Latest gay marriage flareup

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
You should talk to some younger bi people, and their reasons for doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol. OK, now I know you are totally unreasonable about this topic for some unknown reason. Good luck with that.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
Then you'd expect them to be aroused by opposite sex holes just as much as same sex ones, which isn't true in at least one other mammal.

[/ QUOTE ]
The winky face meant that I was kidding. (I had not read this exact thing before though!)

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But there are more subtle social effects as well, which are harder to provide evidence for.

[/ QUOTE ]

if everybody was gay, no one would be able to understand each ogther because of all the lisping, it woudl be total chaos, anarchy. civilization as we know it would end, tower of babel style I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I always thought the "gays cause subtle social negative effects that are unmeasurable" was just a euphemism for "they'll molest little boys!" I would suspect that heterosexual males molest young girls at a far greater rate than homosexual males molest young boys, despite the rampant paranoia that exists about gay men teaching children or leading Boy Scout troops, etc.

Either way, that's usually what the "wink wink nod nod gay people will cause untold and unthinkable horrors on society nudge nudge" coded language means, hence why the O'Reilly crowd is 'aghast' at things like Gay Day at Disneyworld: "Are you sure you want teh gheys at Disneyworld around children?!?" It's nothing more than a subtle inference that gays will take your children and molest them on the Peter Pan ride if you don't keep a close watch.

[zasterguava]

Hmmm. Comments calling gays perverts and such in this thread are accepted. But criticizing religious zealots and crackpot cults is furiously protected. For example, if i called Prophet Mohammed a pervert I don't think that would stand. Yet, there is far more evidence and reasoning to call him a pervert than homosexuals as a whole.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Animals can indeed "consent" and enjoy sex and seek mating opportunities.

[/ QUOTE ]

With humans? Do you have any evidence of this or are you pulling it out of your ass? And if what you say is true, then why do you think you have a right to stop them using violence or the threat of it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't; others do - some of the same people who support gay marriage. It is solely those people who I'm directing this at. And yes, it's a well known phenomena that animals can be trained to seek and enjoy sex with humans. It's also been said that creature like dolphins voluntarily submit to handlers.

@tanner:
[ QUOTE ]
Uhh Phil, I think you've gone off the deep end here. Do you really think teenage kids sit in high school going "My god, what am I going to do to get my ass kicked more. I know! I'll start taking it up the ass."

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. They think it's socially acceptable so they experiment with it. Confused sexual feelings (which are normal for many teenagers) get directed into perverted preferences. You should talk to some younger bi people, and their reasons for doing it.

---

As for the other comments, people are confusing prohibition of gay activities with choosing not to socially recognize gay activities. Two very different things.

[ QUOTE ]
I am open to evidence that homosexuality causes harm. Do you have any?

[/ QUOTE ]
Google http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...arch&meta=
for example. That's without counting AIDS, which gays disproportionately spread due to the dangers of non vaginal sex.

But there are more subtle social effects as well, which are harder to provide evidence for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please address this part that you avoided: And if what you say is true, then why do you think you have a right to stop them using violence or the threat of it? And please expand to any form of consensual sex amongst moral agents in your reply, if you want.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you if the following are perversions:

- Engaging in a voluntary transaction for sex

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
- Engaging in voluntary sex with a 15yo

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the 15yo a moral agent?

[ QUOTE ]
- Engaging in voluntary sex with an animal

[/ QUOTE ]

Who owns the animal?

[ QUOTE ]
Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions that cause direct and indirect social harm (even though they're only done between two consenting parties). Why is homosexuality different?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not. The fact that people like to be busybodies and tell other people what to do when it comes to activity X doesn't mean that behavior is legitimate, and doesn't justify extending it to activity Y.

The state shoudln't have any business condining or prohibiting marriage at all. But as long as it does, and as long as that state guaratees equal protection under the law (as the US does in the Constitution), restriction on gay marriage is a violation of that equal protection.

Alice is allowed to contract with Bob, but Charlie is restricted from contracting with Bob. Charlie does not have equal protection.

This particular examination kills the "polygamy" and "bestiality" slippery slope objections to allowing gay marriage, since in those cases *everyone* is *equally* limited to one simultaneous contract at a time, and everyone is equally prohibited from contracting with dogs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bump for phil.

[jstnrgrs]

Why does the state need to recognize marrage at all?

The solution to this is simple. No state sanctioning of marrage for anyone. Everyone should be happy with that.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...arch&meta=
for example.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some very reasonable and impartial sites that come up at the top of this search! I look forward to watching "America: Freedom to Fascism" and buying a copy of "The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo."


[ QUOTE ]
That's without counting AIDS, which gays disproportionately spread due to the dangers of non vaginal sex.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heterosexual sex spreads AIDS too. As does drug use. This is a specious premise.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Heterosexual sex spreads AIDS too. As does drug use. This is a specious premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, lesbian sex is, for obvious reasons, clearly less risky than heterosexual sex. Should we allow lesbians, but not gays, to marry?

Furthermore, shouldn't we be happy to grant gays a status that (through penalizing adultery via divorce laws) promotes commitment to one partner and thus reduces the spread of AIDS?

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a great deal of choice in homosexuality. One of the most effective propaganda movements of the gay rights crowd was that homosexuality is not a choice. This is total bunk. Only 1-3% of the population are purely homosexual; the rest are bisexuals and experimenters. The "homosexual or not, by birth" is a total myth.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never understood why so much emphasis is placed on the question of whether or not being gay is a choice. How is it at all relevant to the question of equal protection? We regularly, and without question, provide equal protection for criteria that are purely inborn (race) and those that are purely a choice (religion). Why should it matter where on the continuum homosexuality is ultimately determined to be?

Also, earlier you said:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any reason why someone would have objections to a gay couple getting married.

[/ QUOTE ]
Deleted

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to how you differentiate yourself from those a few decades ago who used the same argument against interracial marriage (assuming you think they were wrong).