<p>lealdragon-but those pedophiles were "born" that way and to say they can't do what they were "born" to is a violation of the constitution! At leas thats what they would say. And you can't just claim that there are victims in their relations, whose to say these little boys/girls weren't "born" to screw older people? </p>
<p>Thats why the argument of being "born" attracted to whatever isn't valid-its like a blank check</p>
<p>I believe that they aren't hurting anyone at all by being together, hell I think that same sex adoption should be legal too because they can't have kids and we have an abnudance of children in the US and around the world who don't have parents who could be placed into happy homes because these parents will love them.</p>
<p>Here are 12 satirical reasons that same sex marriage will ruin our society:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural. </p></li>
<li><p>Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children. </p></li>
<li><p>Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children. </p></li>
<li><p>Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful. </p></li>
<li><p>Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal. </p></li>
<li><p>Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities. </p></li>
<li><p>Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America. </p></li>
<li><p>Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall. </p></li>
<li><p>Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license. </p></li>
<li><p>Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children. </p></li>
<li><p>Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans. </p></li>
<li><p>Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>haha. That was pretty good!</p>
<p>I found it online and I just couldn't stop laughing...and it's true because thats pretty much every argument that i've heard against same sex marriage... I won 500+4 in a speech contest speaking on this topic...i'm straight as an arrow but I believe that EVERYONE should be treated equally regardless of race, sex, sexual preference, religion, or mental capacity</p>
<p>"there is nothing to be lukewarm about regarding the possibility of religious people being persecuted by the state"</p>
<p>The church owes the state one for the whole intelligent design thing.</p>
<p>half of those arguments don't even make sense...</p>
<p>Nalcon, the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual is that there are two consenting adults! You haven't made a claim otherwise. Being a pedaphile, even if it is something "they were born to do" is breaking law, so it must be illegal.</p>
<p>"but those pedophiles were "born" that way and to say they can't do what they were "born" to is a violation of the constitution! At leas thats what they would say."</p>
<p>Very simple. One person's rights end where another's begins.</p>
<p>"And you can't just claim that there are victims in their relations, whose to say these little boys/girls weren't "born" to screw older people?"</p>
<p>Yes, you CAN claim that there are victims. Children are not considered mature enough (and certainly not sexually mature enough) to consent to sex, whether with someone of the same age, older, same sex, or other sex. Sex with children is prohibited, because it victimizes children.</p>
<p>People should be able to do whatever they want, AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT HURT ANYONE ELSE. No one can decide for anther what they were 'born' to do and a child is not mature enough to decide yet; therefore having sex with a child before the child is old enough to understand it and consciously choose it, victimizes the child.</p>
<p>Gay sex between 2 consenting adults has no victims. Pedophilia does. Think about this and I'm sure you will be able to grasp it.</p>
<p>Reblin, that was awesome!!!</p>
<p>"Being a pedaphile, even if it is something "they were born to do" is breaking law, so it must be illegal."</p>
<p>just like 2 gay people getting married is illegal in some states...</p>
<p>"People should be able to do whatever they want, AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT HURT ANYONE ELSE. No one can decide for anther what they were 'born' to do and a child is not mature enough to decide yet; therefore having sex with a child before the child is old enough to understand it and consciously choose it, victimizes the child."
So now the state gets to decide arbitrarily that children aren't mature enough to make their own decisions? Sounds like freedom to me...not.</p>
<p>And you still haven't told me how you're going to answer the animal loving people yet.</p>
<p>Remember that I'm not arguing against homosexuality in anyway, I'm just arguing against legal standing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
just like 2 gay people getting married is illegal in some states...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhh...that's kinda the whole point! We have two consenting adults what each do in the privacy of their own homes! There is no reason to keep it illegal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And you still haven't told me how you're going to answer the animal loving people yet.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Though you failed to see it, reblin's statement is 100% true! To get married you need two consenting individuals who sign marriage licenses. 1: a goat isn't consenting. 2) a goat is not a person. 3) a goat can't sign a piece of paper, or, if it could somehow, it can't do so legally because it doesn't understand what it is signing. That is why, for example, minors (under 18) can't sign legally binding contracts (well, they can, but they won't be binding), because they may not know 100% what they are signing. Thank you.</p>
<p>No, I'm sorry you failed to see mine. You say "To get married you need two consenting individuals who sign marriage licenses."</p>
<p>Not true, they have to be of the opposite sex in most places. If you change that segment of the criteria, pretty soon people are going to be saying, "What if I love my goat? Who is the government to tell me the goat doesn't love me back?" It is very easy for you to say that there is a hard line drawn at marriage including two consenting adults (not that it always includes adults right now) but it won't be so easy once people start marching and protesting and basicaly doing exactly what they are doing now but for pedophilia and other stuff.
