The Homosexual Dilemma

[bodecea]

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to. At least on this planet.

Does the Church of England know about this?

Mark

The Church of England is in the U.S.?

No. But, your statement said "planet". I am fairly sure that England is on our planet.

Mark

But not under our Constitution nor the 1st Amendment, is it?

 

[hipeter924]

Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.

So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?

Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.

Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love. Who are you to decide their love is wrong? Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?

Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.

Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.

I am not a "progressive", a "liberal", or a "conservative". I would prefer it if 'marriage' of any variety was not condoned through special tax status for couples; or that the government dictates LGBT couples can't adopt. But I don't set the rules or the laws.

If marriage didn't provide incentives for couples, then it would be used ceremonially - instead it sets apart the single person from the couple with a special status (through tax and other things).

The attempts at stopping same-sex marriage are ultimately doomed to fail, as the special status attributed to marriage makes denying same-sex marriage a matter of discrimination rather than purely a issue with religious ceremonial marriages.

 

[Mr. H.]

Damn, I need new glasses. I thought this thread was titled "The Homosexual Obama".

 

[80zephyr]

Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves. (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)
Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture. All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.

Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.

Hmm. Maybe you should look into the history of the homosexual movement and NAMBLA. You could of course choose not to, but it is not fair to believe that others who are aware of the history cannot make the connection.

Amazing that recently a GOP congressman got ran thru a wringer for giving a single speech to a hate group 12 years ago, and the connection between NAMBLA and gays never even makes the paper.

So much for the news being unbiased.

Mark

Again, I guess we can always rely on certain posters to keep us up to date on NAMBLA.

Translation: I want to bury the past. Anything that brings a bad light to homosexuality must be marginalized and stifled. All that matters is the "cause".

Mark

Actually, Translation: We can always rely on posters like you keeping us up to date on NAMBLA.

I suppose if I were you, I'd be embarrassed by the homosexual past as well. But, with every topic, every scab is scratched.

Its like telling the history of the US, and when the subject of slavery is brought up, you protest discussing it.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.

Hmm. Maybe you should look into the history of the homosexual movement and NAMBLA. You could of course choose not to, but it is not fair to believe that others who are aware of the history cannot make the connection.

Amazing that recently a GOP congressman got ran thru a wringer for giving a single speech to a hate group 12 years ago, and the connection between NAMBLA and gays never even makes the paper.

So much for the news being unbiased.

Mark

Again, I guess we can always rely on certain posters to keep us up to date on NAMBLA.

Translation: I want to bury the past. Anything that brings a bad light to homosexuality must be marginalized and stifled. All that matters is the "cause".

Mark

Actually, Translation: We can always rely on posters like you keeping us up to date on NAMBLA.

I suppose if I were you, I'd be embarrassed by the homosexual past as well. But, with every topic, every scab is scratched.

Its like telling the history of the US, and when the subject of slavery is brought up, you protest discussing it.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Mark

What is to be embarrassed about the homosexual past? Besides that it took too long for us to stop putting up with the bashing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?

Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.

Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love. Who are you to decide their love is wrong? Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?

Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.

Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.

I am not a "progressive", a "liberal", or a "conservative". I would prefer it if 'marriage' of any variety was not condoned through special tax status for couples; or that the government dictates LGBT couples can't adopt. But I don't set the rules or the laws.

If marriage didn't provide incentives for couples, then it would be used ceremonially - instead it sets apart the single person from the couple with a special status (through tax and other things).

The attempts at stopping same-sex marriage are ultimately doomed to fail, as the special status attributed to marriage makes denying same-sex marriage a matter of discrimination rather than purely a issue with religious ceremonial marriages.

The tax incentive thing is a joke.

The simple fact is that marriage produces significant benefits to the culture and the culture should encourage it.

Marriage is one thing; The Joining of one man and one woman. Therefore, if homosexuals want the federal reductions in tax liability 'advantage' of being married, they should find someone of the opposite gender to marry, or shut the **** up.

They're not entitled to such... until they meet the requirements the standard FOR SUCH ESTABLISHES.

They're not being punished because they're queer and they're not being FORCED to BE QUEER. So they have no legitimate ***** about anything.

Of course if they keep pushin', then they probably WILL have something to ***** about... but at the end of the day, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[peach174]

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Catholic churches require you to be Catholic to marry in a Catholic Church? I guess I'll have to tell my non Catholic future daughter in law that she can't be married in a Catholic church since the date is already set.

Mark

Easy with the friendly fire. Peach is one of us. As a Catholic I can clear that up. We will marry any baptized Christian of any Christian faith.

Thank you for clearing that up.
When I married my first husband, in the early 70's I had to join his Church which was Catholic, but I was not baptized at that time,so we got married in a Baptist Church.
His Church never said that I had to be baptized though, they said that I needed to join.
So I don't know.

