1

The interdependent relationship between health and human rights is well recognized. Human rights are indivisible and inalienable rights due to all people. Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) address, respectively, the rights to equality; freedom from discrimination; life, liberty, and personal security; freedom from torture and degrading treatment; recognition as a person before the law; equality before the law; and the rights to marry and have a family. Some people, specifically lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals, are in many places and circumstances denied their claim to the full set of human rights. This puts LGBT people in many countries at risk for discrimination, abuse, poor health, and death — the ultimate human rights violation.
Denial of the recognition of human rights for any group of individuals is a denial of their humanity, which has a profound impact on health. For LGBT people, it may result in discrimination in housing and jobs (affecting the ability to purchase food, shelter, and health care); lack of benefits (affecting the ability to pay for health care and financial security); harassment and stress (affecting mental health and/or prompting substance abuse, smoking, overeating, or suicide); isolation (leading to depression); sexual risk-taking (exposing oneself and loved ones to sexual health risks, including HIV); physical abuse and injuries; and/or torture and death.
On the sixth and seventh of october, there's going to be a referendum in my country where the people will vote for or against allowing marriages between people of the same sex. This has turned over the past month into a full on war between the church and the conservative people on one side and the young people, the LGBT community and the diaspora on the other.
In my oppinion, if the traditionalists win and the law gets applied allowing only marriages between the two sexes it would result into a crude violation of the human rights and of the values that the global society are promoting. I will vote for allowing marriages of the same sex because I feel that everyone must have the right to choose who they marry and who they want to spend their life with. It is unacceptable that such things can happen in 2018, for a country that it's proud to be a democratic government this would violate the most basic rights, the right to healthcare and freedom. I fear for my country, I fear for what might happen in the future if such laws will apply.
I eagerly await your oppinions on this subject and I hope we can have a mature discussion.

feel free to add me to your Skype. it is valentin.velecico.9
nothing is impossible.

Thumbs up +1

2

OK, I have to sort of choose my words carefully here. I can't believe its such a controversial topic. For those who this would not affect in a tangible way, i.e. non LGBT members, how could they fight on the side against this. My opinion is that any two people should be able to marry, no matter what their sexual preferences may be. I wouldn't really support legal marriage of brother and sister, brother and brother, sister and sister, etc. Or like first cousins, because it may very well lead to the potential for child making. If that were to happen, the child would most likely be mentally handicapped, and I would consider two such people so closely related having a child an act of child abuse.

But really, the government has no right to say that gay or lesbian couples cannot be married. They have the same rights as anyone else. While I do have conservative views, I don't go in with the church at all. I don't believe in organized religion, well that makes it sound like I think it doesn't exist. I think organized religion has a high potential for corruption and evil. Now maybe someone will find a good religious leader, but maybe not.

Kind of all over the place but yes I support your decision to vote to allow the marriages.

The bipeds think this place belongs to them, how cute.

Thumbs up

3 (edited by Jason SW 2018-10-05 17:10:03)

Under no circumstances should any person, business, or government, no matter how powerful, have the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their own lives and bodies, for any reason. No one.

Thumbs up

4

I honestly don't see why anyone could be against this on non-traditionalist grounds. Mariage was originally not a sacrament in the west or anywhere for that matter until about 1000 years ago, That includes traditionally Christian and Islamic countries as well as Jewish communities and those in East Asia. So for one, the religious objections have to get by that for much of their histories of these religions they didn't consider mairage a profoundly sacred thing as they claim was always the case now. Yes there is distinct text in religious texts on importance of mairage and how spouses should behave, primarily referencing what men are to do, but the actual historical practices in those societies tell a different story on how such things were treated.
The background historically even after that period is also more shaky, with hostility towards homosexuals not really developing until the late 19th century, and even then, only for men. In the Victorian age, Lesbian relationships between older and younger women were seen as normal, though it was still expected that a woman would marry.

King James, Of the King James Bible Fame, was also known to be gay, or at the very least bisexual, and if you look at texts regarding him from the time, everybody knew, but it was none of their business so they didn't really feel they had much to say.


So for one the religious right that do not support non-heterosexual mairage actually have more of an uphill fight than they would like to believe.  as the historical record does not back them up.

