People who support *** marriage should also support polygamy.

[DarthKirby001]

Why not? If we're going to screw with the definition of marriage, we might as well make it completely non-discriminatory. If 7 people all want to marry each other, who are we to stop them, right?

I'd rather just keep our current definition of marriage, thank you.

[Father Jack]

Alright polygamy!

[powermongor]

Booyah!!! Man, I had the hardest time explaining to an ex why men should be allowed to have multiple wives.

[ScytheNoire]

see, i disagree with polygamy, but agree with ghey marriage.
it's about equality, not abusing the system.

in fact, i can't imagine why someone would want more than one wife, one is too many.
personally, i perfer the mafia method, one wife for cooking, housekeeping, family occassions and children, and then a mistress for sex, stress relief, and nights out partying.
that's the proper way to do it.
...maybe have a few mistresses.

[SpiritWalker]

I'd rather just keep our current definition of marriage, thank you.
Care to elaborate on where you got this definition?

[strychnon]

Don't neglect to throw in civil rights for pedophilia/pederasty, bestiality and necrophilia. Like many homosexuals, NAMBLA claims they're born that way. Donahue ran an episode of a man marrying his goat becuse the man claimed he loved his goat and it could please him like no woman could. Recently in Spain, some poor man was arrested after he was caught conjugating in the coffin with his deceased fiancée, who died before their wedding day.

[SpiritWalker]

Like many homosexuals, NAMBLA claims they're born that way.
It's no claim, it's a fact that it is in the genes (for homosexuals).

Also, polygamy, pedophilia, etc have nothing to do with *** people marrying. The only argument you people can bring up is that marriage is between man and woman, which you can't even back up by a real source, other than the bible, which if you're going to say that that is enough I am going to point and laugh at you, and if *** people should be allowed to marry, animals, dead people etc should also be allowed.

Yeah, you guys got real strong arguments against *** marriage right there..

[strychnon]

It's no claim, it's a fact that it is in the genes (for homosexuals).
All the more reason for pedophiles, pederasts, zoophiles and necrophiles to be able to have sex with and even marry their chosen. Penis is penis and rectum is rectum, regardless if it's big, small, animal or dead, right? We cannot punish people for their genetic predispositions.

[SpiritWalker]

All the more reason for pedophiles, pederasts, zoophiles and necrophiles to be able to have sex with and even marry their chosen. Penis is penis and rectum is rectum, regardless if it's big, small, animal or dead, right? We cannot punish people for their genetic predispositions.
It says for homosexuals right there between the brackets, maybe you haven't read it?

Besides, sex with children is illegal, so is with the dead, oh and looky so is with animals. It isn't however with other adults who happen to be of the same sex.

[Essex]

Don't neglect to throw in civil rights for pedophilia/pederasty, bestiality and necrophilia. Like many homosexuals, NAMBLA claims they're born that way. Donahue ran an episode of a man marrying his goat becuse the man claimed he loved his goat and it could please him like no woman could. Recently in Spain, some poor man was arrested after he was caught conjugating in the coffin with his deceased fiancée, who died before their wedding day.
trust me it's not a claim.

If I could like women I would in a ****ing heartbeat. I don't want to be someone who is generally an outcast from society. I live in the deep south do you really think I like the idea that I'm generally scared of most groups of what I assume are straight men because of the fact that I don't want to be the next Matt Shepard.

Take this into consideration. Two sets of couples are living happily together. Both sets of couples feature one partner who is from Taiwan. Both love each other equally, both get along just as well as the other. In fact both have talked about marriage, and possibly children at some point.

Now disaster strikes!! Both of the Tiawanese have their visas expire due to some weird ****ing technicality. Oh no... both couples who despratly love one another what ever will they do?! Well the straight couple gets married and live together happily ever after because thankully christians don't have a stick up their *** about them.

However me and my boyfriend were torn apart rather visciously because this country has once again lagged behind progression. There are several European countries, Holland, Denmark, Canada, Germany, Britian, ect. That allow some form of same sex union, rather it's civil unions or marriage. Yet America the becaon of freedom that we are continues to deny a very simply right to 5-10% (depending on the latest figures) of the population.

Why does America do this? Because of religion mostly. That's fine love religion follow it be happy in it, but please don't let it dictate our laws. Also for those of you out there who fear that God will send his wraith down upon us for such a thing. Last I checked all of Europe was still intact and he hadn't swallowed any of the countries that allow same sex unions. Or is America different because we're bigger, or perhaps special?

Either way equating the normal homosexual who I like to think I am, and pedophila, beastiality, necrophila, ect. Is a slap in the face you jackass. Most pedophiles consider themselves hetro, not to mention a lot recently have been caught wearing priestly robes. I also have never in my life heard of a single *** beastiality website, but by god I hear a lot about women doing that sort of thing (on the darker scarier side of the internet of course)

Tell ya what, you stop equating me with pedophiles and Necro's and I won't consider every single person with a jesus fish on their car a bigot.

[Elly]

Don't neglect to throw in civil rights for pedophilia/pederasty, bestiality and necrophilia. Like many homosexuals, NAMBLA claims they're born that way. Donahue ran an episode of a man marrying his goat becuse the man claimed he loved his goat and it could please him like no woman could. Recently in Spain, some poor man was arrested after he was caught conjugating in the coffin with his deceased fiancée, who died before their wedding day.

I think the point you're missing is the original poster was talking about a consensual arrangement. You could argue that the goat, if it could talk, would agree to sex with that chap, although I've seen him in a documentary and I'd not be so sure about that. But the goat can't talk so it can't give its consent, as is the case with the dead girl. You can assume, as she was planning to marry the chap she would be willing to have sex with him, but she can't talk and therefore can't consent or otherwise so the law has to do it for her. Same with children in the case of NAMBLA, hence why having sex with children and babies is illegal.

Polygamy and homosexuality are not comparable because we're talking about consensual adults, also with homosexuality, it's inbuilt, not anything you can control any more than you or I could control our heterosexual programming. If consenting adults wish to enter into a polygamist relationship, why not. It's not for me but I can imagine a few of my female friends being able to cope with two or more husbands. Even the most fervent right winger can see the differences.

[strychnon]

It says for homosexuals right there between the brackets, maybe you haven't read it?

Besides, sex with children is illegal, so is with the dead, oh and looky so is with animals. It isn't however with other adults who happen to be of the same sex.
Are you claiming that homosexuals are genetically exculsive in their sexual orientation, whereas other sexual orientations are unnatural? Also, sodomy laws are on the books in many states. If something is immoral because it's illegal, then homosexuals should not be arguing for special marriage rights in areas where homosexuality is illegal.

[strychnon]

I think the point you're missing is the original poster was talking about a consensual arrangement...
What am I missing? I have not argued against homosexual relations or marriages. I've simply proposed that people expand their horizons and be more tolerant of other sexual orientations. After all, tolerance is the mantra that the homosexual movement is chanting while it presses for special civil rights regarding marriage.

Be careful of arguing that mutual consent is necessary for an act to be acceptable. A person could run wild with that line of thought. In the case of children, how can you say that pre-adults are incapable of consensual sexual relations when people are prosecuted every year for statutory ****/carnal knowledge of a juvenile (despite it being consensual) in lieu of forcible **** (without consent)?

[Essex]

all sodomy laws were overturned this summer by the supreme court.

And how are equal rights special?

[strychnon]

trust me it's not a claim.
NAMBLA claims it's natural for them, too. They just like little boys instead of grown men.

Either way equating the normal homosexual who I like to think I am, and pedophila, beastiality, necrophila, ect. Is a slap in the face you jackass. Most pedophiles consider themselves hetro, not to mention a lot recently have been caught wearing priestly robes. I also have never in my life heard of a single *** beastiality website, but by god I hear a lot about women doing that sort of thing.

Tell ya what, you stop equating me with pedophiles and Necro's and I won't consider every single person with a jesus fish on their car a bigot.
Um, Essex, I haven't equated homosexuals with other groups claiming their sexual orientation is natural. They all have their preferences. The similarity is that they all claim their orientation is just that, an orientation, not a deviation. Nor have I ever addressed you before, so I cannot have equated you with a pedophile or a necrophile. Yet you see fit to jump to conclusions about me (e.g. jackass, Christian references) while I have never personally attacked you nor anyone else on this forum. Your opinions on Christians are your opinions and they do not bother me. I've experienced first hand the corruption by those who claim to be Christians by title, but are merely wolves in sheeps clothing because the lifestyle is easy.

The only transgression I seem to have committed here has been to think outside of the politically correct box. I have not condemned anything or anyone here, yet some people are getting awfully defensive when someone who isn't a member of their own special interest groups strays too close to their sacred golden calves.

[strychnon]

all sodomy laws were overturned this summer by the supreme court.

And how are equal rights special?
Not true. The Supreme Court addressed a Texas sodomy law, not sodomy laws in all states.

As for equal rights, homosexuals and those of other sexual orientations already enjoy equal protection under the law as do heterosexuals. A homosexual man can choose to marry a woman just as a heterosexual man can. A lesbian can marry a man just as a heterosexual woman can. Thus, homosexuals currently enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals.

Homosexual activists are seeking special rights in that a homosexual man will be able to marry another homosexual man, where it is currently illegal for a heterosexual man to marry another man. That is seeking a special right.

[Elly]

What am I missing? That Polygamy and homosexuality are consensual arrangements between two or more adults whereas all parties are not consensual in the case of paedophilia (NAMBLA) and necrophilia.

A homosexual man can choose to marry a woman just as a heterosexual man can. A lesbian can marry a man just as a heterosexual woman can. Thus, homosexuals currently enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. Homosexual activists are seeking special rights in that a homosexual man will be able to marry another homosexual man, where it is currently illegal for a heterosexual man to marry another man. That is seeking a special right.Sounds fair, so a solution perhaps would be to make it legal for two hetrosexuals of the same sex to marry as two hetrosexuals of different sexes can marry, then everyone gets to enjoy the same rights.

