[Y3a]

So gays are OK and fine upstanding law abiding folks huh??

BS

The catholic preists who have been preying on kids is a disgrace!
What other nonsense do they want us to believe?
It's deviant sick behavior and certianly NOT normal.
Perhaps thats why we've heard from the left sooo long about
not judging others as a precursor to this crap.

Gay Marriage...LOL

Rosie O'Doughnut's little comments show she's out of the mainstream too
- as in deviant...

[Captain Obvious]

I don't see how the two are related

[macvillage.net]

The point is that the Catholic church is so against Gay marriage.

But they don't seem to have much of a problem with homosexual child molestiation.

They just don't like adult men.




Kind of ironic if you think about it.

[IceBreaker]

The Catholic Church should once again allow their priests to marry.....at the very least members of the opposite sex...but their own sex as well.

They'd have alot less time on their hands for mischief would that be the case.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
The Catholic Church should once again allow their priests to marry.....at the very least members of the opposite sex...but their own sex as well.

They'd have alot less time on their hands for mischief would that be the case.

Yep. Most don't believe this. But this whole priest marry God thing is relatively new. Only a few hundred years. For most of history, they married, had kids, and held jobs in some cases.

Most Christian faiths still do. I think my this put it best. "One Pope couldn't get it up, so no more marriage".

Would also entice many more to become priests. If you could have a family, and do a mass or two a week, I think many more young men would consider it as a vocation. As it is, there's a priest shortage in the Catholic church. I know a few churches who share priests. 1 priest for a few churches... Not enough for more.

But hey... the church isn't to serve the people's.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
I don't see how the two are related

they aren't, except in a bizarre bigoted "anything I don't understand should be lumped together with horrible crimes" sort of way.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
The Catholic Church should once again allow their priests to marry.....at the very least members of the opposite sex...but their own sex as well.

They'd have alot less time on their hands for mischief would that be the case.

Many non-priest pedophiles are married.

not sure that solves the problem.

and I'm reasonably certain there is no connection between gays and pedophile priests.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Y3a:
So gays are OK and fine upstanding law abiding folks huh??

BS

The catholic preists who have been preying on kids is a disgrace!
What other nonsense do they want us to believe?
It's deviant sick behavior and certianly NOT normal.
Perhaps thats why we've heard from the left sooo long about
not judging others as a precursor to this crap.

Gay Marriage...LOL

Rosie O'Doughnut's little comments show she's out of the mainstream too
- as in deviant...

Ok, for the beginner: pedophile not equal to gay. And gay not equal to pedophile.
Got it?

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Y3a:
Rosie O'Doughnut's little comments show she's out of the mainstream too
- as in deviant...

You're a mac user - as in deviant...

[macvillage.net]

I think the point the original poster was trying to make was my first reply to this thread.

Just the irony of how different they treat two situations.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Y3a:
So gays are OK and fine upstanding law abiding folks huh??

BS

The catholic preists who have been preying on kids is a disgrace!
What other nonsense do they want us to believe?
It's deviant sick behavior and certianly NOT normal.
Perhaps thats why we've heard from the left sooo long about
not judging others as a precursor to this crap.

Gay Marriage...LOL

Rosie O'Doughnut's little comments show she's out of the mainstream too
- as in deviant...

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.a...7&nav=0Ra7L82e

All whites are murders and none are upstanding citizens. THat link proves it. /sarcasm

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/html/...3818BAC6.shtml

All blacks are murders and none are upstanding citizens. THat link proves it. /sarcasm

I could continue but hopefully my point came across clear enough.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Y3a:
So gays are OK and fine upstanding law abiding folks huh??

BS

The catholic preists who have been preying on kids is a disgrace!
What other nonsense do they want us to believe?
It's deviant sick behavior and certianly NOT normal.
Perhaps thats why we've heard from the left sooo long about
not judging others as a precursor to this crap.

Gay Marriage...LOL

Rosie O'Doughnut's little comments show she's out of the mainstream too
- as in deviant...

