To say that only gay adult men sexually abuse boys is wrong. To say that if you are an adult male, and you sexually abuse a male child, that you are a homosexual adult sexual preditor is absolutely correct. I have said nothing more or less. To call that preditory behavior anything else (tying homosexual to pedofile is rather harsh, I know... Its all about terminology.)

True. But the absence of a vagina is most notable in homosexual men's relationships, wouldn't you say? And anal sex among homosexual men is the rule, rather than exception, wouldn't you say? And the FACT that such a practice has inherent, inevitable risks of a higher nature than hetero sexual intercouse is also a FACT, is it not?

The FACT that an impliment must be used at all, shows that this craving is inordinate, is it not? (by strict definition of the word, mind you)

True, but in the context of a hetero-sexual monogomus relationship, it is safer and more effective that the "alternative" lifestyles practices, is it not? (My sense is that you are getting squirmy...)

True, but in the context of this discussion, if I have no interest in having sex with another person, but I am attracted to relationships with people of the same sex, does that or does that not just make me a friend? I mean really! Do you read this stuff?

Sure, so what's your point? I have lots of male friends. If we chose to live together, without the whole butt sex thing, why should we demand an equal status to my neighbor who has three kids and a wife? You have to reason these things through... really....

I don't care if they are star belly sneeches... Who cares? But when they want to have special priveldges paid for by my tax money, so they can have a warm fuzzy about their perversions, that's when I do care. Suddenly Shirly down the street says she wants to marry her cat! If there are no moral absolutes, then we open pandora's box. There is so much sense to Dad, Mom, and kids, that it has been the rule for 99.9% of all civilized countries and cultures. Looking back, everytime homosexual want to reinvent things, suddenly the cultures fall into ruin. Tell me I am wrong and give me an example.

Persicution of people in general, is wrong. Killing them in mass via starvation and unlawful imprisonment is a crime against humanity. Gay, straight, Jew or Gentile. The fact that gays were singled out and slaughtered along with the rest of the victims of WWII does not require that they have a protected status.

Most social and fiscal conservatives I know were given lower grades in college, because they let their political orientation known. But there wasn't professors holding up picket signs on their behalf, now was there?

Being GAY is as much of a choice as being a brocoli eater, I agree. TY

Only people who don't like broccoli would truly appreciate this analogy.

Some discrimination is healthy for a society. Can you name a few? I know I can. And I think some of them would actually benifit you.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

True.

I wouldn't know.

I'll stipulate to that. But it's also irrelevant. Because now you're talking about *degree*, which gets really fuzzy. Is there a particular percentage difference in infection rates that makes a given practice so bad that it should be outlawed, or the practitioners prevented from marrying?

People have sex. People get STDs. Those basic facts are not an argument for or against marriage of any type.

Um, surely you're aware of all the weird stuff straight people engage in, right? Plenty of odd implements get "put to use", so to speak.

Stupid people are not representative of their group, nor should their behavior be used to establish legal preferences.

See above.

You've lost me. If it's an important point, please explain.

It's more a matter of "what business does the government have second-guessing your stated relationship?" It doesn't ask straights if they really are a couple when they apply to get married.

How is having the same rights and privileges as straight couples considered a "special privilege"? As S-S points out, legalizing gay marriage will give everyone the same options. Straight people will finally be free to marry someone of the same gender, just like gays are now free to marry someone of the opposite gender. No "special rights" involved.

This argument has been addressed multiple times in this thread alone.

Actually, polygamy has been far more prevalent throughout human history. So if tradition is your standard, we should legalize that.

Don't know what you mean by "reinvent everything", but.... The Roman Empire.

You missed my point.

The Nazis prevented the Jews from washing and forced them into an overcrowded ghetto, then used the fact that they were dirty to criticize Jews for being dirty.

Straights ostracize gays and force them into a social ghetto, then use the fact that the ghetto is defined by sexual orientation as evidence that gays are all about sex.

Wow, what a non-sequiter. So you're claiming that being punished academically for your political beliefs is on the same plane as being ostracized by society for your sexual orientation?