[strychnon]

That Polygamy and homosexuality are consensual arrangements between two or more adults whereas all parties are not consensual in the case of paedophilia (NAMBLA) and necrophilia.
If consent is necessary for sexual orientation is to be considered legal your argument is valid and homosexuals have a better argument to use to plead their case. However, claiming that homosexuality should be legitimized because it is genetic opens up another can of worms. If homosexuals succeed in getting special rights legislation passed upon this basis, other sexual orientations can follow this line of reasoning to plead their cases. Just as some researchers have argued for and against the *** gene, some have argued for and against other sexual orientation genes.

As for consensual pedophilia, it exists but it is still illegal in the USA. This is why adults are prosecuted under statutory **** laws and not forcible **** laws. Consent makes the difference. NAMBLA has been arguing for decades that pederasty should be legal if it is consensual.

Do you see the Catch-22 that homosexual activists have found themselves in because of the arguments they use? By arguing against the agendas of other sexual orientations they argue against their own agendas.

Sounds fair, so a solution perhaps would be to make it legal for two hetrosexuals of the same sex to marry as two hetrosexuals of different sexes can marry, then everyone gets to enjoy the same rights.
If the definition of marriage were to be reworded, that argument could work.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Sounds fair, so a solution perhaps would be to make it legal for two hetrosexuals of the same sex to marry as two hetrosexuals of different sexes can marry, then everyone gets to enjoy the same rights.

Woot! Good news SpiritWalker!!! Get ready for a trip to the states. :lol: :clap:

[Maullus]

Greetings,

People who support *** marriage should also support polygamy.

I do. :)

If consenting adults wish to enter into a polygamist relationship, why not. It's not for me but I can imagine a few of my female friends being able to cope with two or more husbands. Even the most fervent right winger can see the differences.

Elly just summed my sentiments up perfectly. Consenting adults. Now you can argue about the age of maturity, but that's a different matter altogether.

Strychnon, you keep using the argument that these people claim it is an inborn thing, drawing a parallel between homosexuality and these other things. You say, in what I assume is sarcasm, that we can't punish someone for "their genetic predispositions." Drawing one parallel and running with it is not adequate grounds for tossing all sense of morality or discretion out the window.

What we are discussing is the liberty and rights of consenting adults, whose activities would harm no one. What you are bringing into the mix are adults who choose to exercise their fetishes without regard to consent, and who could, arguably, be hurting people.

I, myself, am a Caucasian, heterosexual man, involved in a monogamous relationship for 5 years (and 3 days!). I have no personal stake in *** marriage laws, nor do I have any personal interest in polygamy.

But until someone can point to a concrete objection regarding these institutions, then all I see is prejudice and dogmatic rhetoric. I see opposition because people are afraid, and because they don't want things to change.

So, yes. I support *** marriage, and to deny it to people is a gross and unforgivable error on the part of American government. It's an example of hypocrisy that stands in direct opposition to the very ideals we claim to hold dear. And yes, if there was a movement to legalize polygamy, I would also support that.

[Coltaine]

As for consensual pedophilia, it exists but it is still illegal in the USA. This is why adults are prosecuted under statutory **** laws and not forcible **** laws. Consent makes the difference. NAMBLA has been arguing for decades that pederasty should be legal if it is consensual.

Do you see the Catch-22 that homosexual activists have found themselves in because of the arguments they use? By arguing against the agendas of other sexual orientations they argue against their own agendas.


Do you think it is the same when a fullgrown man gives his consent vs. a child (definition beeing as far as i know age<=12)
With pedophils you have the problem, that the adult mostly has a position of power which he uses. (often beeing the father, uncle or close friend of the family. With gives his word some power if he say "your parents wont like you anymore.") Being an adult they often also have an inherit amount of credibility for children of certain ages. More so if they know the child which is mostly the case.
Lets try another analogy too. If you sign a contract. It is only valid if you are 18 or older. otherwise your lawyer would just say: "hey, he is not mature enough to understand all the consequences of said contract."
In Germany the age at which you can decide for yourself what your sexlife should be like (to some intent at least) is 16.
So is a child which is generaly belived to not know what it means sign a contract for buying a computer and paying part of it every month, give part of his/her money to a wellfare organisation at the same time able to make decisions about something its body and brain aren't even developed for yet?

[Coltaine]

If the definition of marriage were to be reworded, that argument could work.

The definition in the bible or in the law?
Someone here quotet a definition that not had the man to woman thing in it. Where does this definition you speak of come from?

[Coltaine]

Um, Essex, I haven't equated homosexuals with other groups claiming their sexual orientation is natural. They all have their preferences. The similarity is that they all claim their orientation is just that, an orientation, not a deviation. Nor have I ever addressed you before, so I cannot have equated you with a pedophile or a necrophile. Yet you see fit to jump to conclusions about me (e.g. jackass, Christian references) while I have never personally attacked you nor anyone else on this forum. Your opinions on Christians are your opinions and they do not bother me. I've experienced first hand the corruption by those who claim to be Christians by title, but are merely wolves in sheeps clothing because the lifestyle is easy.

The only transgression I seem to have committed here has been to think outside of the politically correct box. I have not condemned anything or anyone here, yet some people are getting awfully defensive when someone who isn't a member of their own special interest groups strays too close to their sacred golden calves.

Well sorry for my third post in order but i seem to hit the submit reply bottum too fast.
I can understand essex perfectly well.
Yes you didn't say they are exactly equal. But you certainly post as if they are.
When you say, that homosexual and pedophils both scream for tolerance you practicly say that both need the same amount of tolerance:

"I've simply proposed that people expand their horizons and be more tolerant of other sexual orientations. After all, tolerance is the mantra that the homosexual movement is chanting while it presses for special civil rights regarding marriage."

Its like saying that the penalty for a person that parks on a carlot that was reserved for a specific car because he wanted to bring his child to a clinic is wrong in the same way as a person that breaks in a house, steals all he wants and then torches the house. (Sorry for my bad analogy.)
By naming things in the same context and claiming the both need tolerance you imply that they need the same openmindedness. the same new thinking.
Is this something you wanted to do?
If yes, read my post two above this one. If not, try not so hard to be the openminded, freethinking critic. You make a fool out of yourself!

[Hydro]

I quoted the wrong person in here, sorry Colt :)


There are always limits to any type of "freedom", and polygamists can help themselves, while child molestors and people who practice beastiality and necrophilia can never find a consenting partner. Children may be able to consent, but they are not mature enough to fully understand what they are consenting too.
Homosexuals, on the other hand, don't wake up one morning and say to themselves "I think I will be *** today." They don't have a choice, and if being married will make them happy, I say we give them the chance.

[Coltaine]

That what you quoted was simply a quote i made. Just to make sure thats nothing i said.

[Hydro]

That what you quoted was simply a quote i made. Just to make sure thats nothing i said.

Whoops, changed it.

[SpiritWalker]

Woot! Good news SpiritWalker!!! Get ready for a trip to the states. :lol: :clap:
Oh, finally my petite gnome! :lol:

[Sage the Mage]

I think polygamy is hazardous to the health of a male in the relationship if he has more than 0 wives :)
(showthread.php?t=273176)

[Hydro]

Woot! Good news SpiritWalker!!! Get ready for a trip to the states. :lol: :clap:

Huh?
What?

[SpiritWalker]

Huh?
What?
I am going to join Dragon in a homoerotic polygamous straight relationship with him and his wife! :thumbsup:

[Father Jack]

Alot of the 'red' states that voted against ghey mairage also used to outlaw inter racial mairage, and before that kept slaves (the bible was used to justify both). They were wrong about that, perhaps they could be wrong about ghey mairrage.

P.S. for the record I'm not for polygamy, I was just trying to be funny. I have a hard enough time remembering one anniversarry.

[Booms]

Elly and Maullus both beat me to it. The key word here is consent. I feel that this point has been argued well enough (and not gotten a suitable response by the *** marriage detractors), so I'll leave it be.

Here is a current definition of marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law.

Hopefully it will be changed to this: the state of being united to a person either sex in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law.

Both of those definitions allow for polygamy (it doesn't say you can only be married to one person).

[WiglyWorm]

If you guys want to get technical.. polygamy is supported by the bible. The bible even lays out the rules for polygamy. Know why the limit is 7? Because you are required, under biblical law, to split your time and money equally with each of your wives. That means 7 seperate houses, 7 seperate cars, and a different wife every day of the week. Your definition of marriage is already tampered with by disallowing polygamy.

While I'm not necessarily for *** marriage, I am for tolerance, open mindedness, and acceptance. If you want to **** a goat, well just don't do it around me. If you want to be ghey, well.. that's fine too just don't expect to be ghey with me.

I am definatley against this though.. wich unfortunatley passed on nov. 2.


Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:

That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:

Article XV

Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.


That thing is worded hideously. By passing that, they've single handidly destroyed not only benifits for ghey couples, but benifits for straight couples who are unmarried.

Don't shove your morality down other peoples throats.
If homosexuality is a sin, let God sort them out, but while we're here on earth we should be doing everything within our power to treat all humans with some ammount of respect.. let them have their dignity.

[Hydro]

Don't shove your morality down other peoples throats.
If homosexuality is a sin, let God sort them out, but while we're here on earth we should be doing everything within our power to treat all humans with some amount of respect.. let them have their dignity.

Very well said.


SpiritWalker -
"I am going to join Dragon in a homoerotic polygamous straight relationship with him and his wife!"

On a cucumber farm?

[strychnon]

Should homosexuality be accepted because it's a genetic condition? Should homosexuality be accepted because it's a consensual choice? If it's to be accepted because it's a genetic condition, the same argument can be made for other sexual orientations, and indeed has been by their representative groups. If homosexuality is to be accepted because it's a consensual decision, bestiality and necrophilia can be ruled out because at least one of the parties cannot give consent, but pederasty and pedophilia can be, and has been, argued to be consentual by groups like NAMBLA and Butterfly Kisses.

If someone who argues for homosexuality argues against other sexual orientations based upon consent, they have the burden of proving when the age of consent begins. That burden has not been proven yet in this thread.

Regarding Essex's personal attacks upon me, if I were to insult and make presumptions about a homosexual I knew nothing about, I would likely be branded an intolerant homophobe and a bigot. Tolerance only seems to exist for people who agree with politically correct thought. Don't play the victim card with me. I've been straight bashed simply for not being a homosexual and I don't stereotype homosexuals as effeminite, emotional, irrational, or immature people because of it. I came to this thread to discuss ideas, not make personal attacks against people with whom I disagree.