Some gays are not fine upstanding folks. Some priests are not fine upstanding folks.
Any other sweeping generalizations you would like to make?

In case you haven't read this yet.
"THE FINAL REPORT WILL BE PUBLISHED BY THE USCCB IN MARCH 2004.
SEE AFTERWORD.

The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States.
A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice."

"In June 2002 the full body of Catholic bishops of the United States in their General Meeting in Dallas approved the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. The Charter created a National Review Board, which was assigned responsibility to commission a descriptive study, with the full cooperation of the dioceses/eparchies, of the nature and scope of the problem of sexual abuse of minors by clergy. The National Review Board engaged the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York to conduct research, summarize the collected data and issue a summary report to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops of its findings. This report by the John Jay College is authorized for publication by the undersigned."

Msgr. William P. Fay
General Secretary
Link

[alphasubzero949]

News flash: all white people have trailer parks.

[Y3a]

You all missed the point... How deviant must behavior be before it is judgfed to be wrong?

homosexual behavior has impacted our health system and groups like act up seem to think they are somehow normal when obiously they are not, the catholic church has been impacted by the pedophile preists and the hierarchy has been covering it up to the detrement of their holdings and trust the followers had, and yet we are told by the 'mainstream press' and other leftists that we should not judge others...

It's time we do start judging others, as deviants, sicko's and such. 70 percent of the US voting population is against gay marriage anyway.

[Y3a]

<< Ok, for the beginner: pedophile not equal to gay. And gay not equal to pedophile.
Got it? >>

So If a man preys on a boy its' different than a man preying on another man??

OK tell us why, in your sick "everythings OK" logic...

It's what I've been saying.... How sick DOES IT HAVE TO BE before you get it??

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Y3a:
<< Ok, for the beginner: pedophile not equal to gay. And gay not equal to pedophile.
Got it? >>

So If a man preys on a boy its' different than a man preying on another man??

OK tell us why, in your sick "everythings OK" logic...

It's what I've been saying.... How sick DOES IT HAVE TO BE before you get it??

so...to extend your logic: when a male pedophile abuses a young girl that makes heterosexual intercourse sick and depraved?

[UNTeMac]

Please...don't feed the bigots.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Y3a:
<< Ok, for the beginner: pedophile not equal to gay. And gay not equal to pedophile.
Got it? >>

So If a man preys on a boy its' different than a man preying on another man??

OK tell us why, in your sick "everythings OK" logic...

It's what I've been saying.... How sick DOES IT HAVE TO BE before you get it??

Imagine yourself ****ing with a ten-year old (shudder). Imagine sleeping with someone from your age group.

It's the same if you are gay or hetero (like me).

PS Just a little terminology: gays usually don't prey each other.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Y3a:
<< Ok, for the beginner: pedophile not equal to gay. And gay not equal to pedophile.
Got it? >>

So If a man preys on a boy its' different than a man preying on another man??

OK tell us why, in your sick "everythings OK" logic...

It's what I've been saying.... How sick DOES IT HAVE TO BE before you get it??

Amen to that!

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Amen to that!

Another one? Mac users come in all kinds apparently.

[andi*pandi]

So the ignorant are OK and fine upstanding law abiding folks huh??

BS

The idiots who have been spewing bigotted garbage are a disgrace!!
What other nonsense do they want us to believe?
It's deviant sick behavior and certianly NOT normal.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Y3a:
You all missed the point... How deviant must behavior be before it is judgfed to be wrong?

homosexual behavior has impacted our health system and groups like act up seem to think they are somehow normal when obiously they are not, the catholic church has been impacted by the pedophile preists and the hierarchy has been covering it up to the detrement of their holdings and trust the followers had, and yet we are told by the 'mainstream press' and other leftists that we should not judge others...

It's time we do start judging others, as deviants, sicko's and such. 70 percent of the US voting population is against gay marriage anyway.

deviant? Do you know how many people use macs in the world? Do you know many pc users say mac sucks? by your logic using a mac is wrong.