Second, I don't see how it hurts me if my gay brother wants to get married to some guy. It doesn't make me any worse off, and if the mairage makes him happy, it might very well make things better. Some of the religious on the right argue that God will punish a society for allowing such things to happen, but if a god is going to punish a group of people for the sins of a few, that either suggests that the god is capriciou or cruel, or that it does not have the ability to punish those who do evil specifically and spare the innocent, which both disqualify that god from my worship, even if homosexual mairage were wrong, which I don't think it is.

Also some on the right argue that allowing gay mairage will lead to a lot of crime or other bad behaviors and actions, but they have never really come to explain why or how. If they can produce some sort of viable argument that isn't just paranoid screaming, I'll give it a listen. I haven't seen one yet.

And when I say the right, I am not referring to them all. Ironcross identifies himself as more conservative and he supports gay mairage, and there are a lot like him on that front. On both sides of the political argument, we can't keep the loudest, stupidest, and most unreasonable of us off the airwaves.

So in deciding whether you ought to vote in favor of Gay mairage consider whether you think Gay Mairage is wrong, and whatever answer you get, also consider, a. does it hurt anyone. b. does it help anyone. c. is it even anybody's business to control the sex relations of mairage. d. what reasons are there in favor of such things e. how valid are those reasons and f. on the other side, what are the reasons against it and are they valid points.

I've told you I'm in favor, but if my argument doesn't work for you, you can come to your own conclusion.

Thumbs up

5

I have to agree with the posts above, however, we live in a world where such thing as governments not trying to control the people's lives is impossible. It happens in every country to some extent, in some parts of the world it's much worse than in others. I believe this is happening because the government tries to solve a problem before even a solution for that is needed, even before the problem really exists.
Power does really corrupt people, my country is a good example for this. A lot of laws have changed over the past two years that make some acts of corruption legal if you know the flaws in them, those laws were made by themselves for themselves. Many of our high ranked officials have lots of corruption cases filled against them and it seems they are going to get away with that.
Regarding the gay marriages, many people are angry that a referendum is needed to claim a right that should be inalienable and not questionable however the majority of the population is undereducated and the church has a great influence on their thinking and oppinions. Over the last days there have even been cases where the priest told the congregation that if they vote for marriages between people of the same sex they will commit an irreparable sin and will be doomed for that.

feel free to add me to your Skype. it is valentin.velecico.9
nothing is impossible.

Thumbs up

6

What is marriage? What is the difference between being married and being unmarried? Not historically; today. What is the motivation today for people to marry? ... Actually, that's a bad question, because what even does it mean to marry? Like, there's a ritual, for ... something, then ... what? People get married with no intention of having children, and people have children without getting married, so that can't be it. I don't even know what marriage is anymore, other than some manner of joint ownership contract or the legal right not to testify against each other.
"Hey, will you marry me?"
"What would that change?"
"Taxes, mostly."
"Does that mean I'd pay less taxes?"
"There's a cake and rings, too. They probably cost more than we'd save in taxes."
"Oh. So you just want jewelry and a cake?"
"Don't you?"
"I mean, it's cake and gold. So yes."

Some of my games
Keep up to date by following @Jeqofire on twitter!
Ear Ninja?

Thumbs up +1

7

@CAE_Jones You're forgetting the most wonderful and totally meaningful part though, the fact that someone's last name changes! Isn't that great? Totally worth getting married and risking your property and business if things don't work out.

If anyone wants to add me on Skype, it's garrett.brown2014.

Thumbs up

8

There's so much hypocracy in everything these days, and being a Christian, I am not afraid to admit it, but  there are questions even I have about some of these laws.  The most common one is "when are they actually enforced?"  I say this because the freedom of choice, speech, and religion laws seem to be  the ones that  only apply  if you already believe or  say or think the same way as others around you.  It's not fair to anyone, Christian, Atheist,  Pegan, or whatever you choose to be.  I feel we should all be able to speak our mind, make our own choices, and  do what we want, so long as we don't harm the next guy. 

I do have my own personal opinions and beliefs about many things, and will keep them to myself.

Recording artist @ Bass Mekanik Records.  Albums available Wherever digital albums are sold.
My YouTube Channel
Drum Covers | Video Game Covers

Thumbs up

9

About the gay  marriage thing, I absolutely agree, though I will say polarisation on any issue in America from politics to what sports team you like seems pretty nuts and very extreme to me, so it doesn't surprise me that there is such an extreme reaction about this.