Essex, you and I are guildmates. While we may have differences of opinion on message boards, I hope those opinions will not affect our in-game relationship.

[Coltaine]

If homosexuality is to be accepted because it's a consensual decision, bestiality and necrophilia can be ruled out because at least one of the parties cannot give consent, but pederasty and pedophilia can be, and has been, argued to be consentual by groups like NAMBLA and Butterfly Kisses.

So you think it is not a valid argument that a child can not give his consent in this? It seems that you did not read that part.

So how is sex between a man and a woman different?
Because it is natural?

[Booms]

If someone who argues for homosexuality argues against other sexual orientations based upon consent, they have the burden of proving when the age of consent begins. That burden has not been proven yet in this thread.

Age of consent isn't only a burden for homosexuals. Haven't you ever heard of statutory ****?

An arbitrary number must be picked so I figure 18 is good, because that's when someone is legally recognized as an adult under the law.

[Coltaine]

If someone who argues for homosexuality argues against other sexual orientations based upon consent, they have the burden of proving when the age of consent begins. That burden has not been proven yet in this thread.

Its hard to give a spezific age. What is easy is to say when that age is reached and when not. I would say if you are a child, that age is not reached. If you are 18 it is.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

SpiritWalker -
"I am going to join Dragon in a homoerotic polygamous straight relationship with him and his wife!"

On a cucumber farm?

ALWAYS on a cucumber farm, I wouldn't have it any other way. :thumbsup:

[VierdeRidder]

have no fear peacemaker Vierde is here! lol catchy ain't it...anywho here is my 2 cents on this issue...you can't bang people until they are of legal age to consent to having sex or get married ie. here in florida 16 to legally have sex and 18 to legally be married. and you need consent from the opposite person which stychnon said would rule our necrophilia and beastiality, i agree. i for one don't really care if *** people get married or not. as long as they are of legal age to get married and consent to it. anywho just my 2 cents on what it should be like.

[strychnon]

So you think it is not a valid argument that a child can not give his consent in this? It seems that you did not read that part.
Not exactly. I said NAMBLA and Butterfly Kisses argue that pedophilia should be legalized when it's consensual. Currently in some states, pro-homosexual guidance counselors are teaching children in the grade school level (grades 1-6) that homosexuality is natural. Over one decade ago Planned Parenthood published an illustrated pamphlet for grade school kids telling them that masturbation and sexual experimentation with other kids was healthy, and that it was acceptable to fantasize about sexual relations with other family members and even family pets. Prominent homosexual lobbying groups like Queer Nation and ACT-UP have never denounced NAMBLA. Planned Parenthood is a mainstream element in government and public education, and it considers the age of consent to be somewhere around 6 if its actions are any indication.

This brings us back to one of my original counterarguments: If a prominent group like Planned Parenthood considers the age of consent to be that of a young child, homosexual advocates which legitimize Planned Parenthood are arguing against homosexuality by claiming that homosexuality should be legalized because it's consensual, but pedophilia should not because it cannot be consensual. Either Planned Parenthood, NAMBLA, Butterfly Kisses and some child psychologists are wrong, or some homosexual activists are wrong.
So how is sex between a man and a woman different?
Because it is natural?
That would be an argument revolving around natural law. I haven't made any arguments for or against homosexuality thus far. I've only debated the arguments for and against homosexuality and other sexual orientations.

Age of consent isn't only a burden for homosexuals. Haven't you ever heard of statutory ****?
Actually, I've mentioned statutory **** twice in previous posts.

We can throw out numbers for the age of consent, but if that argument is used to legitimize homosexuality, a definitive age for legal purposes is needed. However, each person is different and the actual age of consent varies from person to person. A handicapped 30 year old may not have the mental acuity of a gifted 12 year old.

My final verdict on using age of consent to legitimize homosexuality based upon the above information: it's a bad argument and counterarguments like mine can be used to debunk it.

As for genetics, can someone name the specific gene that determines sexual orientation?

[Sage the Mage]

We can throw out numbers for the age of consent, but if that argument is used to legitimize homosexuality, a definitive age for legal purposes is needed. However, each person is different and the actual age of consent varies from person to person. A handicapped 30 year old may not have the mental acuity of a gifted 12 year old.
Too young can also result in the damaging of...stuff. That's another basis for giving an age. And there have been cases filed because of mental illness or other handicaps you know. But there is a limit in every state isn't there?

[Dark Knight]

Bah I came too late. Everything's already been said. >.<

[AgeOfAbnegation]

:flip: This is the first thread I've come across where I've been just as excited about a poster as I am when I read my own material j/k. :lol: Welcome Strychnon, to the OTF. I'm very happy so far with the amount of critical thinking you've demonstrated in dealing with "PC propoganda", as that's exactly what it is. Don't let the local brutes tire you out :thumbsup:.

[Booms]

=My final verdict on using age of consent to legitimize homosexuality based upon the above information: it's a bad argument and counterarguments like mine can be used to debunk it.

What? So there are stupid *** people that don't denounce NAMBLA, etc. They aren't an arugment in themselves. Maybe I just missed your point, but could you please point out what is wrong with this:

Homosexuality and polygamy should be legal because they both involve consenting adults. NAMBLA, necrophiliacs and the like should not be legal because child, dead people, etc. are not legally able to consent.

Yes, there are some 16 year olds who are more mature than 19 year olds, and probably should be able to consent if they want to, but for the purpose of law a mandatory number has to be used to determine when someone can legally consent.

[Andarcel]

Over one decade ago Planned Parenthood published an illustrated pamphlet for grade school kids telling them that masturbation and sexual experimentation with other kids was healthy, and that it was acceptable to fantasize about sexual relations with other family members and even family pets. I find that extraordinarily difficult to believe on just your word.

Prominent homosexual lobbying groups like Queer Nation and ACT-UP have never denounced NAMBLA Neither have I. The fact that you feel someone must denounce these groups to prove you're against them is frightening to me. Or is it only gays that must prove they aren't pederasts?

If a prominent group like Planned Parenthood considers the age of consent to be that of a young child, homosexual advocates which legitimize Planned Parenthood are arguing against homosexuality by claiming that homosexuality should be legalized because it's consensual, but pedophilia should not because it cannot be consensual. I'm not going to move on this argument until I get some form of documentation. My suspicion is that you've so inflated the issue that your argument is really meaningless.

We can throw out numbers for the age of consent, but if that argument is used to legitimize homosexuality, a definitive age for legal purposes is needed. However, each person is different and the actual age of consent varies from person to person. A handicapped 30 year old may not have the mental acuity of a gifted 12 year old. Mental acuity is not the issue at stake in possessing the competence for informed consent. But it's true that some twelve-year-olds may indeed possess the requisite knowledge of self and emotional maturity, just as some twelve-year-olds may be better qualified to vote than people three times their age. The law is not and has never claimed to be perfect. The costs of an effort to make an evaluation by individual would utlimately be so great they would destroy whatever good the law intended to accomplish. So it uses a fairly reliable approximation.

My final verdict on using age of consent to legitimize homosexuality based upon the above information: it's a bad argument and counterarguments like mine can be used to debunk it. You have barely begun to establish counterarguments. And anyone who does not accept that the law against pederasty is founded on the inability of children to consent must accept a premodern notion of society. Our government is founded on modernist belief in the social contract as the foundation of society, and that contract cannot provide legitimacy to the legislation of private morality. If you believe that pederasty is immoral on grounds other than a violation of rights, then you believe it is a matter of private morality. If you want a law against it in that case, you have to overthrow Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, and the rest on whom our founding fathers built the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

If you wind up adopting a premodern view, I'll go further into the problems it creates.

[Essex]

Should homosexuality be accepted because it's a genetic condition? Should homosexuality be accepted because it's a consensual choice? If it's to be accepted because it's a genetic condition, the same argument can be made for other sexual orientations, and indeed has been by their representative groups. If homosexuality is to be accepted because it's a consensual decision, bestiality and necrophilia can be ruled out because at least one of the parties cannot give consent, but pederasty and pedophilia can be, and has been, argued to be consentual by groups like NAMBLA and Butterfly Kisses.

If someone who argues for homosexuality argues against other sexual orientations based upon consent, they have the burden of proving when the age of consent begins. That burden has not been proven yet in this thread.

Regarding Essex's personal attacks upon me, if I were to insult and make presumptions about a homosexual I knew nothing about, I would likely be branded an intolerant homophobe and a bigot. Tolerance only seems to exist for people who agree with politically correct thought. Don't play the victim card with me. I've been straight bashed simply for not being a homosexual and I don't stereotype homosexuals as effeminite, emotional, irrational, or immature people because of it. I came to this thread to discuss ideas, not make personal attacks against people with whom I disagree.

Essex, you and I are guildmates. While we may have differences of opinion on message boards, I hope those opinions will not affect our in-game relationship.
I apolgize for any personal attacks although I honestly didn't see one in anything I said. The jesus fish bigot thing was a remark made about overzealous christians in general nothing about you.

For one thing I had just woke up at around 7:00 in the morning, wake up to find this lovely thread and read what in my mind (although I admit you probably didn't mean it to be so) something that equates me with pedophiles. I naturally was angered (rather rightly so or not)

Anyway. I don't play a victim. I do feel as though I was wrongly forced to be seperated from my signfigant other because of outdated policy but I don't use it simply to win an arguement, it's something very personal for me that I had hoped would show that the overall arguement about *** marriage isn't just a discussion in the abstract, it has real world outcomes.

Anywho, as far as I'm concenred we're fine. My rudeness on vent I hope is forgiven.

[Coltaine]

Therre is a difference on sexual education, learning by doing and have learnd.
Its common in Germany to have sexual education in Grade 6 (age about 12). That is because at that age, puberty normaly starts or have startet.
And its important to educate children about these things otherwise you would get a lot more pregnant teenagers.

Thats beeing said, are these organisations you talk about goverment organisations? Don't think so.
Just because they think it is right, doesn't make it right or gernerally know and accepted.

I still not see the flaw in the logic, that you need to be able to be an adult in other parts of life too to be considered "being able to give consent".

