No what it is saying is society is being pushed into believing a lifestyle is not destrustive to our society when it is.

That is why these studies the evening news never reports on them.

Smoking is all over the news as the culprit for canser. We tell our kids that they should not smoke it will kill them very possibly yet in reality people smoke all thier lives and never develope canser.

Why?

another pollically correct statement to appease the people when our govt.

so we say 2nd hand smoke causes canser when people get canser who have never been around smoking people.

Homosexuality will destroy us and is by devide and conquer.. thats the real reason our powers to be want this in the main frame of our news.

we say everyone needs a second chance and a murder can get out of prison and move next door to you and unless you do alot of checking you may never know thier crime.

Yet a 19 yo young man cab get caught and then marry his 16 or 17 yo girlfriend and he has become a sex offender.

Thats called Legalized Hate.. and we are all for Legalized hate when it comes to a sex offender nomatter what the crime was. lives ruined.

They never tell you that only 3.2% of them after serving jail time ever do such a thing again.

But our movies will have you to believe they are ravenging wolves waiting for attack.

Same with Homosexuality except in the oppisite mode. anyone who does not accept this as normal is a bigot and Hates.

So we have the vote of the people overthrown because they are to stupid to understand life.

Since they do not want to call this a religion we teach alternative lifestyles in school to children who we say do not have the mental capabilities to make a good choice when having sex esp when it comes to having it with some one over 18 years of age.

Then we must deduse most of our grandparents are Haters, sex offenders and must be monitored because they are ravenging wolves.

Right?

so I suggest that everyone go tell thier grandparents how Bigoted they are and need to be in a secure place and monitired the rest of thier lives because they are not to smart.

Yea Thats it yea know I got it.. shalom...Miles

Some gays break the law. Some straights do as well. Being gay necessitates being gay, not breaking the law just like being straight necessitates being straight, not breaking the law. One does not break the law because they are gay or straight.

Again, you guys are punishing the many for the crimes of the few.

There is no valid analogy to underage and gay or incest and gay.

Gay people are not underage nor are they incestual.

Trying to make gay be as unnatural as possible doesn't make a valid point, since it isn't.

Actually, you just blew your whole case out of the water.

Notice above, you called it a "privelege".

But, do you still oppose mentally challenged the "privelege" to be married also?
What about their constitutional right to happiness? It's a fact that good sexual health is pertinent to happiness, yet they are refused that RIGHT by laws which you and others support.
Are you also ok with the age descrimination of adolecent boys and girls to me married? They had their priveleges removed and altered over the course of time, homosexuals on the other hand, never met the requirements.

From the World Association of Sexual Health's Millennium Declaration:
http://www.worldsexualhealth.org/sites/default/files/Millennium%20Declaration%20(English).pdf

Pg. 28
"In many countries people with disabilities are assumed
to have a lack of capacity for sexual decision-making and for sexual activity, and thus have been denied rights to sexual self-determination and to sexual health services to meet their needs DiGiulio, 2003; Tilley, 2000; Zola, 1988). This is most evident with respect to persons diagnosed with severe mental illnesses or who are mentally retarded (Dybwad, 1976; Zola, 1988). The sexual capacity and interests of the elderly are similarly denied with husbands and wives placed in separate chronic care facilities and the elderly in these facilities not afforded the privacy and respect required to engage in safe, pleasurable and satisfying sexual lives. The right of sex workers to engage in consensual sexual activities is likewise denied through the criminalization of sex work."






There's that term again... "privelege".
Also that subjective term, "reasonable". Still assuming that you and those who agree with you are the only ones who are "reasonable"? With your numerous errors and illogical assumptions, I refute your use of the term "reasonable".

No one is holding all gays "accountable" for whatever alleged crimes. We're upholding our right to protect society and our own children from having your homosexual views forced upon us, both by public example and limitations to our right to express our opinions. Can you say "Hate Speech"???






Is this a politically correct way of accusing her of being a "homophobe"? So what's the PC term for labeling those who would support discrimination based on age, mental capacity or number of partners?




Simply stating his logic is faulty does not make it so.
We do not impede the rights of inmates? Do you have any clue the psycological dynamics of those imprisoned? Many resort to violent, uncorfortable homosexual activity because we do not allow them the same rights as the free world. (the right to happiness through consentual sexual gratification)
Don't take this the wrong way, I fully support limiting the rights of criminals while incarcerated or on probation, otherwise I'd consider it a "free ride"...