 

[bodecea]

Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.

Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love. Who are you to decide their love is wrong? Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?

Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.

Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.

I am not a "progressive", a "liberal", or a "conservative". I would prefer it if 'marriage' of any variety was not condoned through special tax status for couples; or that the government dictates LGBT couples can't adopt. But I don't set the rules or the laws.

If marriage didn't provide incentives for couples, then it would be used ceremonially - instead it sets apart the single person from the couple with a special status (through tax and other things).

The attempts at stopping same-sex marriage are ultimately doomed to fail, as the special status attributed to marriage makes denying same-sex marriage a matter of discrimination rather than purely a issue with religious ceremonial marriages.

The tax incentive thing is a joke.

The simple fact is that marriage produces significant benefits to the culture and the culture should encourage it.

Marriage is one thing; The Joining of one man and one woman. Therefore, if homosexuals want the federal reductions in tax liability 'advantage' of being married, they should find someone of the opposite gender to marry, or shut the **** up.

They're not entitled to such... until they meet the requirements the standard FOR SUCH ESTABLISHES.

They're not being punished because they're queer and they're not being FORCED to BE QUEER. So they have no legitimate ***** about anything.

Of course if they keep pushin', then they probably WILL have something to ***** about... but at the end of the day, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

Fascinating. Encouraging people to have marriages not of love and attraction...but built of lies and financial convenience. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[hipeter924]

Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love. Who are you to decide their love is wrong? Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?

Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.

Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.

I am not a "progressive", a "liberal", or a "conservative". I would prefer it if 'marriage' of any variety was not condoned through special tax status for couples; or that the government dictates LGBT couples can't adopt. But I don't set the rules or the laws.

If marriage didn't provide incentives for couples, then it would be used ceremonially - instead it sets apart the single person from the couple with a special status (through tax and other things).

The attempts at stopping same-sex marriage are ultimately doomed to fail, as the special status attributed to marriage makes denying same-sex marriage a matter of discrimination rather than purely a issue with religious ceremonial marriages.

The tax incentive thing is a joke.

The simple fact is that marriage produces significant benefits to the culture and the culture should encourage it.

Marriage is one thing; The Joining of one man and one woman. Therefore, if homosexuals want the federal reductions in tax liability 'advantage' of being married, they should find someone of the opposite gender to marry, or shut the **** up.

They're not entitled to such... until they meet the requirements the standard FOR SUCH ESTABLISHES.

They're not being punished because they're queer and they're not being FORCED to BE QUEER. So they have no legitimate ***** about anything.

Of course if they keep pushin', then they probably WILL have something to ***** about... but at the end of the day, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

Fascinating. Encouraging people to have marriages not of love and attraction...but built of lies and financial convenience. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

I know of one of those marriages, it ended badly with a divorce and court battle.

 

[bodecea]

Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.

Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.

I am not a "progressive", a "liberal", or a "conservative". I would prefer it if 'marriage' of any variety was not condoned through special tax status for couples; or that the government dictates LGBT couples can't adopt. But I don't set the rules or the laws.

If marriage didn't provide incentives for couples, then it would be used ceremonially - instead it sets apart the single person from the couple with a special status (through tax and other things).

The attempts at stopping same-sex marriage are ultimately doomed to fail, as the special status attributed to marriage makes denying same-sex marriage a matter of discrimination rather than purely a issue with religious ceremonial marriages.

The tax incentive thing is a joke.

The simple fact is that marriage produces significant benefits to the culture and the culture should encourage it.

Marriage is one thing; The Joining of one man and one woman. Therefore, if homosexuals want the federal reductions in tax liability 'advantage' of being married, they should find someone of the opposite gender to marry, or shut the **** up.

They're not entitled to such... until they meet the requirements the standard FOR SUCH ESTABLISHES.

They're not being punished because they're queer and they're not being FORCED to BE QUEER. So they have no legitimate ***** about anything.

Of course if they keep pushin', then they probably WILL have something to ***** about... but at the end of the day, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

Fascinating. Encouraging people to have marriages not of love and attraction...but built of lies and financial convenience. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

I know of one of those marriages, it ended badly with a divorce and court battle.

I knew a few like that too....and one member here who I believe is on the verge of such a disaster....tho I warned him about being in the closet and all.

 

[80zephyr]

It depends on who you talk to. There are many who will argue that the only basis of morality is god. And if you use your reason, you're a relativist who is evil and believes in nothing. And that their faith is objective truth, as it comes directly from god. I'm not joking or inaccurately paraphrasing here. I can show you virtually exact quotes that say as much.

.

