The future of marriage

Yes, I do. I view it in the same way as I would for any sexually immoral act. However, part of the problem that I see amongst opponents of homosexuality seem to be their inherent view of it in "worse" terms as they would another sexually immoral act, like fornication, which they may have committed at some point in their life. If you think that I view it in terms of "worse" or "better," know that I don't.Good question, though.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Thanks. I see where you're coming from and it makes sense. Your desire to prevent gay marriage no doubt stems from your desire to protect people from harming themselves. Of course, I disagree. On what basis do you think being homosexual is harmful to people?

quote:

---

And if you introduce this, the next thing is an even broader interpretation of the Amendment so that, literally, anything can be manipulated as being someone's inalienable right.

---

Why can't siblings, two consenting adults, marry of their own volition by the exact same premise? To reiterate, pedophilia may be considered criminal conduct now, just as homosexual acts were considered criminal conduct in the past. It would be just as easy to turn it all around if you convince people that its normal and loving behavior.I'm telling you, I think its coming. I'm really confident that pedophiles will follow suit with the homosexual movement. I hope that I'm wrong, but it would not surprise me in the least that its coming to fruition. I have answered you. But I'll mention it again for your sake: By convincing people that its not really rape. "Its really just an expression of love." In the same way that "Homosexuality is now not really immoral, its just our crazy puritanical baggage that clouded our judgment for, say, 5,000 years."AdminNosy: Removed link with bad certificate warning.Aw, isn't that just precious? See Crash... Its not rape, its love. They even said so, so it must be true. Yeah, that is irritating, but perhaps its a small price to pay to not have Uncle Sam infringing on you. You have to buy new insurance when you move? You mean homeowner's insurance or auto? It seems pretty straightforward to me. But then again, I've never lived in either Missouri or Nebraska. Btw, how are you liking Nebraska? Are you close to Omaha? I hear Omaha is a fun little city. Why does that not surprise me? To really get a sense of why Libertarians believe as they do, read the Federalist Papers. I don't think it would be prudent to divert onto another subtopic at this juncture. There is nothing conclusive in either direction from a scientific view. Besides, lobbying for the homosexual agenda has included the works of neuroscientist, Dr. Simon LeVay, among others.

quote:

---

And through light-hearted sitcoms and touching stories on the evening news, twenty more years was all it took for mainstream America to second guess themselves.

---

Do I think who was lying? Americans that delude themselves about homosexuality? A bigot of what exactly? There are bigots of all of kinds. Am I a bigot of homosexuality, zoophilia, pedophilia, polyamory, or any of the things that many people besides me find reprehensible? Wow, you and I agreed on something. Funny, I thought the universe would implode under such conditions. That might be because homosexual males molest kids in disproportionate numbers compared to their heterosexual counterparts or perhaps you have yet to quantify the number. Homosexuals have strenuously asserted that there is no connection to homosexuality and pedophilia, and there may not be. I won't argue that point because I've never seen a comprehensive study as of yet. Nonetheless, many homosexuals have posited that heterosexual pedophiles outnumber those of homosexual pedophiles. But there is one factor that they seem to glibly overlook-- and that's the fact that homosexuals comprise only a small percentage of the overall population. An yet, they account for an extraordinarily high percentage of offenses against minors.So, is there a connection? I don't know. I'm not sure it even matters because pedophilia is wrong on so many levels as it is. My issue is the media and their under reporting of the offenses. Yeah, he was a Republican. That's the first strike against him. Secondly, he was not only outwardly anti-homosexual marriage and pedophilia, but he lauded NBC's "To Catch a Predator" for how much good they and Perverted Justice did for America. In that sense, he was a raging hypocrite and it made for sweet justice for the pro-gay movement.The problem is the media's own hypocrisy. In 1983, Massachussets Democrat, Gerry Studd's, admitted to having sexual liason's with a 17-year old page. Nothing happened to Studd's, either in the media, or by the House Ethic's Committee. Yet, interestingly enough, that same year, there was an allegation about a Republican congressman by the name of Dan Crane who was under investigation for having sex with a 16 year old page. He lost is seat over the same thing as Studds. Edited by AdminNosy, : Removed image link which produces a certificate warning.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Marriage between a MAN and MAN, or a WOMAN and WOMAN is not protected or even a law for homosexuals. Remember, that's what you're trying to change? Men, women, and children are already protected by the Fourteenth. If you want it to extend beyond its meaning, then write to your Congressman and try to get it amended... I mean, that's what Amendments are for. You do realize that the Supreme Court's Justices attempt to interpret the law, right? It doesn't mean they are either right or wrong. It means they are there to interpret the law. So if that body of Justices, which is different from the Justices that reside today, you may get a completely different interpretation. But I wouldn't worry too much, Dan. I'm pretty sure you are going to get what you want. We'll have to see if you want what you're going to get, though. I can just hear the cheesy, canned laughter in the background now. Unfortunately, as I've disseminated to your buddy Crash already, they aren't going to spin rape, they're going to try to spin love. You haven't provided a legal basis for why siblings can't marry one another. Or why I can't have sex with a corpse. Or why I can't copulate with a dog. I'm still waiting on you.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Some evidence of this imminent occurrence would go a long way toward persuading me that you are far-sighted rather than bigoted.Got any? The media don't elect representatives. What do two different responses by two different electorates to two different scandals have to do with the media?If you want to blame dramatically different media coverage of the two incidents, please provide evidence.Got any?