[Oberon]

Why not? If we're going to screw with the definition of marriage, we might as well make it completely non-discriminatory. If 7 people all want to marry each other, who are we to stop them, right?

I'd rather just keep our current definition of marriage, thank you.

People once used that same excuse to ban interracial marriages.

Contrary to what people want to believe, freedom is never black and white. For example, we have freedom of speech but there are limits. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You can't call in a bomb threat. These are obvious examples which few would argue against but they do prove that freedom of speech is limited. How much you want to limit it depends on your political views. I personally believe any freedom should be a given unless it can be proven that denying that freedom is necessary for the good of the people. IMO it has not be proven by any stretch that *** marriages or homosexuality itself negatively impacts society. In fact discrimination against gays has been shown to affect society negatively. As for the other silly suggestions including pedophilia/pederasty, bestiality and necrophilia - there is no way you can group these in with homosexuality. Why? Because they do not involve consent. A child/animal/corpse does not have the mental capacity to consent to such a relationship. Two adults can. The age at which one develops such a capacity is yet another one of those grey areas which can change depending on the culture and time period you reference. Even within the United States it varies from state to state. As for polygamy, that too is a practice which was/is the norm in many societies and unless the state can provide proof that such marriages hurt society, they should be allowed.

[strychnon]

Too young can also result in the damaging of...stuff. That's another basis for giving an age. And there have been cases filed because of mental illness or other handicaps you know. But there is a limit in every state isn't there?
Damage to the rectal mucosa can affect anyone of any age engaging in anal intercourse. Using that as an argument against pedophilia also makes a case against adult sodomy.

Another problem with the age of consent argument for homosexuality using 18 years old as the magic number is that some states allow sexual intercourse between people under the age of 18 who are married, and between persons of similar ages who are not married, regardless of genders involved. In Louisiana that age for sexual relations in marriage is 14. In Florida, the age of sexual consent outside of marriage doesn't bar two 14-15, 15-16, and 16-17 year old boys from engaging in homosexuality. The laws of homosexuality are a separate issue under which these boys could be, but more than likely would not be, prosecuted.

Age of consent laws are a shifting sand upon which building a case for homosexuality being legal while arguing at the same time that pedophilia should not be legal is precarious at best.

AgeOfAbnegation, thanks for the welcome. This is an enjoyable game of mental chess with opponents who as a whole are more respectful and intelligent than my usual fare.

Booms, arguing for the legalization of something is different from arguing for the decriminalization of something. You and others can continue to press for legitimizing homosexuality based upon age of consent, but you're arguing based upon a concept that is relative.

Andarcel, you can believe what you will about my posts. I cannot prove that pamphlet existed because it was printed c. 1991 on a limited distribution run and I no longer have a copy of it. It occurred during a time when Planned Parenthood and other groups were pressing hard to get a foothold in public education, and it was all bundled up under the trappings of sexual education. Currently, it's legal for girls of any age who become pregnant to approach a public school medical advisor/provider with their pregnancy and receive an abortion at a local Planned Parenthood facility without their parents' knowledge. This isn't related to homosexuality, but it's another illustration that arguing for the sake of homosexuality based upon age of consent is basing that argument upon unstable legal precedent.

All that I can say is that by balancing upon the politically incorrect tightrope during this performance, I must ensure that my facts are true less I be discredited and take a fall. Historically, political correctness has relied upon misinformation, deception and trickery to further itself. However, that's another argument I'll be happy to entertain in another thread.

I'm not insisting that homosexual movements outside of NAMBLA and Butterfly Kisses have to discredit them. Some opponents of the homosexual agenda make the argument that NAMBLA is a group for homosexual pederasts, that other mainstream homosexual advocacy groups like Queer Nation and ACT-UP refuse to make statements against NAMBLA and march with NAMBLA in *** pride parades because they're all in bed together and they recognize NAMBLA as yet another facet of the homosexual agenda, that NAMBLA-related propaganda is being promoted in public education, and thus are more reasons why the homosexual agenda should be opposed. Individual homosexual advocates I've talked to have claimed that homosexuality is in no way related to pederasty, but were never able to give support to their claims, other than that "NAMBLA are a bunch of sick men."

Essex, the debate and eventual outcome over homosexual marriage in the USA has very serious real world outcomes. It's because of my belief in personal liberty that I've engaged in it. That being said, allow me to shake your hand and say that I'm looking forward to joining you and other guildmates for good times in the near future.

Coltaine, some of the groups I've mentioned are not government affiliated, but government sanctioned and funded.

With all of this being said, I'm going to rest my case against age of consent being an argument for legitimizing homosexuality and allow my opponents to have at it.

I am willing to discuss homosexuality being legitimate because of the *** gene. If no one wants to cover that, how about homosexuality being decriminalized versus homosexuality being legalized?

[Ulkieab]

I would just like to say that I support ghey marriage...

And I <3 Planned Parenthood. They are good people!

[Andarcel]

I cannot prove that pamphlet existed because it was printed c. 1991 on a limited distribution run and I no longer have a copy of it. I believe a pamphlet existed. I do not believe you are presenting it correctly.

It occurred during a time when Planned Parenthood and other groups were pressing hard to get a foothold in public education, and it was all bundled up under the trappings of sexual education. Then printing that fantasies involving children and household pets were A-OK seems rather counterproductive.

This isn't related to homosexuality, but it's another illustration that arguing for the sake of homosexuality based upon age of consent is basing that argument upon unstable legal precedent. Hell no it ain't. The right to abortion has no logical implications for sexual consent. Even if it did, whatever tangential effort you could mount with it what be quite feeble compared to the rock-hard certainty in our legal system that statutory **** is real and is **** regardless of the attitudes of the victim.

Age of consent laws are a shifting sand upon which building a case for homosexuality being legal while arguing at the same time that pedophilia should not be legal is precarious at best. Conclusions are premature when even your premises have not yet been accepted.

All that I can say is that by balancing upon the politically incorrect tightrope during this performance, I must ensure that my facts are true less I be discredited and take a fall. Historically, political correctness has relied upon misinformation, deception and trickery to further itself. However, that's another argument I'll be happy to entertain in another thread. More importantly, you must make your facts verifiable. Otherwise, they're no good to me.

PC is often silly and misguided, but I have a hard time seeing it as the insidious deception you describe.

Some opponents of the homosexual agenda make the argument that NAMBLA is a group for homosexual pederasts, that other mainstream homosexual advocacy groups like Queer Nation and ACT-UP refuse to make statements against NAMBLA and march with NAMBLA in *** pride parades because they're all in bed together and they recognize NAMBLA as yet another facet of the homosexual agenda, that NAMBLA-related propaganda is being promoted in public education, and thus are more reasons why the homosexual agenda should be opposed. Both ACT-UP and Queer nation were militant groups, and both are now defunct. In no sense are they "mainstream." For examples of mainstream *** rights groups, look at LGBT and HRW. Further, your evidence for their association with pederast groups consists almost entirely of the absence of a single kind of opposing evidence. Finally, lumping homosexuality with pederasty on the basis of some kind of association between activist groups is like saying that those who support race equality also support terrorism simply because the Black Panthers existed. In sum, I think it's a silly argument.

Also: make the argument for yourself or don't. Employing generic surrogates as a narrative device (i.e. "some opponents of the homosexual agenda...") is cowardly and confuses the issue.

I am willing to discuss homosexuality being legitimate because of the *** gene. No bite. As I'm sure you know, that argument has no traction in the secular realm, though it effectively makes hash of the natural law case against homosexual relations.

Lest we lose sight of the broader argument, you contend that we cannot logically accept homosexuality without also acepting a host of other sexual deviancies. Your sole support for this appears to be simply that they're all deviations from the sexual norm, and so accepting any one of them requires accepting sexual deviance in general, and thus the whole ugly list.

Throat-singing is an unusual talent, and certainly a deviation from the norm. I feel qute comfortable allowing its practice without feeling that I'm commited to permitting monstrous torture. There's no reason why all deviations from a norm must be categorized as evil or permissible as a lump. We are all used to judging that some deviations are acceptable, some commendable, and some despicable. This is why natural law fails, and natural law is the only moral theory that furnishes an argument against homosexuality rather than simply an arbitrary principle.

[Booms]

strychnon: You are not making a case. I'll try to make this easy for you, because it seems like you have trouble understanding what I am saying.

- Sex between a consenting adult male and consenting adult female is okay.
- Sex between a minor and an adult is not okay under the law.
- I don't know how sex between a boy and a girl, both minors, works, but lets just say it's okay (and if it isn't, when I come to sex between two boys then we'll just say it's bad for whatever reason this is bad).

Now that we've established that, we can move on.

- Beastiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, etc. cannot have both members be consenting. Corpses and animals cannot consent, and children under a certain age cannot consent.
- Two consenting adult men (or women) can have sex because they both consent to it.
- An adult male and a boy cannot have sex because the law does not permit it.
- Sex between two boys who are minors should follow the law based on however it works between a boy and a girl.

Age of consent should work exactly the same way between a man and woman and two men/two women.

[strychnon]

I'd like to focus on the children and age of consent. Homosexuals and pedophiles are not the only people what want to legitimize their actions based upon consent of the participant.

In 1997, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by 191 countries, with Somalia and the United States being the only two countries to withhold ratification. The purpose of the Convention was to emancipate children from parental authority within the home, and invest them with rights that could be enforced against their parents. It required that ratifying governments force parents to bring up their children in accordance with the UN's guidelines. The Convention also forbade parents from physically disciplining children by stating that "children shall be protected from all forms of mental or physical violence or maltreatment. Thus, any forms of discipline involving such violence are unacceptable." Under the Convention, if a child decided he had a right to join a street gang or religious cult, the parent's role would have been to engage in dialog, rather than exercising parental authority in ways that would have inhibited the child's freedom of association or freedom of religion. The Convention also established the legal framework for the seizure of children from parents who used their authority in an undemocratic fashion or who practiced unacceptable means of discipline.

If a child wished to participate in NAMBLA or Butterfly Kisses, or procure an abortion, parents could discuss with the child the choice, but not prevent the child from carrying out choice. Liberal politicians like Slick Willie and Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry have been working to subjugate the USA to the UN and its charters and conventions. If that were to happen, good bye age of consent laws. Hello, predators.