<a href="http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/June/subcontinent_June56.xml§ion=subcontinent%5B/url%5D">http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/June/subcontinent_June56.xml§ion=subcontinent</a></p>
<p>"therefore having sex with a child before the child is old enough to understand it and consciously choose it, victimizes the child."</p>
<p>So your saying that doing anything with a child that it cannot choose to do is immoral and "victimizes" it, like I said I am personally against pedophilia but this is the argument people will make:</p>
<p>You already circumcise children before they consent, what may be construed as a sexual assault on a minor. </p>
<p>I'm not even going to argue with people though who think you can just draw a line after making the change that they personally support, and hope that the person just a little more radical won't try to push it farther.</p>
<p>"You already circumcise children before they consent, what may be construed as a sexual assault on a minor."</p>
<p>You are correct in pointing out that there are inconsistencies. Parents do have control over their children and can do a great many things, including mutilating their bodies thru circumcision (which I am against, btw) and legal physical abuse by spanking (which I am also against).</p>
<p>These practices are allowed because there is a consensus that parents have the right to do things that they think are necessary for their children's development. Physical discipline is in that category; sex with children is not.</p>
<p>I agree that it's a grey area here regarding the spanking and circumcision. But to extend this to now include imposed sex is quite a stretch. I mean, really, if you think about it you don't really think pedophiles will get very far asking for the 'right' to victimize children, do you? That is laughable. In the first place, they usually victimize other people's children. Incest is already illegal for a variety of reasons, so the likelihood of adults trying to legally sexually abuse their children is preposterous. They can try to justify the need for spanking as being in the child's best interest, but no way could they justify incestuous abuse. And the pedophile who wants to prey on someone else's child cannot use 'in his best interest' as a justification like a parent could with spanking.</p>
<p>I'm pretty open-minded, but hey, there are limits, ya know. Political correctness can be taken too far! And, while there will always be a few people who try to abuse the system, like the woman suing McDonald's for making her fat, we need to keep some semblance of reason.</p>
<p>I just don't see much likelihood of people clamoring for the right to be pedophiles or marry their goats. Not gonna happen. So it is a very weak argument to deny gays the right to be with the person they love, because you fear some ridiculous repercussions.</p>
<p>Again, it is very simple: One person's rights ends where another's begins. With the exception of parenting, it really is very cut-and-dry.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What if I love my goat? Who is the government to tell me the goat doesn't love me back?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again Nalcon, you refuse to realize the very important part of consenting adults! A child, by law, can't consent because they are minors, and can't enter into legally binding contracts (which is what a marriage license is). A goat can't sign a document or give consent...again throwing out your argument. </p>
<p>Regarding your circucision argument, it is the parents, not the child, giving consent. You would need a legal guardian to sign if someone was a minor, and last time I checked a pedaphile would have a hard time getting a guardian's signature to molest their child. You're arguments are ridiculous.</p>
<p>To go back in the conversation a bit...</p>
<p>In reality, homosexuality is natural. It's actually partly a chromosomal thing. Look it up.</p>
<p>I am not saying that you have to agree that it's moral. Morality is irrelevant. Gay people have the exact same rights to do anything that anyone else can in this country, purely because they are PEOPLE. Legal marriage is not religious, because America is not a theocracy.</p>