Free Breaking News

Support free news online by subscribing today!

The Question of Gay Marriages

2009 protest in San Francisco: California voters approved Proposition 8 in 2008 to reverse a ruling that gay couples had a right to marry

Marcio Jose Sanchez, AP

Ask just about anyone. They’ll all tell you they’re in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. Just name the situation, and ask. They’ll all say, yes, gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accomodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law, etcetera, etcetera. Homosexual activists have done a great job advancing their cause with slick moralistic slogans about equal rights, discrimination, and so forth. As we will see, few, if any, of the pro-gay marriage slogans tell the truth. They sound good to a passive audience, but upon closer analysis, they are exposed as half-truths and deceptive distortions. The activists have been able to get away with that because our fast-paced lives and sound-bite media provide the perfect environment for propaganda to replace truth

Recently Lawsuits over gay marriage have escalated on the nation’s two coasts, energizing advocates on both sides and bringing the legal battle over same-sex marriage closer to the U.S. Supreme Court. Final arguments in a constitutional test of California’s ban on such unions were held a month ago this week. A verdict in the case heard by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco could come any day. Last Thursday, a federal judge in Boston raised the stakes in this fractious area when he declared part of a U.S. law that refuses to recognize state gay marriages are unconstitutional. The law denies gay and lesbian couples federal benefits that go to heterosexual couples. A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex. This has the advantage of slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which know no sexual orientation and are equal opportunity destroyers.

These benefits of gay marriage have changed the attitudes of the majority of people in Denmark and other countries where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Indeed, in 1989, when the proposal to legalize marriage between gays first was proposed in Denmark, the majority of the clergy were opposed. Now, after having seen the benefits to the partners and to society, they are overwhelmingly in favor, according to the surveys done then and now. Though many arguments against gay marriage are based in homophobia, even people who otherwise support the rights of gays and lesbians have advanced arguments against gay marriage. One main concern is that allowing two people of the same sex to marry will devalue the concept of marriage. Those against gay marriage argue that marriage is between one man and one woman and allowing gay marriage would destroy the traditional family, which defenders of this idea value.

Others argue that marriages are for procreation. This argument is related to the idea that same-sex couples are not appropriate parents and shouldn’t be allowed to assume a family structure. To resolve this matter the high court needs to give this resolution.

Reference: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-07-13-gay-marriage_N.htm?csp=34

July 20, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Homosexual Men Banned from Donating Blood

Since 1985, after the outbreak if HIV-AIDS, the government banned gay men from donating blood for life and this month, the government health committee urged congress to continue the policy, yet also clamored for new research on alternative policies. But demands to change the ban had been growing over the recent years, with advocacy groups, blood collection organizations and even certain members of the congress calling for the FDA to revise donation rules. The Health and Human Services Committee, in its recommendations, noted that current policy permits some potentially high-risk blood donations and prevents some possible low-risk donations. But the panel said existing research isn’t adequate to justify lifting the ban. The FDA has final say over the blood rules.

Movements and groups concerning homosexual men have declared that the blood donation policy clearly discriminates gay and bisexual men, pointing out that even a heterosexual man or woman having sexual intercourse with an HIV-positive partner is restricted from giving blood for one year while gay men face a lifetime ban. With this, the HHS committee heard emotional testimonies from people concerned with ending the ban and those choosing the status quo.

Nathan Schaefer of the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, an HIV/AIDS organization, said most gay men practice safe sex and are HIV-negative, and should be considered a low-risk donor group. The HIV/AIDS organization, which has pushed for revised rules, noted Italy and Spain screen for high-risk behaviors rather than sexual orientation. And Lee Storrow, a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told the committee that he gave blood in high school. Now, after having sex with a male, he can no longer donate, he said. “I hope I can one day donate blood again,’’ Storrow said.

Activists against this ban have the support of the Red Cross and other blood-collection organization, urging the one year waiting period on donations from gay men, implying that the lifetime ban have no scientific basis. They also stated that lifting the ban will increase the blood yield of around 89,000 pints of blood annually, according to a study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. The U.S. periodically has blood shortages, but the testimony at the two-day meeting focused primarily on the safety of the supply, not availability.

But hardliners of the current ban insisted that the battle to continue the ban is not for the supply but for the safety of the blood. Mark Skinner also said, “It’s not about blood supply; it’s about blood safety … Ultimately the end-user bears 100 percent of the risk.’ The American Plasma Users Coalition, representing people who depend on the blood supply to maintain health, urged additional research, forecasting that revisions in the donation rules eventually will be made. He further stated that safety outweighs discrimination since it is for the safety of the public who depend on the blood products donated for their survival.

June 28, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.