Percentage of them has nothing to do with it. If 50% of people somehow became gay, it would still be abnormal for a human to be gay.

What other sexual orientation can marry that isn't male and female? The human standard. Your paragraph says absolutely nothing.

Legal has nothing to do with biology. Minors have been able to consent in the past. And the age seems to be fluid. Not a good barometer to whether humans are supposed to be pedophilic or ephebophillic, And why is zoophilia coercive but omnivorous isn't? Or even keeping parents as pets iin cages sounds rather clearly against the animals' will.

If the racial analogy is valid to your side, the other sexual orientations are even more so from a strictly biological standpoint. There is VERY little difference between them unless you include the "legal" aspects. Which are totally irrelevant. "Legal" has never stopped people from being gay, pedophiles, polygamous, or anything else.

Well, if "legal has nothing to do with biology," then why should anyone pay any serious attention to your normal versus abnormal blather when considering if homosexuals aught to have the right to marry?

If you feel that way, put me on ignore.
But that wasn't what I was saying as it relates to his statement about pedo being different from homosexuality because of consent. Consent is a legal term and has nothing to do with why they are extremely biologically similar.

Because it's rather silly. Two grooms, or two brides, on a wedding cake is just insulting to many people. My suggestion: create a different ceremony for gay couples weddings. Don't use the traditional cermonies reserved for straight weddings. That way you won't cheese as many people off. As long as your legal rights are in order, why would you refrain from such a suggestion?

But I've always considered you to be the sole, comic-relief figure on this site...Mister...err...Doctor Pensacola Niceman of the University of Sarcasm.




Oh...the sanctity of properly decorated wedding cakes!

exactly

but, my guess, he'll never get it

The "Tags" on this thread are "ass" and "bitchy".

You need to come up with a different word than abnormal if you mean something other than abnormal. Do you mean homosexuality is outside the realm of possible human variations? If so, then your error is self-evident because it obviously is within that realm. Green hair is outside that realm, but it's also a genetic impossibility, so that's a bad analogy. A toe growing out of the head may be within that realm, but it doesn't imply anything about the person's rights. You need to admit that you are wrong (like I do when I am) to use the word abnormal and come up with a different word to say what you mean.

Well, let's see. Oh yeah, gay and lesbian people can marry in some places.
So while it's still not the human standard, your paragraph says absolutely nothing.

First of all, pedophilia means sexual attraction to children (and colloquially includes ephebophilia). Pedophilia is not illegal. In referring to younger children, it is definitely socially condemned, but it is not illegal. Therefore, what is legal has everything to do with associating homosexuality to pedophilia.

The issue is consent. The law TODAY in America is that minors cannot consent to marriage. You were implying that if same-sex marriage should be legalized, why not pedophilia? I'm saying that in America TODAY, unmarried minors cannot consent to sexual activity. Adult homosexual couples can. If the law changes and the age of consent is reduced to 16, then it will be legal for 16-year-olds to marry. As you stated yourself, these laws are fluid and changeable. Why then do you not agree that laws regarding homosexuality can be changeable? Age of consent is a legal social issue that has a tradition of change just as marriage is and does.

Pedophilia is linked with age-of-consent laws, but they are not synonymous. If an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old are caught having sex, the law will label the 18-year-old a pedophile, but in society we don't typically think of this kind of relationship as pedophilia. Pedophilia is typically thought of as sex between a person who has reached puberty with a person who has not reached puberty, or a person having sex with a minor that is much younger than the person. If you don't believe me, check out mandated reporting laws in California:

A mandated reporter must report a minor's sexual behavior as "sexual abuse" if any of the following are true (Resource):

1. the sexual activity was involuntary;
2. the mandated reporter thinks that one partner exploited the other partner, even if you are married to the partner;
3. the sexual activity involved incest; or
4. you had voluntary sex, depending on your age and the age of your partner. The voluntary sexual situations that must be reported include:
-If you are under 14: partner is any age
-If you are 14 or 15: partner is younger than 14; or partner is older than 21
-If you are 16 or 17: partner is younger than 14
-If you are any age: partner is any age, and you are engaging in sodomy, oral copulation, or anal or genital penetration with a foreign object.

