Make a purely secular argument for 1 woman & 1 man.

[jmvizanko]

The only arguments I have ever seen for forcing the definition of marriage to be only one woman and one man fall into 2 categories. One is an argument that is derived from somebody's religion, say for example, Christianity suggesting 1 woman and 1 man. The other is an argument from majority/tradition, say for example, most or many cultures throughout history defined marriage this way, so that's what it should be.

In America, we have a bill of rights that clearly states we should not have a state religion. Therefore the first argument does not suffice for a justification for making gay marriage, or polygamy, illegal in the US. The second argument seems to be used when the first argument fails, namely because of the above reason I just gave. But it also fails because we have a bill of rights that clearly states we have a right to practice religion freely. If your religion allows polygamy, the American government in no way has a right to deny your practice of it. And both fail in basic principle that they are based on ethnocentricity and are anti personal freedom, and I have no clue how anyone could put either argument forward and still spout that they love America because it stands for freedom.

The only convincing argument that wouldn't violate the first amendment or the respect of personal freedom would be one based solely on logic. I challenge anyone to present such an argument, that is not derived from their religion, their personal preferences, or the basis that their religion/culture should rule all others.

[micatala]

By the way, almost all the Catholic scandals were a homosexual issue, as most of the perpetrators and victims were male.

For all of human history marriage has been seen as between men and women, yet to you that is 'peculiar'. You can't make this stuff up.

Incorrect. Most of those were PEDOPHILE incidences. The male victims got the publicity (plus , because of the altar boys, and the structure of the boarding schools, the priests had more access to young boys), but there were a substancial number of female victims.

It was homosexual pedophilia, the vast majority of those involved were male. There is an embarrassing link between the two issues.

You do keep on promoting misinformation. The vast number of pedophiles are heterosexual in their adult relations (the same percentage that are heterosexual in the non-pedophole population.).

Nonsense. Homosexuals are far more likely to molest children.

East of Eden again, all on his own, makes an accusation associating gays with pedophiles.


One has to ask why. How is this making a secular argument, or any kind of argument against gay marriage? Even if his accusation is true, which based on the evidence provided here seems very doubtful,

Why, just because you don't want it to be true? What facts do you disagree with? I see no reason to continue this conversation until there is agreement that gay males are involved in pedophilia more than gay heterosexuals.

You're making stuff up. I never claimed the higher incidence of pedophilia in the homosexual community was a reason for them to not marry, it was in response to another claim.

Would East of Eden propose banning marriage to people who are part of any and all groups who have a higher rate of pedophilia or sexual abuse of children, or only gays?








Yes or no?

You're asking a question about a point I didn't make. The point is relevant to the issue of gays in the Boy Scouts, for one.

You brought up, unbidden, this association in a thread on gay marriage. It is pretty hard to see this as anything but an attempt to smear all gays because of the actions of a few and use that as part of the argument.




If you did not intend it to be relevant to gay marriage, why did you bring it up?




Now you are ducking and dodging to avoid your smear by pointing back to your alleged facts. If you brought up these facts why did you do so? What are they relevant to? Telling us now that you consider any discussion of anything other than the alleged facts irrelevant seems to be nothing more than an attempt to evade the reason you made the smear in the first place.

[East of Eden]

By the way, almost all the Catholic scandals were a homosexual issue, as most of the perpetrators and victims were male.

For all of human history marriage has been seen as between men and women, yet to you that is 'peculiar'. You can't make this stuff up.

Incorrect. Most of those were PEDOPHILE incidences. The male victims got the publicity (plus , because of the altar boys, and the structure of the boarding schools, the priests had more access to young boys), but there were a substancial number of female victims.

It was homosexual pedophilia, the vast majority of those involved were male. There is an embarrassing link between the two issues.

You do keep on promoting misinformation. The vast number of pedophiles are heterosexual in their adult relations (the same percentage that are heterosexual in the non-pedophole population.).

Nonsense. Homosexuals are far more likely to molest children.

East of Eden again, all on his own, makes an accusation associating gays with pedophiles.


One has to ask why. How is this making a secular argument, or any kind of argument against gay marriage? Even if his accusation is true, which based on the evidence provided here seems very doubtful,

Why, just because you don't want it to be true? What facts do you disagree with? I see no reason to continue this conversation until there is agreement that gay males are involved in pedophilia more than gay heterosexuals.

You're making stuff up. I never claimed the higher incidence of pedophilia in the homosexual community was a reason for them to not marry, it was in response to another claim.

Would East of Eden propose banning marriage to people who are part of any and all groups who have a higher rate of pedophilia or sexual abuse of children, or only gays?








Yes or no?

You're asking a question about a point I didn't make. The point is relevant to the issue of gays in the Boy Scouts, for one.

You brought up, unbidden, this association in a thread on gay marriage. It is pretty hard to see this as anything but an attempt to smear all gays because of the actions of a few and use that as part of the argument.




If you did not intend it to be relevant to gay marriage, why did you bring it up?

Because the issue was incompletely described as a pedophile one.

Now you are ducking and dodging to avoid your smear by pointing back to your alleged facts.

