First Darwin and then Homos? Never!

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
One can be homosexual without being arrested.

I don't see why we ought to endorse the behaviour through marriage.

And why not? simply because you think it's a sin?

Again... how about some real reasons besides your own personal opinion. You haven't come up with any yet..

[Elok]

I'm not talking legally; as I said before, I think civil marriage is a daft idea to begin with. I am just delivering personal advice, that if they haven't listened to you the first thirty times you said it, they aren't going to listen on the thirty-first. Especially as you haven't given any valid arguments I can find. AIDS is marginally more widespread among gays, yes, but that is due to the fact that, I think, it started in the gay community. It's not like being gay spreads it faster or something. If you're promiscuously gay, then you're especially vulnerable, but if you're promiscuous and straight the only difference in odds would be caused by the aforementioned greater prevalence among gays.

Black people have a higher risk of heart disease than whites. Interracial marriage therefore increases the percentage of the population that is likely to have a coronary. That doesn't mean it should be forbidden by law, does it?

Even better example: alcohol. If there weren't any alcohol, the country would be much safer. Unfortunately, prohibition has been shown to be unenforceable, and alcohol is in fact beneficial in small quantities. There's a certain point at which you have to let the big boys decide what's good for them on their own.

[Q Classic]

i think that oregon county has it right. since so few heterosexuals seem to be able to actually honor marriage, and we of course don't want to kick an institution while it's down, it only makes sense to take it away entirely and put it into a "lockbox" until people can actually respect it once again.

time out, i suppose. maybe for a period of fifty years.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Again, we already have this Elok.

One can be homosexual without being arrested.

I don't see why we ought to endorse the behaviour through marriage.

Please refresh your memory on the topic of this thread, which is very much about legal prohibitions against homosexuals, which you've defended.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ming
Again... how about some real reasons besides your own personal opinion. You haven't come up with any yet..

Since you are the one wanting to change things, shouldn't it be you who comes up with a real reason?

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Fair enough. Why should I expect someone to read my posts for what they say, and not for the strawmen they wish to knock down?

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

The two do not equate with each other. You saying so, does not make it so. All I said is that it is easier, through gay sex to contract 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....

I have no problem with gay folks who choose to abstain. I believe that to be an honourable course that ought to be encouraged.

Glad to see that you are touting the health benefits of abstinence.

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.

Of course, but that neglects the real point at hand.

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.

Why should they be the same? You folks admit differences yourselves between the relationships, and distinguish between lesbians and gays.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with your own literature.

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

That's also the same view held by the folks in Africa that reject treatment for AIDS.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Higher incidence argues against you here Ming. Ignoring the point won't make it go away.

And this has what to do with the topic?

Alternative explanation for why we see a higher incidence of AIDS among gay men, then for any other group, beyond promiscuity.

I don't find any compelling argument against it.

So you have no compelling reason to endorse gay marriage. Glad to hear that Ming.

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.

Are you taking into account my earlier argument about a higher incidence of AIDS and other stds? I would think that has a larger factor.

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.

Thank you.

Though you refuse to state, it is clear that IF I can show you that homosexuality causes harms to the participants similar to those of drug abuse, then I would have shown a compelling public interest.

I have many gay friends, and it sickens me that they get treated like they do.

How are they maligned?

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.

Outside the church yes, I agree with you here. However, I am trying to steer the argument away from religion even as you bring Catholic priests in the debate.

[Ben Kenobi]

which is very much about legal prohibitions against homosexuals, which you've defended.

No I haven't.

You are buying into the argument that just because one can show a compelling public interests, means we ought to have a ban.

I've been trying to draw this point out since my first post in the thread, that there may be some very good reasons why not.

Oddly, no one can seem to find this point.

[Ben Kenobi]

Especially as you haven't given any valid arguments I can find.

On which point?

Why it would be a compelling public interest to protect homosexuals from injuring themselves?

or

Why one ought not to endorse gay marriage?

I think I've given points for both.

[chequita guevara]

I hate you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Drug use is not a victimless crime. Drug users commit all kinds of crimes, especially against members of their own families.

But not all of them do so.

Why should those who can't handle their liquor be forced to abide by the same regulations as those who can?

[Gibsie]

I'm sure religion has caused much more harm to society than homosexuality ever has.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Since you are the one wanting to change things, shouldn't it be you who comes up with a real reason?

sigh... I've stated my reasons repeatedly. For the record, it is simple discrimination not to allow homosexuals to be legally married. The opposing point of view has been based on aids... and that it will distroy marriage... neither point which is valid.

Homosexuals couples need the same protection of he law as heterosexual couples. There is no valid reason to deny them of this legal protection. To deny them this is just discrimination which is illegal under the laws of the land. Interacial marriages were considered illegal in the past, and that changed as people woke up realized how wrong it was for it to be illegal. The same situation exists now for homosexuals. It's time to treat them equally in the eyes of the law.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Outside the church yes, I agree with you here. However, I am trying to steer the argument away from religion even as you bring Catholic priests in the debate.

Thank you... if you don't want to bring religion into, then don't. Then you agree that the State should be allowed to marry gay couples... as long as churches don't have to.

Then it doesn't effect you in any way, and everybody gets what they want. Thank you for finally agreeing that the state should be allowed to perform marriages.

And I will stop mentioning priests when you stop mentioning drug use. Neither have ANYTHING to do with this discussion.
Fair?

[Arrian]

The burden of providing a reason for a change is certainly on those who want to make a change.

The trouble, young jedi, is that those of us in favor of gay marriage have repeatedly stated our reasons for it, in other threads, and you have read those reasons. I know, because I've seen you reply to them.

Yet you are stooping to things like this:

So you have no compelling reason to endorse gay marriage. Glad to hear that Ming.

You're grasping at straws.

-Arrian