And since you and I would agree that such punishment is illegitimate, I don't see how it supports the idea that it's okay to discriminate against gays. It's wrong in both instances.

Oh, sure. There's nothing inherently wrong with discrimination, as long as it has a legitimate basis. As far as state-provided benefits go, that requires showing a compelling state interest. Gay marriage fails that test; there is no compelling state interest served by outlawing it.

__________________
Man up.

In the way that oral sex is the rule among hetero couples. But a hetero couple that does not engage in oral sex is still hetero.

By the same token, anal sex is not a requirement among homos, even though it is common. My ex and I didn't engage in it at all, and I doubt we were the only ones.


I suppose that depends on how you look at it. The risk of an abortion is zero with homo sex for example.

Do you have disease statistics comparing homos and heteros when both are using protection?



Should we assume the same thing from married heteros who still masturbate?


That argument could be made for heteros who engage in oral sex as well.



If you could never have sex with your wife ever again, would you just consider her a friend?



I was about to ask you the same question.



In that scenario you should not. What if your feelings for them were more than just friends though?



What special privileges are those?


And my tax money. It is not just you who is paying taxes.


Shirley should be denied that request, because her cat cannot consent.



Who gets to define the moral absolutes?



How did you determine that you have a conscious choice of what you are aroused by?

Eating broccoli is a choice. Craving broccoli is not.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

If I decide to marry my car should I have that right. If I decide to have 2 wives should I have that right, what about 3. Leave marriage alone and allow lawyers to draft contracts, civil unions whatever you call it.

The guy on the lawn was your example, not mine. But your last sentance was the one was I was looking for. Thank you.

__________________
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson

This is exactly my point. This is the perfect example of where this all leads. Previous discussions made by me, in this thread, pale in comparison to what this one post points out.

FACT: Society benefits from one man/one woman marriages that stay together. Raise kids, grand kids, and so on.

FACT: If we blur the meaning of that foundational building block by affording the special status, under the law, to other types of relationships, then we remove a fundamental incentive that preserves our way of life.

If you want to marry your car (and believe me, some guys would sign up for that) then do so! Who cares? But when Mr. and Mrs. Pinto Gremlin want a special tax status because they are not a protected class in our society, you will have to draw the line somewhere.

And without a standard, outside of man's own subjective will, which draws the line at something that really doesn't need fixing, the sky is the limit!

Why don't we try to help Tommy's parents stay together and work things out, which is really what he needs, instead of focusing on "let's try something new!".

But like I said before, I can't argue this issue without an authority higher than I am, in a culture that is unwilling to see it's own sin. I lament the passing of what made our country great, but I will not go down without having my voice heard.

Homosexuality is wrong. God said it is an abomination to him. And He will remove His blessing from our land if we continue to rebel against Him on this issue.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

So...you are saying only straight couples deserve special privillages of that tax status?


And if you were advocating limiting the pivillage of marriage to only couples who will raise kids, that argument would make perfect sense.

But the problem is that a LOT of straight couples have no intention of raising kids. A lot of straight couples get married for perverted/sexual reasons, or for financial reasons (Anna Nicole Smith anyone?). Yet people like you don't seem to have a problem giving them the right to marry.

That is what makes the argument above sound disingenuous. You do not apply your criteria consistently.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

And he ignores that gay couples have children. If the purpose is to provide children with a stable, supportive environment, letting gays marry should be allowed.

__________________
Man up.

So because it's difficult to define a standard or "limit", that means we should give up and pick one subjective status over another. Perfect.

Slavery has been a human standard for thousands of years. It's even been mentioned and protected with god's law in the bible. Let's adapt this argument.

"Why should we give black people these special privileges? Look at them, these savages. They are obviously not equally as intelligent as white people. If we give them the same rights as the rest of us, we might as well give our cows and poultry the same rights too. Where's the limit? We've got to draw the line somewhere."

And what makes you the one who decides what needs fixing?

Maintaining a standard only for the sake of maintaining a standard is circular reasoning and foolish.

Well then I guess I better get hitched.

__________________
And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.