On a similar note, is it still illegal to burn the US flag?

Why should anyone care? I certainly don't.

I might think it's a big gross in a restaurant in some situations, but then again, I've seen people doing gross things in restaurants with their clothes on.



May as well, they're already having sex anyway. Besides, where does the age of 18 come from anyway? What happens to a person at the age of 18 that all-of-a-sudden makes them responsible?

I've known 14-year-old people who were more responsible than people I've known who were twice that age or even older.



If he wants to why not? If he's planning on having sex with it he's probably already doing it behind the barn doors right now anyway.

People should be able to do whatever they want, no matter how "immoral" others might judge their actions to be. The bottom line for government should only be concerned with the protection of others, not the enforcement of morals.

In fact, if old McDonald wants to marry his donkey the animal rights activists might want to make sure the donkey has given his or her consent.

We can't have old McDonald marrying a donkey that isn't interested in marrying him.

I'd rather see people peacefully burning a flag in protest, then to see them blowing up Federal Buildings out of pure frustration.

At least if they are burning the flag we can ask them why they are so upset, and talk about it.

I have no problem with anyone who expresses views, opinions, and even suggests laws based on their own 'moral' or 'ethical' values.

Where I have a problem is with those people who demand that it's not their views, but God's. And they claim to be standing on "higher moral ground" because they are merely supporting "God's views".



No, I get them from my own life's experiences. And they are open to change. I change my mind from time to time based on new information and insight.

Having said that, there was a time when I was opposed to "Gay Rights", in general and "Gay Marriage" specifically.

I'm not gay. And to be perfectly honest about it I'm not thrilled by the thought of having a lot of gay people living around me, especially if they are flaunting their sexuality openly.

However, I have come to realize that there are sincere gay people. People who genuinely are attracted to their own gender and want to have a genuinely loving relationship.

So I thought about it long and hard. In truth the main thing that I truly don't like about "gay lifestyles" is usually associated with the obnoxious sexual perverts. But then I thought about this more and realize that there are also quite many heterosexual obnoxious sexual perverts around too.

So what am I truly against? Gay rights? Or obnoxious sexual behavior? Well, it soon became clear to me that it's the latter. And the latter is already often against the law, or at least socially frowned upon in general anyway.

So then I realized that the "Gay rights" issues truly can't be viewed as "obnoxious sexual behavior". That's unfair to the sincere and genuine gay people.

It's just as unfair to them as it would be to make sex and marriage illegal for everyone just because there are a lot of heterosexual perverts out there too!

The bottom line in all of these is that we can't force people to behave the way we want them to behave just because we're uncomfortable with that behavior. That's simply not the purpose of the laws.

Laws should never be made based on questions of morality, or what I would personally prefer. That's the wrong reason for making a law.

Laws should only be made to protect the innocent from harm. So then the question becomes, "Do we need to make homosexuality illegal to protect people who are not homosexual?" The answer should be a clear, NO.

In my value system I place human rights above all else. And if two humans are in love with each other then they should have the right to live together as a couple with just as much respect as anyone else.

I can't contribute to making laws that deny human rights just because I personally might associate homosexually with sexual perversion. That's just not a good enough reason to push that into law. That would be extremely arrogant of me to do that. So this is why I have decided to support human rights and FREEDOM above my own personal prejudices or desires.

It's just not the purpose of the government to push my prejudices and desires onto other people via the laws.

That's not the purpose of the laws.

Personal opinion is simply a matter of opening our mouth and emptying our brain,no thought process required.

However, actions and opinions have effects on the people and envrionment around us. So its important they should be a reflection of the ethical or moral values of the the individual.

Can opinion be wrong? Yes, that is why we debate. Often opinion is wrong becasue we lack knowledge that is relavent to how we form opinion and take action.

Is there some loss of dignity or respect if an opinion is swayed or changes - NO. In fact changing is not a bad thing if that change reflects greater knowlege and deeper understanding.

So if you want to try to sway my opinion or persuade me to change a point of view - go right ahead.

But I'm not going to play a game with you. If you have an issue to debate, I expect your responces to be legitimate reflections of your views.

Well, it is the proper way to destroy it.