Did you even read the OP? She finished with this statement:
"Causing the religious person to be ungenuine in their relationships due to the doctrines of the church in this case causing fear." She implies that those who don't agree are "ungenuine" if religious.

This tactic of crying "religious" or "homophobe" is on equal grounds as playing the "race card". It's proof that there is no logical rebutal to the views of your opponent.

Tell you what... I'll fully support gay marriage if you will fully support my right to know if you're a danger to society.

I propose that there be legislation requiring anyone with an infectious disease or a criminal conviction to cary on his person or visibly marked on their body, some sort of identifying medium.

Well issue Multiple Online Threat Briefs or MOTB's for anyone who poses a threat to society via medical, physical or economical reasons.


P.S. The Kinsey institute had this to say about the APA:
http://kinseyconfidential.org/psychologists-sexual-orientation-changed/
Couple that with their funding of the "research" presented by Red and the fact of the dishonest claim of expelling Dr. Cameron and any "reasonable" person would question anything endorsed by them.

Except the reasons are not valid at all for opposing same sex marriage. Personally polygamy is not an issue for me either. Let them marry they have to live with each other, not me.

But there is no comparison to gay marriage and underage marriage or incest. That is not a valid analogy.

Gay does not mean illegal nor does it mean mentally unwell.

What, no facts to back this up?

So what's your objection to underage, incest or the mentally challenged?

You should retract or modify the statement of "Gay people are not underage nor are they incestual." It is wrong on both accounts...

Gross overgeneralization is to take a portion and unjustifiably apply it to a whole. I contend that that is what is going on here.

p1. A certain percentage of gays break the law.
p2. Breaking the law is destructive to our society.
C. Therefore, gays break the law and are destructive to our society.

Now the above reflects the thinking expressed thus far, and there are many things wrong with it besides just being a gross overgeneralization, but I digress...not all gays break the law, and seeing how the act of breaking the law has yet to have destroyed our society, I suggest that this is an argument from irrational fear as well among other things.

Fear of the gay population increasing, that is.

Racism often takes the form of a gross overgeneralization. Just because I have met a few whites whom I dislike for reason X(a personality feature), does not mean that I can take X from that specific case and apply it to all whites. All whites may not have that feature. Now if reason X is the fact that they are white, it is clearly a matter of racism. That is, to apply a negative label upon a particular group of people based soley upon their common denominator(race) is to be racist.

One is allowed to be racist in their own beliefs, because we have freedom of belief. It is only a problem if behavior stemming from that belief infringes upon the rights of a person of that race. In other words, a person's personal freedom of belief does not supercede another's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's just the way it is.

Miles,

I ask that you justify the claim that gay/lesbian lifestyle is destructive to our society.

Well psychological warfare is taking an attribute of someone, say a communist and then stripping them of all humanality. So making them evil and untrustworthy.

Racist do this. They take the object of their personal objection and make them as animalistic and undeserving of respect and consideration as possible. You will notice they will try to make them appear as illegal and unworthy of life as they possibly can.

Look at what was recently done to Obama. They have attempted to take away all legitimacy from the man. Not a citizen, terrorist, etc..

This is why the comparison of gays to illegal activity and disgusting animalistic traits are made. It is psychological warfare.

Those in the world who do not read or look for the right answers but instead follow what others say are prone to believe this drivel making the psychological warfare effective against certain people.

I guess it could be considered social warfare also since that is the battle field

My thrust of my argument is not contingent upon the term privelege. The argument is an assessment between what is afforded to straights and what is afforded to gays, no matter what we choose to call those affordances.

They are unjustifiably not equal. What they are called makes no difference to the assessment.



Sufficient justification has all already been given for those who hold such objections. I'll elucidate. It is well-known established fact that some mentally challenged people do not have the mental capacity required in order to make sound decisions about their own happiness. Some, in fact, are a danger to themselves in that regard through not even comprehending the concept at all. Subsequently, there is an error in thought here on another level. I never claimed MY opposition.

Any attempt to turn this into a personal affair will be quickly thwarted.



It is not illegal for mentally challenged people to have good sexual health. Likewise, good sexual health is not contingent upon being married.



Age requirements apply to both. One is of a certain age because of the passage of time. Homosexual adolescents are not allowed to be married either, for those reasons, and more.

Still??? As if I have done such a thing, and you know I have. What is quite clear though, is the fact that you somehow believe that you are privy to another's mental activies.

