Gays

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I am continue to be amazed and saddened that people who say they believe in The Constitution are so obtuse when it comes to applying its protections to consenting adults engaged in private behavior.

Well, join the club of the amazed. I've been a constitutional scholar all my life and I've read just about everything written by and of the founding fathers, their intent in writing it and the way they, themselves, conducted their governance.

I continue to be amazed at how people can insert meanings into the document that are not there nor were ever intended and, even more so, sometimes, that they do not restrict themselves to the clear meaning of the document.

I am amazed that people believe that morality and decency aren't appropriate means with which to govern. I am also amazed by the contention that some so-called private behavior is off limits for legislation while other private behavior is considered fair game.

 

[eric]

Incest and pedophilia are criminal behaviors arising from psychological disturbances

Same can be said of homosexuality !!

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Moi


I am amazed that people believe that morality and decency aren't appropriate means with which to govern. I am also amazed by the contention that some so-called private behavior is off limits for legislation while other private behavior is considered fair game.

The government's role in legislating decency and morality should be limited to acts which interfere with the liberty and rights of others. Two homosexuals have a legally civilized union do no such thing.

 

[eric]

And that comes full circle back to the question :

If a brother and sister are in love, why should they not be able to marry, who are they hurting if they don't bear children, which could easily be prevented ?

 

[wonderwench]

This is about equal protection under the law. It non-siblings are allowed to form civil unions, then the right should extend to all non-siblings.

You are using a specious example. And we already addressed the public health and individual right concerns regarding incest. Most victims of incest are underage. Outlawing the practise is in the interest of protecting underage individuals.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
This is about equal protection under the law. It non-siblings are allowed to form civil unions, then the right should extend to all non-siblings.

You are using a specious example. And we already addressed the public health and individual right concerns regarding incest. Most victims of incest are underage. Outlawing the practise is in the interest of protecting underage individuals.

So you say.

Any law restricting the rights of people under the age of 18 are also invalid, in my opinion. they are not afforded equal protection. Relationships between family members should be permitted if they agree to have no children. Bestiality should be allowed, I mean, hey, if destroying a fetus is allowed because it isn't a live human than certainly destroying an animal is just as permissable.

Your arguments are completely invalid in their overall approach to government. If it is allowed to make laws for reasons of right and wrong or what's good/bad for society, then it is acceptable to make them in all instances. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[wonderwench]

The definition of right and wrong must be based upon Constitutional principles - not religious mores. Despite your past insistence that you are not doing so, you are mixing the two.

 

[eric]

You are using a specious example. And we already addressed the public health and individual right concerns regarding incest. Most victims of incest are underage. Outlawing the practise is in the interest of protecting underage individuals.

No, it is just an example that is hard to refute. There are public health concerns with homosexuality also. Tell me in good faith that many homosexual men do not like little boys !

You are just trying to make reality fit your views !

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
The definition of right and wrong must be based upon Constitutional principles - not religious mores. Despite your past insistence that you are not doing so, you are mixing the two.

No, I'm not. What does the age of consent have to do with religion? What do seatbelt laws have to do with religion? What does welfare have to do with religion?

All these laws were enacted and continue to be validated by the courts because they are deemed beneficial for society and right.

You are confusing morality with religion.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by eric
No, it is just an example that is hard to refute. There are public health concerns with homosexuality also. Tell me in good faith that many homosexual men do not like little boys !

You are just trying to make reality fit your views !

Please provide the statistics that show that lesbians are spreading disease throughout society.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Moi
No, I'm not. What does the age of consent have to do with religion? What do seatbelt laws have to do with religion? What does welfare have to do with religion?

All these laws were enacted and continue to be validated by the courts because they are deemed beneficial for society and right.

You are confusing morality with religion.

Please provide the Constiutional context which allows you to impose your own personal morality on individuals whose private behavior has absolutely no impact on your life other than to bother you because their morality differs from yours.

 

[eric]

Did I say lesbians, no I said homosexuals ! Is there not a higher incidence of AIDS in homosexual men then heterosexual men according to their total populations ?

Not to mention you skipped the part about homosexual men and little boys. Look at the priests, were they engaged with adults or children ?

 

[wonderwench]

Then you should have no problem with Lesbians being able to form civil unions.

We already have laws against child molestation. How about just enforcing them?

 

[eric]

I have no problems with civil unions, but marriage I do !

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Please provide the Constiutional context which allows you to impose your own personal morality on individuals whose private behavior has absolutely no impact on your life other than to bother you because their morality differs from yours.

Once again you are founding this question on a false assumption- that I have to prove anything is granted by the constitution. Laws are completely valid unless they do not conform to the constitution. And, as I am unaware of a constitutional clause which states that a person's sexual desires are guaranteed, the laws regarding marriage are equally applied. All men can marry nonrelated women just as all women can marry nonrelated men.

Please point to the appropriate clause of the constitution which says that laws based on morality or the good of society are invalid. Or, for that matter, that laws restricting people's behavior are invalid.

My wearing a seatbelt is private behavior which affects no one but myself. Euthanasia is private behavior which affects no one but myself. Suicide is private behavior which affects no one but myself. Bestiality is private behavior which affects no one but myself (for animals aren't people and, thus, not afforded any rights under the constitution). Incest affects no one but the two people thus engaged, not dissimilar to homosexuality. However, all of these have been deemed acceptable areas for law.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Then you should have no problem with Lesbians being able to form civil unions.

We already have laws against child molestation. How about just enforcing them?

First off, lesbians DO have a much higher risk of catching and spreading diseases than heterosexual women.

Secondly, I see you're using the term civil union now. If they stick with civil unions they might be ok, it's the marriage that is off limits to many.

 

[jimnyc]

Regarding lesbians, they face a higher breast cancer risk. One study of lesbians found that: "Sixty-three percent of the lesbians had never been pregnant....[And] Not having children increases a woman's breast cancer risk by between two to six times. Not having children also "may be a risk factor for ovarian cancer and may be implicated in endometrial cancer as well.
Jim Ritter, "Breast cancer risk higher in lesbians," Chicago Sun-Times, Oct. 16, 1998, p. 50.
Council on Scientific Affairs, op cit, p. 1355.

Another study found bacterial vaginosis occuring in 33% of the lesbians but only in 13% of heterosexual women, and found that: "Cervical cytology abnormalities were uncommon but only found in the lesbians. (Those abnormalities may be precursors to cervical cancers.)
C.J. Skinner and others, "A case-controlled study of the sexual health needs of lesbians," Genitourin Med, Aug. 1996, from the abstract, p. 227.

Another study of lesbians found a "relatively high prevalence of the viral STDs, herpes simplex and human papillomavirus [HPV]. And according to another: "Genital HPV infection and squamous intraepithelial lesions are common among women who are sexually active with women.
A. Edwards and R.N. Thin, "Sexually transmitted diseases in lesbians," Int J STD AIDS, May 1990, from the abstract, p. 178.
J.M. Marrazzo and others, "Genital human papillomavirus infection in women who have sex with women," J Infect Dis, Dec. 1998, from the abstract, p. 1604.

 

[OCA]

Must be from all the strapons and lube lol

 

[jon_forward]

thats one thing about lesbians I aint figured out . they dont like men as mates but get taken by a dyke wearing a strap on....DUH

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by eric
Same can be said of homosexuality !!

<font color=red><b>BZZZT!</b></font> Wrong answer. Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. You haven't been paying attention. It was removed from the DSM in the early 70's. Get over it.

Offer a rational, valid argument as to why same-gender couples shouldn't be permitted the same legal rights and responsibilites as traditional couples, and then I'll listen to you.