Actually, burning the flag in protest, is a legitimate action related to freedom of speech.

Is burning a cross illegal?

A very nice progression of thought.

I am gay and years ago I thought it was rediculous to consider same-sex marriage.

My first responce to the idea was "are they nuts, do they have ANY clue about the red tape they want to be tied up in?" I also thought that marriage was a damn gimmick proposed by governments to keep track of people and make them responsible for each against their will. I felt that marriage was a way to keep roles model perspective clearly in the social eye. Another way to subordinate women and children to lower class status.

It took a couple years, a lot of discussions and scads of research. But even that wasn't quite enough, becasue I had not even questioned my own ethical values.

Still a lot of refining left to do, but getting started was the most difficult. Now I consider changes in my point of view to be moments of success because I know I've learned a lot in the process.

I was trying to sway your opinion with those 3 examples. I tried to think of some that would offend you, some that would require an emotional judgement.
If public nudity or a 14 year old having sex with a 50 year old doesn't offend you, would a 12 year old cause you to object?

Never thought I would read someone in here supporting sex between a 14 year old and a adult.

Keep posting those rants about those Catholic priests having sex with 14 year olds and how they are so awful.

Nice double standard.

Oh,I see.
To be quite honest, if I read a report about a 50 yr old man having sex with any minor, my first thought would be curiosity about the man. What would make a 50 yr old man think sex with a 12/14/16 year old sound like a good idea?

Does it offend my sensibility to consider such a thing, (minors having sex) of course it does, but in the past it was not considered all that unusual for girls of 14 to be married and have children by the time they were 16 or 18. Although, I thing the age differential was not that great. Do I want to see a return to that, no I don't. But there still exit tribes of people today for whom it works.

Public nudity? The first thing that popped into my head was - that could make life hell for young people with little resistance to peer pressure.

But my next thought is little more serious though - would I want to sit in chair that some nude guy with a dapple hanger just stood up from??? Which led me to consider, it's hard enough to tell someone they have snot hanging from their nose or spinich in their teeth, how can you be polite when trying to tell someone they didn't wipe very well?

Which leads me to question how sanitary would it be to allow public nudity? Not a good idea, but I have absolutely no qualms with nude beaches - but if it's a requirement, I'm not going.

no, unless it isnt your property,,lol

There is no duality, I dont feel sex should be litigated at all. IT should not be either a crime or a legally upheld activity. Sex is understood to be a part of marriage, even though we can always find the exceptions to argue any point for the sake of argument.

Marriage is significant because the bond of male and female is what CREATES life. Not all marriages have this result, but promoting the foundation is hardly something anyone could argue AGAINST. IT is the one bond which we ALL had to come from.

on the other hand, the male male , female female bond has plenty of arguments against it, namely how much more LIKELY those activites are to cause physical illnesses , physical SPREADABLE diseases. THe facts show over the years those numbers have increased. BUt of course there is no absolute way to say that is the only reason

likewise there is no absolute way to say why incestuous couples might have children with issues, except the evidence about RECESSIVE traits , which , if it is the only PROVABLE argument would also argue against ANY couples where recessive genes are present.

THere are just as many arguably RISKY results that come from incest as that come from homosexual sex. IT is all subjective to the reader and what things they consider risky. IT is also subjective to how well the reader can break down any argument into ALL possible variables to diminish the original variable being discussed.

I have no more or less logic than anyone else who opposes or supports homosexual sex. I support people having the RIGHT to have whatever sex they want. I dont support the legal upholding of all such sexual arrangements though , anymore than I support legal criminilization of such sexual arrangements.

WHy keep marriage uniquely between male and female? Because it is UNIQUELY that sexual bond which is REQUIRED for any of us to be here and therefore for community to exist outside of family.

This is what I would expect most people to say, only because of what I perceive as the "norm".

But why would it offend your sensibility? Is this something you have a logical reason to be offended by? Or is it simply a matter of preference?

The scenario put forth was 14 year olds having sex with each other. And besides, to say 14 versus an adult is a bit ambiguous and a play on words really, because that could be a 14 year old and an 18 year old.