I was done discussing homosexuality as legitimate based upon consent. However, since Boomer posed a query, I'll try to sum up what I've been stating. Legal age of consent is relative to whatever the current ruling body in power wants it to be. How can an argument for homosexuality but against pedophilia be made, based upon consent being relative to age? With age of consent being relative, a person must argue for homosexuality and pedophilia, or against homosexuality and pedophilia.

Andarcel, you may not want to discuss the homosexual gene, but other posters claimed it exists.

that argument has no traction in the secular realm, though it effectively makes hash of the natural law case against homosexual relations.
Can you elaborate upon this? It's rather vague. Also, if natural law fails, you should have an easy time debunking it as an argument against homosexuality.

Now for my opinions regarding homosexuality. Decriminalize it, perhaps. Legalize it, no. People do not need behavior to be decriminalized or legalized for them to engage in it. Having the government sanctify civil unions or marriage is not necessary for homosexuals to live together. Legalizing homosexual marriage would force private businesses to extend insurance benefits to married homosexual couples or face discrimination lawsuits. Private organizations (e.g. Boy Scouts, religious organizations) would be forced to admit homosexuals. This would be akin to forcing the NAACP or Black Panthers to accept card carrying members of the Ku Klux Klan into their ranks. Businesses, organizations, and people should be free to conduct their own affairs and associations as they wish, as long as they do not violate basic human rights.

[Coltaine]

Sure, the age of conset could be any the goverment want it to be. But it should reflect the normal matureness of children at certain ages.
As far as i know pederasts want to sleep with childre. Children being humans of age 12 or below. The farthest you could go down to is 14. And i would belive that to be able to marry with 14, the parents have to give their consent, since with 14 you cannot sign contracts.
As for teenagers below the age of 18. As booms wrote.
The age restrictions are in place to protect the children from older men/women that are able to manipulate them. That ability is not there (at least not to that extend) with teenagers about the same age.

So far the only thing that excludes homosexuals from heterosexuals is, that heterosexuals create offspring or that is natural.
And if the only difference is the possibility to create offspring. Then sex between steril induviduals is nearly the same as sex between a 40 yearold and a 6 yearold human.
Natural are many things, homosexuality is also encountered with some animals, as well as kanibalism.

[Coltaine]

Sure, the age of conset could be any the goverment want it to be. But it should reflect the normal matureness of children at certain ages.
As far as i know pederasts want to sleep with childre. Children being humans of age 12 or below. The farthest you could go down to is 14. And i would belive that to be able to marry with 14, the parents have to give their consent, since with 14 you cannot sign contracts.
As for teenagers below the age of 18. As booms wrote.
The age restrictions are in place to protect the children from older men/women that are able to manipulate them. That ability is not there (at least not to that extend) with teenagers about the same age.

So far the only thing that excludes homosexuals from heterosexuals is, that heterosexuals create offspring or that is natural.
And if the only difference is the possibility to create offspring. Then sex between steril induviduals is nearly the same as sex between a 40 yearold and a 6 yearold human.
Natural are many things, homosexuality is also encountered with some animals, as well as kanibalism.

[Andarcel]

Under the Convention, if a child decided he had a right to join a street gang or religious cult, the parent's role would have been to engage in dialog, rather than exercising parental authority in ways that would have inhibited the child's freedom of association or freedom of religion.

Pure propoganda. The actual te4xt I think it was based on:

States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 14.1).

States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents...to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child (article 14.2).

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others (article 14.3).

States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to...the development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate and for civilizations different from his or her own (article 29.1.c).

The child shall have the right to freedom of expression.... The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary...for respect of the rights or reputations of others (articles 13.1 and 2.a).

States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary...in the interests of...the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others (articles 15.1 and 2).

These are very simple clauses designed to prevent precisely the absurd permissiveness you describe.

The Convention also established the legal framework for the seizure of children from parents who used their authority in an undemocratic fashion or who practiced unacceptable means of discipline.

Yes, of which I heartily approve. Apparently you don't understand some of the horrific abuses inflicted in the name of "discipline." As for "undemocratic," that word appears as near as I can tell no where in the text and I can't figure out what you might be referring to. The fact that you did not consider every country but the US (Somalia, having no government, hardly counts) ratifying the convention as evidence that it probably does not enforce the child's right to engage in satanic worship suggests either total lack of common sense or deep xenophobia on your part. You realize that includes countries like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria?

I'm puzzled by these bizarre bogeymen that keep appearing in your posts. First it was the sinister PC movement, now it's Kerry wanting to give the UN the right to keep parents from preventing their kid from engaging in group orgies. What next? The Holocaust never happened?

Oh, and on sexual predators, and why Saudi Arabia has suddenly started permitting pedophilia:

Article 34
States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:

(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;

(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;

(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.


Personally speaking, your credibility with me is about shot. You look an awful lot like a conspiracy theorist full of vague promises of doom that fail the simplest tests of common sense.

Legal age of consent is relative to whatever the current ruling body in power wants it to be. So are all laws. You'll have to do much better.

How can an argument for homosexuality but against pedophilia be made, based upon consent being relative to age? With age of consent being relative, a person must argue for homosexuality and pedophilia, or against homosexuality and pedophilia. I just got done explaining that you have demonstrated no such thing, have made no effort to demonstrate any such thing, and logically must fail if you try. If you didn't understand all or part of my argument, tell me and I'll try and make it more clear.


Andarcel, you may not want to discuss the homosexual gene, but other posters claimed it exists. It was in my college psych textbook, so I'd say it probably does. Unless that's part of the PC conspiracy as well, which I doubt since it's by peer-reviewed authors. But psychopathic sadism may also be genetic, and that's certainly no argument for legalizing it.

Can you elaborate upon this? It's rather vague. Also, if natural law fails, you should have an easy time debunking it as an argument against homosexuality. Yes. Very easy. Natural law holds that the fulfillment of human nature constitutes "the good." Part of human nature is to reproduce. The argument against homosexuality is that it interefers with the reproductive function, and is therefore bad. But clearly engaging in homsexuality has no impact on reproducing unless you do it virtually 24/7; it's not like it prevents you from heterosexual relations. The act of homosexuality cannot be logically condemned according to the theory's premise. Natural law can only say that homosexual people are bad, insofar as they deviate from the ideal characteristics of the human species. This answer is unacceptable, because morality requires choice. Since homosexuality is involuntary, we cannot say homosexuals are bad people because of their homosexuality. Reductio ad absurdum.

his would be akin to forcing the NAACP or Black Panthers to accept card carrying members of the Ku Klux Klan into their ranks.

No. This would be akin to forcing Southern businesses to pratice EO and give black employees the same opportunities as whites. I am strangely not alarmed at that prospect.

[strychnon]

Andarcel, we can look at the same document and come up with two totally different meanings. We don't have common ground for debate because you simply refuse my statements as valid for lack of better argument, or you apply/imply your own definitions to a given topic so you can make a counter-argument against a non-existing argument.

You're interjecting your notions of lawful, unlawful and democracy into the UN Charter, and not the UN's historical usage them in deed and word. The world's most flagrant violators of human rights signed onto that document. "States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to...the development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate..." Make Africa, The Middle East and Eastern Asia part of that equation (as they originally were) and tell me what you come up with.

Regarding my post that "Legal age of consent is relative to whatever the current ruling body in power wants it to be," you replied, " So are all laws. You'll have to do much better." Why do I need to do better? I'm not the one arguing for relative age on consent being an absolute legitimizer for homosexuality. Other posters are.

Chew on this while you're at it: The US Supreme Court cited international precedent when it ruled against Texas' sodomy law, under which the litigants were prosecuted for consensual homosexual activity. In Holland, sexual age of consent is 16 and bestiality (where's the two party consent here?) is legal. 2+2 = it sets a dangerous prededent for the USA in my book. Does 2+2 = another conspiracy theory in your book?

It was in my college psych textbook, so I'd say it probably does. Unless that's part of the PC conspiracy as well, which I doubt since it's by peer-reviewed authors. But psychopathic sadism may also be genetic, and that's certainly no argument for legalizing it.
We're in agreement on your latter statement. Unless my agreeing with you means I'm trying to ensnare you into a conspiracy, in which case the homosexual gene doesn't really exist, eh? :evil:

I just got done explaining that you have demonstrated no such thing, have made no effort to demonstrate any such thing, and logically must fail if you try. If you didn't understand all or part of my argument, tell me and I'll try and make it more clear.
That has credence--only if one were to accept your building straw men out of my previous posts by claiming that "Your sole support for this appears to be simply that they're all deviations from the sexual norm, and so accepting any one of them requires accepting sexual deviance in general, and thus the whole ugly list," for the purpose of victory against phantom arguments. I never made that statement, but I'm sure you're hoping that other readers will believe your verbosities and accept your refutations without a second glance. I understand your posts, but you can and reiterate them again for posterity's sake.

Natural law holds that the fulfillment of human nature constitutes "the good." Part of human nature is to reproduce. The argument against homosexuality is that it interferes with the reproductive function, and is therefore bad. But clearly engaging in homsexuality [sic] has no impact on reproducing unless you do it virtually 24/7; it's not like it prevents you from heterosexual relations. The act of homosexuality cannot be logically condemned according to the theory's premise. Natural law can only say that homosexual people are bad, insofar as they deviate from the ideal characteristics of the human species. This answer is unacceptable, because morality requires choice. Since homosexuality is involuntary, we cannot say homosexuals are bad people because of their homosexuality. Reductio ad absurdum.
Lecture me again on logic, and throw in the rules of making a proper logical argument this time. Your basic premise about natural law is valid, but you're throwing an invalid statement into the equation (i.e. the argument against homosexuality is that it interfers [sic] with the reproductive function) so that you arrive at an invalid conclusion (i.e. the act of homosexuality cannot be logically condemned according to the theory's premise), allowing you to debunk yet another straw man you've built up by stating, "homsexuality [sic] has no impact on reproducing unless you do it virtually 24/7." Reduction to absurdity, indeed.