What defines normal? You are so convinced that homosexuality is wrong and somehow not natural yet there is more and more proof that it is in fact a gene of some kind.


And lastly as others have said:


A male pedophile praying a young boy does not make him gay, being a pedophile means that you are attracted to children, it doesn't matter what the sexual orientation of the pedophile is or the gender of the child. I hate to brake it you but you accusations are baseless and appalling.

"Mental health professionals agree that pedophilia should never be considered normal, because it is truly a disease. None of the things that make homosexuality a normal variation of human sexuality apply to pedophilia."
- Martin Downs, WebMD Medical News

"There is no medical evidence to suggest an association between homosexuality and impaired moral judgment."
- Journal of the American Medical Association - Pediatric Forum, March 2001

"It is ludicrous to identify pedophiles as homosexuals."
- Stan Robson, Chief Deputy, Benton County Sheriffs Department
(In over 14 years of Robson's work with pedophiles, 498 out of 500 offenders identified themselves as heterosexual.)

"The vast majority of offenders are heterosexual men. Male offenders who abuse young boys maintain adult heterosexual relationships. The habitual molester of boys is rarely attracted to adult males."
- Roland Summit, M.D. Head Physician, Community Consultation Service, Harbor UCLA Medical Center.

"The belief that homosexuals are particularly attracted to children is completely unsupported by our data. The child offenders who engaged in adult relationships as well, were heterosexuals. There were no homosexual adult oriented offenders in our samples who turned to children."
- A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D., Director of the Sex Offender Program, Connecticut Department of Corrections, and Co-Director of the St. Joseph College Institute for the Treatment and Control of Child Sexual Abuse

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...estation.html, read that

Atleast if you are going to argue a topic, do some research so you don't look foolish.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Y3a:
You all missed the point... How deviant must behavior be before it is judgfed to be wrong?

So let me get this straight. Pedophilia is deviant. Homosexuality is deviant. All deviant behavior should be judged as wrong. Is that your case?

How deviant does something have to be? How about when it crosses the line of hurting another person against their will. That's where I draw the line. Pedophilia is hurting the child! I'd like you to find a child who was molested and ask him/her if he/she enjoyed it and encouraged it. Regular homosexual relationships are wanted and enjoyed by both parties.

And is the only deviation we should outlaw that of a sexual nature? Or should we ban all deviant behavior? I wear red socks with purple stripes. Should that be outlawed? How deviant does it have to be to be wrong?!

In short, nothing you have said makes any sense.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Y3a:
<< Ok, for the beginner: pedophile not equal to gay. And gay not equal to pedophile.
Got it? >>

So If a man preys on a boy its' different than a man preying on another man??

OK tell us why, in your sick "everythings OK" logic...

It's what I've been saying.... How sick DOES IT HAVE TO BE before you get it??

Are you attracted to 11 year old girls? 10, 9, 8 year olds? You're straight, you must want to bone some little girls 'cause they are all so tempting!

Get over yourself. Homosexual men don't want little boys any more than you want little girls.

[simonjames]

This topic makes me glad that the human race is not telepathic - imagine having to listen to some people's minds?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by simonjames:
This topic makes me glad that the human race is not telepathic - imagine having to listen to some people's minds?

I doubt there would be much to listen to in some cases.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Please...don't feed the bigots.

This idiot is just looking to stir up some trouble, so he has something to read and masturbate to.

IMHO that is pretty sick.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I doubt there would be much to listen to in some cases.

LOL

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Xeo:
So let me get this straight. Pedophilia is deviant. Homosexuality is deviant. All deviant behavior should be judged as wrong. Is that your case?

While I am not him, do you think deviant sexual behavior is a good thing? What about sodomy?

While I would never try to stop anyone from doing what they want to, nor should anyone. Free will and all. That doesn't mean I have to accept such acts as being normal and moral.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
While I am not him, do you think deviant sexual behavior is a good thing? What about sodomy?

