First Darwin and then Homos? Never!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Who's getting bent out of shape, Ming?

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality causes these public harms.

Why should we ban the one and not the other?

Could you not try to answer my question?

We shouldn't, but they DON'T, so it's a non-issue.

It's like asking "what if eating butter causes the same public harm as killing and eating people?"

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality causes these public harms.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that religion causes these public harms...

The point is... YOU CAN'T PROVE IT... SO WHY BRING IT UP. IT'S A NON ISSUE.

The only thing that you can prove is that "some" religions are against it... that is NOT public harm... Some religions are against premarrital sex, and divorce... but those are not against the law either.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, generally people dying

AIDS anyone?

Homosexuality cannot be shown to cause ANY public harm beyond what "harm" promiscuity in general causes.

Easier transmission of AIDS.

We shouldn't, but they DON'T, so it's a non-issue.

No it isn't.

Before one can argue whether or not homosexuality falls under compelling interest, we must first define what constitutes a compelling public interest.

The fact that the government does choose to ban certain substances seems very significant to what interests they consider compelling.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

What about them Mormons?

Why shouldn't they practice polygamy?

Isn't that a compelling public interest?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
AIDS anyone?

A risk in ANY sex

Easier transmission of AIDS.

People going to school causes an easier transmission of other diseases. What's your point?

No it isn't.

Before one can argue whether or not homosexuality falls under compelling interest, we must first define what constitutes a compelling public interest.

The fact that the government does choose to ban certain substances seems very significant to what interests they consider compelling.

How about a large, immediate risk of death or injury?

Drugs do so. Gay sex does not.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ming:

What about them Mormons?

Why shouldn't they practice polygamy?

Isn't that a compelling public interest?

1. That issue isn't entirely decided, if you look at apolyon

2. You can already practice "polygamy", just without legal recognition. The compelling interest here is the fact that marriage law is designed for two people specifically (with things like rights to determine what to do with the corps, inheritence, etc.) and it would be a HUGE mess with three people.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
AIDS anyone?

So... only homosexuals get AIDs... tell that to the heavy infected areas in Africa...

Easier transmission of AIDS.

No... If an infected person sleeps around with no protection, it doesn't matter whether it's a male or female

Before one can argue whether or not homosexuality falls under compelling interest, we must first define what constitutes a compelling public interest.

Your concept of compelling public interest is based soley on your religious beliefs... premarratial sex and divorce are against many religions... this is not different.

The fact that the government does choose to ban certain substances seems very significant to what interests they consider compelling.

It has nothing to do with this discussion. Homosexuality is not drug use. You keep wanting to tar and feather homosexuality by associating it with illegal activity that many consider bad... Again... religion seems to support priests abusing children by not cracking down more on it... by turning a blind eye... we can change the discussion to that if you wish... because that seems to be what you want to do when you bring up drug use and compare it to homosexuality.

It doesn't cause public harm... no proof what so ever.
AIDs and other STD's effect EVERYBODY... straight and gay. If you want to bring that into the discussion, why don't you just advocate making sex between anybody illegal.

[Ben Kenobi]

The compelling interest here is the fact that marriage law is designed for two people specifically (with things like rights to determine what to do with the corps, inheritence, etc.) and it would be a HUGE mess with three people.

And why is this any more correct than to say that the marriage law is designed for one man and one woman?

Could I not also say, as you do, that to do otherwise, causes a large mess? That the country has a compelling interest to preserve marriage?

[Kuciwalker]

I think there is a compelling public interest to get rid of fundies

[Ben Kenobi]

So... only homosexuals get AIDs... tell that to the heavy infected areas in Africa...

No, they aren't the only ones, but nowhere do I say that.

All I'm saying is that they have a higher incidence rate.

If an infected person sleeps around with no protection, it doesn't matter whether it's a male or female

I would think it would matter whether one gives or recieves.

Your concept of compelling public interest is based soley on your religious beliefs... premarratial sex and divorce are against many religions... this is not different.

Who cares about me?

I want to hear what you find compelling.

