Harm in Homosexuality?

The idea that incest leads to birth defects has been shown to be a myth. It raises the possibility, but not significantly, unless it occurs over several generations.Incest in animals is actually used in breeding to improve bloodlines, so it actually can have a beneficial effect. Unless humans are different than other animals there is no reason this would not be true for us. Did you hear of the cannibal court case in Germany this last year? According to the cannibal there are a lot of people waiting to eat and be eaten in death, not to mention having sex. Some apparently can't even wait to die.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Nice assertion.1) Morality in sexuality can come from all sorts of sources besides abuse of position can't it? Can't you think of some problems that have nothing to do with that? And are you saying right off the bat that religious morals regarding sexuality don't exist or can be discounted?2) Having sex with someone where one has a position of "dominance" is neither inherently abusive, nor is it condemned in all situations. For those with such a concern the key is usually if a person does use their position of authority to coerce someone into activity. The fact that many are now equating potential of abuse such that it must be treated as actual abuse is a telling sign we are talking about social feelings and not concerns about objective inherent harm. Easier to define? Than any of the other categories you just mentioned? What age is clearcut as opposed to say who is a teacher of a student? There are a variety of ages of consent across the US, much less across the globe. I have asked and been ignored so far on this, but I will ask again... what is the age where a minor is able to give informed consent (or in your example will not be in a submissive position)? Explain this please. How can it damage someone? This makes sense.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I actually mentioned this in the post you were addressing. It is a point in the favor of gay marriage advocates. If I were pressing for it then I'd use this line of argument.However those that wish to argue against that still have a valid point stemming from the multicultural nature of marriage. Across all religions that have been active and using US law, they have all agreed that the definition of marriage is a man and a woman.Thus antigay marriage activists can honestly argue that the law was being fair to not enforce any particular religion in that it can be done before any god or no god at all, and thus (through tradition, legal and cultural) has created a set secular definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.That is actually a strong point, even if I would ask why a secular definition cannot change as new religions (or whatever) with a different definition of marriage want in on the legal process?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I thought we were going to talk about reality. 11 states do not a nation make.And it is pretty clear is it not that many of the people that rushed to the polls in fear of gay marriage did so because of the scare gay activists helped create via acts of civil disobediance?That San Francisco effort, and then the threat of additional efforts across the nation, while appluaded by people that are gay marriage positive, and people like me that like civil disobedience, was actually counterproductive. That scared a lot of people that didn't need scaring. And it worked right into the hands of conservative agendas.I don't believe all of the amendments voted on had all three of those points, but you can correct me if I am wrong (a link would be nice if you could).But lets say they were. Do you honestly believe most people actually understood what they said? Or would not have been amenable to a lesser proscriptive amendment?What you saw was a victory for kneejerk reactions and general election ignorance... and I will repeat that it was not necessarily a representation of most people. No, thankfully I was born after that was removed. However I do remember people milking that issue well after it was over.This issue is not necessarily like that at all. I think one of the largest bits of groupthink is that gay activists are missing the real point that marriage has a history and a connotation that really is important to some people. While personally I don't care about changing the laws, the reality is that others are, and it doesn't have to do with being antigay (though that always helps).Gays are trying to create a brand new tradition in society. It really didn't even exist (in the form we are discussing now) back in the days when homosexuality was considered okay, and that was at least 1000 years ago.Maybe it would have been wiser, more realistic, to go slowly and not make wild overt gestures and reach out to moderates? That's funny becuase that's not what I said at all. It is fingerpointing like that which is not helping your case.Don't you get it that instead of being practical and realistic, this is being pursued with an all or nothing with us or against us mentality?If I were not as openminded as I am you would have just alienated me from your cause. In this case you just made me shake my head. Uhhhh, that's what your opposition is saying.