The Secular Argument Against Gay Marriage

Extreme activism and grotesque over representation

 

actually, pedophiles are overwhelmingly straight.

 

Gentlemen ! Let' s remember the OP.......what if anything does this have to do with The Secular Argument Against Gay Marriage

 

Do I smell surrender , here ? However, ProressiveParrot you're right, the discussion has degenerated way OFF TOPIC.

Let me reiterate MY Opinion - Gays should have the same right as normal people to enter into domestic Unions and the same protections and liabilities under the Law, Government has no business interfering in how normal people or Gays choose to live their lives. Despite their Mental Depravity, Gays are entitled to equal protection under the Law.

OT Just visited your facebook Page - WOW - you really do have some serious issues going on upstairs.

 

The report you reference does not say how they got the information about the classification. In other words, just like other flawed studies, the reported orientation could just be referring to the orientation towards children. It was not a first hand study, but rather a study of studies 40 years old, which has otter problems due to differences in language abd context. I suspect if its results have relevance today, there would be something a little newer that could be referenced instead of an abstract study of studies that does not detail its methods and thus can't be repeated our evaluated.

 

1/3 of pedophiles are gay. Considering Gays only make up 3% of the population that number is way to high. It should only be 3% of pedophiles are gay if all things were equal, but they aren't.

 

not contradicting anything I said.

 

You assume people choose adult romantic partners for the same reason they choose child victims. You give pedophiles more credit than I, assuming their mentality and motives are exactly the same as your own. I would be concerned for you if that really was the case.

 

I don't like nearly naked cheerleaders, but a lot of people do, and they have the right, so, you will just have to get over it, sorry!

 

Do you drive cars? Wear clothes? Fly in airplanes?

- - - Updated - - -

So, I can't either.

 

Not in public.

- - - Updated - - -

That isn't apples and oranges it's apples and cardboard.

 

Nope those things I listed aren't natural to humans. Thereore, if you're against humans going aginst what you believe is their nature, you shouldn't wear clothes, fly or drive cars, either.

 

The 3% number reflects the proportion of individuals in the population who gladly report as LGBT in their adult orientation in surveys and questionnaires (and that is probably an underestimation for obvious reasons). More recent studies of younger people who are more inclined to be open about their orientation show this figure rising closer to 6%. There is absolutely no evidence that all acts of homosexual molestation are carried out only and exclusively by persons in this self reporting group which is what you are claiming. Most acts of molestation are carried out by close family members, fathers, brothers, uncles etc.

Even if these people are married or are in some other kind of heterosexual relationship (or don't have any kind of adult relationships at all) anti-gay groups who peddle these lies will class them as "homosexuals" for the purpose of skewing the statistics.

Fact is, if only a small proportion of those self-reporting or assumed 97% (because most of these statistics are gleaned from studies designed to assess the number of LGBT individuals and presume the remainder to be straight) heterosexuals commit acts of homosexual pedophilia the numbers skew way up because there's just so many more of them overall.

Or do you really think a person sits around and thinks: "Oh well, I'm married or I live with my girlfriend but because I diddle my little brother and his playmates, I'd better tell this survey I'm Gay"?

Again the organizations who try to peddle these lies will often take a case when a male child is being abused by both his father and his mother as an act of "homosexual molestation" for the purpose of their demonization and to over-stress the numbers.

If you are going to count every single person who has ever committed and act of homosexual molestation as "a homosexual" then the overall number of "homosexuals" is going to skew way up and therefore the ratio of molestations, per capita, is going to skew way down.

Every accredited medical and social scientific organization in the western world (not just the US) holds that: per capita homosexuals are no more likely to be child molesters than anybody else. Why can't people accept this as fact?

 

Because it isn't true that's why.
Even if it's 6% are homo's that is no where near the 33% of homo's pedophiles.

 

except it is true. every peer reviewed study done on the subject confirms this.

 

You might try reading his post. You ignored everything in it.

 

Did you actually read what I said?

 

I don't think you really challenged the quote that you picked out from the OP. He made the case that marriage is restricted for many different reasons, and has always been restricted. Those areas mentioned are not irrelevant and for you to dismiss them as irrelevant means your are not challenging the OP's argument, you are deliberately ignoring it.

 

Again with the pedophilia arguments? None of you claiming gays are pedophiles even understand the terms you are using. Here is a refresher for all of you (its a bit long so try to keep reading):

So a pedophile is someone who is attracted to children, not necessarily a boy or girl, and a pedophile is neither heterosexual or homosexual (those refer to adult attractions).

Furthermore:

So cut this nonsense about homosexual pedophilia. Nonsense is still nonsense no matter how many times you bring it up.

 

I have one question. Why do you support gay marriage rights?

 

I'll jump in and answer that. Because it the right thing to do. Because no one can justify denying a right that others enjoy to a particular group without demonstrating how doing so will be detrimental to society and the greater good. Now answer Liberalis question

 

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/same-sex_marriage.html

 

Not supporting same sex marriage because gay couples cannot reproduce is just one of the many asinine , horse(*)(*)(*)(*) arguments being perpetrated by the anti equality bigots. You're avoiding the issue , that being that marriage is not about having kids. This is a smokescreen. If you really believed this clap trap, you would agree to deny marriage to all of those who do not reproduce. Marriage is either about children or it's not. You can't say it's about children when it comes to gays and not necessarily about children with heteros. You cant have it both ways

In today’s society, marriage is about far more than having children. It is much more about a status, about economics and about security. If the inability to reproduce is valid reason to deny marriage, should we allow ANYONE who cannot or chooses not to have children to marry?. What about heterosexual couples who are past child barring age? What about a younger couple who may not be able to have children? Perhaps marriages should be automatically void after a certain time if no children are produced. Anyone who does not like these ideas, will have to drop “reproduction” as an issue. I will add that gay people can and do have children. The only difference is that one parent is not a biological parent…but wait isn’t that also the case with many heterosexual couples?

 

A family is what it is even if those who choose to be a family do not, or cannot take advantage of all the benefits and purposes of a family. It's like a hammer. It could hang on the wall without being used, and yet still be what it is. It still exists for the potential of being used in the way it was purposed, even if its purpose is never realized.

And that actually is the best argument for gay marriage- because a family is what it is, even if those who choose to be a family do not, or or cannot take advantage of all the benefits and purposes of a family. That applies to every family headed by a gay couple.



Homosexuals cannot produce children, and it would be unnatural for them to raise children.

A single mother or grandmother cannot produce children- but we don't call it 'unnatural' for them to raise children- we call it a single parent family. A woman with no ovaries or a man with no testes cannot produce children- but I don't think you would consider it 'unnatural for them to raise a child.rl]

Hmmm doesn't anyone else see the illogic in that statement? If a couple cannot have children- there is no biological possibility of doing so.
A couple where the man has no testes or penis will never impregnate a woman.

To paraphrase Justice Sotomayor (?)- We can be fairly confident that a woman who gets married in her sixties is not going to be having any babies.

 

Ok, and I have the same response to you as before.

This entire nonsense argument can be debunked with one question:

What is the state-interest in providing marriage benefits to non-fertile heterosexual couples?

No. Some heterosexual couples have absolutely no biological possibility of having children. This is true for virtually all elderly couples wanting to get married, which is known well before marriage.

Procreation may have something to do with religious ideas of marriage, but the marriage license is a different matter, and that is what is being talked about. Nowhere does the state require marriages to result in children, and people who can never biologically have children together are allowed to marry anyway.