Shaun, isn't this the cornerstone of liberal "religious" dogma? Aberations, deviations from the normal course of nature, do normally prove to be inferior. In the natural world, they seldom survive for long at all. Yet this theory, centered around aberations actually being superior, and surviving to reproduce, continues to thrive virtually unchallenged. Liberalism even defends it with a somewhat religious zeal. Which is it then; are aberations inferior or superior? Or is it all in the connotation?

Kang, I would suggest some reading comprehension classes before any more attempts on your part to join in on an adult conversation.

How are they redefining marriage? Isn’t it the lifelong commitment to the person you love? How are they broadening their rights beyond the rest of us? Currently hetero’s can marry the person of their choice, but gays cannot. Gay marriage will simply give everyone the right to marry the person of their choice. Once this happens, then everyone will be equal in that they can marry the person of their choice.

You keep bringing up pedophiles. A murderer might say the same thing, in that it was a naturally occurring urge. You could probably find this true with a lot of crimes. Some even have names, like kleptomaniac. But these crimes all harm others, while homosexuality (again, between consenting adults) does not.

That’s the best rebuttal you can come up with?

Gotta go with Jeff on this one (I know, you're all shocked by that). Before the democrats starting aligning themselves with the hard left, I actually voted about 50/50, I would vote for whoever I thought was the best candidate and had the best position, regardless of party. Now I fear that a vote for a Democrat will be a vote for the policies of gay marriage, taking the word God out of any conceivable area of our lives, etc. If the democrats ever begin to separate themselves from the radical left, I might consider voting for one again, till then I will continue to vote for conservatives.

Kang, you're missing Jeff's point I think. It's very simple.

I (as a straight man) can marry....a woman. I can't marry a man even if I wanted to. Same thing for gay men. Therefore they have the same right to get married as I do. They just have to marry a woman just like everyone else.

Let's take the example of kleptomania (since you brought it up). From your logic, a kleptomaniac should be able to steal anything they want without recourse, because that's how they were born. The laws of the land should be altered because they can't help themselves. So you would have one set of laws for those of us who are not kleptomaniacs and legalized theft for those that are.

Being gay doesn't hurt either consenting party.

Pedophilia does.

Pretty clear cut, doncha think? Even for a "seeing gray" kinda guy like me. So whether it is nature or nurture, why should it matter? Other than the fact that it makes some people uncomfortable.

*sigh*

gay marriage doesn't harm anybody.

kleptomania (ie theft) does.

next...

Nah...just tends to give them an incurable, eventually fatal illness...

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2005/11/17/1

The survey found 61 percent of new male diagnoses came from men who had sex with other males, compared to 17 percent of transmissions from heterosexual sex and 16 percent from intravenous drug use.

"What we do know from these and other data is that HIV continues to exact a tremendous toll on (men who have sex with men) of all races, especially (men who have sex with men) of color," Valdiserri said.

you *sure* you're straight? Why did you feel the need to emphasize that you're straight? Feeling threatened by all this gay talk?

Besides, god loves lesbians. Mark Wilson said so.

So is this a plague from god?

Life is an incurable, eventually fatal illness...and 100% of people will die from it.

Love how the libs always pull the homophobia card....You seem to be a pretty smart guy nostatic, perhaps you can argue the point instead of throwing around a 3rd grade insult?

Ummm, did I say anything about God being involved? Statistics scare you or something?

This describes the voting behavior of a lot people. A person votes against the candidate that supports the issue that he most abhors. Not that this is new, but it undersmines the ridiculous notion that everyone who primarily votes for one party all think the same.

can't help it...too many idiotic arguments going around here.

The AIDS reference is ridiculous imho. And offered by most of the homophobes I know. Along with very clear assertions that they are in fact straight. Sorry to lump you in with them. My mistake.

Aberations from normal are very important. If aberations never showed up, we'd be in evolutionary stagnation. To say that they "usually" fail misses the point that when they're successful, they're very successful.

Please note that I'm not advancing the idea that homosexuality is an aberation that's good for evolution. I'm not ready to back that one up (yet). :)

I understand you think it's ridiculous, but I don't. I think that a behavior that significantly increases your risk of developing a serious illness which could kill you DOES harm the person that engages in that behavior.

Do you also think that smoking doesn't harm the smoker, that alcoholism doesn't harm the drinker or obesity doesn't harm the obese person?

The AIDS argument - that's a good one. :rolleyes:

So does being a lesbian "tend" to give them an incurable disease?

Unprotected sex (homo- or heterosexual) increases the risk.

I stand by my argument. Being gay doesn't harm the gay person. Being in a committed relationship doesn't harm the gay person.

Smoking is a behavior exhibited by a person. It increases risks of disease. Unprotected sex is a behavior exhibited by a person. It increases risks of disease.

Being attracted to the same sex in and of itself does *not* increase risk.

We engage in all kinds of behaviors that signifigantly increase our chances of death. Tracking a car, racing - hell, driving in an interstate are all pretty dangerous activities.

By its very mechanics (sorry, don't mean to make you squirm) unprotected homosexual sex does create more risk than heterosexual sex. Protected, the risk is more or less the same. This is not the same as the inherent danger of smoking/overeating/sedintary lifestyle/etc.