I'm not even keen on 18 year olds having sex with 40 year old people, yet that is quite legal. I'm 61 and legally I could have sex with a consenting 18 year old, or even marry her if she wanted to marry, and that would be perfectly legal.



That has nothing at all to do with age, IMHO. It has to do entirely with false pretenses and non-consensual activity. As a young boy a gay preacher once attempted to get sexual with me (I only discovered later that he had a reputation for trying to get sexual with the young boys). Fortunately for me, I was wise enough at the time not to trust preachers.



There's not double standard here at all. I'm concerned totally with consent. The only reason that it's illegal for people under 18 to have sex in our society is because they are supposedly not mature enough to yet make a responsible decision and thus guarantee that they are truly giving their consent with a full understanding of the consequences of their actions.

That's really the only reason.

It has nothing to do with age really. We just had to draw a line somewhere between what we consider to be 'mature' enough to give fully knowledgeable consent, versus being so immature as to be naive.

We drew the line at 18 years of age. But that line is arbitrary. As I've said before some 14 year old people are actually wiser and more responsible that some 18 year old people. But since we can't make laws that allow for individual maturity we just us age to draw a line because it's simpler (not wiser).

So the real question isn't one of age, but of mental maturity.

And in our society we can clearly see that many people who are well over the age of 18 are actually quite immature. So age is truly an artificial boundary that is just convenient for making laws.

Good or Bad.

Which is it?

Nevertheless YOU must choose.
Choose wisely.
Decide swiftly.
Try not to make a serious mistake.
There are always consequences.





Such is judgement.

Keep posting those rants about those Catholic priests having sex with 14 year olds and how they are so awful.


By the way, I'm not the one who rants on this. I very seldom bring it up. I'm fully aware that Catholic Priests having sex with young boys isn't part of the religion.

But I think it does help to show how utterly useless the religion is as a whole since even the most devote participants in the religion can't even behave themselves morally.

It's a blatant example of how religion truly has very little effect on how people actually behave.

very wise,,,

I want to respond respectfully because you are persistent, in a debate, and that means I have more time to understand and learn from your position.

I’m sure I have made the error – more than once – of jumping into the debate before making sure I have really grasped your position. So I try to offer counter articles of debate in the hopes of gaining better perspective from the replies. At least one other person has interpreted my style as argumentative and as attack. My frustration may have made me careless with words so you may have perceived them in the same way

I will try to do better because your position, in this particular debate is important is important to me, as it is representative of others who have made similar statements to your own.



The conclusion from your statement: “I dont feel sex should be litigated at all.”

Would be that you don’t think sex with minors involved, or coerced as with some cases of incest, or with a person not mentally capable of understanding the proposition, should not be a matter for litigation.

You have strong values and strong opinions about right and wrong, so I have to assume what you meant is that
…”sex between consenting adults of sound mind should not be litigated”

Going on that premise and with the understanding that sex is inherently a part of marriage, and the marriage contract, then gays and lesbians meet the qualification of sex in marriage.

So this would be a non-issue with you – have I read you comment correctly?




I would like to re-word your statement, please tell me if any of them is equivalent to the original statement or what makes the reworded statement different than the original.

Please read them carefully, because every word in such statement holds meaning.

Since life is only created by the male / female bond, only
opposite-sex couples who are bonded should be allowed to marry.

Since life is only created by the male & female bond, and
marriage is an institution created for raising children only
those male & female couples who are married can raise children.

Since marriage is the most ideal situation in which to raise
children, then only couples that have the potential of creating
children should be allowed to marry.

The bond that forms between a male and female who have the
potential of creating life, is more significant to marriage than
any other, therefore only male & female couples should be
allowed to marry regardless of any other reason a couple would
like to be married.





I’m hoping your reply sentances above will help clarify this statement for me. If not, I may return to it. thanks.




I will agree that in comparison to similar heterosexual groups, there is a higher incidence of STD’s, gastrointestinal infections, hepatocellular, & anal cancer related to oral-anal or oral-genital and receptive sexual intercourse.

And likewise with lesbians, there are high rates of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer.

I am also willing to mention that there are higher rates of alcoholism and substance abuse, depression, suicide, and cardiovascular disease.