That's funny, you throw those words around here all the time, yet you refuse to answer my question on the other thread of if Romney started his political career in the home of an abortion clinic bomber, would it be no big deal?

[micatala]

By the way, almost all the Catholic scandals were a homosexual issue, as most of the perpetrators and victims were male.

For all of human history marriage has been seen as between men and women, yet to you that is 'peculiar'. You can't make this stuff up.

Incorrect. Most of those were PEDOPHILE incidences. The male victims got the publicity (plus , because of the altar boys, and the structure of the boarding schools, the priests had more access to young boys), but there were a substancial number of female victims.

It was homosexual pedophilia, the vast majority of those involved were male. There is an embarrassing link between the two issues.

You do keep on promoting misinformation. The vast number of pedophiles are heterosexual in their adult relations (the same percentage that are heterosexual in the non-pedophole population.).

Nonsense. Homosexuals are far more likely to molest children.

East of Eden again, all on his own, makes an accusation associating gays with pedophiles.


One has to ask why. How is this making a secular argument, or any kind of argument against gay marriage? Even if his accusation is true, which based on the evidence provided here seems very doubtful,

Why, just because you don't want it to be true? What facts do you disagree with? I see no reason to continue this conversation until there is agreement that gay males are involved in pedophilia more than gay heterosexuals.

You're making stuff up. I never claimed the higher incidence of pedophilia in the homosexual community was a reason for them to not marry, it was in response to another claim.

Would East of Eden propose banning marriage to people who are part of any and all groups who have a higher rate of pedophilia or sexual abuse of children, or only gays?








Yes or no?

You're asking a question about a point I didn't make. The point is relevant to the issue of gays in the Boy Scouts, for one.

You brought up, unbidden, this association in a thread on gay marriage. It is pretty hard to see this as anything but an attempt to smear all gays because of the actions of a few and use that as part of the argument.




If you did not intend it to be relevant to gay marriage, why did you bring it up?

Because the issue was incompletely described as a pedophile one.

What??

Now you are ducking and dodging to avoid your smear by pointing back to your alleged facts.

That's funny, you throw those words around here all the time, yet you refuse to answer my question on the other thread of if Romney started his political career in the home of an abortion clinic bomber, would it be no big deal?

Done.







Now try again. Why did you bring up the association if you really believed it was irrelevant to the topic of the thread?




And why is it at all relevant when clearly a lot of gays are not pedophiles? What should all gays somehow have to apologize for or be associated with those that may be pedophiles? Are we not each responsible for our own actions? Even if it were true that a larger percentage of gays are pedophiles, why bring it up?


Are you willing to make similar comments about other groups? Should all blacks be smeared because a larger percentage of blacks are criminals, or use drugs, or have children out of wedlock, etc., etc.? Would that be fair? What would you say to a person who did make comments along these lines?

[East of Eden]

By the way, almost all the Catholic scandals were a homosexual issue, as most of the perpetrators and victims were male.

For all of human history marriage has been seen as between men and women, yet to you that is 'peculiar'. You can't make this stuff up.

Incorrect. Most of those were PEDOPHILE incidences. The male victims got the publicity (plus , because of the altar boys, and the structure of the boarding schools, the priests had more access to young boys), but there were a substancial number of female victims.

It was homosexual pedophilia, the vast majority of those involved were male. There is an embarrassing link between the two issues.

You do keep on promoting misinformation. The vast number of pedophiles are heterosexual in their adult relations (the same percentage that are heterosexual in the non-pedophole population.).

Nonsense. Homosexuals are far more likely to molest children.

East of Eden again, all on his own, makes an accusation associating gays with pedophiles.


One has to ask why. How is this making a secular argument, or any kind of argument against gay marriage? Even if his accusation is true, which based on the evidence provided here seems very doubtful,

Why, just because you don't want it to be true? What facts do you disagree with? I see no reason to continue this conversation until there is agreement that gay males are involved in pedophilia more than gay heterosexuals.

You're making stuff up. I never claimed the higher incidence of pedophilia in the homosexual community was a reason for them to not marry, it was in response to another claim.

Would East of Eden propose banning marriage to people who are part of any and all groups who have a higher rate of pedophilia or sexual abuse of children, or only gays?








Yes or no?

You're asking a question about a point I didn't make. The point is relevant to the issue of gays in the Boy Scouts, for one.

You brought up, unbidden, this association in a thread on gay marriage. It is pretty hard to see this as anything but an attempt to smear all gays because of the actions of a few and use that as part of the argument.




If you did not intend it to be relevant to gay marriage, why did you bring it up?

Because the issue was incompletely described as a pedophile one.

What??

Now you are ducking and dodging to avoid your smear by pointing back to your alleged facts.

That's funny, you throw those words around here all the time, yet you refuse to answer my question on the other thread of if Romney started his political career in the home of an abortion clinic bomber, would it be no big deal?

Done.



Now try again. Why did you bring up the association if you really believed it was irrelevant to the topic of the thread?

Done.