I believe gay marriage in the legal sense is okay over here, though when asked to legitimise it the Church of England did their usual thing, hummmed, and harred, promised to do something and in the end did nothing because  they are still try to please everyone all of the time from  traditionalist old sticks to younger christians, but then again the C of E over here  has little to no political power, and even what individual clergy  do can vary quite a bit, a good friend of mine who is gay, and also a very decent Christian said his local vicar did pretty much as close to marrying he and his husband as he could IE he suspiciously decideed to have a service all about loving each other with a blessing that wasnt' a wedding honest gov big_smile.

Personally I find it harder to understand why people would! object to gay people getting married, but then again while my wife is a christian and I am at least theistically inclined, neither of us takes the bible in the least sense literally or tries to adapt moral codes from 2000 years ago for today.

What is a more interesting question is that raised by Cae Jones, namely what is the point of Marriage anyway?

As someone who actually got! married I can say there definitely is one, aside from the obvious legal issues.

Leaving aside the very complex mess of legal visas and entry into the Uk, for my lady and I we got married because not  being married was down right unthinkable!

We are committed to spending the rest of our lives together because we're just built that way, and having a ceremony and symbollic commitment to that makes a great deal of sense. The best way I can put this is to say that I actively would not! want to be without my wedding ring. Also my lady was adamant that she wanted to take my last name.
I actually offered to take hers, but she was more a fan of having mine as she'd kept hers with her previous husband and wanted a distinct change big_smile.

I can also say if a person is! religiously inclined, there is!  something special about marriage.

The fact that Mrs. Dark and I found each other and the experience of what we have is probably the best personal evidence for some vague existince of some divinely decent aspect to the universe I have had in a considerable while. As such, having a personal and ceremonial exploration of that just makes sense.

this isn't to say all couples should get married or the like, a very good friend of mine married her husband after living with him for 26 years because she  having a ceremony about their commitment would be a good thing to do.

but I will say there are symbolic, and yes, if people are inclined that way, religious or spiritual significances to the state of being married which make sense to me, a state which I also hasten to add would be no less possible or worth celibrating for two people of the same gender as for two people of different genders, hell my lady's best friend and her "wife" consider themselves married in all ut name, even if the state of Pennsylvania wouldn't let them have the actual ceremony and one partner needs to keep her last name for legal reasons.

With our dreaming and singing, Ceaseless and sorrowless we! The glory about us clinging Of the glorious futures we see,
Our souls with high music ringing; O men! It must ever be
That we dwell in our dreaming and singing, A little apart from ye. (Arthur O'Shaughnessy 1873.)

Thumbs up

10

What I take away from this, though, is that marriage is effectively a spiritual thing, so wouldn't it fall under the question of religious freedom in general? But there's clearly some sort of legal relevance, else it wouldn't have become such a big political issue in the supposedly-religiously-free US.

Some of my games
Keep up to date by following @Jeqofire on twitter!
Ear Ninja?

Thumbs up

11

You gotta think, Politics are  almost always trying to raise an issue  for everyone else, the minorities, in this case,  can have something to argue or rant or complain about, meanwhile the higher ups are doing more than breaking laws and such  with us distracted by stuff like this.

Recording artist @ Bass Mekanik Records.  Albums available Wherever digital albums are sold.
My YouTube Channel
Drum Covers | Video Game Covers

Thumbs up

12

Okay, I feel I have to clarify some things. The country I am talking about is Romania, an eastern european country that is inhabited by around 19 million people most of which are christians, orthodox christians to be exact. Being under a communist regime for about fifty years was devastating for the population, the usual things you would expect from a totalitarian regime such as no freedom of speech and religion, lack of propper education for most people and abuse, affected us profoundly. The people who lived under the iron fist of the communists slowly started to regain their freedom, though such a profound experience leaves a lot of scars so a lot of the people who lived then turned into fierce deffenders of the traditionalist religious ways, I believe that they fear that even this small change might turn things on a path that they are not ready to take yet, a road that might head towards a country that's not complaining with God's word, turning towards blasfemy.
While some things started to change, marriage is still seen as a must over here, it's an unspoken rule that you can't live with the person you love for your entire life without marrying her. Basically how this is enforced is through your older friends and relatives who would start bickering untill you actually marry. big_smile
Gay people are seen as some freaks, they are treated with disgust and noone wants them around. While I am not gay, I do understand that their human rights are neglected and that they deserve the freedom to do what they want just as everyone does, this must include marrying aswell.
And, as always, this turns out to be in essence a political battle where the winners are trying every dirty trick to make the other party lose credibility, even changing the laws just before the referendum, displaying propagandistic banners and interpreting god's word in favour of them.
The future looks quite grim for my country, I fear worse things might happen in the future.

feel free to add me to your Skype. it is valentin.velecico.9
nothing is impossible.

