I'm signing, but with reservations.

Oh, NT

for purposes other than cross gender copulation.

Could you restate and expand on this statement. I'm not clear on what you mean.

Thanks,

Dan

I think he means that people who are unable to have sex should not be allowed to marry, nor should people who are uninterested in sex but who want the companionship. Lots of senior citizens enter into non-sexual marriages simply because they like being with the other person. I guess they're out of luck, as are the impotent or people otherwise medically unable to perform.

such was not even remotely hinted at.

Perhaps my meaning wasn't clear because I didn't know how to respond directly to James's post:

http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=2956&messageID=37676

In that post he states that he feels that marriages for purposes other than "cross-gender copulation" should not be legal. Since people who either cannot or do not wish to have sex would fall into that category, I think my tongue-in-cheek response was appropriate. Just trying to make the man stand behind his words.

Not as long as procreation is POSSIBLE and it isn't if both are same sex.

Your asking questions without actually saying anything for your own 'beliefs' is a good strategy for learning and increasing your knowledge IF you allow the responses to sink in. Based on the quality of your responses though I do not see it happening.

In your view should a man and woman who are demonstrably incapable of producing offspring be allowed to marry?

A discussion is a good thing in that it allows all parties to ask and answer and examine an idea from different points of view.

Dan

Hi, Ed.

>>Not as long as procreation is POSSIBLE <<
Gee, I didn't realize your were Catholic. The Church uses that same bit of sophistry to get around nasty questions about their "natural law" arguments.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

If you knew your bible you would know that Christ himself "used that same bit of sophistry" and as I recall, he was a Jew and predated Catholicism.

As a scientist would it be meiosis, mitosis, amitosis, or karyostenosis that would make homosexual "marriages" allowable and viable? (hopefully this is a subject you know something about!)

Hi, Ed.

I do not accept your premise that human sexuality is inherently evil and needs a justification. I imagine you must therefor, like the Catholic Church, oppose birth control as being contrary to "natural law?"
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Kindly point out ANYWHERE that I stated that "human sexuality is inherently evil" or retract the statement as I have never even remotely hinted at such.

HOMOSEXUALITY on the other hand IS inherently evil and foul and is pointed out clearly as such in the Bible as has been rather pointedly referenced in this forum more than a few times.

I do not oppose birth control although I strongly oppose abortion as a method of birth control which you have often demonstrated a fondness for--including partial birth abortions as that is what they are MOST COMMONLY USED FOR.

Now point out EXACTLY where I provided that "premise" you do not accept. I am looking forward to it.

you failed to respond to which would be the correct method that would legitimize such homosexual unions.

I even tried to place it in an area in which you should have some middling expertise for a change (and that is really difficult to do!).

.

Hi, Ed.

The strain of HIV that was originally most common in the US and Europe was fairly hard to transmit, and therefore was primarily spread among homosexuals and by needle-sharing. Unfortunately, the strain that's now epidemic in Africa and Asia (and is becoming much more common elsewhere) is much more easily transmitted via heterosexual activities -- that's one reason for the much higher prevalence of AIDS in those areas.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

and again I have previously provided you copious links to WHO, CDC and other authoratative sites that you have obviously chosen to ignore in preference to continuing to live in ignorance on the issue of HIV.

EVERY early case in the US was directly linked to homosexual activity. It was only after a rather lengthy period of time that transsexual strains even started showing up elsewhere and they are more prevalent in other countries but are NO MORE "epidemic". Had homosexual vectoring been halted the newer strains may never have developed. Leper colonies worked...

Hi, Ed.

You're correct about the early cases in the US and Europe -- but that's because a tremendous number of the early cases had a single index, a tremendously promiscuous gay cabin attendant, for a Canadian airline, AIR. The strain he carried and disseminated widely was hard to transmit. Such was NOT the case in Africa, where the disease originated, even early on.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

I will leave it at that in your own words EXCEPT to reiterate that ALL KNOWN early cases were the result of homosexuality as the LATER strains did not develop until (surprisingly for you I guess from your response) LATER!

I don't know how many times it needs to be said before you grasp that but grasp it you should--LATER variants means variants that came AFTER.

Being opposed to homosexual "marriage" is not necessarily based on prejudice or homophobia. Many of us believe it is wrong for moral and societal reasons. Surely thee are marriages you are opposed to - how about 2 husbands and 4 wives? Is that ok? Marriage with minors - is that ok? Or are you prejudiced toward pedophiles?

So far there have been no societal reasons for prohibiting such civil marraiges. If you find something immoral don't do it, but don't force others to comply with your morality.

I don't see any theoretical problem with 2 husband/4 wife marraige.

People under 18 should not be married under any circumstances.

Dan

you said to Mark L.: ".... don't force others to comply with your morality." Then after another sentence you say: "People under 18 should not be married under any circumstances." Your morality better than others huh?

Also, dont you have a morality by saying: " I don't see any theoretical problem with 2 husband/4 wife marraige." Sort of like the Mormon religion huh.

JR

still "harems" being found these past few years in parts of Utah and northern Arizona.

JR
I kinda would have liked the idea when younger and if had a lot of $$$$$$.

The age of majority is not a moral question. Most societies have an age at which a child becomes an adult and can accept adult responsibilities. In the USA this age is 18. Marraige is certainly an adult responsibility regardless of how some enter into and participate in it. I'd advise that no one get married before the age of 25, but that's a different discussion.

I'm not forcing anyone to comply with my morality when I say I don't see any theoretical problems with 2 husband/4 wife marraiges. I am if I outlaw such marraiges or if I compel them. See the difference? I'm only forcing my morality if I forbid something or compel something.

Dan

Get a dictionary!

Well, it kinda seems to me you are preaching 'your' morality, ie... "People under 18 should not be married under any circumstances."

Some states do not have a mandatory 18 age like you imply, each state has their own laws for both marriage and sexual consent. For instance (family-law,freeadvice):

The age without parental marriage consent in Texas is 18.

The age with parental marriage consent in Texas:

Male and Female: 14 ? parental consent and/or permission of judge required. Below age of consent parties need parental consent and permission of judge, no younger than 14 for males and 13 for females.

The age without parental marriage consent in Mississippi is male: 17 and female: 15.

Marriage Age with parental consent in Mississippi
Male and Female: No age limits. Parental consent and/or permission of judge required.

The age of sexual consent in Texas is 17.

Here is a list of the 50 states and the age of consent, according to each state's laws. The "age of consent" is the age that a boy or girl can legally agree to sexual activity. (as of Posted June 18, 2002 --

http://www.bet.com/articles/1,,c1gb3085-3753,00.html

I'm not trying to force it on people. If the state wishes to be more permissive, I'm just going raise my eybrows. If the state wishes to be more restrictive I'm going to raise a ruckus!

Dan

.

,

I will be sure not to call them marraige.

Thanks for the suggestion.

BTW, orgy is a more suitable phrase for use in a public forum.

Dan

Dan your subject line has just stuck in my mind and I couldn't get it out. I guess this describes me to a tee. I don't mind homosexuals as long as they stay away from me. The problem I have with accepting them is the fact that we keep saying it is OK and I really don't feel that way. I feel there are times when being prejudice is not all bad. If we keep our children away from bad influences including friends who we think are detrimental, is that a bad policy? We learn certain religious tenets, are we supposed to deny them so as to make us politically correct? Everyone who chooses an alternative lifestyle will become aware of the disadvantages as well as the advantages. I'm all for progress but this is going to far. So, I guess I am prejudiced