An interesting question.

Children don't have the capacity to consent, by virtue of brain development, maturity, etc. Homosexuals do.
Children have much less of an ability to protect themselves, are more easily influences, and don't even have the mental capacity to know what's going on. Child molesters prey upon this.

In general, I would guess people that consider child molesters to be unnatural/mentally disturbed because they are preying upon individuals that can't defend themselves and that don't understand what's going on.

Homosexuals have the capacity to consent and understand what they are doing. They are not hurting anyone or preying on any victims.

Yeah, I can see that as part of the equation. However, is it solely the the fact that the children can't consent, or is it also simply the fact that they are children....As in, is the only reason child molestation is bad is because the kids aren't old enough to fight back or make rational decisions? If so, then that changes statuatory rape (although I think that can be overboard at times). So if we decide that it is something more than just the consent problem, that the desire for children is in itself wrong, wouldnt that open the door to people saying that just as they're unnaturally attracted to children, gay people are unnaturally attracted to people of the same sex? Once again,not claiming this to be the case, but I hear this argument sometimes, and it is usually shot down as outlandish (which it may turn out to be), before any discussion is given to it.

Consent is a requirement of marriage, so, legally, it is an issue. (There is no legal contract to own or posess an animal that the animal also enters into.)

I do understand that some people may want to marry or have sex with animals or children, as has been discussed in this thread. There are plenty of moral and ethical arguments against this, as well as some of the religious arguments that have been used here against homosexuals. I'm not presenting any of those. I'm just saying that as the law currently stands, animals and children are not able to give consent to sexual acts or enter into a contract of marriage. If you want to make the argument that people should have the right to marry animals, you are getting into bigger legal waters.

Also, shinerbock, things you may have heard about and don't want to discuss isn't a strong basis for argument. Plenty of things creep me out, but I can't argue that they should be illegal.

Well we're not really talking about statutory rape, we're talking about child molestation, which is different in the broad context that we're discussing.

What more is needed for reasons that child molestation is "bad" because it preys upon individuals who don't have the capacity to understand what's going on and who can't defend themselves?

I don't really follow how you're relating child molestation to gay people. The obvious, main difference that there's really no argument against is that with homosexuals, no one is getting hurt. There are no "victims". No one is suffering any injury because of it. No one is having anything forced upon them against their will.

I really fail to see how the two relate... it's apples and oranges.

Well some people out there don’t love their spouse... besides, we’ve only been married a little over 1 year, so it’s still kind of a new thing for me to brag about him. :)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is true or that even if it were gay people should be punished or treated like child molestors. I think we all agree that child molestors generally have an attraction to abnormally young people and this is unnatural. According to them, and the medical community I believe, they can't help it. So what then, would we say to people who claim that like people attracted to children, people attracted to the same sex also have a mental disorder. Is the fact that child molestors hurt the innocent, or those who can't make wise decisions, the reasoning for it being a disorder? Or is it that they are attracted to abnormally young people? What if someone had feelings of attraction towards children, but resisted it, is that still a disorder? If so, how would you respond to those who believe being gay is a mental "disorder"? If they are both innate things they cannot choose, what makes a normal but semi-rare attraction, while the other is a mental disorder?

Greekalum, I'm referring to the physical injury that can result from gay sex. I'm not saying it is a reason to not allow gay marriage, I brought it up on regarding the issue of whether risks can be higher in gay relationships. I hope you now see what I'm saying, because I really don't enjoy thinking about it.

Again, i'm going to say that one hurts people and is against the will, the other is consentual and no one gets hurt.

Perhaps if you can give us something more to go on as to why these two should relate? I really can't say any more than that without knowing why someone would equate these two things as being the same. You don't have to agree with the reasoning, just state what some of it is. If you say that they're both a mental disorder, well again, one hurts people, the other doesn't. I don't know what more of a difference is needed.

Ah, okay. That's also not necessarily any more common in the homosexual vs. heterosexual community. Not to mention the number of sex related injuries that are due to just plain klutziness.

Yeah, um, this happens in straight relationships, too -- although, if my theory is correct, the guys who ask for it have tiny penises and injury therefore isn't as likely.

I know I'm a little late, but in regards to the whole health insurance issue stated in previous pages:

I'm not arguing that there isn't most likely a slightly higher risk of STD's in the gay community. However, for the insurance companies, I would think the bigger concern is heart disease (often the result of eating a meat-and-potatoes diet) and cancer. The most common types of cancer being skin (usually a result of tanning), lung (usually a result of smoking), prostate, colorectal (also usually a result of eating a meat-and-potatoes diest), and breast. Also don't forget that the fastest growing population of HIV infection is in heterosexual women. In addition, the South and Midwest see a large number of cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis. I tried to find data for 2006, but the most recent I could find was 2004. Maybe, things have changed since then, but I kinda doubt it. The states in the top 10 for these three STD's are Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, New Mexico, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Maryland, Alaska, California, Hawaii, and New York. My point being that while the gay community may have a slightly higher risk of STD's, the straight community probably still poses a larger liability for the insurance companies.