Thumbs up

13 (edited by The Dwarfer 2018-10-07 00:22:52)

Okay so here's how I view this whole thing.
I do, truly believe that there is likely a God out there. Even when I hear the name Jesus, I honestly believe he exists. My thing is this though:
1. Homosexuality is not an idealism, it's a genuine biological anomaly that occurs in more than just humans. If God is loving and merciful and perfect in all ways, why would he create creatures and punish them for acting the way he made them to act? (Yes, I will configure your hypothalamus differently, and then cast you to hell for not being able to resist the biological change I've built you with - Man shall not lie down with man, but man shall be attracted to man and be forced to suffer for it.)
2. Homosexuals can't marry, but we are allowed to be disgusted with and hate and fear them? God sees all sin as sin... so those people aren't any better. Also he made them homosexual, so praying that away from them is like praying against God's will if you technically think about it.

This kind of skeptical ideology does not extend only to homosexuals for me. It's with all minority groups struggling for equal rights - God will cast judgement, that is not the human's job. Trying to act better and give oneself more power makes them a worse person than the ones being oppressed. Someone brought up organized religion bringing about corruption, and I fully agree. I think it's got to do with drastic misinterpretations combined with some of the more fowl aspects of human nature seeking in - like sexual and societal power and domination, etc.
My thing is if there is a loving and merciful God and you want to please him? Then by God, realize that every human is human and regardless of your personal fears/ignorance about them, they all deserve to pursue whatever life they want. Silencing/oppressing a group (such as women, African Americans back in the day, etc), is in fact a tremendously horrible idea. All of those people have brains, and you may be suppressing / writing off potential mad geniuses. You never know. Even besides that though... it's immoral and you're just indulging in your false sense of power over fellow humans which would be a sin in itself.
As for marriage? I definitely see a point in it. Even beyond spirituality and religion, I see it as two people making that symbolic commitment to each other; declaring to each other and everyone else that they are each other's person. I see it as a beautiful thing, one that's definitely not void of meaning and significance.

Twitter: stevo399
Website: stevend.net
Have a nice day!

Thumbs up

14

@mastodont, I gathered you meant rumania from your first post. My comment about America was more in response to Cae's question, besides I thought America had already legalised gay marriage at least in some states, albeit there are people trying to turn that decision around.

Again, the religious position anti homosexuality is just one I really don't get, mostly because I simply don't have that understanding of the Bible, ----- parts of which might have actually been written by someone homosexual anyway (there is a very interesting argument in Bishop Spong's book, rescuing the bible from fudnamentalism that Paul might well have been gay). 

Either way, I will say a legal recognition of marriage is helpful on a practical level, my lady probably wouldn't be in the same country as me otherwise, aside from all the niggling little things like  bills, shared residence and so on.

Again, in the Uk you can have this sort of legal status without marriage, its called a civil partnership and is what my friend had, however the "married" part makes things easier, albeit i suspect most of the legal recognition of marriage likely comes from the days when marriage was far more rigidly arranged than it was now and where women  were literally given the status of the husband's possession including a contract of ownership, and it was far harder to end a marriage than it is now if things had gone totally wrong.

I wouldn't say though, legality aside that marriage is purely of religious or spiritual significance, since for a start I know plenty of people who have no religious beliefs  looked forward to their weddings.

The best description of marriage that occurs to me was when my lady and i were reading oathbringer by Brandon Sanderson.
It was after one of the scenes where Sil, a sentient part of wind and embodiment of honour, basically tries to keep Kaladin going, since hes' really damaged and at the end of his rope.

My lady said to me "she's his wife"

Okay, sil is a sentient piece of wind, I don't even think she and Kaladin could! be together apart from the hole bonded sword thing, but the way she was acting towards him was far more the way that somebody's spouse would act rather than just their friend.

She said the same thing about Min in Wheel of time, that though Rand had three girls all after him, it was Min who  she thought of as Rand's wife.

