What should scare you the most is ANYONE being denied the same equal protection and benefit of the law, because if someone is being denied those rights, your rights are in danger.

That's why the issue of same-sex marriage is so important and difficult for people to consider, and why the courts are involved.

So far there is literally nothing to indicate that same sex marriage could be harmful to poeple outside the couple being married.

You have made another blatantly erroneous argument here, thomas.

you said, and I quote you in bold and italics,

brpopulation as having at least one incest experience, with less than 2% involving intercourse or attempted intercourse.[5] Among women, research by Russell (1986) and Wyatt (1985) has yielded estimates as high as twenty percent.[4]


With those facts know we can assume if gay marriage was thrown out because of morality issues you would have nothing to prevent people from marrying family members.

This is a wrong conclusion. In effect you are saying that if we disallowed gay marriages, then family members could all marry each other.

Well. You say there somewhere, Among women ... estimates as high as twenty percent [were insestuous]. So these marriages would be okay, since they are only incestuous.

But they are NOT only incestuous. If of men 2% were involved in incestuous relationships, attempted or fully realized, then of the 20% of women who were involved in incestuous relationships, a staggering 18% were involved in homosexual (female homosexual) incestuous relationships.

You see, when there are no men involved in an incestuous relationship, then it's absolutely necessarily between females.

Your argument is false, because you approve, in effect, of incestuous relationships on moral grounds, but inadvertently you therefore approve of 90% (18 out of 20 instances, on the average) of these incestuous relationships to be marriages in which both partners are of the same sex.

----------

You need to learn how to read numbers, then you shall become already a better presenter of arguments, and I encourage you to do that.

And which those behaviors does NOT occur between heterosexuals?

Miles, we get into trouble becasue we don't prepare for the REAL world. We may WANT the world around us to be a certain way, but it is not.

Do you understand the history behind common law marriage in this country? It was created because there might be only one justice of the peace traveling between hundreds of miles via horse power and people did not want to WAIT a year or three or four to have sex, so if they lived together and a child came into the world the 'common law' said they were married. They didn't even have to make it more legal than that.

People are not going to wait for marriage to have sex. In fact, the majority of women are putting off having children and even getting married until they are in thier thirties - do you really think they are not having sex?

Age does not necessarily make you smarter - education and knowledge makes you smarter. Do you know what HPV is? It's a sexually transmitted virus that cause cervix cancer and genital warts in men. In the U.S. 10,000 young women are diagnosed with it and 4,000 die each year. Do you know there is vaccination for it?

Would you deny that protection or knowledge of it to any 15 or 16 year old just becasue you think they should wait until they are married? The Mayo clinic is actually suggesting that young girls receive this vaccination as early as 12 years of age.

And from the CDC there is this:



Everyone should make note of two things here. The majority of persons with HIV infection DO NOT transmit HIV to others. AND that improved tesing & treatments keep the annual rate of new infetions from increasing.

All of these things depend on 'education' or acknowledging WHAT IS REAL and not just what you thing real should be.

When high schoolers are taught about safe sex we absolutely should be teaching to all the students hetero & homosexual and if that's offensive to you, imagine how offensivie it would be if you were the parent of a 21 year old homosexual son who was diagnosed with HIV because the school only targeted heterosexuals avoidance.

This is all part of the disparity that occurs because of the discrimination of homosexuals.

And in several other threads I have offered other references and I was met with the same responces we get here,
not trusting the sources, not believing the research, or why this research is considered but this opposing reasearch (by Cameron and the likes ) are not considered.

Apparently there is not enough interest in trying to increase knowledge, there seems to be more interest in confirming one's bias.

That is the danger religion poses to society; sometimes in order to keep it, individuals must close their mind to other sources of knowledge.

I'm sorry Miles, I don't understand what you are saying. (except for the pun - I got that, haha)

I'm in on this thing, I live it every day, I read about it from all sides, every angle every day. I lobby my representitives, I have even written letters to the Supreme Court Justices (never answered of course). I have been aware of this issue for 26 years and I have been ivolved for the last 12 years. That's a lot of sessions of Congress, more than a few Presidents, and a lot of media.