In my own personal opinion, if someone can't see the difference between a child molestor (preying upon a victim) and a homosexual relationship (consentual, no one gets hurt), and believes that they are similar mental disorders... well... I think that I'd say that that person's the one with a mental disorder. That's just my personal opinion, not a legal opinion or even much of an argument.

And if someone can't see the difference between one thing hurting somone and the other thing not hurting anyone, there's really no other argument that's going to convince them otherwise.

I don't have an answer to your question about how to respond to people who think being gay is a "disorder". However, I wanted to say that for many sexual offenders, it is about more than just attraction. It is also a power/control issue, where they violate those that are vulnerable (smaller than them, weaker than them, easily scared/kept quiet by threats of harm to their families, easily manipulated into believing either that it's what little girls/boys are supposed to do with dad/uncle/neighbor/etc. or into believing that they *the child* are sinning/doing something so despicable that everyone will hate them if they told). I definitely think that people who prey on children should not be considered as being on the same plane as statutory rape, provided that it's between two teenagers and not a 40-year old man and a teenage (because in that case, they are not on the same level of maturity development and it leaves the door open to the teenager being preyed upon)

Kd, I think you're still missing my point. Say a person has an attraction to children, but doesn't act in any way to harm them. He has no desire to take advantage of them without their consent, but merely desires young people. Does he still have a mental disorder? If an abnormal attraction, regardless of actions that result because of it, are mental disorders, could homosexuality not be put beneath the same banner? It is not the normal attraction experienced by the majority of people, just as most people don't have any attraction toward children.

Regarding the injury question again, of course it is possible for straight couples as well. Straight sex clumsiness can also cause injury. However, I think such injury could be more likely in gay relationships (I guess, I'm no expert on how these things work), and I think things like infections could pose a problem that straight couples may not experience through clumsiness...(I understand that straight couples get infections from things as well, but people who engage in what I was previously referring to have a entirely different set of health issues to deal with).

Even if gay couples have a higher risk of "injury" from sex than straight couples, how would any related healthcare costs compare to the healthcare expenses that result from pregnancy, childbirth, fertility treatments, and raising children?

Addressing the first paragraph- well that's sorta different. I'm not a psychologist and haven't studied this at all, i'm not sure how the scientific community regards it. However, by law he is ALLOWED to have those thoughts. It is not illegal to have those thoughts. It is allowed. Only when it involves actions and real children is it illegal. Hell, even animated kiddie porn is legal. Kiddie erotica is legal. (if it were illegal, there would be a certain ex-GCer who would be serving time right now). The difference is when someone acts upon it. It's more of a matter of opinion. He (or she) has the right to think those things, just not a right to act upon them. To me, as long as he doesn't act upon them or it doesn't disturb his everyday activities, I don't really care. It doesn't hurt anyone.

People have all sorts of weird thoughts, desires, fantasies. Some are more extreme than others. Just surf around the internet and you can see all kinds of freaky stuff.

As to the second paragraph- I don't know how you can say an injury is more likely to happen in a gay relationship and but also say you don't know how these things work? (though I can't understand how you don't understand how it works... part A is inserted into part B, etc. etc.- it's not much different than hetero sex) Also, homosexuals and heterosexuals engage in a lot of the same sorts of activities. Heterosexuals also engage in oral and anal sex, so any injury could also just as easily happen to heterosexuals.

I'm pretty sure that fertility treatments are covered by the couple, not by health insurance because they aren't viewed as a medically necessary expense.

Kd, well regarding the first paragraph, my question was mostly how the scientific community would view the thoughts and desires of the two groups. I don't think we should regulate how people think either, my question was solely concerning how the desires are viewed.

Regarding the injury part, I didn't mean I didnt understand HOW it actually worked, but more I don't know anything about sexual habits of gay couples. I don't know if they all generally participate in both oral and anal sex, or whatnot. Thus I didn't wanna say something and have someone go, "well, not all gay couples have that type of sex, etc..." However, don't you think those type of I guess anal related injuries would be more prevalent in a gay marriage. I doubt there are statistics on this, but I imagine people in a gay marriage are much more prone to participate in such an action. But then I'm from the south, so anal sex may be more common than not in other parts of the country.