While I would never try to stop anyone from doing what they want to, nor should anyone. Free will and all. That doesn't mean I have to accept such acts as being normal and moral.

What is immoral about anything two consenting adults practice in the privacy of their own home?

Why is normal good?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
What is immoral about anything two consenting adults practice in the privacy of their own home?

Some of us have higher standards of morality I guess.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


Some of us have higher standards of morality I guess. [/B]

the problem, actually, is that people have differing standards of morality.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


Some of us have higher standards of morality I guess. [/B]

To have "higher" standards of morality, you must have an agreed upon point of reference from which a scale of moral standards can spring which is why Lerk's post is dead on.

If you have a moral compuction with gay sex or even people being gay in general, that's fine and that's your opinion. Problem is, the constitution isn't concerned with morality, it's concerned with rights.

[Zimphire]

Right and we really do have equal rights.

I am not allowed to marry men either.

You want rights added to. No one in this country has the right to do what they want regardless of law.

Laws which are indeed based on moral beliefs.

You cannot separate the two.

Like I said, if this is allowed other laws need done away with too. Ones that are based on moral beliefs. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

That is why such thing is a slippery slope. That is why many non-religious people are against it as well.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Right and we really do have equal rights.

I am not allowed to marry men either.

You want rights added to. No one in this country has the right to do what they want regardless of law.

Laws which are indeed based on moral beliefs.

You cannot separate the two.

Like I said, if this is allowed other laws need done away with too. Ones that are based on moral beliefs. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

That is why such thing is a slippery slope. That is why many non-religious people are against it as well.

You're allowed to marry who you love. The gay community is not. That's the basis of their claim. What's the next step on this "slippery slope" of yours? Where are you afraid of it leading?

And find me another law based on morality.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
You're allowed to marry who you love. The gay community is not. That's the basis of their claim.

There are MANY other people not allowed to marry those who they love. That doesn't sudddenly justify said action.

We use morals to say to those people, no, that is against what we deem in society as normal.

What's the next step on this "slippery slope" of yours? Where are you afraid of it leading?

If you are saying anyone should be able to marry those who they love then that lets in pedophiles, people that want more than one wife, husband, and people that want to marry their pets.

Yeah I am sure you think HOW ABSURD!

But 30 years ago people would be saying the SAME thing to you if you tried to say people were actually trying to get society to accept their relationships as being just as normal as heterosexual ones. And that they wanted to get married and benefit from it as well.

They would laugh at you.

And find me another law based on morality.

Murder, rape, incest laws, pedophilia laws.

All based on morals.

Different cultures have different moral grounding here.

Some cultures see homosexual sex as a abomination, while marrying and having sex with a 13 year old girl just fine.

So yes, it's all based on moral beliefs of said society.

Our society says that having sex with minors is bad. Having sex with animals. Bad. Having sex with someone related to you. Bad.

Just like homosexual sex was once and for the most part still is seen as being immoral and bad.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

There are MANY other people not allowed to marry those who they love. That doesn't sudddenly justify said action.
We use morals to say to those people, no, that is against what we deem in society as normal.

There you go with "normal" again.

If you are saying anyone should be able to marry those who they love then that lets in pedophiles, people that want more than one wife, husband, and people that want to marry their pets.
Yeah I am sure you think HOW ABSURD!
But 30 years ago people would be saying the SAME thing to you if you tried to say people were actually trying to get society to accept their relationships as being just as normal as heterosexual ones. And that they wanted to get married and benefit from it as well.

They would laugh at you.

Man you went right for it. Pedophiles violate the rights of their victims. Pets have no rights under the constitution because they are animals.

Homosexual couples do not violate anyone's rights if they get married.

