Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Sex ed in regards to heterosexuality isn't about getting your rocks off the right way like it is with homosexuality.

Sex ed in heterosexuality is an explanation of how your parts are used and the FUNCTION of those parts. Which is an explanation of procreation. Something that needs to be taught.

Nobody needs to know how Jack and Gary spend their time at the glory hole in their local book store.

You don't believe in the acceptance of all people no matter their sexual orientation. Get that crap out of here. You believe in the acceptance of it as long as YOU think it's okay.

And yes... if my child was born with a tendency to be violent, or to steal, or to be attracted to the same sex, or attracted to their family members, or attracted to animals or attracted to children... I would expect him/her to suppress those deviant behaviors. Without question. I would hope you'd expect the same.

I'm not "advocating for" any alleged life style. If you didn't have straw man fallacies, you'd be i much worse case, as implausible as that seems.

No maybe about it. In your world too. If civil rights were not arbitrary they would be absolute and there would be no arguing about then,

I don't disagree with homosexuality because it is a fact of life. I disagree with the promotion and encouragement of it.

I know that they are all closet Christians. I think the Marquis de Sade was a closet Christian.

why dance around, you could have saved yourself embarrassment by just owning up to it initially.

Personally, Id not like to see incestual marriages since the off spring of such unions are usually unfit in some fashion or at least carry some magnified lethal genes. Most states frown on such unions for health reasons
Theres no similar condition in gay marriages when we as a civilization , at least, honor the individuals civil rights at their chosen union. You are making you stand based on some Biblical code of morality. Civil rights were not an issue in the Bible, they did not exist

In our case, civil rights ARE NOT arbitrary, but they do evolve and their recognition IS acquired through time, sorta like medicine and law.

Prsonally, I think that your head is going to explode at some time herein and I don't want to be around when it happens

I might have it wrong but I think Shadow is posing the question of a father/son marriage. What objection have you to that? Or two brothers.

You seem to be tailoring civil rights to suit your own purposes.

You are failing to see what lies behind the institution of marriage in its evolution.

And I don't see what evidence you have that Shadow's head is about to explode. Do you raise that possibility every time you are disagreed with.

It's a cheap shot. Worthless.

better stand back if you don't wanna get covered with innards.

civil rights issues between a father and his son as gay incestual lovers pokesat some credulity that is beyond my pay grade . How many of these unions are potentially out there.
The boy has been trying to state that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles yet his stats don't even present any congruent data. He was trying to deny that the largest amount of pedophiles are actually heterosexual men, many in positions of trust and responsibility.
Now hes searching the dregs for some outliers from which I suppose he will pat himself upon the back for his cleverness.
.

It's a total nonsense. It's only taken seriously by idiots. Incest laws still apply. I won't be able to marry my son in the same way I can't marry my daughter.

I waited for that? Imagine my disappointment. The fact is that you know as much about my intentions as you know about statistics.


You realize that, if one percentage goes down, the other goes up, right? I mean, that's how percentages work. They always have to add up to 100%.


How do you calculate the amount of homosexual pedophiles?

The point izzy is that once marriage relates to homosexuals the door is open to anything. A father may seek marriage with a son for state benefits and with sex playing no part.

He might wish for it as a provocation or to make a splash in the news.

What new rules are being proposed for marriage? Homosexuals seem to want the traditional line moving but only sufficiently to cover themselves.

No it doesn't. There's no popular outcry demanding the right to incestuous marriages. If anything the reverse is true, people aren't too keen on the idea of 1st cousins marrying even though it's legal.

Farmer... go read again... I wasn't stating that, I was quoting Joe.

First of all, just like the homosexuals have argued... they're ability to have children and the outcome of that scenario is irrelevant to being married. Right? Let's say a father and a son wanted to get married. Children won't even occur, so what's your excuse now? Not only that, but you're not stopping an incestuous couple who wants to have children. If they want to have children, they will do so whether you allow them to get married or not. The only thing you're denying them by not allowing them to get married is equal protection under the law and you're denying them their civil rights. Just like the homosexuals are crying about.

See you only believe in civil rights when it's beneficial to your position and you agree with the action they're performing. When you disagree with what they're doing and you consider it an immoral activity or an activity that would be detrimental to society as a whole, you balk on civil rights. You no longer care about equality because now YOU have a problem with their actions.

You're a hypocrite. You sit here and kick your feet and cry about civil rights and equality for homosexuals. But when confronted with another group's inability to receive those same civil rights and equality... now you don't care all of sudden how equal their rights are or whether or not they're allowed to receive equal protection under the law because you disagree with how they live.

You don't really believe in civil rights or equality... you only believe in them when its beneficial to your position.

Does it matter how many of those potential unions are out there? So now, we base whether or not we provide those equal rights upon how many couples are engaging in the activity? Shame on you...How can you be so bigoted to say that they shouldn't have equal rights because there's not enough of them.