I don't know how common anal sex injuries are. Being that you rarely hear about any kind of anal sex injury (besides the man in Seattle having sex with the horse, lol), I don't think it's prevalent enough to be much of an argument. Of course, you're free to provide some sort of stats or evidence to prove me wrong, but the frequency of occurrence of injury would be very minimal. And it would strongly pale in comparision to any injuries and health care associated with pregnancy and childbirth.

Sex acts know no geographical bounds, lol, so I really doubt anal sex is more common in certain parts of the country or not.

Well, I think I'll make the choice not to do further research. I've always heard that being that area is so sensitive to infection, things can often occur, but seeing as the issue grosses me out some, I'll let it go. Now I really don't think you can put anal sex injury on the same plane as childbirth, as one is purely recreational, and the other can be in order to start a family. I think I'd put the previous category more on line with having insurance cover your viagra pills.

Okay, so take out fertility treatments.

ETA: Shinerbock, what is your point? I really don't understand. Are you just informing us that you're not aware of the ins-and-outs (hee) of gay sex, or are you trying to say something?

valk, no yall have kept this conversation up. I mentioned it a while back about corporate concerns over insuring partners. It came from there I suppose. Then it became a discussion on whether gay people were more prone to certain types of injury, which I imagine they are, but I don't know for sure.

Technically speaking sexual deviancies are not considered to be disorders ( by psychologists and psychiatrist standards) until the harm another or interfere with your daily life.

Have a foot fetish? No big deal, as long as you can function at work and such without lunging at shoes, and as long as you aren't mugging people for their shoes.

Same concept goes for other things.

I haven't really researched this either, but I would venture a guess that most sexual injuries occur when people use items not intended for sexual use....like using unclean phallic-shaped vegetables or using a vacuum-cleaner suction hose during masturbation.

Thanks, that is a helpful answer. I think there is more to be determined about this issue, and I imagine it will come with time.

Just adding on to this, fetishes and other sexual deviancies are not considered to be a problem as long as you can still function sexually without the object of your fantasy and as long as you can maintain safe, healthy relationships with family, friends, and significant other.

Yeah, although if you're happy with being so obsessed with shoes that you can't function without it, no one's gonna stop you...

Ok, as to the mental disorder thing, to compare homosexuality to child molestation is a flawed comparison. But, just for fun, let's look at what it would mean if homosexuality were indeed a mental disorder. (Disclaimer: I do not believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder, but am making an argument in an attempt to answer shinerbock's question.)

First, one could safely assume that, if homosexuality is a mental disorder, it is not something that is chosen. Someone is born with a propensity to be homosexual or not. It seems a bit out of place for the government to say that people who suffer from something (not harmful to others) that is beyond their control should be restricted from certain activities, including marriage. If there's an example that contradicts this, please share it with me... I truly couldn't think of one (but of course, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist).

Second, there are mental disorders which are more detrimental to society than homosexuality. For instance, one could argue that alcoholism is a mental disorder. The government has no restrictions on alcoholics marrying other alcoholics. And, in my opinion, I'd rather the government ban that kind of relationship (for the sake of potential future children) than homosexual relationships. After all, the well-being of a future generation is at stake when alcoholics marry, whereas there is no concern for a future generation (biologically speaking) when homosexuals marry.

Looking at the two points above, it seems clear to me that, even if homosexuality is a mental disorder, it doesn't make sense for the government to ban marriages involing homosexuals. I can understand why the government protects children from people like Michael Jackson (sorry, had to say it); that's the government's responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. But, in the case of homosexual marriage, neither partner is in need of governmental protection.

In that case, perhaps your comment was misplaced as well.

I think you are having a little trouble getting over the concept of a learned/developed sexual preference (say attraction to children) and a genetic pre-disposition towards a sexual preference (homosexuality/bisexuality).

Now you'd be hard pressed to present cases of sexual attraction to children manifesting itself before an individual's sexual maturity... whereas the opposite is true for homosexuality or bisexuality; as there are many cases and studies dating back well over 50 years and throughout the historic record for that matter.

I don't think anyone, including myself, was arguing that homosexuality, whether a mental disorder or not, should preclude them from marriage. Again, I think they should be precluded from it because they are not members of the opposite sex. However, I think we've moved beyond this debate. I do agree with you that if it were to be a mental disorder, it would obviously not be chosen. The reason I brought up the mental disorder issue is because many Christians, myself included, struggle to understand homosexuality in terms of our faith. For example, if homosexuality is a sin(which I believe it is) how could it be innate? Why would God create people who are predisposed to a particular sin? However, I heard someone bring up the idea that perhaps it is a mental disorder or abnormality (such as being attracted to children, etc) and that it is a sin only if you act upon it. I'm not sure how I feel about this idea, but for Christians, it is somewhat better than other explanations I've heard.