In the LGBT community merely stating these as ‘stand-alone’ facts in any public forum, as a reason to discourage homosexuality, is highly offensive.

I would hope that you would be curious about why the truth is so offensive. Especially in light of the fact that I am well aware of the issues and freely admit they have been known to be true.

Of course I could make the mistake (and I may have in the past) of assuming you understand WHY such stand-alone statements are so offensive.

But if you don’t ask me why they are so offensive, I can only ‘assume’ you understand why and that it is your purpose to openly promote discrimination.



First, in the case of incest - genetics if far from the only argument.

EVERYONE has recessive genes but when the gene pool is broadly diversified the odds of the SAME two recessive genes is very rare. Many of these inherited diseases are known to exist in a specific gene pool, for example Tay-Sachs disease is most prevalent in people of Ashkenazi (eastern and central European) Jewish heritage. So in the diverse ethnicity of US it’s rare that two people of this same heritage who have both received the same order of recessive genes from on of their parents is even more rare – but it happens.

Now for the problem of incest. There is little diversity in the gene pool- and the closer the degree of relatedness the less diversity exists. In the case of siblings or parent, child the egg and the sperm have the same two genetic strands thereby creating a 40% greater opportunity of any one of the existing recessive or dysfunctional genes that exist on BOTH strands to come together and cause severe problems for the baby.

As you say, there is no certainty but the percentage is great enough to warrant concern – don’t you think?

But whether you do or not – marriage and incest are incompatible, incest occurs within a family – marriage occurs to unite a family. A brother and sister do not need marriage to be part of the same family.

Which actually highlights another essential quality of marriage. Marriage unites two people and their individual families to strengthen social bonds and create a more extensive safety net.

Would you agree that with that as being an essential quality of marriage?



Well , here is where I’m not sure your logic and mine are similar. For example

We don’t seem to be making the same logical connections. To me – we should be connecting the “arguably risky results of incest and those of homosexual sex to marriage – as marriage is the category we are tying to define.
So how do the ‘possible risky results’ of either case relate to marriage?

Example: What is essence of marriage and how do sibling relationships fit in with that essence?
Likewise, how do homosexual relationships fit in with that essence?

So far in this post: (without you’re your approval yet) we have two defining characteristics of marriage.


1. sex is inherently a part of marriage, and (if not otherwise illegal, like incest) can occur between consenting adults of sound mind without litigation.

2.Marriage unites two people and their individual families to strengthen social bonds and create a more extensive safety net.


If we agreed on those two points – then same-sex couples would be included in what the essence of marriage is (so far)
Since marriage is a commitment to a monogamous relationship, the incident of risky outcomes should decline.

BUT – in the case of incest, there is still the law which prohibits that kind of sex. But if there was not, then sibling couples could marry under definition one. HOWEVER, they would not be uniting two individual families and broadening the social bonds or safety net defined in number 2.

Now if we decide on the another definition from the "reworded statement" area mentioned above, we might be able to exclude or include siblings based on how we were to define ‘potential for creating life’.

That’s a long example but I was trying be specific.



I realize you are summarizing your thesis in the above quote, but you have made it entirely too broad. Because some 40% of all the children born in the last few years have not been born in the ‘bonds of marriage’.

So if there is anything unique about marriage it is NOT that it is required for any of us to be here. NOT ARGUING, just pointing out a flaw you might want to correct.

No it's not a matter of preference it's a matter of how gender and roles have evolved. At a time when having only an 8th grade education was normal and most poeple were farmers, children moved into adult roles much sooner. When women were helping in the fields 6 & 7 year olds were babysitting their little brothers and sisters. By the time a young girl was 10 she knew more about babies, birthing and survival than a lot of young adult women do today.

Even into the late 19th and early 20th century there was little room in the 'role' of women for education and not much more for the vast majority of men. Again thier childhood was very short as kids were often required to take on huge responsibities very young.

Even into the 1970's the roles had not changed much, and most men were able to go to work and make a living. What HAD changed was child labor laws and a vast public school system....

This is getting longer than I wanted and it doesn't even begin to put dent in the reasoning. But at least it's enough to let you know there is REASON behind the reply I made, not just an gut responce.