Who exactly do you think is behind this move to divide society? I can tell you, THAT has NEVER been the goal of those I work with. Our mission is to become an equitable, responsible, accepted, and valued part of society.

So where is the division idea coming from?

I am confident that you understood exactly why I chose to focus upon the personal justification, and in doing so subsequently chose to be very generous in granting that nearly all of evidence brought forth was true - because it doesn't matter.

The arguments still fail to justify the discrimination.

I do find it rather ironic that some act as if being biased for equal affordances of rights/priveleges to all people is somehow wrong.



Know whatta mean?

who is not afforded equal protection...siblings? minors?,,,,there are requirements for marriage, this doesnt equate to an equal rights issue for me

but homosexuals DONT have heterosexual relations,, unless they are bisexual



there are all types of preferences and fetishes adults have sexually, regardless of sexual orientation, but we cannot litigate sexual preferences when people consent,,,

its not about condemning certain behavior so much as it is choosing behaviors to PROMOTE,,,heterosexuals might have homosexual type sex but a significant FACTOR in their being labeled HETERO is that they are MOSTLY not doing such things, they are MOSTLY attracted to heterosexual behavior

what we CAN do is choose to promote certain preferences and not others,,,,,promoting heterosexual relations has a legitimate and substantial purpose,,,,,there is no need to promote any and all other kinds of sexual relations

The division comes from all the Press certain things get.

The sexual nature of the country is to teach division and Hatred.

Why do you think all of a sudden at the same time Homosexual issues come into focus that Sex offenders are all over the news also?

Bait and switch. on one hand those who go against the homosexual lifestyle are Bigots and Haters.. This is an Attack on the morals of the history of the church.

Then at the same time we have a Villian,.. The sex offender who our Govt. preachs legalized Hate. No more Hate than thier Red. nomatter what you think of them.

They lie with stastics and use Hollywood for thier agenda parading around children trying to make them think thier is a Boogie man on every corner.

You know when the last time a Govt. promoted legalized hate and told the people to spy on a certain people?

It was Hitler. Exactly the same tactics as he was proposing a Supreme Race. Some people do not deserve to live.. Does that rederic sound familiar?

With the religious people or the old school you might say religious movement at odds with the Homosexual and what happens?

War a Lieing war that killed and is still killing thousands and blaming Religious zealots for our Attack.

Many do not believe it but do you know why we could not get a Coalition to go to war with us against Irack this time like we did in Desert Storm?

France got experts the ones who actually designed the world trade Center and the film on the pentegon and made a Documentary in 2002 and showed it on European Television that by thier experts showed we killed our own people.

Now I know people will thin k i am crazy but I am stating facts of what happened.

What did we do?

We made fun of France.. Remember the French Fry Jokes.

Remember Colin Powell going Before the United Nations saying they had absolute Proof from 2 expert chemists defectors.

ABC did a special on these 2 defectors years later and they had to run for thier lives and thier families did to because of this lie.

Colin Powell did not like what they had to say that they knew of no chemicals being produced for warfare so he made it up.

Do you see him being held accountable?

Do you know that President Bushs father who is on the board of the Federal Reserve who is the agency that loans money to banks at 1 dollar for 10?

What does that mean? that when you see something is Federally insured that is saying when the banks loan money they are allowed to loan on Paper 10x the amount they actually have on hand. Thats why they are always worried about a run on the banks.

What the heck does all this have to do with the subject matter?

Its like i said we can not see the trees for the Forest.

When congress handed out 787+ billion to the banks to bail them out they were not bailing out the banks.

The banks are insured by the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve borrows its money from many countries that are communists and Arab.

Some of the biggestest investors are 12 of the Richests families in America.

Now very little was ever said but when this Bail out was going on a The New York Times

reporter did some checking on the federal reserves books.

What did he find out?

Thier was 2 Trillion dollars unaccounted for. So he filed for the books under the freedom of Information act. They refused.

So he Filed in The Federal Courts for them and won. The Federal court served a supena to the Federal Reserve.

Thier answer?

Excutive Privilage.. No way was anyone seeing thier books who really is who we gave all the bailout money to that was insuring the banks against Bad Loans.

Remember when Bush and cheney was to turn over documents to the senate Means committee.