Again its not a difference I'd have picked up on before  being married myself, and not one I can really articulate either, though I can certainly say after seeing how much my rather nervous friend changed when he met his husband (and yes I will use that term), that it certainly isn't' something specific to heterosexual people either.

With our dreaming and singing, Ceaseless and sorrowless we! The glory about us clinging Of the glorious futures we see,
Our souls with high music ringing; O men! It must ever be
That we dwell in our dreaming and singing, A little apart from ye. (Arthur O'Shaughnessy 1873.)

Thumbs up

15

There was a time when gay marriage was even hotter than it already is in the United States. This being a country of hope for refugees, it should be hope for LGBTQ persons living in countries where homosexuality or homosexual marriage is criminalized. Churches for me don't just go by the homosexuality is sin code, but they also exclude people with disabilities, and in Denver, churches are as they are anywhere else. I want to attend, ideally, a church that includes same sex marriage and helps rather than hurts disabled adults who, in my country, are penalized for being married by way of their pension checks cut down to a state rate for couples.
Gay marriage is a great topic, but imagine being disabled and LGBTQ, and I've been an ally in the community for nine years. Disabled adults should never face discrimination because of their disability either, but we will alas be the last to gain humanity.
Beth

Thumbs up

16

interestingly as far as I know the bible says a man shall not lay with another man, but it doesn't mention a woman laying with another woman. my male gay friends get round this by only having sex standing up.

sorry, kind of trying to be humorous there but if people take the bible literally ...

if duct tape doesn't fix it, you haven't used enough.

Thumbs up +1

17

Paul mentions both men and women. If it was just about Leviticus, someone, somewhere, at some point, would have declared that they do not, in fact, eat pork or shellfish, and are therefore not hypocrites for banning one Levitically-forbidden thing and not others.

Some of my games
Keep up to date by following @Jeqofire on twitter!
Ear Ninja?

Thumbs up

18

lol must have missed that. I don't do religion these days because it is a bunch of fables written a long time ago to tell people how they should live their lives and give guidance. which is all good. I think it's rather out dated now in a lot of ways but a lot of it still stands but you can reduce most of it down to don't be a dick and if we all do that nobody will treet you like one, or just be nice and if we're all nice, we're all happy.

I'm always intrigued by the food thing too. don't eat this or that because god says you shouldn't. doesn't mention a lot of foods they didn't know about at the time. there was a massive argument in the catholic church when the potato was brought to Europe because they didn't know if it was ok to eat it or not.
but a little logic applied tells you, don't eat pork, shell fish etc if you live in the middle east because it is insanely hot and it spoils very quickly and will make you ill. easier back in the day though to say that god said not to.

but back to the subject:
the bible and a lot of other religious books try to enforce the idea of people getting married so they can make babies. more babies, more foloowers of that religion.
the reason religions became and still become powerful is because people that believe what they are told will follow and fight.
a village full of people who have no faith will not stand and fight when they are attacked by a hord of people that are told they are fighting for a cause and if they die it is their god's will and they will go to heaven. then when they are over run they figure, hey these guys must be on to something. maybe I should follow that faith too.

so my point is that it's not in the interests of religions to advocate gay marriage and a lot of fundimentalists take that literally and will do anything they can to stop it and oppress people they see as being against their beliefs.

personally I think if gay people want to get married, go for it. I've been to a couple of gay weddings recently and I think all of those couples will stay together and last longer than a lot of the strait marriages I've been to. I was best man at my friend's wedding few years ago. he split with her about 2 years after.

not quite sure why I started writing this now but I think I made some points. lol. and I hope I didn't offend anybody.

if duct tape doesn't fix it, you haven't used enough.

Thumbs up

19 (edited by Ethin 2018-10-09 05:57:53)

I personally have no problems with gay or lesbian relationships or marriages. If it makes the couple happy, what business is it of mine to interfere with their happiness? On the other hand, if the relationship clearly had problems, or was abusive, etc., I'd perhaps try to help, even if me helping only made the problem worse -- at least I'd have tried something. Would I myself engage in a gay marriage or relationship? Nope, out of the question. But I have no problem if people do it.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

20

I'm not gay, but I have no problem with any marriage or gender expression provided that no one's getting abused, taken advantage of or otherwise inconvenienced. i.e., I'd have some trouble with two brothers marrying each other, or a brother and sister who'd want to have kids. Rubs me the wrong way a bit, and there are biological reasons not to have children with one of your siblings or immediate family members.