I have not denied or even attempted to deny the largest amount of pedophiles are heterosexual. Of course that's going to be the case... the vast majority of people out there are heterosexuals. The point is that heterosexuals are well underrepresented in the pedophile statistics while homosexuals are far overrepresented. Even making EVERY concession you can make for homosexuals and trying to twist the numbers in the absolute best light possible for them, they STILL show up to be overrepresented in pedophile statistics. I'm sorry you don't like that, but that's just a fact.

And I'm pointing out that your crying about equality and civil rights doesn't hold any weight. Because you don't actually believe in equality and civil rights. As shown already you have absolutely NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER denying equality and civil rights to another group of people (incestuous) whose actions you think are detrimental to society. Therefore your argument about equality and civil rights as it concerns homosexuality doesn't work... because you don't actually believe it.

Why not izzy? Homosexual sex was illegal too (and still is in multiple states). Why don't the incestuous couples get to change the laws just like homosexual ones did?

And again...we have a hypocrite here who cries about civil rights and equality until he's confronted with a group that he doesn't agree with. Then all of a sudden its just "total nonsense" lol

http://blog.speakupmovement.org/university/marriage/stanford-law-prof-no-marriage-equality-until-polygamy-and-adult-incest-legalized/
Law Professor Ralph Richard Banks that essentially argues that American society has not achieved “marriage equality” by allowing same sex couples to marry. He argues that polygamy and incestuous marriage between adults should be legalized in order to evolve to full marriage equality:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/will-incestuous-couples-want-marriage-rights/story-e6frgd0x-1226372990649
Daniel Brennan, former chairman of the Bar Association in Britain, wrote in March: "After all, if you can abolish the most important precondition of marriage, namely that it requires a person of each sex, why should you be able to retain other preconditions, such as limiting it to only two people? In The Netherlands, where same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001, 'cohabitation agreements' have been used to give three-way relationships a measure of legal recognition."

James Dominguez of Bisexual Alliance Victoria prefers four-way relationships. He told The Australian (21/5): "Some time in the distant future we should look at the idea of plural marriage". In the immediate present, he lives in a bisexual polyamorous foursome, awaiting true "marriage equality" for groups of loving adults.

In April, an incestuous relationship came to the European Court of Human Rights. Patrick Stuebing from Leipzig argued that he and his sister had the right to a "family life".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339108/David-Epstein-Homosexuals-want-INCEST-different.html#ixzz2Pas52aRB
'It's ok for homosexuals to do what they want at home, how is this different?' Lawyer defends Columbia professor charged with incest


Yeah total nonsense... nobody would ever argue for that.

You should move to Uganda. They are poised to pass legislation to make homosexuality a capital crime. Of course, you'd have to live with all those nastyi black people . . .

Oh really. I know nothing about your intentions. Let's see if that's true. You believe that homosexuals should have the right to marriage... right? And you believe that homosexuals are not as much of a danger to children as indicated by essentially every survey/study out there... right? And you believe homosexuals should have the right to adopt those children... right? I'm probably not too far off.

And that's not how %ages work... at least not the way we're discussing them. I said the comparable statistics do not change. In otherwords...

When you attempt to lessen the number of homosexual pedophiles by stating that "well offenders have more than one victim". That certainly can be true and I'm sure that reduces the number of homosexual pedophiles. But the exact same can be said for heterosexual pedophiles and their victims. Which reduces the number of heterosexual pedophiles as well. Both the number of homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles will go down... but that means that the statistics showing how much more likely homosexuals are to be pedophiles than heterosexuals is still going to stay approximately the same. It's just that instead of ~3% likelihood that the heterosexual you meet is a pedophile it'll be closer to 1 or 1.5% and instead of it being 16-45% likelihood that the homosexual you meet is a pedophile it'll be 10-30% (approx numbers) and you'll still have the fact that homosexuals are MUCH more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.

I'm sorry you don't like that... but the numbers don't lie.

Nah I already live in a state that has made it an impossibility for homosexuals to marry or have a civil union. We even made it more difficult to pass a measure allowing gay marriage or civil unions by putting it into our state constitution which would require a much more stringent process to even consider it on the floor of our state senate.

And I don't think they should kill homosexuals. I just don't think I should have to pay for their deviant lifestyle and I don't thinkt hey should have the right to force their ideologies on my children at school.

Yes, I believe homosexuals should have equal rights. But that wasn't my intention in replying to your post. There are plenty of blowhards on this forum who oppose gay marriage, and I don't feel obligated to respond to every one of them. Your logic offended me, not your political position.


I never said that.

And no, I never intended to say that either.

You likely overstated the number of homosexual pedophiles because you made an egregiously erroneous calculation based on an estimate that you completely misinterpreted. Since you're no longer defending that calculation, I assume that you now think it was wrong. Am I right?