Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Isn't it an arguable point whether a government has a compelling interest in discriminating against, or encouraging, homosexuality and particularly overt displays of it summed up in the word "pride".

There is a difference between there being a compelling interest and thinking there is one.

The assumption that the government has no compelling interest in discriminating against overt homosexuality renders the conclusion that it shouldn't a logical imperative. A circularity exists. The crucial point has been prejudged. That is a sure fire way of winning an argument to one's own satisfaction.

Many governments have so discriminated, not always Christian ones, and it is cultural arrogance to assume they had no valid reason for doing so. The forms it takes are a measure of how valid.

And not being able to be "married" is hardly discrimination at all. Benefits are another, and extraneous, matter. Not insignificant of course but not relevant to the "marriage" question.

To avoid all accusations of discrimination we might have to pick up as many men as we do women in pubs. And be prepared to be picked up by as many men as women.

Since the "benefits" that Shadow is against are now enjoyed by hetero couples, aren't they merely enjoying the money they've already saved or invested by the tax forgiveness threshold?
Anything that is a "non benefit" is a tax. Therefore Shadow seems to be favoring a tax on gay couples or is he saying that he would like to see this tax on all couples?

His politics seems to go in several directions.
Like Newt once stated that he was not in favor of raising taxes , he was in favor of reducing "loopholes" ---DUHHH

Actually, it's well under based on the 37% number from an actual study that didn't ask people to self identify.

I see.... You can make up fantastical numbers but no one else can.

Where did you get your information that most of them are not fondling cases?

According to the BJS study you posted when it comes to juveniles that offend they were more likely to fondle or sodomize then they were to penetrate with a foreign object.


There, feel better now that you have accused me of something.

Meanwhile I have shown you were wrong and manipulating things while accusing me of doing what you are clearly doing.

Here let me quote from your BJS study
Yep, you were clearly wrong.

I see. So now you are going to use the "poison the well" fallacy.

You only cited studies where people self identified as GLBT. Then you claim anyone that has a homosexual experience is a homosexual. When I introduce a study that uses YOUR definition, you attack the study. I wonder why that is Shadow? Is it because it undermines your argument?

So we are left with you changing definitions when it suits your argument and attacking studies that use your definition.

Here's one for you Shadow!

The fact is fm that, whatever Shad says, benefits and taxes are tools which the government uses to encourage or discourage certain behaviours.

I know that these carrots and sticks are often distorted by interested parties but the principle is well known and obvious.

Benefits for children, or tax breaks, are to encourage procreation. Heavy taxes on tobacco and alcohol are to limit and moderate their use.

Shifts in these prods are signs of policy changing.

If part of the benefits which families get, or could get, are re-routed to other groups then family is being discouraged. However gently to begin with. Just as with pre-school schools and nurseries where a whole new class of government trained minders are incubating by the heat of their own hot air.

Thus it is that I come by my hypothesis that it is judged that 312 million is getting close to what the Think Tanks estimate to be the optimum number of persons and just as one applies the brakes to a car a distance from where it is intended to stop so it is with this manifestation. The beefing up of border security is another sign. A new Iron Curtain.

Absolutely contrary to biological evolution theory. Social engineering.

It is the only respectable way I can allow that the 5 members of the USSC have not been deprived of all their wits never mind those extra special ones we expect in such eminent personages.

One might stretch the truth a very long way, as you know, but the truth remains inviolate.

Okay I am personally not gay (just making that a statement) however i see no excuse why gay/lesbian couples can't get married. The only concern myself is TOO much affection in public (if u get my meaning) If gay/lesbian couples don't show too much affection (mainly tongue kissing, holding hands and cheeks i feel would be appropriate) i see no reason why they should not be able to be married, Even have their own name for it! so as u can see i do not oppose it at all and i find anyone who does to be either unwilling to admit to themselves that gay couples are equals or are homophobic.

Are you against public display of affection or just gay affection ? You can get it in the movies to you don't need to look it in the street...