Even if marriage doesn't mean a lot to you, as an individual, it's a very important rite for many, and no one should be denied it for arbitrary pseudoreligious reasons.

I have trouble taking anything the Bible says seriously. I read a snippet of the book of Ruth in my prior placement, and it was disgusting the way women were spoken of and treated...yet if we were to obey the Bible, shouldn't that be how they're still dealt with? I bet about half the world's population would have something to say about that...

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

21

well if you take the bible literally lav 22 says that blind people may not approach the alter of god because they are unsightful. nore the lame, the crooked of nose and a bunch of other stuff. I'm paraphraising but the bit about the blind not being worthy to wurship god is there. and yet I know so many blind people that will probably kick my ass for pointing that out, but support the fact the bible says gay people are evil. go figure.

if duct tape doesn't fix it, you haven't used enough.

Thumbs up

22 (edited by CAE_Jones 2018-10-09 15:45:05)

I don't think the opposition to gay marriage was just, or maybe even not mostly, about children. The reason you have to go to Paul to find women included in the admonition is probably because sodomy has a much higher risk of transmitting disease than most other relevant options. Even today, the rate of HIV among the gay community is far higher than among the general population, and Sodomy Laws were supposed to apply to heterosexuals as well (not that I know how anyone enforced that). In that sense, it's similar to the ban on pork, as a public health thing.
Paul was writing during the Roman Empire, where public health, sanitation, access to clean(ish) water, etc were much greater than they were in the early Iron-Age. While Rome wasn't an LGBT paradise, it was much less oppressive about it than other cultures and periods, and Paul's weird emphasis on gendered clothing and patriarchy could be seen as a reaction against Roman tolerance of nontraditional expressions of gender (or lack thereof). I expect his opposition to homosexuality can be grouped with the rest of the Traditionalist Reaction he has toward the sorta-mainstream.
You could see Pauline Christianity as encouraging Farmer values on an Urban population, and it working because people had more time to adapt to Farmer lifestyles than Urban. It's only been in the past 60 or so years that farming went from the biggest thing to 2% or less of jobs. One could look at the current state of the world, and link a good deal of it to the Green Revolution, especially the part where primarily Agricultural countries are struggling due to the drop in prices. It's too early to say how stable the post-agricultural scarcity world is, but if it lasts, there's a gaping hole where people's Farmer values and instincts aren't sufficiently adapted for ... whatever this is.

Some of my games
Keep up to date by following @Jeqofire on twitter!
Ear Ninja?

Thumbs up

23

Isn't the section that forbids homosexual relationships a part of a series of laws for an ancient jewish community.   Many which we probably shattered many times over, and I think one was regarding garments, so shattered daily.  I'm still curious why one section of that gets so focused upon, while disregarding the rest as okay.

Thumbs up

24

It's simple, really.
The sort of people who'd try and deny a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, or would try and deny the right of non-heterosexual people to marry, are the sort of people who essentially feel, even if they can't articulate as much, that there's a good group and a bad group. Naturally, they're part of the good group, and they'll find whatever justification they can to exclude those who don't act and think the same way. It's arrogance of the highest order.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

25

@22 I'm not sure it was ever changed but it's a strange thing to goodle so I'm not sure I want to, but up until very recently sodamy between strait people in Britain was still against the law and yet legal for gay men once homosexuality was decriminalised.


the HIV thing is an interesting point though. it is apparently easier to catch that way weather gay or strait because ... well I'm not going in to details but it's spread through bleeding usually. although Africa is rife the the disease and the majority of people that have it there are strait. probably because of lack of protection, possibly people who don't want anymore babies, and in some countries, bad education and superstition. I was reading recently in some cultures in Africa they believe the way to cure aids is to have sex with a virgin. it's hard to believe but that's what they think.
I think the spread of HIV in the gay community during the 80's was due to underground clubs where people went to meet other gay men for sex and would have many more partners than strait people would. the reason being that having a boyfriend was almost impossible because of attitudes at the time. plus, it was a scene. a gay friend of mine was part of that scene back in the day and luckily didn't catch anything but I think these days that kind of lifestyle and those kind of clubs have pretty much gone in the UK at least because of changing attitudes. people can openly have a partner which again brings us back to the gay marriage thing. less persecution, more openness, more long term relationships, can only be a good thing.

if duct tape doesn't fix it, you haven't used enough.

Thumbs up