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Hoot Mon wrote: subbie responded: How do you measure impotency? How does the court? I would say impotency is a man's inability to have an erection; Oxford dictionary agrees with me. This is highly discriminatory against men, of course, since women don't usually have erections that amount to much. I could see how impotency might apply to gay men, but what about gay women?I know of two marriages in Ohio that were annulled because the men was good to go but the women were unreceptive. That happens sometimes, and when it does it usually ends up in an annulment. This male-female consummation clause means everything "marriage."Consummation: "the action of making a marriage or relationship complete by having sexual intercourse" (Oxford Dictionary). Sexual intercourse occurs between a man and a woman; their genitalia fit together nicely for whatever goes on down there for whatever purpose. Thus the consummation clause is inapplicable to same-sex "marriages," since they are cannot be consummated in the naturally legitimate way.”Hoot Mon

It doesn't say vaginal sexual intercourse.

Marriage is protected, and sexuality is not specified. But homosexuals are excluded from it. This violates equal protection. What part of this equation is so hard for you? So basically, "legal precedent" is just, like, their opinion, man.You do realize, though, that precedent has a huge impact on the way laws work, right? Long as they're of age, I don't care if they do or not. Their business, not mine. Actually, it's been explained to you repeatedly. One poster did so in huge letters, so you wouldn't miss it. You've just chosen to ignore it.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

All quite interesting, I'm sure. But, given that I said about consummation being irrelevant to annulment, it continues to have nothing to do with this topic, other than your personal obsession.You know what they say, fella, better latent than never.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Yes, I do. I view it in the same way as I would for any sexually immoral act.

---

So, you think that a loving, respectful, long-term monogomous adult gay relationship is on par with the brutal, vicious, rape of an 8 year old by a pedophile?What kind of irrational religious wierdo are you?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This is just about the most asinine thing I have ever heard anyone say about this topic.Not only is having sex not a requirement for marriage but I am pretty sure that most homosexual couples "consummate" all the time just like heterosexual couples.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Let them, for all I care. Honestly, is incest even that big a deal in a world of readily-available contraception? Insofar as it's genuine adult consent and not simply the result of childhood sexual abuse, who cares? We have considerable evidence that it isn't lobing behavior, it's abuse.There's no evidence that two homosexual people are "abusing" each other when they have sex. Homosexual people have completely normal relationships with each other. The degree to which they tend to mirror their heterosexual counterparts in that degree is quite uncanny, in fact.This is not true of adult-child sexual relationships, which are almost always abusive. (I certainly think it's possible for an adult and a mature minor to have a legitimate sexual relationship, though I haven't figured out any way for the law to accurately discern the difference between that and an abusive relationship, so I don't see any reason yet to change our laws in that regard.) They're already trying. As of yet there are literally no public examples of positive adult-child sexual intercourse. They don't, and won't, have a realistic "model" example to publicize.Whereas, hundreds of thousands of homosexuals have completely positive, loving, real relationships every day. Almost every American knows someone involved in such a relationship, which is why we're seeing the drastic, sudden swing in favor of civil rights for gay people. Why you're losing the culture war, in other words.Pedophilia simply won't ever be as normal as homosexuality - because it isn't as normal. It's the abuse and rape of children. Irrelevant. The rapist doesn't get to decide whether or not it's rape. All rapists say it wasn't rape. Why would we suddenly start believing them? (Any more than conservatives usually do, I mean.) Both. (We rent.) We have to cancel our old policies and start new ones - even though we're with the same company. Insurance policies (as far as I'm aware) seem to be bound to the state in which they're purchased. Auto insurance, renters, health insurance - we always have to cancel our old policies and get new ones when we move interstate. Liking it just fine (and thank you for asking.) Lincoln's plenty fun for us, so we've only been up to Omaha twice so far. A few of our college friends live up there.My wife and I are homebodies mostly, though. Going out and stuff isn't really our style. Playing video games online is our style. "There's no cause so noble you can't find a fool following it." The people in completely legitimate, completely loving, completely supportive homosexual relationships. Do you think they were lying about being happy, about having as meaningful a relationship as any heterosexual?(In a pedophilic relationship, you'll only hear one person freely describe it that way. That would be a crucial difference.) Well, so what? If you hate cancer, am I supposed to love it? That's a common and bigoted myth. In fact, heterosexual males are far more likely to abuse children. Actually, they account for less of a percentage of offenses than percentage among the population as a whole. (Hence the phenomenon stated above.) Isn't 17 the age of consent in Washington DC? I remember this coming up during the Foley thing, and I thought that was the crucial difference.Honestly I don't see how these apples-and-oranges comparisons are supposed to prove any kind of trend. Homosexual abuse of children is underrepresented in the media because it's underrepresented in occurance. Of course, male abuse of female children is so common it's hardly reported. Pretty much the only abuse that really makes the news is when female teachers abuse male students.At any rate, it doesn't change the fact that you ludicrously offered one of the most well-known, widely-reported examples as proof of media underreporting, which is just a false charge not supported by any evidence. If you want to talk about stuff the media doesn't report in this country, let's start with the election "irregularities" from 2000 and 2004...

In every single one of your examples there is a state interest in making the action illegal.We define as a society the act of copulating with dead people, children, and animals a form of rape or abuse. You seem to be arguing about some theoretical situation where we don't define those acts in this way. That has nothing to do with the fact that we as a society do not consider homosexual relationships to be rape or abuse. Some people like yourself may see it as sinful, but it is still the act of two consenting ADULTS.As for marrying kin. There is also a state interest in preventing that, namely public health.The more you argue in this vein the more you truly destroy your own position. Homosexual marriages have nothing to do with pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, or inbreeding. You are simply trying to make a case by association where there is none.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Speaking of CONSENT, here's a yes/no question to test the righteous resolution of all you homophiles: Would you consent to a blood transfusion from a gay man who you knew was sexually active with other gay men? This is where consent must factor more than social opinionation; well-established medical facts about HIV must also be considered.”HootEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

What's a "homophile"?