, it is not a credible claim. Its really just an offshoot of his earlier strawman about forced homosexual acceptance.

Its a boogieman and an insult all wrapped up into one, and its so laughable you're lucky even half a moment to respond to that joke of an argument.

As to the issue of single parents getting benefits for child rearing, I agree that's an issue, but it was an extraneous piece of information when I was dealing with the issue of "marriage benefits = child-rearing benefits", though its certainly a good point as to why that argument does not hold.

Sorry about the novel length essays here, I'm just used to another debate board, where a reply of the length of most of these replies gets you laughed at, or, worse, gets words shoved in your mouth because you didn't address every facet of the issue in the initial post.

[quote=Civic_Zen][quote=thefncrow] Then, Sowell digs himself a hole halfway to hell with the entire line about AIDS. Thomas Sowell, are you aware that the segment of the population which is seeing the highest rate of infection of HIV is women, and not men? I'm sure its just because all those women are muff-divers, right? Close to half the world's population of AIDS victims are women, but I'm sure its just all dykes, right? Give it a fucking rest already. Stick to economics, I hear that you actually make halfway decent arguments in that area that don't crumble to pieces the minute logic enters the arena.[/quote]

Although a lot of your comments are logical and your arguments I can even respect, this is where I just have to chime in. Its evident that your spouting statistics without any real knowledge of the situation. The HIV rate in women isn't even close to that of men, and is barely growing at all. In fact its pretty much the same in women diagnosed with it every year, and growing exponentially in men. To think that AIDs doesn't grow, MAINLY, because of Gay men is a naive statement to say the least.

[url]http://www.avert.org/statindx.htm[/url]

Statistics there from around the world. But I will be using only the statistics for here in the United States.

Read those numbers and then spout off some more of your liberal rhetoric. The highest rate of infection is women not men?? :lol: Your opinions may be valid, but when you try to back them up with facts I think its you thats falling down the hole, or reaching the bottom of the barrel there.

And then you have male to female comparissons in the AIDs exposure category (obviously different then HIV diagnoses)

2003 diagnoses - 31,614 male to 11,498 female, where as (as stated above) well above 50% of that is from male to male intercourse. There there are the cumulative numbers. 749,887 male to 170,679 female 440,887 of that 749,887 were from Gay intercourse.

These stats speak for themselves. You should be aware that I am GoogleMan, and none of your blatent statistical lies will sneak past everyone around here. :lol:[/quote]

Where did I ever say anything about "in the US"?

[url]http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm[/url]

Worldwide, 19.2 million women have HIV or AIDS, and, out of a population of 40 million with HIV or AIDS, that's nearly half.

Worldwide, the transmission of HIV/AIDS from heterosexual sex accounts for 90% of infections. So, once again, my point about how its not just homosexual men stands firm.

Even using your US statistics, while the claim I made doesn't hold fast, 35% of HIV diagnoses in 2003 were from heterosexual sex. 45% was from homosexual sex, so it does not hold, but its still close enough that you cannot solely blame gay sex for HIV still being around.

I will withdraw my claim about being the fastest growing population, because I read it elsewhere, however, I did not notice that a link was not included, so it could be some stupid geocities site or something and I just never knew. My guess is that they used the statistics for sub-saharan african women, where the infection rate actually is higher.

If you look at the US, sure, a lot of my claims seem invalid. However, since there are other places in the world where people contract HIV/AIDS, I'm looking globally. After all, if the problem is with the disease, like Sowell is definately trying to imply, those trends should bear out worldwide, which they don't.

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

[quote=thefncrow] 2) School-sanctioned gay people hanging out at schools directing kids to gay hangouts and encouraging them to be gay. I'd have a problem with this, if Sowell could actually prove it was occurring. Without some sort of cite, or news article, or some sort of evidence whatseover, it is not a credible claim. Its really just an offshoot of his earlier strawman about forced homosexual acceptance.

[/quote]

This is true, just research it. I'm not about to google since there is nothing in it for me. Before I was proving you wrong. :lol: Which BTW, there is a lot to be said about EU and Canada and why their HIV rates for women are rising much more steadily then ours in the US. Personally, those are the only numbers that are really relevant since its blatently obvious that gay men in this country are the reason for AIDs distributing itself more then anything else. Surely gay men have sex with women too, Bi men are in abundance, and I believe more so in more liberal countries.

Regardless, maybe just ask someone you know that is in HS. I mean sheesh, how old are you?? I am 24, and they were doing this back when I was in High school 6-7 years ago.

