It made the arguement for quarantines at the border. This country used to quarantine people that did not have the proper shots, were carriers of communicable diseases etc..the ACLU did away with that. Look at Iowa. They went through TB and mumps outbreaks within the past year..we immunize against it..

As for AIDs during the early 80s, it’s source and cause was basically a mystery for most of the decade. I can remember having to sit through a film that was put together by the military to advise service members as to ways in which it could be transmitted. The film included a number of AIDs victims describing how they had contracted the disease. Paying attention to the film, it was pretty apparent that the government knew there was a disease causing AIDs, but that they didn’t really know much about it. Even as late as 1990, my ex-wife (whose gay brother was living in San Francisco) thought that it might be possible to catch AIDs from a water fountain.

*raises hand*
That would be me.

Very true, FAO. I couldn’t help thinking that in the case of Liberals, the logic trap doesn’t work. If they start to follow the path of logic, at some point their brain firmware will lock up since for them the state of a logical conclusion is undefined. Then their brain will reset and they will start from the beginning again.

I have personally seen this phenomenon occur.

That is such an outdated, archaic concept to the “progressives”. That you would actually live the same as you profess? To them everything is situational, relational, context-specific. Do what they say, not what they do. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain…

Want to get gay marriage approved? Here’s an argument that might actually sway people. What determines the sex of a person? Technically it’s whether they have an xy chromosome pair versus a yy chromosome pair. EVERYTHING ELSE IS STRICTLY COSMETIC. With that in mind, what is the sex of someone who has had gender reassignment surgery? Are people supposed to fall in love based on physical attributes or on their personalities? With everyone claiming that people are supposed to fall in love based on personality, not appearance, wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that requiring one person to undergo disfiguring cosmetic surgery (sex change) in order to marry the person they want would be the equivalent of cruel and unusual punishment. It’s not legal to castrate sex offenders. It’s not legal to require obese people to undergo bariatric surgery to get married, why should it be legal to require one member of a same sex couple to undergo sex change so that they can be married? There’s an argument that is Constitutionally sound. It has nothing to do with equal protection, it is solely based on the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Want to sway the populace, make an argument that makes sense. It’s called a logic trap. You don’t tell them how to think, you simply ask them questions that lead them to a logical conclusion on their own.

I support gay rights, as my sils are gay. I take my cue from them, and they are after civil unions and benefits..their biggest concern is that at the end of one of their lives, the other is going to be denied the right to make the judgement for the other..they are no less married than I am, yet they don’t havethe legal documents that I do.

I do believe that many that oppose gay marriage, do support gay benefits or legal recognition of partnership..it may not be much condolence to the gay community, but maybe if we started there, some common ground could be met..

Those charming folks are Roman Catholic Republicans who signed a petition to get the issue of same sex marriage on the 2008 ballot. Nah, it’s not lip service. The Democrats may not be the ideal but in comparison they’re not trying to marginalize an entire sector of this society to second class citizenship so I’ll stay more closely aligned to those who espouse equality and a woman’s right to dominion over her own body. I see, so it is alright with you that while you want same sex benefits, the Democrats are not acting nationally in your favor,so as not to tick off a portion of their base, all the while ballot measures, blocking your rights, are popping up all over the country, and are passing. So as long as someone doesn’t publically knock your homosexuality, but privately does..you are okay with that? BTW, had the states that passed the amendment not been democratic, I could kinda see your point, but there are blue states that have passed the amendments. MI is one of them and my state overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage, during the 2004 election cycle.

Okay, I went to know thy neighbor..and? They used bully tactics to try to intimidate those that signed a petition? Will there be people standing behind the voter in the booth threatening them? God Hates Fags? You think any of us take it seriously? Shall I post Ameriblog? They seem to think that they have the right to out gay people..well not just anyone..republicans..somehow they can justify that..they also did quite a job with the Foley scandal..thanks to them, we have more people than ever equating homosexuals to child molestors..way to further the cause..not to meantion that it ignighted the religious right to become more vigilant than ever…