And why is it at all relevant when clearly a lot of gays are not pedophiles? What should all gays somehow have to apologize for or be associated with those that may be pedophiles? Are we not each responsible for our own actions? Even if it were true that a larger percentage of gays are pedophiles, why bring it up?


Are you willing to make similar comments about other groups? Should all blacks be smeared because a larger percentage of blacks are criminals, or use drugs, or have children out of wedlock, etc., etc.? Would that be fair? What would you say to a person who did make comments along these lines?

You clearly have major problems when un-PC facts are brought up, don't you? Rather than address the facts I brought up when questioned, you bring up an endless string of bizarre questions.

[Goat]

By the way, almost all the Catholic scandals were a homosexual issue, as most of the perpetrators and victims were male.

For all of human history marriage has been seen as between men and women, yet to you that is 'peculiar'. You can't make this stuff up.

Incorrect. Most of those were PEDOPHILE incidences. The male victims got the publicity (plus , because of the altar boys, and the structure of the boarding schools, the priests had more access to young boys), but there were a substancial number of female victims.

It was homosexual pedophilia, the vast majority of those involved were male. There is an embarrassing link between the two issues.

You do keep on promoting misinformation. The vast number of pedophiles are heterosexual in their adult relations (the same percentage that are heterosexual in the non-pedophole population.).

Nonsense. Homosexuals are far more likely to molest children.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2258616/posts

"Among the reasons Dailey cited for being concerned about the potential for homosexual molestation of boys:

-- Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men and significant numbers of victims are males. In 1996, the journal Adolescence reported several studies indicate that up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys.

-- Even homosexual activists don't try to hide the connection with pedophilia. In The Gay Report -- a book published back in 1979 -- authors Karla Jay and Allen Young found that 73 percent of those surveyed had had sexual relations with males 16 to 19 or younger.

-- A 1999 article in the Journal of Homosexuality by Helmut Graupner argued that same-sex relations with minors should be considered a gay rights issue. The article argued that children wouldn't necessarily be harmed by sexual contact with adults."

"It showed that 8 million girls were abused by age 18 by heterosexual men, a ratio of 1 victim to 11 adult men. However, 6-8 million boys were abused by age 18 by 1-2 million adult homosexuals, a ratio of 3-5 victims for every gay adult."

Here is Obama's former "safe schools czar" who is an admirer of a promoter of pedophilia:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archiv ... t/09100903

Again, you can't make this stuff up. I don't recall Bush appointing anybody who admired an advocate of molesting little girls, do you?

So, you completely ignored my post with a link to an article (by a qualified person) on child molestation and went ahead on insisting on your nonsense based on F-News-like propaganda.

Okay. Let me say it: child molesters often have no fully developed sexual orientation. However the majority of child molesters have a fixed heterosexual orientation. You would learn it if you have read the article.

I reject the article, you are wrong. What facts in the 'Fox news propaganda' do you disagree with, or are you just going to do ad hominems?

FOX, the most trusted name in news. I much prefer them to the MSM presstitutes in the tank for our failed POTUS.

Hum. yet here, is an article that says Francis Collins, (of the human Genome fame), and the author of "The language of God'), a very devote catholic, says your source, 'lifesitenews', lied about his work
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2008/09/884/

Gosh.. with such glowing reviews like that about your sources, I guess i have to accept it.

[micatala]

You brought up, unbidden, this association in a thread on gay marriage. It is pretty hard to see this as anything but an attempt to smear all gays because of the actions of a few and use that as part of the argument.


If you did not intend it to be relevant to gay marriage, why did you bring it up?

Because the issue was incompletely described as a pedophile one.

I am not sure what you mean here. Could you clarify?

And why is it at all relevant when clearly a lot of gays are not pedophiles? What should all gays somehow have to apologize for or be associated with those that may be pedophiles? Are we not each responsible for our own actions? Even if it were true that a larger percentage of gays are pedophiles, why bring it up?


Are you willing to make similar comments about other groups? Should all blacks be smeared because a larger percentage of blacks are criminals, or use drugs, or have children out of wedlock, etc., etc.? Would that be fair? What would you say to a person who did make comments along these lines?

You clearly have major problems when un-PC facts are brought up, don't you? Rather than address the facts I brought up when questioned, you bring up an endless string of bizarre questions.

I am certainly open to debating any relevant facts. My questions are far from bizarre or off topic.

If you bring up pedophilia with respect to gay marriage, then it is fair to discuss whether similar smear tactics are appropriate with respect to other groups.

Your assiduous avoidance of addressing such questions speaks volumes.

[Autodidact]

It is not factual that gay men are more often pedophiles than straight men. It is factual that men are more often pedophiles. The overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by men, and the overwhelming majority of victims are girls. I have no idea what this is supposed to have to do with prohibiting gay people from marrying.

In actual research done on actual same-sex families, no cases of child sexual abuse were found. The safest place for a child to be raised is in a lesbian family, because it is the least likely family to have a problem with sexual or physical abuse or neglect.

Just ask me if you need me to cite sources for these facts.

So, apparently, women should be prohibited from marrying men, so that children can be protected from abuse. Really? Is that where you want to go, East? Or why did you bring it up?