First Darwin and then Homos? Never!

[Arrian]

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

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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.

No... you haven't. Please explain how not allowing gay marriages is a compelling public interest to protect homosexuals from injuring themselves. Again, AIDS knows no sexual preference. You argument that it is has a higher incidence amoung gays means nothing to this argument. It may mean that it is in the public interest to promote safe sex amoung homosexuals at a higher rate than heterosexual couples... but doesn't mean anything else.

And as to why one ought not to endorse gay marriages, you have offered up nothing but aids and public interest. both of which you can't support.

So again... why should it be illegal besides just your religious beliefs... because if that's all it is... let the state do their thing, and your religion can do what it wants... and everybody is treated fairly.

[chequita guevara]

Ben needs an eel up the poopshoot.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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.

It's not easier to contract HIV/AIDS through gay sex anymore than it is through straight sex.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
It's not easier to contract HIV/AIDS through gay sex anymore than it is through straight sex.

Anal sex has a substantially greater risk associated with transmission of HIV, but both groups engage in anal sex, though gay males are more likely to do so. Lesbians, however, have a much lower chance of contracting HIV.

The biggest risk fact in gettng HIV these days, however, is being Black. Ain't got nothing to do with being gay or straight.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
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.

Hey! I'm "young jedi"

(well... once I change my name back)

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Hey! I'm "young jedi"

(well... once I change my name back)

Dude, you're the one who went for the silly name change. Not my fault.

And Obi-Wan was once a young jedi (I was thinking of the atrocious "new" Star Wars films when I was posting, for some reason).

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Interesting.

One of the reasons for my nick, with my old avatar, is in the sense that I am the old in the young.

So while I am a young jedi, I feel quite old.

Will be back later.

[Boris Godunov]

Time for his metamucil, no doubt.

[Arrian]

Ok, true, when I normally think of Obi-Wan Kenobi, I think of Alec Guiness from the original.

Maybe it's the use of "Ben" instead of Obi-Wan? I dunno.

-Arrian

[Whaleboy]

I wont repeat myself too much:

Homosexuality is NOT harmful for general society and I do not know of any serious evidence, conceptual or canonical that opposes my view.

IF it was, I would still allow it because I am not a utilitarian, and believe in the individuals right to subjectively decide how to run their own lives, and furthermore, consequentialism shows ultimately that all is generally good. What makes a doctrine against homosexuality better than one that includes it? The problem is that our society is based upon the former doctrine, yet it is evolving, so we are left with a conflict of concepts here. I dare say that the weight of evidence is pro-homosexuality. Which is good for my libedo!

[Whaleboy]

As for the issue of sex, I dealt with that on the abstinence pledges thread.

[Arrian]

One of the reasons for my nick, with my old avatar, is in the sense that I am the old in the young.

So while I am a young jedi, I feel quite old.

Only the good die young

I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, the sinners are much more fun

Billy Joel - smart man. Got old, can't sing anymore, very sad.

-Arrian

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ming
For the record, it is simple discrimination not to allow homosexuals to be legally married.

Why? Why is it discrimination? Two best friends who are hetrosexual do not have the rights of a married couple - why do they need to be sleeping together to get them?

If you object to the concept of marriage, that is fair enough. I would be quite happy if we got rid of the tax breaks etc. But that is not what you are saying.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Why? Why is it discrimination? Two best friends who are hetrosexual do not have the rights of a married couple - why do they need to be sleeping together to get them?

Cuz they aren't trying to make a family.