Murder, rape, incest laws, pedophilia laws.
All based on morals.
Different cultures have different moral grounding here.
Some cultures see homosexual sex as a abomination, while marrying and having sex with a 13 year old girl just fine.
So yes, it's all based on moral beliefs of said society.
Our society says that having sex with minors is bad. Having sex with animals. Bad. Having sex with someone related to you. Bad.
Just like homosexual sex was once and for the most part still is seen as being immoral and bad.

There is one moral principle our laws are based on: the rights of other citizens. Murder, rape, incest, and pedophilia all violate the rights of their victims. Homosexual marriage does not.

Try again.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:

There you go with "normal" again.

Right... is it so "abnormal" to think of homosexual sex "abnormal"

Of course not.

Man you went right for it. Pedophiles violate the rights of their victims. Pets have no rights under the constitution because they are animals.

Homosexual couples do not violate anyone's rights if they get married.

You are missing the point. The belief that we are violating said people's and animals rights are based on MORAL beliefs.

We don't let a lot of people do things in this country because of MORAL reasons.

There is one moral principle our laws are based on: the rights of other citizens. Murder, rape, incest, and pedophilia all violate the rights of their victims.Homosexual marriage does not.

Read above. We only believe that we are violating such people's "rights" because of MORAL reasons. BTW incest doesn't not violate anyone's rights. If two consenting adults want to get married that are related, nothing is violated. Same goes with a 20 year old wanting to marry a 15 year old. Same with polygamy.

These people wanting these things will be fighting for their right to do so if homosexuals have the right. There is your slippery slope. And if homosexuals have the right we HAVE to give these guys the right too. OR we could just keep marriages true definition and not.

While our morals tells us this is bad, no one is violated. So yes, it DOES happen.

Having said that I think the STATES should control that. Ig Ohio doesn't want to support it. They don't have to. If Idaho wants to, let them.

That to me is the fairest way to do it.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Right... is it so "abnormal" to think of homosexual sex "abnormal"

Of course not.

I was talking about how you seem to think normal is such a great thing. I'm sinking to your level now but, slavery was normal too.

You are missing the point. The belief that we are violating said people's and animals rights are based on MORAL beliefs.

We don't let a lot of people do things in this country because of MORAL reasons.

That moral principle is based on rights, not discomfort. Read below.

Read above. We only believe that we are violating such people's "rights" because of MORAL reasons. BTW incest doesn't not violate anyone's rights. If two consenting adults want to get married that are related, nothing is violated. Same goes with a 20 year old wanting to marry a 15 year old. Same with polygamy.

Well I agree polygamy doesn't violate anyone's rights (that's for another thread), but legally, a 15 year old is a minor and legally not allowed to make certain decisions without parental consent. Like statutory rape, the rights violation is assumed due to age.

Incestuous sex has been shown to produce physical genetic defects, violating the rights of the offspring. Government won't police the bedroom so you can't say incestuous couples can marry but not procreate.

<slippery slope section>

Above paragraph negates that argument on rights.

Having said that I think the STATES should control that. Ig Ohio doesn't want to support it. They don't have to. If Idaho wants to, let them.

That to me is the fairest way to do it.

Well there we agree. A constitutional amendment is just silly�.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
While I am not him, do you think deviant sexual behavior is a good thing? What about sodomy?

Deviant sexual behavior is only bad if one of the parties involved isn't legally consenting. Under that condition, why would sodomy be immoral? That makes no sense to me. Sex is not just a way to procreate any more. If you don't believe me, turn on the TV.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:

I was talking about how you seem to think normal is such a great thing. I'm sinking to your level now but, slavery was normal too.

Sinking to my level? Please.
I am speaking normal as in, normal body temperature. Normal brain activity. Normal pulse rate.

That moral principle is based on rights, not discomfort. Read below.

Based on rights. Rights we morally believe should exist. It still all comes back to morals.

Well I agree polygamy doesn't violate anyone's rights (that's for another thread), but legally, a 15 year old is a minor and legally not allowed to make certain decisions without parental consent. Like statutory rape, the rights violation is assumed due to age.

Right, because we as a society has set a age were it's morally correct to protect.