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Okay take a deep breath and repeat to yourself, I might not understand what I am being told. Do it three times. No joke, do it.Now clear your mind. Here is what I am saying.You have stated that you have a criteria for determining something is wrong; Wrong comes from harm. You are then asking that another group give you a reason why their moral system says someting is wrong, based on harm.1) I have challenged that you do not actually use that criteria, but that is an issue that the admins have apparently selectively chosen to not allow anyone to attack, yet allow you to keep making. Frankly I think it is important to discuss.2) Regardless of whether you actually use it or not, let's say you do... There is no logical reason that another group must use your criteria to determine moral assignments. Indeed there is nothing wrong with them not giving a hoot whether harm is part of a criteria for right and wrong.3) Your expecting a group to use your criteria, when it is plain that they do not, shows your ignorance of their position, and not their ignorance of what is right and wrong.If you want to know why their god says something is wrong, you must first abandon your own moral system. That's how you compare different systems of thought. You cannot expect them to give criteria that fits your own, to prove that theirs is somehow valid. No, I wasn't, but I'd love to discuss that finally. This is disengenuous. There is absolutely no question that in a society that expects and enforces sanctions against those that engage in a certain act, one will find problems in people that have engaged in certain acts.That is why psychology did, and still does today, finds problems with homosexuals. They are quite clear now that it is societal reactions and indeed the environment one is supposed to socialize in, which generates the negative feelings.This appears to be exactly the same for pedophilia. Unless you are discussing cases of overt violence or coercion which can hurt anyone, minor do not show any negative effects besides those which result from social expectations, or trying to fit into their social environment that is negative to their experiences.You will find if you look at Pyschology texts on this issue, that this is the case.And if one gives it a serious, honest analysis this will become obvious.Sex is physical and psychological pleasure derived from touching (in various ways) areas of skin that are extra sensitive. That is it. A minor's brain development does not alter in some malignant way by receiving pleasure from those regions rather than other regions. If it did than the addage of masturbation driving you insane (or blind) would be true. Neither does a minor have any inate aversion to touching others in those areas, unless socialized not to.That can be seen in other cultures, historical and otherwise, where pedophilia or genital manipulation of some kind was acceptable, and in some cases a natural expectation of those societies. There was no inherent harm done to those children.This can also be seen in the fact that pedophilia has no set definition. I have been trying to get anyone who asserts that sex inherently causes harm to give me an age on when this "harm" ends. The fact is that legal consensual sex ranges from 13-18 in the US, and (where set at all) varies from 9-21. Thus child molestation causes harm at what age?Are you even aware how the history of sexual issues progressed such that pedophilia became such a pressing issue? Where the assumption of harm comes from, when there was no assumption before?In the end the same evidence which condemns or "supports", as you call it, homosexuality is the same kind of evidence used against pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and other sexual minorities where violence and coercion are not explicitly used.So the question goes back to you. You claim evidence... present it. Explain mechanisms and define ages. Again you continue to miss the only real point. Whether you or I have any evidence means nothing.To a person that believes that there is a powerful entity capable of seeing more than we do, and states that it is wrong, then our limited perspective is irrelevant.Maybe what you need to do is assume for sake of argument a God comes down to earth which you simply cannot deny. Now you may want to know what that God sees, or wonder if he's just making up things, but you will obviously be in no position to dispute the claims of the God.Indeed the harm may not even be understandable to a human mind.If you don't agree with Xianity, just say so. If you dislike its tenets no matter what the reason, just say so. But if you want to pretend you have some logical superiority where you can prove their God is bad and has bad laws, you are departing from reason. This is also a bit disengenuous. You can't say that because he has a taste or even becomes weaker in a certain environment that he is less omnipotent or that he is homophobic.For example we could promote Lam to the status of God. He can know and change anything. That does not stop the fact that he could inherently be lactose intolerant.Yeah he could change the milk into water and so not be harmed, but maybe he'd create as a law for anyone wanting to be his pals that they would refrain from giving him milk products.I mean you get that this is about showing their obedience to him right? Their care for him?This is not to mention that it is perhaps a way to prevent other deities from getting stronger and so helping those other people. This would be about wasting time and energy where it doesn't need to be.If you don't like the rules and so decide to hate their God, you can do that. Heck, I would have problems with a God that doesn't carefully explain things himself and let's scattered writers do the talking... not to mention calling himself angry and jealous.That does not logically elevate your moral position above theirs nor mean they have to fulfill your personal criteria to be right. No. Never. I don't know, but it seems silly to want to be. I have no idea, but I would think not.Feel better? Your paragraph contained humor but no substance at all. If that was true (and all we need is a probability) then God had a reason and he can let it stand as long as he likes. Maybe Ba'al is waiting just around the corner. I don't know and would have no way of knowing. Do you?Remember you can't just assume you are right and then ask them to prove things according to your standards. Civil is fine, though I was honestly telling the truth. Your statement made me laugh. And frankly I feel your actions are not exactly civil. I'm still waiting for an acknowledgement that it was you who started the whole pedophilia thing and you weren't responding to a post of mine.I wasn't exactly happy to have that laid out on my doorstep. No it doesn't. What it does is expect homosexuals to curb their behavior. If they stray from the mandate, then they will be harmed.A soldier