Okay back to what I said earlier -- shinerbock -- let's say that you have a child who turns out to be gay. He really wants to marry his same-sex partner and asks why you don't think he should be able to. What do you tell him?

I think everyone needs to realize that homosexuals are human beings like everybody else, with feelings and the desire to find love. It seems very mean and discriminatory to not allow them to be married.

Okay for the sake of speeding some of the arguing points along why don't I re-hash some of the arguements used up here in Canada:

"Marriage is meant for pro-creation"
- well if that were the case as enforced by law, then the infertile should be prohibited from marrying... but since they aren't, and if they were it would be considered gross discrimination, then this arguement proves invalid in the case of same-sex marriage.

"Marriage is about the raising of children and the development of the family"
- Homosexuality does not some how render someone unable to love and care for children; as for the arguements on how it would affect the family unit/life... well lets just say that if two loving adults can provide a positive homelife and family enviroment, more power to them in this day and age.

"The Bible prohbits same-sex marriage"
- the Bible is not the law, nor is even the basis of the majority of laws... seperation of church and state and all that (although ironically in Canada this doesn't apply) prohibits the dictation of laws by one theological body or source.

"Same-Sex Marriage will destory the social fabric of the nation, and demean the value of marriage"
- well it's been allowed up here in Canada for a number of years... and neither has come to pass - in fact the divorce rate for same-sex couples is muuuuuuch less than that of "traditional" marriages over the same time period.

According to the Bible (since you are Christian, this argument should hold some weight), we are ALL sinners. Every human being, after Adam and Eve (again, according to the Bible), is predisposed to sin. Some people commit the same sin over and over again. Some people don't. If God didn't want sinners in the world, he wouldn't have given human beings free will (assuming he did). Or, he simply wouldn't have created them in the first place.

Even if homosexuality isn't innate, and even if God forbids it, it still doesn't make it appropriate for any government to say that people of the same sex cannot have the legal right to governmental benefits allowed to people of the opposite sex.

You're absolutely right, we are all sinners. But just as I am against school sex ed that doesn't promote abstinance, I would be against using the institution of marriage to unite two homosexuals. For some reason people think that being opposed to gay marriage is meant as some punishment for being homosexual. Rather, it is to promote and keep the sanctity of marriage. I'm sure there are people against gay marriage solely because they don't like gays, just as I imagine there are people promoting gay marriage solely to piss off Christians and Republicans. People on both sides must understand it is the far right and far left driving this debate, just as with other controversial debates like gun control and flag burning. The average American probably doesn't care if gays recieve the same benefits, but when you put their relationship on the same level as the one they had that day in ______ Church, they start to shy away. People value marriage as what it is, a traditional and often holy unification of a man a woman. However, I'm gonna duck out of this particular part of this debate, because we've killed it. If you have specific questions, I'd love to answer them from my point of view, but I know you think it is disciminatory, and I think it is as well, but with good reason to be. Civil unions I could live with, I don't know that I would vote for it if given the chance, I still have reservations, but it would preserve the traditional concept of marriage.

With the divorce rate at what it is today, how does anyone say that they want to 'protect the sanctity of marriage' and keep a straight face?

The way I see it is that we ought to completely abolish "marriage" from our laws. Replace the term with "civil union." Then, allow any two people who have reached the age of consent to form a civil union which would qualify them for governmental benefits like changed tax status, insurance benefits, join tenancy, etc.

To me, marriage is a sacrament -- it is sacred. That the state thinks it can perform a sacrament is a little absurd to me. I think the two ought to have different names (state marriage and church marriage) because they really are different things.

Being straight is also a requirement of marriage.

I can sign a contract with another farmer to send my pig to him. Did the pig consent to being moved? No. The owner determined that consent.

-Rudey

KT, I wish we could do that as well. I do think it would be quite difficult, however. I hear the divorce thing a lot, but just because divorce is common, doesn't mean that we're not against it. I am strongly against divorce, and think it does damage the sanctity of marriage, just as gay marriage would.

Rudey, that's exactly my point. Two farmers can enter into a contract together. A pig and a farmer cannot.

And being straight isn't actually a marriage requirement- a homosexual man could marry a heterosexual woman. What is a marriage requirement is that they be of opposite genders, and this is what is discriminatoyr.

It's discriminatory that a cow cannot get married.

The owner made the decision for the animal though. Just like a parent can act as a custodian for a child.

And are retards allowed to marry? I don't know if they are. Isn't that discriminatory if they're not and illegal if they are since their minds are not able to consent?

-Rudey