It doesn't cause public harm... no proof what so ever.
AIDs and other STD's effect EVERYBODY... straight and gay. If you want to bring that into the discussion, why don't you just advocate making sex between anybody illegal.

And why not do the same with drugs?

That brings us back to my first point, of what people consider to be a compelling public interest.

Again... religion seems to support priests abusing children by not cracking down more on it... by turning a blind eye... we can change the discussion to that if you wish.

Your religion, and not mine. My religion does not have these priests, so why should I be compelled to defend them and their actions? Would that not be like holding me responsible for the actions of Muslims?

[Kuciwalker]

slightly OT, but BK, what's your response to this?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Could I not also say, as you do, that to do otherwise, causes a large mess? That the country has a compelling interest to preserve marriage?

And what mess does it cause? Oh, against your religon, but no other reason. It solves a lot of current problems... by allowing gay people to define their lives amoung themselves and in the eyes of the law the same as any other couple. It doesn't cause a problem, it solves a big problem. The country does have a compelling interest to solve these problems... and it can fix it by allowing gay marriages. And this will have no effect on religions. They can still consider it a sin, just like all the other sins... and they don't have to hold such weddings in their churches if they don't want to. It has no effect on them what so ever.

[Ben Kenobi]

Eh, thanks Skywalker.

Rather busy this past while.

Will bump that thread, but then I must go.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Easier transmission of AIDS.

A typically sloppy use of language by someone with an all too obvious agenda.

Homosexuality does not 'cause' or lead to 'easier transmission of 'AIDS'.

I know people who have been gay and celibate- how easily will they transmit H.I.V. ? Via brainwave activity perhaps, or through homosexual pheromones....

Unprotected penetrative sex, whether heterosexual or between gay men, will tend to increase the possibility of infection with H.I.V., if the parties have been exposed to the virus at some point in their sexual history.

How does non-penetrative or penetrative lesbian sex lead to 'easier transmission of A.I.D.S.', by which again, presumably you mean H.I.V. ?

Of course it doesn't, but you'll probably say that female homosexuality is 'different' from male homosexuality or some such other feeble get out.

Who's getting bent out of shape?

I'd say the people whose language is clearly loaded with prejudice from word one.

Is there a difference between H.I.V. and A.I.D.S. ?
Why, so there is.

http://www.aids-india.org/faq1.htm

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, they aren't the only ones, but nowhere do I say that.

All I'm saying is that they have a higher incidence rate.

So what... the simple fact is that AIDs is not restricted to homosexuals, so to base your argument of public safety on it doesn't work.

I would think it would matter whether one gives or recieves.

And this has what to do with the topic?

Who cares about me?

I want to hear what you find compelling.

Then I will repeat it one more time since you don't seem to be getting the message. I don't find any compelling argument against it. And you have proven none against it as well... you talk about aids and public safety, but you have proven nothing. There is NO REASON why it should be illegal. Is that clear enough for you. Now... You give a REAL and PROVEN reason why it should be.

And why not do the same with drugs?

Drugs are illegal and have been proven to have a negative effect. There is no NEGATIVE effect of homosexuality beyond being a sin for some religions.

That brings us back to my first point, of what people consider to be a compelling public interest.

In circles again... I have stated that there is NO compelling public interest reason to not allow it. Your ONLY compelling public interest is a lame aids argument and the fact you personally think it's wrong.

Your religion, and not mine.

Ahhhh... but religion is religion... right. A far better statement than you trying to relate drug users with homosexuals. So my point is... sexually abusive priests have as little to do with this discussion as your point about comparing this to drug use.

One last time... what is your compelling reason that this is against the public interest. I've stated that there is no reason. I've answered your question. Now you answer mine with something you can actually prove beyond it's a sin or against your personal beliefs.

Frankly... it's against my personal beliefs as well... and is not something I would consider... but that doesn't mean I'm going to cram my beliefs down other peoples throats. I have many gay friends, and it sickens me that they get treated like they do. It's their lives... and they deserve the same happiness any other couple has. And I will fight for their right to have it. If there is a god... and he/she feels it's wrong or a sin... he can judge. It's not my place to judge... and neither is it yours.