Marriage & Family Under Attack.

[Hugo]

smoking can not be done without harm. gayness can be done without harm.

I disagree. Plenty of smokers actually live to a ripe old age without any noticeable side-effects of their addiction, however, that does not mean that tobacco smoking is not harmful. It is.

in fact, the MAJORITY of gays live perfectly normal lives, just like everyone else.

I have repeatedly proven to you that this is not the case.

[SirRiff]

smoking can not be done without harm. gayness can be done without harm.

I disagree. Plenty of smokers actually live to a ripe old age without any noticeable side-effects of their addiction, however, that does not mean that tobacco smoking is not harmful. It is.

just because you continue to live does not mean you are not doing harm. any doctor will tell you that. smokers harm themselves in a steady slow process, not at all once. so the error in logic is thinking that because they are alive they are not doing harm, which is untrue.

so once again i restate you cannot smoke without doing harm.

you can have sex without doing harm. billions of people do it all the time, its how the species survives.

so there can never be an argument saying that sex is unethical if it is done without harm. that would be like saying eating is unethical. we realize that done to extremes or in hazardous manners both sex and eating can be harmfull, but there are many many reasons why making this the prevailing judgement is not only extreme, but nonsense.

the first of which would be it is unfair for some to accurately juge what is harmfull for others. because in some manner, many behaviors could be judged by some people as so undesirable to be harmfull. this sort of tyranny by the few is counterproductive.

the only acceptable situation would probobly be what we see in civilized democracies. that the thresehold for the behaviors risk be very high (drinking and driving) and the thresecold of majority agreement against it be exceedingly high (elected gov making criminal law) so as to prevent abuse of the process (WWI internment camps or Nazi germany as extreme cases)

in fact, the MAJORITY of gays live perfectly normal lives, just like everyone else.

I have repeatedly proven to you that this is not the

case.

i'm not sure what you define proof as, but citing my scientific background, nothing posted here has been proof that gays live abnormal lives. several of numbers you posted were obviously fake, some were completely not repeatable because of this biased procedures (looking for dead gays in newspapers), and most were from obviously religious baised sources, none of whom have a good track record with science.

once again, if the CDC put out a study saying the average lifespan of a gay man was 42 and he one average would get 3 diseases, then yes, that is a reliable source. but to date small religous groups citing third hand studies done by other small religous groups who clearly post on thier sites a hatred of gays is not impartial. science must be indpendantly peer reviewed. that means the procedures and methods must be open for crtique from uninvested and removed experts.

so like i said, there is no reputable organization like the UN or CDC that claims that being gay is a death sentance and will cause harm to society. but any reasonable person can tell that just by looking around. guns, alcohol, and tobacco do far more harm then gays ever could. so if you want to protect society, there are probably 50,000 lives a year in north america you could save right there.

SirRiff

[Hugo]

so once again i restate you cannot smoke without doing harm.

Smoking is not an automatic death sentence. Statistically, though, it shortens your lifespan and makes you more vulnerable to disease. Homosexuality is not an automatic death sentence. Statistically, though, it shortens your lifespan and makes you more vulnerable to disease.

Why can we not just tell the truth about this? Why must everything about homosexuality be lies and half-truths?

several of numbers you posted were obviously fake

I clarified and confirmed those for you at a later time. Why don't you go back and read that?

but to date small religous groups citing third hand studies done by other small religous groups who clearly post on thier sites a hatred of gays is not impartial.

This proves that you've not been reading anything I've said. Under those circumstances, it's not surprising that you still don't understand.

[Elder]

Why do we attach tax benefits and other such things to a marriage? Because the marriage is the beginning of a family, and it is not at all easy to support a family. Two people of the same gender usually aren't looking to start a family. The family is the basic unit of society.

I call it God, but if you want to call it evolution or something else entirely that's your business, but men and women were created differently so that they could have children and raise them to be upstanding young men and women. There are things that a woman is necessary for in the raising of a child that a man can't accomplish on his own. There are things that a Man in necessary for in the raising of a child that the Woman is not ready to handle. Does that make either better than the other? Of course not. Both Genders are imperfect, and thus they rely on eachother to compliment eachother. That is what the family is about. Now obviosly there are circumstances where either the Father and the Mother are left alone with the children. I realize that it is possible for that parent to raise children on his or her own, but any child from a broken home, any single parent will tell you that such things are full of hardship. God (once again, if you want to call it nature, evolution, or anything else that's your business) meant for the family to involve a Mother and a Father and children.

There is more to marriage than just being in love, than just having sex and getting tax write-offs. It's about taking someone who you love and care about, and loving, honoring, cherishing and protecting that person, in good times and bad, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. It's a full time commitment. It's an agreement to support eachother, to have family together, and raise children together. A homosexual couple is not going to be able to do that the same way a Mother and Father will. It's about more than just being in love. Love is certainly an important factor, and you shouldn't marry without love, but you should also be able to have family together, to be able to work together towards common goals with your children.

[Craig Read]

Elder good post. Homosexuality is another liberal misconception - especially the rights that they will now have to place their union as a family and raise children. I would be interested in knowing what the children turn out to be - are they normal ? are they practical ? are they spiteful or disturbed ?

The argument against such questions from the left is that 42 % of marriages end in divorce and that single mom's are on the rise and that broken families usually entail problem children. I would be interested in knowing if we can compare the strength of a heterosexual family unit vs a homosexually managed unit. I would assume that the homosexual unit has its own unique problems and that its children would have a very slanted almost defensive view of life.

[Moderate Centrist]

" would be interested in knowing if we can compare the strength of a heterosexual family unit vs a homosexually managed unit."

Craig

I think you would have an extremely difficult time doing this as the number of hetrosexual families would outnumber the number of homosexual families by a margin so large as to throw the numbers.

The homosexual community has all the rights and privilages of everyone else. They are by far the most powerful minority group in history and have absolutely nothing to complain about as far as I can see.