What did they say?

Exucutive privelege and they got by with it but President Clinton gets a BJ by an intern and they want to impeach him when the country was in the best shape it had been in for decades.

The big 3 auto manufactures wanted 25 Billion in loans to keep 2 million families at work.

&87 Billion was no problem for the rich but 25 for the working class was outrages.

WE just saw it again in Dec. 700+ Billion for the rich or Millions of People will go without.

We are fed by the news what they want.

We argue on here about religious Bigots and Homosexuals and everything else and forget where all this Hatred comes from.

Our Leadership.. The people follow what the top tells us.

In the 90's Hollywood put out wilol and Grace made the Gays Cool and those who apposed Bigots. A well thoughtout show.

They feed us deception and we argue about stuff when behind the scenes they are getting ready for something BIG.

You look at the History of Germany before they broke out into WW@ and then look at us and thier not much difference. The play is the same just with differnt actors and different words.

Then we fight each other while they kick back and make us to where we will not beable to have a Voice because we will not have the money to fight them and without it they can make the laws say whatever they want them to say when they want to.

If you have been petitioning Capital Hill then you should know this is true. No money no voice thats the Real world we live in.

Our struggles for equality is a misdirection to take all our rights away . EVERYONes but The ELITE CLASS/.. Blessings. of Shalom and May Yahweh have Mercy on us ALL....Miles

You missed the point Ms...

Anal sex is necessarily included in heterosexual sex too... unprotected or not. Unprotected sex spreads HIV - not homosexual behavior. THAT is the point.

that is A point, it wasnt my point however

my point is how much RISKIER it is to have anal sex,,,,and how such a practice need not be promoted or encouraged by the government



its kind of like weed, if people want to do it , they shouldnt go to jail,, but the government need not be in the business of promoting its use either,,,

IOW...

If the argument is that not promoting gay lifestyle will stop the transmission of HIV, it is wrong on all accounts. It is equally wrong to assume that only gays take risks in their sexual practices. We could hypothetically remove all gays from society, and AIDS would still spread as long as people with HIV were having unprotected sex.

Exactly how does the above justify discriminating against gays in manner that we all agree is being done, but disagree on whether or not it is a justified discrimination?

Wux, take your own advice and learn how to read numbers as well as words.

First, Thomas has said he doesn't approve of incest.
Second, there was a punctuation mark between his sentences, it's called a PERIOD!

Pevalence is difficult to generalize, but research has estimated 10-15% of the general population as having at least one incest experience, with less than 2% involving intercourse or attempted intercourse. <<<(PERIOD HERE!!!) [5] Among women, research by Russell (1986) and Wyatt (1985) has yielded estimates as high as twenty percent.[4] <<<This shows a different study, SHEESH!


some people are just too damn funny!

So you are for incestuous and mentally challenged marriage now?

You did say "all people"...

Or will you show your hypocrisy by refuting your above claim?

RELIGIOUS!!!

Red, it was you who acknowledged awhile back in the thread about "gay bashing" (suicides?), that there are health and psycological risks involved with being homosexual.

I think I've provided ample proof of the bias of you, the study you posted (you claimed studies) and the APA.

Fact is, I've lived with this issue for 32 years dealing with homosexuals, and 38 years dealing with interacial marriages. You have no grounds to say my opinions are based on religion. One of the biggest racists I've met was my maternal grandmother, I've been debating these types of issues since I was 4 years old.

People like to claim that homosexuality is genetic, well then, why aren't all identical twins either homosexual or heterosexual?

What do you have to say about the study I posted? (and no, I didn't link to Cameron till later)
What percentage of your children are homosexual? Do you deny thefacts in the study? (you don't have to answer, but I do remember you revealed your facts earlier)

that is not the argument, as HIV is not the only risk of anal sex, a completely UNNECESSARY activity(unlike heterosexual sex)


of course HIV will be there (at this point) with or without homosexual activity, but so what


not promoting incest does not STOP incest either, but it still has nothing to do with the importance of refusing to do so,,,

discriminating against gays would be making gay relations illegal, which I would also oppose

what I am debating is that gay lifestyles need not be discriminated or promoted, but left as they are