is expected to stay in uniform. He may hate his uniform or find it vastly uncomfortable, but as long as he is in the army, and especially as long as he is in battle, he must remain in uniform no matter how much it pains him or her.Removal of the uniform can get one courtmartialed at home, and summarily shot on the battlefield.Being expected to curb one's sexual appetite may be an inconvenience, but that is not the only appetite expected to be curbed.If you want to question why many Xians focus on the one facet of their "uniform code" while letting others slip by, that is valid, but an entirely different question. In any case I somehow don't believe that you would be any happier if they simply got as sticky on all the other codes... right? But it is not wholly "harm" which you invoke, rather perceptions of harm, which are the result of taste and societal environment.If there was clear cut evidence of harm vs nonharm on the subject of sexual minorities (or deviance) then I wouldn't have been making the counterarguments I have, and if I did, you could have pointed out all this glorious evidence we have in science. We don't, which a simply look across cultures now and in the past ought to tell you. I already did. So did others. The fact that you don't accept that it is valid within the context of their own morality system, is your problem not theirs.And as far as my own moral system, I can't argue it as I see no problem with it at all. That makes me a competitor of those that disagree with my moral system. However it does not excuse my being ignorant of how their belief system operates or expect it to act along my criteria.That is what you want. You want people with an opposing (deontological) system to validate their system to you, using your teleological system's criteria. You are the one being unreasonable. That was what I was refering to. I have already addressed this in earlier post.Natural from a scientific standpoint, does not have to coincide with natural from a religious standpoint.You are equating the two and then punking on them for not meeting your scientific criteria. It is just as silly as when they do the reverse.Natural to them can be primary or certain intended variations of function. That is a valid definition, especially when one believes that a creator God exists. That goes double when he explicitly says something is a natural function and something is not.I don't like their God's rules, that doesn't mean they are logically inconsistent.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uh yeah, but not necessarily from an objective injury of some kind, and they do not have to have their base in an idea of people abusing their dominant position for sexual gain. Remember that that is what I was addressing.Taboos, especially sexual taboos, often have their base in creating social identity and cultural tastes. The harms are often about perceived harms to "goodness" or "innocence", or just the potential of harm. This is logical? Its easy to define because it is arbitrary? Yeah you can have concrete numbers, but that doesn't make it any more concretely defined as a moral as there is no underlying reason. Nice try. Unfortunately teacher/student is pretty concrete, and so is parent/child.Even your boss example is a bit lame. All you have to do is add "immediate" or "directly connected". And if you say there is no reason to differentiate one between the other, then one is forced to point out there is no reason to pick any specific age either. Citations please. And again even if true only underscores my position. In this context we are no longer talking about actual harm, we are talking about behavior that might have a tendency to lead to behaviors that might cause harm.This is true of many other activities, but only the sexual realm gets the full brunt of social sanctions. Nice assertions. I read the link you gave too. This is philosophy devoid of real world application called evidence, for shame.But once again, my point is proven even if the evidence were there for your position. We are not discussing the harm of acts. We are talking about future possibilities or signs that there may be acts which are harmful. There is plenty of evidence which suggests that some behaviors act as catharsis and so put a brake on more extreme acts, correct? When worldwide they swing from 0-21, what exactly is your evidence that the concept of harm to a minor is anything more than a social construct?You do realize that given the type of arguments you have made, homosexuality can be pathologized and condemned?What stops anyone from saying it is psychologically damaging because it rewards potentially damaging behavior and is certainly a sign of insecurity (with properly dealing with 1/2 of the population), and therefore a sign of extreme insecurity.Anyone can make up anything, and ranges of anything, if they want to and make it sound real.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Sweet. You are the first person to be addressing this rationally. However my point is being made.I'm not sure if you were around for this but my first statement on pedophilia was in response to the bald assertion that pedophilic acts inherently cause harm and so were wrong morally.Well that's simply not true and what I was trying to point out. It turns out the pedophilia has repercussions on an individual in just the same way homosexuality would and certainly did back when it was considered in the same pathological category. It is a social construct, based on cultural views of what sex is and how it should be used.Parents and other adults are allowed to "exploit" their children for all sorts of reasons, and certainly getting pleasure from them (even in physical ways) is allowed. It is only due to our cultural history of damning sex as a loss of innocence and somewhat inherently dirty, that sexual exploitation became thought of as an inherent harm.I mean if a minor gets touched sexually by someone, just think of what happens. Yeah... what? You have hit on one of the implications I would address as the concept of "informed consent" was explored. I think the concept of "informed consent" with