Since homosexuality is involuntary, we cannot say homosexuals are bad people because of their homosexuality.
No argument there. Unless my agreeing with you means you have to make an argument against me. :lol: Also, I'm not trying to make you sic by pointing out your misspellings. I just want to make clear that that I understand you mean homosexuality when you type homsexuality, unless you're trying to refute homsexual straw men.

It's easy to float through ideals, but let's get down to the nitty gritty. Tell me what's natural about one man's penis in another man's rectum. :spy:

[powermongor]

I would just like to say that I support ghey marriage...

And I <3 Planned Parenthood. They are good people!

shouldn't they be called un-planned parenthood?

[strychnon]

Coltaine, you're walking in the right direction, brother, though I don't know if you want to hear that from me. :thumbsup:

Minor clarification (no pun intended): A pederast is man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy. A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

Natural are many things, homosexuality is also encountered with some animals, as well as kanibalism.
Save that thought. It's liable to come up shortly.

[strychnon]

shouldn't they be called un-planned parenthood?
Two other titles for consideration: Banned Parenthood and Planned Barrenhood.

[willamop flipflop]

wow, i couldn't even get past the first page without a brick of idiocy metaphorically being thrown through my window.

you fail to realize that, one grown adult male is emotionally, physically, and mentally capable of conceding concent to another adult male to have homosexual sex.

neither a child, a dead body, nor an animal are capable of giving concent to their partner.

do you morons also follow through with your logic that a raper should be allowed to force his victim into marriage? because thats what pedophillia, necrophillia, and zoophilia come down to. non consensual sex.

do you need a dictionary definition of the word consent to figure these things out?

yes, i read far enough to realize that others have mentioned this, but given that people seemed unable to figure it out for themselves before hand, i can only assume it will take multiple beatings with the table leg of reason before an inkling of knowledge sinks in.

the lowest i've heard of legal consenting age is 12. canada has legal consent at 14, but i don't think you can consent to people to much older than you. the lowest it gets in the U.S. is 16, and parental permission is needed for marriage at that age. i'm sure at that age the marriage would be forced by the parents too, in some weird hillbilly or foreign custom.

irregardless of whether or not homosexuality is involuntary, it deserves protection. there is no gene enforcing you to be what religion you are, but it retains a great deal of protection under our laws. I see no reason why your choice of which hole to stick it in is any different than your choice of which alter to bow before. the legality of homosexual marriages should not be influenced at all by any religious sect. the legal and religious marriages are two different entities. if it were legally recognized, there would be no way to force any church to marry a couple, if they didn't want to marry *** couples. it would only legally allow the couple to recieve a license from the state, and be able to file tax and insurance policies like a heterosexual couple has the right to. the ring, the ceremony, the cake and pictures of family is in no way literally involved with it being legalized. those are traditions, not legal matters.

and censoring the word, if you pardon the pun, is pretty damned ***.

[strychnon]

Hey, hey, willamop! Tell us how you really feel and stop sugar coating your diatribes. Beatings with table legs, eh? Well, BDSM hasn't been introduced into this thread yet but there's always room for it.

Happy to make your acquaintance. :buddies:

[willamop flipflop]

the table leg was mearly a reference to transmetropolitan, and spider's "table leg of truth". one of the most excelent excerpts from the worlds finest comic.

on the original subject: legalizing homosexual marriage is not on par with polygamous marriage simply because it would be providing tax breaks to multiple people, allowing 1 of the spouses to extend his medical insurance over an unlimited number of people provided his job had benefits, and, if imigration laws haven't been greatly altered, would provide yet another way to smuggle people through the citizenship process. and god knows how much of a mess would happen with divorces. if a church wishes to marry 20 people together, fine, thats their prerogative, as far as i'm concerned.

of course, one person can marry one other person simply to exploit the legal benefits, but thats possible regardless of the sex of either individual.

[strychnon]

censoring the word, if you pardon the pun, is pretty damned ***.
You seem to be using *** with a negative connotation just after defending it. You sure you want to do that?

[willamop flipflop]

it was a pun. i found it one hard to pass up, and, while i believe strongly in defending the rights of others, i'm far from a PC person.

black people get to use the "n" word in any connotation they desire, so i see no reason why some one as sexually open as myself should be stuck with only one connotation of something thats been used to insult me in the past. of course, i don't use it to insult anyone's sexual orientation, nor infer negativity to the orientation when i use it in such a manner.

to me, it's merely synonimous with "sucks" or whatever. i refrain from such careless usage in society, as i recognize that they see a connection whereas i do not. but really, i can't pass up bad puns.

[Coltaine]

It's easy to float through ideals, but let's get down to the nitty gritty. Tell me what's natural about one man's penis in another man's rectum. :spy:

Already explained it. Many animals have homosexual sex.
Some race that is fairly rare (can't remember which one it was. But an mamal) mates whenever it comes across an iduvidual of said race be it male or female.Thats enough for it to be natural?

You still didn't answer what makes marriage different. Its easy to make something down, if you don't say what you would accept.
As there is always an exeption to the rule (or nearly always).
Killing a person is always bad. But what if that person tried to kill me.
Killing a person is always bad if that person doesn't want to kill you. But what if simply saying a word would have stoped the person from triing?
...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And I <3 Planned Parenthood. They are good people!

They are misinformed people.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Already explained it. Many animals have homosexual sex.
Some race that is fairly rare (can't remember which one it was. But an mamal) mates whenever it comes across an iduvidual of said race be it male or female.Thats enough for it to be natural?


Monkeys do this often. We are humans, and love can go hand in hand with procreation. Since we live in the age of porn however, we tend to forget that.

[Eiger]

This thread is beyond silly guys. Come on now... Necrophilia, bestiality, and polygamy discussed in relation to *** marriage? Pulease....

[Xaf]

Monkeys do this often. We are humans, and love can go hand in hand with procreation. Since we live in the age of porn however, we tend to forget that.

Cant love go hand in hand with butt sex too? Or is it your opinion that *** people dont actually love each other, they are just doing it for the carnal pleasure?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Cant love go hand in hand with butt sex too? Or is it your opinion that *** people dont actually love each other, they are just doing it for the carnal pleasure?

It's my opinion now that you didnt take from my post its intended message. I first made reference to animals. Humans are a different breed altogether.

[DarthKirby001]

Monkeys do this often. We are humans, and love can go hand in hand with procreation. Since we live in the age of porn however, we tend to forget that.

Monkeys also fling poo at each other :P

[Coltaine]

Monkeys also fling poo at each other :P

Some humans too.

[Andarcel]

You're interjecting your notions of lawful, unlawful and democracy into the UN Charter, and not the UN's historical usage them in deed and word. The world's most flagrant violators of human rights signed onto that document. "States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to...the development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate..."

You've lost track of the point orignally being discussed: whether the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would legalize child sexual activity in America. The clause you quote, if anything, is an argument my way. Clearly, the cultural tradition of the US excludes child sexuality.

Chew on this while you're at it: The US Supreme Court cited international precedent when it ruled against Texas' sodomy law, under which the litigants were prosecuted for consensual homosexual activity. In Holland, sexual age of consent is 16 and bestiality (where's the two party consent here?) is legal. 2+2 = it sets a dangerous prededent for the USA in my book. Does 2+2 = another conspiracy theory in your book? I could try and describe how I think you think this relates to your argument, but you would accuse me of setting up another straw man. So how about you do the work this time around before I respond.

Lecture me again on logic, and throw in the rules of making a proper logical argument this time. I delivered a lecture on common sense, and your lack of it, which you have done nothing to respond to.

That has credence--only if one were to accept your building straw men out of my previous posts by claiming that "Your sole support for this appears to be simply that they're all deviations from the sexual norm, and so accepting any one of them requires accepting sexual deviance in general, and thus the whole ugly list," for the purpose of victory against phantom arguments. I never made that statement, but I'm sure you're hoping that other readers will believe your verbosities and accept your refutations without a second glance. I understand your posts, but you can and reiterate them again for posterity's sake. You're right. I filled in an argument you refused to make. In truth, you have no argument at all that tells me I can't consider pedophilia bad and homosexuality acceptable without justification, just as I consider hurting innocent people bad without justification but not throatsinging. I stand corrected. You want a good argument on your side, make it yourself.

As for verbosities, I don't use them to try and awe people into blind acceptance It never works. You just wind up talking past each other. I simply thought when I first encountered your post that I wouldn't need to dumb down the posts, which takes time. I'm revising that view.

but you're throwing an invalid statement into the equation (i.e. the argument against homosexuality is that it interfers [sic] with the reproductive function) This is the only argument natural law has against homosexuality.

You constantly accuse me of making straw men; this is because I'm having to play both sides of the net while you refuse to do the work. If I thought better arguments existed, I would be using them instead.

Tell me what's natural about one man's penis in another man's rectum. Tell me what "natural" means to you, and I'll answer. According to my definition, nature is simpy the material universe and all things found in the material universe are by definition natural. But clearly you have a different view, so once again, fill it in before I respond.

[strychnon]

Coltaine, my apology if I overlooked your question on marriage. My intent was not to discuss the morality of homosexual acts or marriage, but the arguments for and against homosexual acts. If you want my opinion on homosexual marriage, I've already mentioned it in a previous post.

What occurs in nature is not the same as natural law. Let me elaborate. What are the natural purposes of male and female reproductive organs and the gastro-intestinal tract? The reproductive organs were designed to eliminate waste and for procreation. The GI tract was designed for the intake of food and the expulsion of waste. When reproductive organs interact in a heterosexual manner, they are being used for one of their natural purposes, even if one or both partners are sterile. When a penis is inserted into a rectum, the organs are not being used for their naturally intended purposes.

Dogs may be naturally inclined to drink from ditches and toilets. That doesn't mean humans should imitate them. As you pointed out, cannibalism occurs in nature, but the animals engaging in cannibalism were not designed specifically for cannibalism. It's something they do as a source of nourishment or as a means of population control/ensuring their progeny will be the ones to propagate. That doesn't mean that humans should engage in cannibalism. In fact, Creutzfeld-Jacob disease and kuru disease are two of the possible consequences of human cannibalism.

[Xaf]

It's my opinion now that you didnt take from my post its intended message. I first made reference to animals. Humans are a different breed altogether.