Incestuous sex has been shown to produce physical genetic defects, violating the rights of the offspring. Government won't police the bedroom so you can't say incestuous couples can marry but not procreate.

One could justify homosexual sex being a leading cause of AIDS as trying to protect one another as well.

Anything can be justified like you just did.

What if the couples got fixed? Still illegal.

Above paragraph negates that argument on rights.

You maybe have made yourself believe that. I do not.

Well there we agree. A constitutional amendment is just silly�.

There would be no one trying to get a amendment if there wasn't people trying to force this on a nation wide scale. Like it or not.

This should be something each state decides on.

This isn't really about "rights" this is about trying to force society into accepting homosexual relationships as being "norm" when majority of said society doesn't believe that.

Originally posted by Xeo:
Deviant sexual behavior is only bad if one of the parties involved isn't legally consenting. Under that condition, why would sodomy be immoral? That makes no sense to me. Sex is not just a way to procreate any more. If you don't believe me, turn on the TV.

Yeah TV says so. It must be true! But yes sex isn't just a way of procreation.

You don't see Sodomy as something bad. I do.

While you may see that as odd.. believe that sodomy is immoral isn't an unusual belief.

Nor is it a far fetched one.

I like to think, as a higher species, we are above such things. That we have "evolved" into something better.

It seems some people are hell bent on keeping us in the primordial slime so to speak.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Sinking to my level? Please.
I am speaking normal as in, normal body temperature. Normal brain activity. Normal pulse rate.

Sinking to your level in terms of comparison..i.e. homosexual sex = pedophilia = statutory rape = bestiality.

And nice dodge on the normal thing. Anyone else want to back me up on how many times we've seen that?

Based on rights. Rights we morally believe should exist. It still all comes back to morals.

Not the kind of morals you're talking about. You're talking about the segment of society that would deny other people their rights because of their moral standard, despite the oppressed segment's lack of any rights violations.

I'm talking about the universally accepted, constitutional, and moral idea of the rights of the individual.

Right, because we as a society has set a age were it's morally correct to protect.

No, we as society decided that certain decisions are not for someone under the age of 18 (or 16 or 14 in some states.) It's not a moral issue but rather an issue of when people think the ability to make informed decisions about driving, alcohol, tobacco, and sex begins in life.

One could justify homosexual sex being a leading cause of AIDS as trying to protect one another as well.

Problem with that is that any kind of sexual activity can lead to AIDS yet heterosexual sex is legal. Where you've gone wrong is thinking that homosexual sex itself is the leading cause of AIDS. It's actually irresponsible sex in general that does it. Just like irresponsible use of alcohol is the leading cause of traffic deaths in the U.S.

Anything can be justified like you just did.

What if the couples got fixed? Still illegal.

If they got fixed, I don't think the situation is any different the homosexual marriage. You're giving examples of places where you think it's only a subjective moral issue without actually justifying your own position on the subject itself. "Abnormal" doesn't count. Whose rights are violated?

You maybe have made yourself believe that. I do not.

Classic Zim tactic.

There would be no one trying to get a amendment if there wasn't people trying to force this on a nation wide scale. Like it or not.

This should be something each state decides on.

This isn't really about "rights" this is about trying to force society into accepting homosexual relationships as being "norm" when majority of said society doesn't believe that.

Frankly, it's no one's business what they think about or whether they accept homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships alike. They involve two loving, consenting adults and that's all that matters. The government must not restrict certain benefits or recognition to one kind of relationship or another. Citizens, churches, etc. can do what they want.

[lurkalot]

Snippet from Zimphire's post:
"This isn't really about "rights" this is about trying to force society into accepting homosexual relationships as being "norm" when majority of said society doesn't believe that."

Where did you get that ridiculous notion. This is mere semantics, sophistry.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You don't see Sodomy as something bad. I do.

good for you. you have every right to!

...it won't make any difference!