respect to sex can be shown to be a red herring. It sounds good, but does not stand up to consistent scrutiny. It is currently 12. The US and Britain are pushing the Dutch to raise it to 18. Indeed there is a global push through the UN to arbitrarily set all age of consents to 18. Not that there is any proven problem, just to make things easy for americans and Britains to enforce their own laws.I guess then I won't be able to point to cultural diversity anymore. This is true. Unfortunately it is a poor argument for continued punishment and moralizing against it. Or if it is, the gays have lost their own moral and legal case. It increases the potential, but I would disagree with the likelihood and the degree. Historically, in cultures where children are allowed to within the bounds of parent/teacher relationships, it didn't really seem to do this. Rather it was used as a tie between mentor and student.Where it is wholly banned, it is more likely that any circumstance will involve exploitation just because people who engage in it will be the type to be flouting other cultural expectations, and in the end they may feel they have to get everything out of what little time they have to get what they want and so increase the degree of "use". No doubt, but again this does not help any arguments for continuing the cultural practice. It is the same argument used to repress young homosexuals by their family members, and society grown ones.Of course this raises another question, isn't repression of sexuality or sexual behavior in minors a form of exploitation itself and also potentially a source of harm? Yet this is the same position for children discovering that they are gay. And this was also one of the major "secular" issues with mixed race relationships. Yeah we have to remember that that was taboo once as well. And these children didn't even have the chance of hiding their "scar". Yet eventually we stopped picking on them.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hey, where did I hear this argument before? Oh yeah, against gays.Guess what... it doesn't work here either. Indeed I invite you to explain how masturbating a child could cause an increase in disease. Wow, so to make sex better, we have to keep considering it bad, and scarring kids that happen to do it earlier than others?People manage to enjoy massages, meditation, bike riding and riding cars and they are every day events. So what?Why can't people enjoy the physical pleasure of sex and not artificially combine it with a specific emotion? That has been one of the problems with society since Xians took over the asylum. Your defense of their proscription, without an accompanying deity, looks pretty hollow. You are good with this assertion thing. I guess you haven't had relatives that get great pleasure hugging everyone (or kissing you) and you'd rather not?But by the way, who in this scenario said a person can't decline? Are you saying the children in no way enjoyed the sex? And you know this how?It does not teach that it should be bought, but can be bought, and what difference does it make if it stands in stark contract to modern ideas? Uhhh, homosexuality was also acceptable back then and stands in stark contrast to modern ideas of healthy relationships.That is unless you view just your modern viewpoint as the only modern viewpoint? And indeed it may be pointed out that you are in the minority.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhhhh, are you saying the actions ended up being helpful, rather than if they had reached out to moderate groups to try and solidify ties with them? That is not what I am saying at all... not even close. Contra, personally I am for gay marriage as I don't care who gets married. I even support gay initiatives for it. I am just pointing out that there are alternate routes and it appears that they would be more productive.I can recognize that there are some with a legitimate concern, along the lines of having used a particular term for a long time that has a connotation... like kosher. Whether it is silly in an objective sense I am not going to argue as anyone's particular moral stances (especially semantic ones) usually look silly. But silly or not, it is legitimate.If I were desperate to get my rights, as opposed to having them plus a specific name, I'd be finding the support among those willing to give me my rights and not do things that might get them upset. Looking radical does not fly very far.Sorry for being the messenger.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oh then by all means show what positive results were had! Heheheh... can't keep straight which debate your tackling huh? Even if I accept you definition that only helps my argument.That is right, they should have reached out to the people that agreed with them rather than alienating them, which allowed another extremist group to open up a space and let them in.Yelling and spitting into peoples faces is pretty extreme, does that mean you would recommend that activity to someone who wants to get people on their side? Hey I thought they were cool demonstrations, I tend to like civil disobedience. But even at the time I also said I wasn't sure if they were going to be productive, and it turns out that they weren't.At the time many of the demonstrations began you had initiatives for civil unions floating around. There was also some pretty solid evidence of popular support, which was pissing off the conservatives who were trying to whip up support against them.In that environment, maybe it wasn't such a good time to say "no way am I going to accept anything less than full use of the word marriage", break the law, and throw it in the faces of everyone. Like I said, cool, but smart? Productive?It gave the conservatives the ammo they needed to create a rainbow scare, and make it seem like gays were about to turn the nation upside down.Then in an odd twist gay activists seemed to step right into the monster suit the conservatives had created and yelled "yeah we're going to turn this country upside down." Again, this is not conducive to getting people on your side.It looks to me that gay activism got a little bit too excited and did not look at how to achieve ends realistically. Its human, but it was a mistake. In the end they turned potential victories into defeats by alienating potential supporters.You don't rock the boat when you are underway in the direction you want to go. Right, but on the flipside they don't need to be antagonized. This is what occured. Yeah you have to not be afraid of confrontation with your opponents, not simply people that do not sympathize with you. It is hard to persuade and confront at the same time. That is delicate. I agree with this. The problem was failing in the first two parts. Radicalism is also a recipe for failure. It all depends on how careful the cook is.And as far as being the messenger, it was me. You were attacking me, remember?