Which board? pm me if you don't wanna spam.

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

[quote=Civic_Zen] This is true, just research it. I'm not about to google since there is nothing in it for me. Before I was proving you wrong. :lol: Which BTW, there is a lot to be said about EU and Canada and why their HIV rates for women are rising much more steadily then ours in the US. Personally, those are the only numbers that are really relevant since its blatently obvious that gay men in this country are the reason for AIDs distributing itself more then anything else. Surely gay men have sex with women too, Bi men are in abundance, and I believe more so in more liberal countries.

Regardless, maybe just ask someone you know that is in HS. I mean sheesh, how old are you?? I am 24, and they were doing this back when I was in High school 6-7 years ago.[/quote]

I'm 20, and I have friends that are still in high school, and in various high schools through the area, and no one has ever heard of anything like this. Shit, at my school, the only time homosexuality was mentioned, ever, was one class in health class. That was it. A quick survey of my friends via AIM shows the same results. If you want to present evidence that gay people are going into schools with an official sanction to tell students where gay people hang out and to convince them to become gay, and say that the evidence is so widespread that I should obviously know that it happens, then I'd imagine you can pull up, say, some sort of news article on this, yes? A google search brings up a lot of biased non-journalism sites.

To be technical, gay men don't have sex with women. Bi men, yes. :)

To say gay sex is the leading reason for the spread of AIDS in this country would be accurate. To say gay sex is [b]the reason[/b] AIDS is spreading in this country is inaccurate, because gay sex is not the reason that the majority of people in this country contract AIDS(there is not a majority reason if you separate gay and straight sex). Sex, in general, is [b]the reason[/b], gay sex is more than half of that, but not all of it.

Yao, PM is sent.

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

[quote=thefncrow]If you want to present evidence that gay people are going into schools with an official sanction to tell students where gay people hang out and to convince them to become gay, [/quote]

Dude calm down. :wink: Nobody, any where, from Cosmo to whoever wrote this article, nobody is saying they are trying to CONVINCE them to become gay. That is just ubsurd. What they had at my school was an assembly, which had the counselor telling any gay people to come see her if they ever had any questions, or what not. And I happen to know that after going to see her, they would get pamphlets with all kind of societies and the like. Which are really good in and of themselves, but led to a lot of places where they "held" meetings. Obviously I was never at those meetings, I don't know what goes on there, and I could care less. I could care less that they would designate the 16 and up night at the local club a gay night, but this info was only told to the gay people. I actually don't think its a problem personally, I could care less. Your the one that said if I could prove this, then you would have a problem with it. I don't have to prove it, because I know its true and I'm not out to google this today, I'm too busy digging up dirt on Jacques Chirac and doing a little work too. :lol:

But seriously, most of this information you can get from your high school counselor. You can get all kinds of info, all of which is good in the long run, becaus they also lecture on AIDs, not just that you can go here to hook up with other gay guys. What about girls, ages 13-14 even who get an abortion through their high school and the parents aren't even told. That is a real situation and one thats been all over the news. I think thats pretty messed up personally.

[quote]and say that the evidence is so widespread that I should obviously know that it happens, then I'd imagine you can pull up, say, some sort of news article on this, yes? A google search brings up a lot of biased non-journalism sites.[/quote]

Like I said, its so obvious that information on gay meeting places is passed out in schools, that this is a waste of my time. Where do you live then? Because if any of your friends new anyone who was gay, or les, then all you would have to do is ask if they ever went to the school counselor. And Like I said, I think its a good thing they got that info because they get lectured on safety as well. Its the same kind of ignorance that people preach against teaching safe sex in schools, safe sex should be taught regardless of who the sex is with. No scratch that, its A LOT more important for gay men to be scoured with this information.

[quote]To be technical, gay men don't have sex with women. Bi men, yes. :)[/quote]

Bi men are gay. There is gay, and there is strait, there is no bi with men any way. Women can be bi though. IMO.

[quote]To say gay sex is the leading reason for the spread of AIDS in this country would be accurate. To say gay sex is [b]the reason[/b] AIDS is spreading in this country is inaccurate, because gay sex is not the reason that the majority of people in this country contract AIDS(there is not a majority reason if you separate gay and straight sex). Sex, in general, is [b]the reason[/b], gay sex is more than half of that, but not all of it.[/quote]

This is what cosmo was saying though, and what I was saying. its the LEADING CAUSE. Yes, it is, no debate. And there is also no debate that it became what it is today because of gay men, and heroin and coke users.