My observation is that for ever person who deals in arbitrary moral absolutes on the right, there is, in fact, a practitioner of moral relativism on the left. Just looking at the large number of leftists who defend Islamism, rationalize acts of terror, or defend grossly misogynistic practices as long as they arise in any part of the world other than what we consider our own, I would say that there are plenty of people who do embody these charges. Just as the right can have a tendency to argue from a position of moral absolutes, the left can get so caught up in trying to distance themselves from morality that they take on positions that are nearly nihilistic. Instead of articulating a superior morality that IS based upon reason, far too many avoid the very notion altogether.

Instead of arguing from the position "does this action cause harm?", "Is it oppressive?" or "does it involve one person denying the rights of another", far too many on BOTH sides of an issue merely respond in terms of "what am I expected to say?", "what do all those who share my chosen ideology say?" or "what is the politically correct response?".

Good post.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.

Amazing. The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them. No connection at all but they do get excited.

Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.

Mark

So you think anything other than male female penis in vagina is sexual deviancy- and that they are all the same as pedophilia?

Foreplay and masturbation are integral parts of sex. It is what makes it "fun", and that leads to pro creation.

So, let me turn your question around. Is there anything you consider a deviancy?

Mark

Your behavior here is deviant, Mark: it is cruel, dark, and unnecessary.

My question is valid. And there is nothing cruel about it. When debating a subject, any avenue to enlightenment is on the table.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you are probably bisexual.

I could choose to be a criminal. Does that make me one?

I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.

You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)

It would be interesting to know what other psychiatric problems have a "high failure rate" and if we simply gave up because of it.

Did you ever stop to think that this "high failure rate" is because we haven't been been trying reparative therapy that long?

I mean ****, we have been trying to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease forever.

Maybe you think we should stop trying?

Mark

Reparative therapy has a high failure rate, Mark. Your suggestion from that fact is useless, meaningless.

Why? I have proven that gays can change. Are you really going to deny those that want to try to change the right to these treatments?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I could choose to be a criminal. Does that make me one?

I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.

So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?

Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.

If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:

Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News

Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.

Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.

Mark

You really should have researched further...

Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

Finish answering the rest of my post:

My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.

Mark

So you think anything other than male female penis in vagina is sexual deviancy- and that they are all the same as pedophilia?

Foreplay and masturbation are integral parts of sex. It is what makes it "fun", and that leads to pro creation.

So, let me turn your question around. Is there anything you consider a deviancy?

Mark

Unless you come. And I know plenty of guys that like them blowjobs to completion. So....abnormal and illogical?

How about masterbation? Old people having sex? The celibate? All 'abnormal and illogical' too?

Do you read what I write? Why do I have to answer this yet again?

Mark

Could you direct me to that answer then. Because I've never seen it.

I've seen you run from my question. I've seen you dodge it. I've never actually seen you answer it.

We have over 1000 posts on this thread, why should I spend my time looking for it? And, I have never dodged an answer in my life.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation. It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.

And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.

Mark

Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?

Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.

The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality

The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too
The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.

Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'
Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]

Gay people do have children
In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.

These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.

It's not all in the DNA
Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".

This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.

And, after all of this, my statement still stands:

In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.

Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.

Mark

Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.

Abnormal doesn't mean bad.

Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.

Who said oral sex was abnormal? I said it is a mechanism used by nature to simulate humans to have sex to procreate.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?

Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.

That's over and done with. You've lost.

Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to **** each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.

Mark

 

[Syriusly]

And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation. It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.

And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.

Mark

Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?

Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.

The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality

The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too
The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.

Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'
Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]

Gay people do have children
In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.

These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.

It's not all in the DNA
Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".

This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.

And, after all of this, my statement still stands:

In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.

Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.

Mark

Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.

Abnormal doesn't mean bad.

Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.

Who said oral sex was abnormal? I said it is a mechanism used by nature to simulate humans to have sex to procreate.

Mark

Oral sex is 'abnormal' in that until recently it was not normal.

IF oral sex that does not lead to procreation is bad then every man who enjoys a blowjob should be as much a deviant in your mind as every homosexual act of sex.

But heck- we are just haggling over the words- we all know you just are rationalizing as to why you don't like homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?

Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.

That's over and done with. You've lost.

Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to **** each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.

Mark

I have been married for over 20 years to my wife. I have a wonderful child.

My family unit is not harmed in the least by allowing two persons of the same gender to marry.
Nor will it harm society at all.

As someone else so succintly put it- if your marriage will be harmed by gay marriage- then the problem is with your marriage.

 

[80zephyr]

But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.

Amazing. The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them. No connection at all but they do get excited.

Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.

Mark

So you think anything other than male female penis in vagina is sexual deviancy- and that they are all the same as pedophilia?

Foreplay and masturbation are integral parts of sex. It is what makes it "fun", and that leads to pro creation.

So, let me turn your question around. Is there anything you consider a deviancy?

Mark

You didn't answer the question- do you equate anything other than male female penis in vagina as deviancy- just like pedophilia?

No. Like I pointed out in my answer.

Mark