I know what constitutes being reasonable, but that does not make it up to me. Being reasonable is mentally performing sound judgment practices. Those are necessarily based upon thinking in an orderly and rational way. I suggest that whatever it was that led you to the imagined conclusion about me and my thoughts be revisited.



This is but a frail skeleton of a thought, and such it is completely empty of meaningful content. Such an ungrounded claim is commonly called a gratuitous assertion. As clearly indicated above, the assumption of what "reasonable" means to me is wrong. Therefore, this conclusion if it somehow followed from that false presupposition is invalid, at best.

As it stands, the substantive content of my earlier argument has yet to have been considered. Ignoring the reasonable refutation does not make it any less true/valid. Likewise, continuing on as if it doesn't exist is questionable at best. The substance of the focus here has been the repetition of an irrelevent semantic argument, or some other things that have already fallen by the wayside. Repeating the same argument after it has been refuted, does not change it's status.



I'm assuming we all agree that none of us speaks for everybody.



"To protect", is to protect against a danger. Protecting against a danger requires a danger be present. Homosexuality has yet to have been shown as a danger against a free society. Rather, homosexuality clearly goes against certain peoples personal belief/moral conviction. That does not constitute sufficient reason to impede upon a homosexual's inalienable rights, nor priveleges afforded by laws to American citizens because they are American citizens.

Is someone being strapped to a chair, having their eyelids propped open with toothpicks, and being forced to watch gay porn or some such other gay activity? No. People are being 'forced' to honor the American ideology of a free society. The gay/lesbian fight is against being discriminated against just because they are gay. They have a right to be gay for the same reason that you have a right to be straight. It's not God-given, it's country given. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights afforded to all American people, not just those with the same moral values.

Applause

Just because someone has a right to do something that doesn't mean everyone should accept it and embrace it.

I think the fact alone that half of the Aids cases in America are from Homosexuals and this number is growing is reason enough not to promote this lifestyle.The cost to the American taxpayers for a lifetime of treatment of Aids is averaging over $600,000 dollars and that was for the year 2006...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15655257/

An American diagnosed with the AIDS virus can expect to live for about 24 years on average, and the cost of health care over those two-plus decades is more than $600,000, new research indicates.


Even if I was a God hating Atheist I wouldn't be promoting this sort of lifestyle because facts clearly show these people don't care about the risk of Aids or other STD's and account for half of cases despite being just 2-3% of the population.Yet the American people should feel guilty for not supporting it out of love?Give me a break.



Supporters call Anal sex natural.There is nothing natural about it.


http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000093.php


VAGINA
• has an acidic environment which hinders bacterial and viral growth
RECTUM
• has an alkaline environment, which promotes bacterial and viral growth

VAGINA
• is lined by a thick layer of stratified squamous epithelium which is resistant to tearing
RECTUM
• is lined by a thin layer of simple cuboidal epithelium which can tear easily with unnatural forces

VAGINA
• secretes a lubricant during intercourse
RECTUM
• does not secrete a lubricant, only expels feces

The above is clearly based upon a falsehood. I did not simply state it. That is verifiable demonstrable fact. I followed his logic and showed how it lead to false/absurd conclusions. That qualifies as a sound refutation whether you realize and/or accept it or not. Quoting my introduction while ignoring the argument itself does not make the argument go away, nor deny it's validity.



Is there a point somewhere in there? Does this follow from anything I've written? Does my knowledge of prisoner psychology somehow bear upon the argument at hand?



Does this have anything to do with what you've quoted from me? Do we just go around quoting words and then making completely irrlevent comments? Is that reasonable?

I'm not defending any specific claim in the OP, neither have I quoted it nor have I referred to it in this conversation that you, miles, thomas, a few others and I are having. I'm arguing about the unjustifiable discrimination against the gay/lesbian community. I am asking all who oppose gay/lesbian rights to step up and justify their beliefs, to put their reasoning forward for all to see. After all, if it is reasonable, it can certainly be come to terms with. If it can be come to terms with, it can be displayed. If there is nothing wrong with it, the one should be more than glad to show everyone why that is the case. That is a part of being reasonable.

By the way, my words above which you've ignored here, are prima facie evidence of Thomas' logic being faulty. That was one part of the refutation. That argument took Thomas' reasoning and applied that reasoning to Christian preachers who have broken the law. The reasons he gave other than that they are gay were based upon the fact that some break the law, that some have HIV, that most HIV is spread amongst gay men, and things just like that.

