yguy

Since homosexuals comprise less than 5% of the population, I'm not sure this statement can be taken as a demonstration of the benign nature - epidemiologically speaking - of homosexual activity.

yguy

"Homosexual marriage" would just as certainly be a corruption of the institution of marriage as 3,4, or n-party marriages, incestuous marriages, or inter-species marriages.

I think what we need to start to understand is that even traditional marriage is not about two people being able to get their rocks off without catching something, or even about their companionship. Marriage is, first and foremost, about children - because it is children who carry the seeds of a country's survival. Children MUST have a stable homelife, lest they end up like the gang-bangers in the black community, or worse. They need moms and dads - and women make lousy dads, and men make lousy moms. The homosexuals who marry and conceive a child by artificial means make a conscious decision to deprive that child of either a mother or a father. That's a hideous outrage, and if I were Emporer, it would be a capital crime.

Kimpatsu

So infertile heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry?

yguy

That would be absurd, of course. I am speaking in general terms here. While there is certainly nothing wrong with a couple being childless, the inescapable reality is that it is childbearing couples who make a society viable.

Dr Rick

It shouldn't, nor should it be taken as a demonstration of the benign nature - epidemiologically speaking or otherwise - of heterosexual activity.

For that matter, it shouldn't be taken as a demonstration of the benign nature - epidemiologically speaking or otherwise - of handshaking, changing diapers, driving a car, or attending Sunday services.

Rick

Nowhere357

Marriage would be different, yes. But "corruption" is a loaded word, and poisens the well. I suggest that a loving and moral homosexual couple would be an improvement over some of the more dysfunctional hetero couples, from the childs viewpoint.

These are good points. I guess times are changing, and maybe the concept of "it takes a villiage" should become more important.

BTW interracial marriage was once seen as "corruption". (Still is to some, of course).

Peace

yguy

What I was getting at, of course, is that your assertion tends to cast anal sex in a light of relative benignity compared to vaginal sex. The only way to get an accurate read on it would be to compare AIDS transmissions per incidence of anal sex with transmissions per incidence of vaginal sex. AFAIK, the closest we can get to that is to compare the AIDS rate within the homosexual community to the rest of the population, in which race they unfortunatley come out on top - which appears to support the idea that the disease is more easily spread by anal sex.

Or am I missing something?

Philosoft

The religious institution, perhaps. It's certainly not axiomatic that marriage is rightfully limited to a man-woman union.

I think anything "we" need to understand needs to be understood in terms of social benefit, rather than scriptural assertion.

No, child-rearing is first and foremost about children. "Marriage" is not a synonym for "child-rearing."

Your reference to the "black community" is out of line. What you're actually talking about are the poor communities - inner-city ghettos, run-down trailer parks, etc. There are many more factors at work in these places than just single-parent households. In any case, well-adjusted children need to be taught certain things as they mature. The sex of the parent they get these things from is largely irrelevant.
You are blinded by your hatred. I am appalled that you consider death an appropriate punishment for this "crime."

yguy

No doubt. An attraction to the same sex in and of itself is not any more disgusting than the propensity towards gluttony, perhaps. As for corruption, however, I stand by my use of it in this context.

I would say not that it should, but that it will - because as the institution of the family is corrupted, children of questionable unions will tend to become wards of the state more so than those from traditional families.

Indeed. A notable example of this mentality was Miriam, wife of Aaron, who resented Moses for marrying an Ethiopian. To teach her a lesson, the Lord turned her leprous white for a few days.

yguy

Actually, I think "axiomatic" fails to adequately convey the sense of certainty I feel about this.

Perhaps you could be considerate enough to save such remonstrations for someone who has at least referred to scripture as a basis for some part of his argument. Ya think?

If you are implying that poverty is a causative factor in the demoralization of inner city blacks, how do you know that it is not rather an effect of some other cause?

I think not. Moms are great at nurturing. Kids need that in the first few years, and guys are lousy at it. OTOH, a woman who tries to take on the role of discipliarian is like me trying to be President. It doesn't work. It HASN'T worked. That's what got us the Rapist-in-Chief.

I wrote that with all the seriousness warranted by the fact that such a thing will never happen in my lifetime. That said, I do consider it a hideous crime.