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Always remember my main point is to get at why we do things. Whether it is a reasonable approach in certain situations is a totally different state of affairs.The reality is that we do not use it to decide moral labels regarding anything, much less about sex. Realistically we can't. That is why no one actually does. It is all about perception and taste which is a product of our environment. And of course its always easier to judge someone else's sexual acts than it is our own. That is why it shouldn't be and really isn't anyone else's business. The hypocrisy count is too high.Then again there are still valid arguments for creating laws regarding minors and sex. They just have nothing to do with objective inherent harm in those acts, and any inherent wrongness to them.As a result even if they keep such laws on the books, society ought to be scaling way back on treating the issue as such a devastating "problem". We do more damage after the fact, that what occurs in it... assuming we are talking consensual variety. Yeah I saw that. Although it does seem some of the actions were indeed rape, others were clearly not, and a result of the tradition of those islanders which originated from the Tahitian culture which had essentially no sexual taboos.I don't find any of it confusing, as this isn't so uncommon.I'm not sure if you heard about when Polanski was up for an Oscar for the Pianist and could not come to the awards because of his outstanding rape case? Without question he did rape the girl (whether she was "underage" or not), though I suppose it was not violent (he drugged her). In any case she came forward... she is now pretty old... and totally blasted all the people ripping into Polanski and trying to act like they are protecting her.She said that society turned one slightly embarassing situation that she was over with emotionally before it went to the police, into a lifelong "tragedy" that she could not escape or live down. She would always be Polanski's victim, and the people seemed to thrive off of that. Thus she was more their victim than his.You may have also heard of the teacher who had sex with her student and went to prison, got out had sex with the still well underage student, went back to prison and throughout it all ended up having some children of his... recently the student (now of age) went to court to have the restrictions dropped on her and they are planning to marry.Yes there is consensual sex between adults and children, and even when there is not, it is not always as bad as we turn it into, in order to preserve our own egos by believing if we want to stop something we don't like it must be massively harmful. I'm not in complete disagreement with this statement, it is just that this shows we are not preventing something because it is harmful. We are preventing something we don't like anyway, because in that climate, if it is done, is more likely (though still not guaranteed) to cause harm... and indeed the harm may come from us more than the "perpetrator."And unfortunately for people pushing for this to mean we should stop it, yet are for gay rights, well this is the same argument that was used against mixed race sexual acts, and still is for homosexuality in some quarters (it certainly was less than 50 years ago).This is about social harms not real harms and it is hypocrisy to claim such things are wrong then turn around and claim it for another. I don't think you are doing a whole lot of asserting, pretty much just conjecturing, and I don't necessarily disagree with all your conclusions. Like I said, you are the only one that appears to be doing any critical thinking on the subject.I don't remember which pedo-stats you are talking about. If you feel they will help make an oustanding point then go ahead and bring them in. I am open to any and all info.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, but that does not help your case. You are claiming a greater state of victimization or hatred toward you than might actually exist. Wait you just said in the post before that civil unions with full rights weren't an unjust compromise and that is what Gay activists were explicitly rejecting, saying that was not enough.I'm not calling you crazy, but perhaps a bit unreasonable on the subject. Ironically that makes you illogical and making bad judgements out of fears... just like your opponents, many of whom could just as easily have been your ally. No because that is a silly comparison. I already have a better analogy out there... it is kosher food. I do agree that if gays are not allowed civil unions with full rights then there is no other choice than to get revolutionary about it. But if this stays about the word marriage or not, well I'd vote a person into office that's for gay marriage, but I'm not going to riot in the streets. It does tell me something, but not necessarily what you seem to be getting out of it. The fact that Bush got elected told me something to, but it certainly isn't what the Republicans seem to be getting out of it. No it is not. But thanks for hurting your own cause by telling people what they think.I'm sort of getting tired of your comparing the use of the term marriage to disenfranchisment of blacks, it's not the same. While there may be many true bigots out there, there are plenty