Well it seemed to me that your comment was likening *** sex with animal sex in the sense that it is done without love. But what do i know :drink:

[Xaf]

Coltaine, my apology if I overlooked your question on marriage. My intent was not to discuss the morality of homosexual acts or marriage, but the arguments for and against homosexual acts. If you want my opinion on homosexual marriage, I've already mentioned it in a previous post.

What occurs in nature is not the same as natural law. Let me elaborate. What are the natural purposes of male and female reproductive organs and the gastro-intestinal tract? The reproductive organs were designed to eliminate waste and for procreation. The GI tract was designed for the intake of food and the expulsion of waste. When reproductive organs interact in a heterosexual manner, they are being used for one of their natural purposes, even if one or both partners are sterile. When a penis is inserted into a rectum, the organs are not being used for their naturally intended purposes.

Dogs may be naturally inclined to drink from ditches and toilets. That doesn't mean humans should imitate them. As you pointed out, cannibalism occurs in nature, but the animals engaging in cannibalism were not designed specifically for cannibalism. It's something they do as a source of nourishment or as a means of population control/ensuring their progeny will be the ones to propagate. That doesn't mean that humans should engage in cannibalism. In fact, Creutzfeld-Jacob disease and kuru disease are two of the possible consequences of human cannibalism.


You make nature sound like its some kind of intelligent guiding force. Unless you have some proof to back that up whats natural doesnt really matter, because everything is natural if it exists.

[strychnon]

This thread is beyond silly guys. Come on now...
*chuckles* Eiger, once I finish my seemingly everlasting Bit Torrent WoW download, I'll step away from this thread in favor of open beta. I'm just passing the time here until then.

[Dark Knight]

Willamop flipflop, you demonstrated exactly why *** is banned on these forums.

A load of battlenet kids + forum = A load of battlenet kids calling each other ***.

[Andarcel]

Whose design? Forgive me if I don't think the process of evolution creates moral imperatives. Your argument already flops for non-theists. And for theists, you provide nothing. You have no evidence at all that a "penis in a rectum" is against God's intentions unless you appeal to the Old Testament. So your argument flops for anyone not a Jew or Christian. And if you do appeal to the Old Testament, you're going to wind up in Leviticus, and so much of Leviticus is absurd and has not been practiced by gentiles since St. Paul's time that building a case on it is useless. So you lose thinking Christians. And that leaves you the fundamentalists, which are the ones who think your way already.

Teleology without God died with the writing of The Origin of Species. There is no end to be found in nature by itself, only events.

And all that aside, still you have not closed the gap. The purpose for which my cell-phone was intended has nothing to do with it's being a paperweight, yet I put it to that use all the time without moral qualms. Why the functional design of an object means we cannot use it for different ends is beyond me.

[Oberon]

Coltaine,

Why do you care so much about what homosexuals do? What's the point of having such a fixation? Heterosexual intercourse (anal and vaginal) has its risks as well but you seem to ignore these instead opting to focus exclusively on homosexual acts. Are you in the closet?

As for what our bodies were "meant" for, the human hand was not meant to spend hours at a keyboard and can develop severe nerve damage from long-term exposure. Since the human hand was not meant to be in this unnatural state, I'm sure you won't be buying World of Warcraft.

[Booms]

Okay, I guess I must be really dense here, but how does using consent as an argument bring in pedophelia?

An adult man and an adult woman can legally have sex and marry.
And adult man and young girl cannot legally have sex (or marry).

And adult man and an adult man can legally have sex and marry.
And adult man and a young by cannot legally have sex (or marry).

Why do you get to make another person's choice?

[Coltaine]

Coltaine,

Why do you care so much about what homosexuals do? What's the point of having such a fixation? Heterosexual intercourse (anal and vaginal) has its risks as well but you seem to ignore these instead opting to focus exclusively on homosexual acts. Are you in the closet?

As for what our bodies were "meant" for, the human hand was not meant to spend hours at a keyboard and can develop severe nerve damage from long-term exposure. Since the human hand was not meant to be in this unnatural state, I'm sure you won't be buying World of Warcraft.

In case you haven't noticed, i'm one of the guys that argues FOR homosexual marriage.

[Coltaine]

Coltaine, my apology if I overlooked your question on marriage. My intent was not to discuss the morality of homosexual acts or marriage, but the arguments for and against homosexual acts. If you want my opinion on homosexual marriage, I've already mentioned it in a previous post.


I didn't ask you opinion on homosexual marriage.
What i asked is why heterosexual marriage is different to homosexual marriage. (not the obvious please but what makes it ok where homosexual marriage is not) If you don't want to post on morality then post arguments for heterosexual marriage.
I could easiely make arguments agains something if i dont' position myself. If you post you position when a sexual act is supported by arguments in your idear, we might draw a line from homosexuality.

[Ulkieab]

Hello thats not all they do is abortions. I went there to go to the gyno the first time I had sex... and they give out birthcontrol to. So if you people think its all about abortions, well you are wrong.

[Pongle]

Whats so bad about polygamy?

[Andarcel]

Whats so bad about polygamy?
From what I've heard of them, polygamous families are usually highly disfunctional. Various mothers and sons get into feuds and backbiting. Think end result of an ugly divorce and remarriage, only with everyone living together.

[Spensdawg]

The main problem I see is that we don't know whether the person meant to say g** or f**. G** is only an insult if a person believes that it’s bad to be homosexual, whereas f** is always an insult.
A good point.

[strychnon]

*blah blah blah, spin spin, distort quoted poster's meaning, build up and tear down straw men, make snide comments, blah blah blah...*
*laughing* Welcome to Andarcel's Brave Newspeak World, where moral relativism becomes moral absolutism, untruths become truths, distortions become reality, examples become non-examples, established precedent becomes conspiracy theory, and axioms are malleable, all liberally flavored with arrogant condescention.

Here's your Alduous Huxley Award. :winner:

[strychnon]

What i asked is why heterosexual marriage is different to homosexual marriage...
We could discuss it but would likely arrive at an impasse because of opinions regarding morality, definitions, outcomes and benefits, and historical precedent.

[Coltaine]

We could discuss it but would likely arrive at an impasse because of opinions regarding morality, definitions, outcomes and benefits, and historical precedent.

So you can give no reason why heterosexual marriage whould be accepted?
Maybe because all arguments for heterosexual marriage could be brought down the same way you brought down the arguments for homosexual marriage?
You not that concerned about the impass regarding homosexual marriage how come?

So far i can recall a lot of arguments why homosexual marriage is bad in a lot of threads. but have so far not encountered once an argument why we should allow heterosexual marriage that couldn't be shot down with the same arguments used from the anti-gaymarriage ppl.

[Andarcel]

*laughing* Welcome to Andarcel's Brave Newspeak World, where moral relativism becomes moral absolutism, untruths become truths, distortions become reality, examples become non-examples, established precedent becomes conspiracy theory, and axioms are malleable, all liberally flavored with arrogant condescention.

Here's your Alduous Huxley Award. :winner:
Yup. Can't just admit you have nothing more to say, so you call everything I said propoganda. A favorite move among bad debaters. Oh, well, I was hoping for another worthy opponent to fill in for Bhs. Guess two on one forum is too much to expect.

[Dark Knight]

A good point.
It is a good point, but apparently the price we have to pay to keep people from throwing it around all the time.

[Pongle]

From what I've heard of them, polygamous families are usually highly disfunctional. Various mothers and sons get into feuds and backbiting. Think end result of an ugly divorce and remarriage, only with everyone living together.

Same as ordinary marriage then. Looked at divorce rates recently?

[Andarcel]

Same as ordinary marriage then. Looked at divorce rates recently?
Yes, except
Think end result of an ugly divorce and remarriage, only with everyone living together.

[Dark Knight]

So its usage would increase if it wasn't blocked?
I don't see why that would happen exactly. People type their posts mostly without taking the word filter into consideration. If people were calling each other g** all the time then we should see it popping up more often.
Its usage notably decreased, IMO, after its addition to the word filter.

Maybe it's worse in the other forums, but it doesn't change that the word isn't an insult unless you believe being *** is a bad thing.
Sorry, thats rubbish.

[Dark Knight]

You are looking too deeply into this.

The admins got sick of little kids screaming that everyone and everything was ***, and so took that ability off of them, just like you might take a bunch of stones away from a little Bnetter looking at a greenhouse with an evil glint in his eye...

If you walk down the street pointing at people and screaming "***" at the top of your voice, it will be taken as an insult. In England theres a crime basically called "inciting hatred", which you commit if you were to scream *** this and *** that as an insult (or the ghetto word for "person of colour"), for example.

The criteria is "using common sense to keep the forums as flame free and pleasant to visit as possible". Your view would be fine if others shared it; they didn't, which is why the word came up on our radar in the first place.

People demonstrated that on the whole they could not be trusted to use "***" only in a non-offensive and mature context.

[Dark Knight]

In other news, BHS Crew.

You are banned from these forums. Get the hell out of here.

[Havard]

Essex, you and I are guildmates.

Essex joined a guild and it's not ILM? :hanky:

Ok, bud... you're at least making an alt on our server, right? Come stop by once in a while!

[strychnon]

So you can give no reason why heterosexual marriage whould be accepted?
I'm not following you. Heterosexual marriage is historically accepted and is what defines marriage--The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

You not that concerned about the impass regarding homosexual marriage how come?
Not particularly. We're simply two opinionated posters participating on one of thousands of internet message boards. Whether we agree or disagree with each other or anyone else most likely will not have earth-moving consequences.

so far not encountered once an argument why we should allow heterosexual marriage that couldn't be shot down with the same arguments used from the anti-gaymarriage ppl.
If you really, really want to discuss this with me, I'll participate. If it's to argue for the sake of argument, I'm not interested. As much fun as intelligent debate can be, open beta is occurring now and I'd rather be indulging in WoW. :drool:

[Booms]

but have so far not encountered once an argument why we should allow heterosexual marriage that couldn't be shot down with the same arguments used from the anti-gaymarriage ppl.

Exactly. Could someone pleeeeeaaaassseee respond to this? I mean, an anti-***-marriage person.

[PlagueBearer]

Its funny that I read any three stars as "A*ss", that is to say, donkey.

I'm not sure how I feel about a*ss marriage.