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Nor is it a far fetched one.

you have absolutely no ****in' basis for such an assesment.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

It seems some people are hell bent on keeping us in the primordial slime so to speak.

yup. they're called bush, helms, a$$croft...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:

Sinking to your level in terms of comparison..i.e. homosexual sex = pedophilia = statutory rape = bestiality.

[/b] Depends what you are comparing. The acts, or what they are.

And nice dodge on the normal thing. Anyone else want to back me up on how many times we've seen that?

Not a dodge, that is what I was referring to. If you don't approve. I can't help that.

Not the kind of morals you're talking about. You're talking about the segment of society that would deny other people their rights because of their moral standard, despite the oppressed segment's lack of any rights violations.

Again you claim such people have such rights. Obviously they do not. I don't have that right. No one does.

I'm talking about the universally accepted, constitutional, and moral idea of the rights of the individual.

Not all individuals have rights do they? I don't have the right to do a lot of things I want to. Just because the want or desire is there, doesn't give you a automatic right for you to practice it.

See you don't like the conservatives CHANGING laws to suit their moral guidelines. The voice of many changing for a few.

The conservatives don't like liberals CHANGING laws to suit their moral guidelines either. The voice of few trying to change for all.

The latter is going to be harder to do IMHO

No, we as society decided that certain decisions are not for someone under the age of 18 (or 16 or 14 in some states.) It's not a moral issue but rather an issue of when people think the ability to make informed decisions about driving, alcohol, tobacco, and sex begins in life.

LOL! What is that if not a moral issue? Heh, if there was no morals there, it WOULDN'T MATTER how old these people did things. There would be no right or wrong. But there is.

I don't know why certain people have a hard time admitting that morals play into law making.

Your morals is your discernment of what is right and wrong. Laws are indeed just that as well. Laws are based on a society's moral beliefs.

Problem with that is that any kind of sexual activity can lead to AIDS yet heterosexual sex is legal. Where you've gone wrong is thinking that homosexual sex itself is the leading cause of AIDS. It's actually irresponsible sex in general that does it. Just like irresponsible use of alcohol is the leading cause of traffic deaths in the U.S.

Bzzt. I've done studies myself. The leading cause of AIDS IS unprotected sex. ESP ANAL SEX. And the biggest group this is effecting is homosexuals. Considering homosexual make up about 2 to 4% of the population that is saying a lot.

If they got fixed, I don't think the situation is any different the homosexual marriage.

It's still illegal. Look it up

You're giving examples of places where you think it's only a subjective moral issue without actually justifying your own position on the subject itself. "Abnormal" doesn't count. Whose rights are violated?

Laws aren't just made when rights are violated.

Classic Zim tactic.

It's not a tactic, it's the truth. There is a difference.

Frankly, it's no one's business what they think about or whether they accept homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships alike. They involve two loving, consenting adults and that's all that matters. The government must not restrict certain benefits or recognition to one kind of relationship or another. Citizens, churches, etc. can do what they want.

Again, this is up to the separate states to decided. The government should stay out of it.

AND BTW just because two adults love each other (I know you guys like to paint a pretty picture of love and flowers and pureness, but it doesn't fly here) doesn't justify in any way actions that stem from it.

No matter how you want to TRY to justify it.

Remember that.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Bzzt. I've done studies myself. The leading cause of AIDS IS unprotected sex.

do tell, dr. dimphire! LOL! how does unprotected sex cause aids?

[Zimphire]

You can get HIV from having unprotected sex with someone that has it.. ..

Right?

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You can get HIV from having unprotected sex with someone that has it.. ..

Right?

sure, that's how one can contract it. but that's not the "cause" of it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
sure, that's how one can contract it. but that's not the "cause" of it.

Oh so you just wanted to argue petty semantics that had nothing to do with my pont... I see.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh so you just wanted to argue petty semantics that had nothing to do with my pont... I see.

tstststststststtsssss. again, the essence escapes you. there is a HUGE difference between "cause" and "mode of transmission".