who are not and instead have some weird semantic/faith issue. You can find support among them, and it appears to be a majority.There is no similarity to going to the same schools and drinking out of the same fountains, and having the same name on your legal document. There just isn't. What you ought to be more concerned about is lingering issues like being able to get into the military... THAT is a frigging civil rights issue.This is like having had kosher food, and now you want to have your own food available for market and it doesn't fit the traditional term. Both sides sticking to their guns on this is what is ridiculous. Only if you cannot get unions at all, does this become something else entirely. People like me... That's right. Keep criticizing the people around you that are actually supporting your cause (remember I'm actually for gay marriage) when they point out some realities... like there is support for reasonable alternatives which are more likely to get you what you want.You keep counterproducing for your cause. No, you have already made quite clear it is about you and your issues, and not about discrimination in general. Its one of the things pervasive in gay activism and makes me sick everytime I see it... a willingness to hate, as long as its not yourself. Again I was not talking about slowly getting one right and then another or something like that. I was saying if a segment of the population wants to keep legal contracts titled marriage contracts with their original traditional definition, because they were without question based on that traditional definition, but they are willing to support another legal contract with the same rights which cover a slightly different definition, and using a different name, then work with them.The result is not piecemeal change. It is getting everything you want, minus a name, and there is a credible reason for this, even if not wholly based in logic.If someone suggests civil unions without all of the rights, then there is reason to fight. No you like to act the selfrighteous jerk, blow your argument out of proportion and then kick at the people who are actually on your side.I ain't sugar coating it, that is what you are doing.How many times in this single post have your repeated your inane question, with innuendo, that I would possibly be for alternate days of discrimination? What was the point?I have already said I am for gay marriage as I have no semantic concerns on it. I am only pointing out THE FACT that the laws on the books regarding those legal contracts were created with the definitions for a reason, and it was not discrimination. Indeed you would be hard pressed to find historical examples of fullfledged marriages between gays even in fully gay accepting cultures.This is a recent phenomenon.And so instead of changing laws to revise the definition within old contracts, that are using a name with a heavy traditional meaning, it would be equally valid to just set up a new form of contract. If that would get more votes to your side, why on earth kick people that would get you it? Because they have some semantic hangup?And what's great is that with the new contract and all the rights you can stick it to the antigay crowd all you like. You can sit anywhere on the bus and at any time.Those are the facts. I'm just laying them out.In my daily life I support gay marriage. Gee that's what the antigay marriage activists say. And that policy sure worked great for Bush. Boy and you all sound so... credible.Intolerance and ignorance is surely the mark of this new century and everyone seems to like the design. Whatever you get Lam, you deserve it.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-17-2004 04:16 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I mean that since he is adopting the exact same stance as his opponents, and that stance is ridiculous (even by his own statements), I personally cannot care one way or the other what happens for him.If he never gets, and indeed loses any chance at getting, everything he wants because of his inflexibility and ignorance, that would surely be just desserts.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

First I want to save the contents of your link for posterity... Normally when a person posts a link I end up going ahead and shredding it (when it needs shredding). But this thread is different. The point is for others to prove that a sexual act is harmful.My only point, once other sexual minorities were condemned by the same people demanding evidence, was to throw their own lack of criteria back at them. They are just as bigoted and also do not require proof of harm. I asked for their evidence.This singular link is what I get, with a few assertions of what it says.Instead of my ripping it to shreds straight away, I'm going to ask you first to explain what this study is and how its methods and results proves your argument that sex in childhood is inherently harmful. That is in keeping with this thread. The burden is on you and since you already claim you have evidence (and this is it) this shouldn't be too hard.Now I can rip it to shreds and I will rip it to shreds, but I am wondering how you even came to believe it said what you assert it said, and how it helps your position or for that matter any gay defending themselves in this thread.Yes instead of ripping it to shreds, I'm going to pretend for a second that it really is a valid study that can prove inherent harm from sexual acts.With this we can now announce that Jon has provided the clearcut evidence that there is an inherent harm in homosexuality!!! I'm sure the antihomosexual crowd will be thanking you shortly. I'm not so sure about the rest.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

And that differs from your stated position, how? I said I was for gay marriage. I also said I realize there is a group using this in order to oppress gays. My crime appears to be the wholly rational position of trying to understand what other people are saying, and then explaining to you how a compromise can be reached.Yes you prefer ignorance.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)