That is taking specific examples which are true of particular situations/individuals and unreasonably using that to justify his argument against all gays. All gays do not committ crimes, all gays do not spread HIV, all gays do not do the things he claimed. Those are 'good enough' to hold personal belief, as there are no criterion. However, they are not good enough reason for a society to allow open and blatant discrimination against gays. If it were justified, then by the same logic, we could justifiably discriminate against all Christian pastors, based upon the illegal acts of some.



The only proof here has nothing to do with the quality of my argument. I have no dog in that fight. Neither did I reference the OP, nor did I ever cry "religious" or "homophobe". I strongly suggest that prior to your claiming victory, that you first acknowledge and then fight the dog that I own.



I'd much rather witness you addressing what has been written in a meaningful and coherent way, rather than avoiding it and continuing to imagine something otherwise. Would it be reasonable for me to ignore what you do say, and instead make up something that has nothing to do with it? Then, should I go on to use such an irrelevent thing as a means to claim victory?

I think we can both agree that doing such a thing is not being reasonable. Let's be reasonable.

I don't even think in terms of sexual acts when I address these topics. What individual people consider to be sexually intimate behavior is not for me to GUESS at.

First off, your objection would be totally meaningless when applied to lesbians. If you insist on defining sex as solely the act of penis penetration in some particular cavity, then lesbians would necessarily be celibate by that definition.

Also "homosexual" males could potentially be celibate too by your definition. In other words, if they are finding ways to bring each other to orgasm that does not include anal sex, then by your definition they aren't even "having sex" at all.

So that brings the whole topic full-circle to what I suggested that gays and lesbians should start doing. They should start rejecting the use of the term "homosexual", and simply speak in terms of "Same-Gender Intimate Loving Relationships".

Just steer the whole thing away from the concept of "sex" and address the concept of spiritual intimacy. Two human spirits wanting to share their lives as intimate lovers. Leave the physics of how they might be fulfilling each others sexual desires behind closed doors. Just like we do with heterosexual couples.

Have you ever asked your heterosexual neighbors if they have ever engaged in anal sex? Better not! You might be totally shocked by some of the answers that you'll get!

Acknowledging that another has a right to do something is to accept that they have that right. No one who disagrees with homosexual lifesytle needs to change their opinion about it, nor "embrace" it.



That is sufficient reason for you to hold your beliefs about it, it is not sufficient reason to impede upon another's rights. I mean, we still promote McDonalds, we still promote alchohol... the list of dangerous/deadly things that are allowed is very long. On a side note, HIV research results in big money medicine.



Granting that the numbers are true. Do we deny equal rights to all who cost "the American taxpayer"?



The facts given cannot "clearly show that these people do not care about the risks of AIDS." Caring about the risks does not make one immune to contraction, nor does not caring about the risks make one contract the virus. Granted, a careless person puts themselves and their partners in harms way, but that poses no more danger to a straight person - either way.



Another imaginary argument being scapegoated.





Thomas,

Is your rectum in danger? It is none of your concern whether or not a gay man chooses to take the risk of tearing his own anus, it poses no danger to you whatsoever. So what if it is "unnatural"?

Do we deny Tammy Faye Baker her equal rights because her looks are clearly "unnatural"? Evidently, we have the right to do unnatural things in the privacy of our own home, and in the case of Tammy Faye - we can out and about quite unnaturally as well in some instances.

Cad,

Your repetitive utterances have no weight at all.

This is your way of trying to appear to have a point...

Nothing you have mentioned overthrows the fact

that more evidence proves the existance of the Biblical God

than not.

I have long discovered that your wordiness is void of anything

substantial.

You're more frustrated that the TRUTH you continually try to trash continues to stand firm.

You may someday learn that you cannot wish , hope , lie , or shout

enough expletives to destroy God's TRUTH.

There may be a few here who stand in awe of your boldness,

some may be intimidated

...but not I, you're battling SOMEONE bigger than the both of us...

The ONE who holds the earth you stand upon...

And I think you know this.

But neither you or he hold sway over what the rules say can be posted on these forums, and calling someone a 'CAD' is certainly against the rules.

Why don't you stick to the topic and refrain from the left-handed insults aimed at posters you don't agree with if what you say is so self-evident and true? Non-Christians are allowed to have opinions and believe what they've worked hard at arriving at in the privacy of their consciences and ponderings.

-Kerry O.