[Havard]

Exactly. Could someone pleeeeeaaaassseee respond to this? I mean, an anti-***-marriage person.

Just do away with marriage period. It discriminates against bachelors.

[Coltaine]

If you really, really want to discuss this with me, I'll participate. If it's to argue for the sake of argument, I'm not interested. As much fun as intelligent debate can be, open beta is occurring now and I'd rather be indulging in WoW. :drool:

Its not for the sake of argument. I get the impression that you shy away from giving me a reason, what makes heterosexual so different. If it is so easy please just give me one! I can't come up with one, that isn't shut down by your arguments too.
So far i had to make 5 posts asking for this. Never got a response.

I might also miss a day here though. got also some other stuff to do :drool:

[Andarcel]

get the impression that you shy away from giving me a reason, what makes heterosexual so different. If it is so easy please just give me one! I can't come up with one, that isn't shut down by your arguments too.
So far i had to make 5 posts asking for this. Never got a response. Yup. And you won't. Believe me, I've been through this song and dance many times with Elorion, Glurin, Powermonger, Jolly.Roger, and now with strychnon. They run out of rational responses, so they find creative ways to avoid dealing with the substance of the argument.

[strychnon]

Its not for the sake of argument...
*opens up a big old can of worms* Here goes...

Marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Homosexuals partners cannot fit this definition. Sterile heterosexuals can still fulfill the definition of marriage because of their nature. Monogamy within marriage is a separate issue, the tradition of which varies among cultures and religions.

Militant homosexual activists are not interested in merely creating "civil unions." They want to redefine marriage to include non-heterosexual definitions so that their lifestyles can be legally forced upon institutions and communities that would rather avoid their lifestyles and the consequences that are associated with them. One example of this disinterest in civil unions is fact that the majority of active homosexuals and all bisexuals do not practice monogamy, but are interested in engaging in multiple sexual encounters with different partners. Philanderers, be they heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise, can claim to be serious about commitment by word but their deeds reveal their true natures.

Human beings by physical nature are heterosexual, with the very rare exception of deviant mutations. Marriage provides stability for heterosexual couples to propagate and raise families by giving community approval and providing legal benefits and responsibilities for them. In the United States, infidelity and domestic abuse are illegal and provide a means to remove a harmful element from a family. Homosexual acts cannot propagate our species and do not need state sanction. Active homosexuals will continue to engage in homosexual acts regardless of whether the sate approves or disapproves of them.

[Booms]

*opens up a big old can of worms* Here goes...

Marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Homosexuals partners cannot fit this definition. Sterile heterosexuals can still fulfill the definition of marriage because of their nature. Monogamy within marriage is a separate issue, the tradition of which varies among cultures and religions.

Militant homosexual activists are not interested in merely creating "civil unions." They want to redefine marriage to include non-heterosexual definitions so that their lifestyles can be legally forced upon institutions and communities that would rather avoid their lifestyles and the consequences that are associated with them. One example of this disinterest in civil unions is fact that the majority of active homosexuals and all bisexuals do not practice monogamy, but are interested in engaging in multiple sexual encounters with different partners. Philanderers, be they heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise, can claim to be serious about commitment by word but their deeds reveal their true natures.

Human beings by physical nature are heterosexual, with the very rare exception of deviant mutations. Marriage provides stability for heterosexual couples to propagate and raise families by giving community approval and providing legal benefits and responsibilities for them. In the United States, infidelity and domestic abuse are illegal and provide a means to remove a harmful element from a family. Homosexual acts cannot propagate our species and do not need state sanction. Active homosexuals will continue to engage in homosexual acts regardless of whether the sate approves or disapproves of them.

(This response is going to be short because I don't have much time to write it)

Okay, so you have three points.
a) Marriage by definition is husband and wife
b) *** people sleep around a lot
c) Marriage provides stability for a couple to propagate and raise families.

So we can cross out a because the whole point of this is to redefine marriage to include either two husbands or two wives.

b is just a stupid stereotype, and I bet that there are a lot of committed homosexual couples who are loyal to their partners and that if there was no marriage for heterosexual people they would be sleeping around just as much. In marriage, you can get a divorce if you sleep around. A *** couple that isn't serious enough to not sleep around will not be getting married, just like how heterosexual couples who aren't serious don't get married. If we legalize *** marriage it doesn't mean that every single *** person is going to get married; only the couples that have been together for a long time and are ready for that type of commitment.

And point c really doesn't mean that much either. If the only reason for marriage is to provide stability for raising a family (and that isn't the only point of marriage), *** people can always adopt. Also, all heterosexuals couples that cannot have children should either be forced to adopt or not be allowed to get married. Just because an infertile couple is man and woman doesn't mean they should be able to get the benefits of marriage that are only reserved for couples that have or will have children.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hardly a "stupid stereotype". His last paragraph deserves alot more credit than you gave it.

[Coltaine]

a) That the definitions says something different is hardly an argument. Definitions change over time to better encompass new aspects.
200 years ago clean air meant something different that today.

b) That might be the case, i lack figures to know if it is really the majority. But it is in no way limited to homosexuals. How do you think swingerclubs can survive. How often do you hear from couples that broke up because one or both slept around. If this is a reason to not allow persons to marry, we should first try to see if they can keep faithful and if shown that they can't, don't let them marry again.
I would also that that your phrase "the majority of active homosexuals and all bisexuals do not practice monogamy, but are interested in engaging in multiple sexual encounters with different partners." could easiely extended to young people. At least that is the stereotyp we get over for the average college student.

c) domestic abuse could also be prosecutet if not married.
If the only reason was to provide stability for raising a family, then persons without children above the age of 55 should not be allowed to marry. They wont be able to adopt and also not to raise children (instead of 55 you should insert the age at which the hormons for the woman change, so that she no longer can give birth to a child)
Also things that do not propagate our species should be protected by the law. You BMW for exemple or the freedom of speach.
Also you should consider that the stability of a marriage is good for the person and the economy. Married couples are more healthy and so are less likely to have to take days off ill. Same should apply to homosexual couples.

[strychnon]

b is just a stupid stereotype, and I bet that there are a lot of committed homosexual couples who are loyal to their partners
Are you stating this as fact or opinion? If it's your opinion I won't dispute it. If it's fact, can you provide reasons why it's a stupid stereotype? There is also a difference in meaning between "many are not committed" and "the majority are not committed."

Homosexual marriage is legal in Holland. In a 2003 study published in AIDS, Dutch researchers, led by government scientist Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, found that homosexuals engaging in casual encounters had an average of between 16-28 sexual partners each year. Those in so-called steady relationships had an average of 6-10 sex partners outside of their steady sex partner. Homosexual activist Andrew Sullivan, who wrote in the homosexual publication Virtually Normal, stated that heterosexuals would have to understand that among homosexuals there is "… the need for extramarital outlets" that is far greater than among heterosexuals. "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness."

And point c really doesn't mean that much either. If the only reason for marriage is to provide stability for raising a family (and that isn't the only point of marriage), *** people can always adopt.
Yes, NAMBLA and pedophiles would love to see that happen. Would you subject children to rampant sexual child abuse at the hands of homosexual couples just to be politically correct? Should anyone try to counter with "heterosexuals molest kids, too," do some research on the actual numbers of children molested by homosexuals versus those molested by heterosexuals first.

Also, all heterosexuals couples that cannot have children should either be forced to adopt or not be allowed to get married. Just because an infertile couple is man and woman doesn't mean they should be able to get the benefits of marriage that are only reserved for couples that have or will have children.
Again, is this your opinion, or fact? If fact, why do you claim it as such, and upon what definition and legal precedent for marriage do you make your claim?

a) That the definitions says something different is hardly an argument. Definitions change over time to better encompass new aspects.
200 years ago clean air meant something different that today.
I disagree. Words and definitions are important. How many words have had their definitions changed into something else? Why force a change in the definition of marriage when creating a new definition for another word (i.e. civil union) would suffice?

b) That might be the case, i lack figures to know if it is really the majority. But it is in no way limited to homosexuals...
I have numbers to consider--homosexuals as a percentage of society and the percentages of sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals. What percentage of the adult population within the USA would you say homosexual males comprise? In 1991 the Alan Guttmacher Institute conducted a national interview of over 3,300 men throughout the country and found that only 2.3 claimed to have had same sex experience in the last ten years; only 1.1 percent claimed to have been exclusively homosexual. In 1992 the New York Times conducted a study and found less than 3% claimed to be homosexual. The numbers were so shockingly low to the liberal NYT that the story was buried.

A 1980 report in the New England Journal of Medicine, "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," found that the average active homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year, whereas the average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime. According to the 1987 article "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea" in Lancet, homosexuals accounted for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. The CDC's 1997 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report stated that homosexual males account for 56% of the adult AIDS cases in the USA. The CDC also stated that men who engage in homosexual behavior are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Men who have sex with men "have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs." A 1997 study published in Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiologystated that the life expectancy of homosexual and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. The Medical Institute of Sexual Health's 1999 report, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," stated "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices," and "Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."

I would also that that your phrase "the majority of active homosexuals and all bisexuals do not practice monogamy, but are interested in engaging in multiple sexual encounters with different partners." could easiely extended to young people. At least that is the stereotyp we get over for the average college student.
If the average heterosexual were as sexually active as the average homosexual, the percentages for diseases among groups would not disproportionately fall among homosexuals.

c) domestic abuse could also be prosecutet if not married.
If the only reason was to provide stability for raising a family, then persons without children above the age of 55 should not be allowed to marry. They wont be able to adopt and also not to raise children (instead of 55 you should insert the age at which the hormons for the woman change, so that she no longer can give birth to a child)
"If the only reason" were the only reason, your argument would be valid. Providing stability for families is just one reason for marriage.

the stability of a marriage is good for the person and the economy. Married couples are more healthy and so are less likely to have to take days off ill. Same should apply to homosexual couples.
Homosexuals are biologically incapable of propagating among themselves. Why should they be allowed to engage in marriage, as opposed to civil union, when they cannot fulfill the definition or purpose of marriage?

The majority of homosexuals are not interested in marriage as a commitment, and the militant homosexual movement is promoting it as a means of forcing its lifestyle upon society.