Seperation of sex and state.

[AlAyeti]

Should the govenrnemt be in position to decide sexual matters or define what is and what isn't acceptable in regards to privately practiced sex acts?

Unless the issue is with children living at home and under the authority and responsibility of their parents, should "Government" be excluded from being involved in the sexual practices of individuals?

What a person chooses to do in private should stay in private as long as it is not an illegal behavior. Should laws be passed giving "cultural status" and cultural recognition to an individual under the label of a "Culture" if it is private and independent behavior defined by individuality and not birth ethnicity?

Much is made of the personal choice of religion, and how that effects a persons way of viewing society, but nothing is more personal than sexual behavior in regards to how it effects a persons views on his or her in society. All people engage in commonly occuring sex acts no matter their ethnic or country of origin. Can an individual sexual practice be embraced by a group of people and then be elevated to an exclusive cultural indentity?

Why should leguslative governemt be in the business to define a persons civil rights by their sexual behavior?

If government becomes involved in defining personal rights practiced in private, should the people vote or be allowed to amend the laws that govern society as a means to define and/or re-redefine societal norms practiced in private and between "Consenting Adults?"

Or should government be seperated from sexuality and have nothing to say about an adult persons private behavior?

[AlAyeti]

Once individual interest groups can be aloud to define themselves without society being ivolved then indeed child molestation will evaporate into what the Man Boy Love Association clearly defines it to be. "Choice." and civil rights!

Sexuality should not be legislated unless the majority vote holds sway over the issue.

That is absolutely fair. "All" cultures and peoples have sexual intercourse. In the caase of homosexualit, individuals are demanding new laws to recognize their self interests.

I'm sure that is why marriage needs Marriage Protection Act FROm atacks and redefinition by a misguided and bullying self-interst group of individuasl that are demanding to redefine common sense.

The Governement IS the people.

Sexuality should not be recognized as a special right, unless some NEW definition and agenda is forcing the issue. Same-sex marriage for example is no different than pedophiles whose victims can be convinced that "there is no harm done" and therefore another redefinition of "union" is to be considered.

That is commonn sense.

[operabuff]

AlAyeti states that homosexual marriage is no different from pedophilia; in that he is completely wrong. Homosexual marriage is a contract entered into by two consenting adults. Pedophilia (which, by the way, is also found among heterosexuals) involves one adult and a non-consenting child.
He also states:

Sexuality should not be legislated unless the majority vote holds sway over the issue.

We have a Constitution precisely for the purpose of protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Is AlYeti familiar with the Constitution?

[ST88]

Once individual interest groups can be aloud to define themselves without society being ivolved then indeed child molestation will evaporate into what the Man Boy Love Association clearly defines it to be. "Choice." and civil rights!

The slippery slope argument fails because society has recognized that anyone under a certain age is not capable of giving consent for such an act. The legality of homosexuality is covered by this consent, being "of age". This is why pedophilia will never be seen as a viable cultural phenomenon, whereas homosexuality is.

Sexuality should not be legislated unless the majority vote holds sway over the issue.

As operabuff said, the majority does not rule in this country, regardless of what the Far Right wishes everyone to believe. We are a nation of laws, not mobs.

That is absolutely fair. "All" cultures and peoples have sexual intercourse. In the caase of homosexualit, individuals are demanding new laws to recognize their self interests.

If, by "new laws", you mean that it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of their homosexuality, then sure. but no one is asking for special treatment. We already have anti-discrimination laws. There's nothing wrong with heaping homosexuality into the file of other non-white, non-male, etc. groups.

I'm sure that is why marriage needs Marriage Protection Act FROm atacks and redefinition by a misguided and bullying self-interst group of individuasl that are demanding to redefine common sense.

This type of statement mystifies me. I have not yet heard a coherent argument why the institution of Marriage will be defiled by allowing homosexuals to marry.

Sexuality should not be recognized as a special right, unless some NEW definition and agenda is forcing the issue.

This is perhaps your best argument. I agree that sexuality, whatever it might be, should not even be an issue when it comes to being a citizen. Unfortunately, for many people, it becomes an issue once it becomes known. Many people treat homosexuals differently from the rest of the population, whether it's job discrimination, insurance redlining, or hospital visits. Treating homosexuals differently (i.e., not allowing them to marry) is, to me, indistinguishable from disallowing male-female couples to marry because they don't practice the missionary position. Should we ask all couples which positions they prefer?

Same-sex marriage for example is no different than pedophiles whose victims can be convinced that "there is no harm done" and therefore another redefinition of "union" is to be considered.

The victims of pedophilia are legally incapable of making that decision. Therefore the comparison fails.

[juliod]

I have not yet heard a coherent argument why the institution of Marriage will be defiled by allowing homosexuals to marry.

It's obvious, really.

If we allowed homosexual marriage, then we might have:

1) Divorce.
2) Remarriage after divorce.
3) Infidelity within marriage.
4) Premarital sex.

It's a Good Thing we don't have gay marriage. It could really harm the sanctity of christian marriage.

DanZ

[Jose]

...and today's headline is that Indiana Congressman Hostettler has announced that divorce is just as much of an evil as gay marriage, because they both devalue the institution of marriage itself. He calls for laws banning divorce. I guess we should go back even further, and ban choice in marriage as well--let Dad arrange it on the basis of political or financial advantage.

[AlAyeti]

Juliod,

What level of education led you to justify two wrongs making a right?

Always the same pathetic convoluted logic in a liberal mind.

[juliod]

What level of education led you to justify two wrongs making a right?

I'm pointing out that your christians utterly failed to protect the sanctity of marriage. There's nothing of value about the institution to protect from homosexuals, is there?

How many US churches refuse to allow their members to divorce?

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

Call any "Christian Church" and let me know what "Churches" allow adultery, celebrate adultery, and force its acceptance on society as a minority status foir those who choose this sexual orientation.

All divorced people must repent of their sin of adultery. Jesus was absolutely clear on that. Yes or no?

Oh but if only science could prove that people are "born that way," you know, to be sexually unfaithful, then there would be know "wrong." In fact it would be hate speech to call an adulterer an adulterer.

Now, where have I heard that kind of resoning about sexual sin?

I hear that in your posts. Am I wrong?

[MagusYanam]

Now, where have I heard that kind of resoning about sexual sin?

There is a problem with this analogy in that adultery is not just a sexual sin. It is also a social sin - the act of adultery hurts the one committing adultery and the adulterer's spouse and family. The human debris caused by unfaithful couples is great and it's tragic - just listen to a Lucy Kaplansky CD (she's a psychologist and songwriter who has dealt with a lot of adulterous cases in her time and seen the trauma it causes).

Homosexuality in and of itself is not comparable unless the homosexual couple is unfaithful or promiscuous. A homosexual couple living in a stable and monogamous relationship doesn't create the human debris and social trauma that adultery does to the adulterer and the cuckolded, at least as far as I'm aware (I've never heard Lucy singing about same-sex couples damaging each other's lives, for example).

[juliod]

Call any "Christian Church" and let me know what "Churches" allow adultery

I'm not aware of any protestant churches barring people for being divorced. (I don't know about Catholics.) It would be pretty simple for a church to ban divorce, sexual immorality, adultery, etc....

It's the difference between it being prohibited in theory and being banned in practise.

As we all know, only too well, a church official who sexually abuses children in the church is more likely to be protected by the church authorities than exposed and brought to trial.

As it stands now, marriage means nothing to me. That's because of the 2000 years of farce that christians have made the institution. Nothing will be lost by legalizing homsexual marriage.

DanZ