As you can see, even though any sexual activity by a minor is unlawful, reportable sexual abuse is much more complicated than simply over/under 18 years of age. It is important to note that MINORS THEMSELVES can be (and often are) the perpetrators of sexual abuse. Therefore, pedophilia is not simply an adult issue.

My point: What is commonly thought of as pedophiliac behavior is not pedophilia proper, but actually sexual abuse of a minor. Laws involving sexual abuse are very different from laws regulating same-sex unions because the former involves physical and emotional harm to one of the participants.

The legalization of same-sex marriage is not even on the same plane as legalization of sexual abuse. So stop comparing the two.

It seems like you advocating that zoophilia is on par with being omnivorous. (e.g., If I can kill and eat pretty much any animal I want, then why can't I have sex with any animal I want?)

I kid.

Again, you are comparing two things that are not relevant to one another. Like zoophilia, many people think that homosexual behavior is wrong and disgusting. But making the link from same-sex marriage to human-animal marriage is a bit juvenile. An animal is not able to hold up the legal weights and responsibilities of marriage, so it will never happen. Therefore, zoophilia cannot be used in the same-sex marriage debate legitimately.

We are not debating the legal aspects of being gay, pedophiliac, zoophiliac, or polygamous. We are debating the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. And THAT is a legal issue.

So as long as black people had their legal rights in order (i.e., being able to attend a school, sit on a public bus, or drink from a public water fountain), they should have just been happy with their separate status so they wouldn't cheese as many people off.

Oh, and they should be happy with white bride and groom wedding toppers too.

I've used a bunch. You know what I mean. Aberrant, f'd up, deviant, dysfunctional, homosexuals have something broken, I compare it to pedophilia??? What are you looking for?


And kids as young as 7 could marry in the U.S. Slavery is still going on in pocklets. Not that standard. But it still seems that homosexuality was absent in the world until the last decade. This is the reverse of evolution.

No it doesn't. It's not illegal to "be" anything. It's illegal to DO stuff. But in the quality of BEING homosexual pedophillic or zoophilic, they are all aberrant. It's just the actions have differing levels of revulsion.

That's not true. Minor is up til the age of 18. Most states age of consent is 16 and in some states between like ages there are no laws governing sexual activity. There are no laws controlling homosexual activity. Just that marriage should only be between opposite gendered people. Any other union is dysfuntion al and should not be considered under the "marriage" term.

No let's check out ALL laws from around the country.
A table of worldwide ages of consent, including US states
No real consensus there.
And the laws in Texas changed on the arrival of people that they didn't "like". What about all the successful 14 year old people with marriages before that and those that want to get married but were denied after that. Seems that age of consent needs a real basis since right now it's rather based on bullshit. the same thing will happen to marriage in general with "gay marriage". It'll be based on nothing but "legal". And that's nothing.

Pedophilia is sex with a pre pubescent child. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything after puberty. Those laws deal with ephebophlila. Which is distinctly different. The terms are scientifically different periods of human development.

Actually most laws deal with child molestation. Pedophilia is a totally different issue. A pedophile can be just as happy looking at his own version of porn as some people are looking at a bra ad. All pedophilic acts are not illegal. A man masterbating looking out his window at the girl next door is not illegal. But thoroughly sickening. And even sexual contact between adults and children doesn't always cause harm. There are countless examples of that being true. Pedophiles won't molest an average of hundreds of kids or there wouldn't be a child prostitution market if pedophillic acts were as devastating as the media portrays. But it;s still unnatural and dysfunction from a biologic level for a man to love a pre-pubescent child. Legal has nothing to do with that.

And race has nothing to do with homosexuality. But we still get that comparison.

Why can't you. Sex seems it would be much less abusive. Animals have sex with each other don't they.(one of the arguments homosexual use for anal sex)

You only say that to make your own point. But to a person afflicted with zoophilic urges, the will is there to marry the object of their affections. And some have. just a homosexuals even when it is not legally valid. The correlation is clear to me and many others.

And to me since homosexual union are not a legitimate human union, just one brought about by a defective sexual drive, it should not be included under the legal term "marriage".