In response to:

Redefining Marriage Raises Concerns For Children and Society

DCM in FL Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 12:21 PM
What this all comes down to is whether not there is an objective design for human sexuality. Either there is or there isn't. If there is, homosexual behavior is abnormal and unacceptable. If there isn't, no sexual behavior is. You may not concede to these logical conclusions, but they don't depend on your concession.
Science Avenger Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 2:22 PM
There isn't. That was easy.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 12:41 PM
I don't know how it can be reasoned that human sexuality is designed. Sexuality in nature is pretty complex and is still being studied. Assigning only a specific function to a specific body part ignores the flexible aspects of sexuality. Parts of the body often have multiple uses. The liver is a good example of a body part with a great many uses. Lips are another good example. Google MLC receptors in kissing for information on such function. I agree that certain logical conclusions are still correct even if you don't accept them. But would you at least concede that you could be wrong as well?
DCM in FL Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 12:46 PM
"I don't know how it can be reasoned that human sexuality is designed." -- Because humans have a Designer.

"Parts of the body often have multiple uses." -- And yet one foundational (though not exclusively) homosexual use of a body part is known for certain to be purely unhealthy - knowlege which seems to have been completely buried under political correctness in recent years.

At any rate, you're missing the main point. Either homosexuality is abnormal or no sexual behavior is. There is no third option.
DCM in FL Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 12:52 PM
Do you really think homosexuality can be declared "acceptable" and nothing else that's been "unacceptable" will follow it? If you do, you really need to open your eyes to reality.
Science Avenger Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 2:24 PM
Thanks DCM for once again demonstrating that ALL arguments against homosexual marriage ignore reality (in this case evolution) and are religious in nature.
Science Avenger Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 2:25 PM
Change happens. That's reality. The notion that somehow at this point in history humanity has finally hit the optimal never-to-be-changed point is the height of hubris.
DCM in FL Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 12:38 PM
This is why anyone who thinks they can put homosexuality on the "acceptable" list without eventually having to put pedophilia, etc., on it as well is fooling themselves.
du2 Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:15 PM
DCM, you just go on and on with comments that you pull out of nowhere that no credible professional ever says. Making inflammatory comments isn't the stuff of thoughtful, intelligent adults.
The impetus for going to court, making this a matter of structured legal terms the SAME as they are for heterosexual couples and no different than that, is because gay couples DO meet and AGREE to those same terms. Bringing anything else up, isn't a part of the legal pattern in process.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:27 PM
It makes me wonder if DCm understands the difference between a consenting adult and a child

Hurting a child is a crime. They can not give legal consent
Verbivore Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 2:04 PM
gay relationships used to be a crime too. Whatever. If people just make up any law that suits their fancy, or insist that law changes with "enlightenment" well, you know... But while you are stuck on children, what about polygamy? Is not that a group of "consenting" adults? or animals? Who is to say if they consent? or are injured? whatever.

DCM is absolutely correct. Either a thing is wrong, or it is not. And you don't get to decide.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 2:44 PM
Verb

Can a child give informed legal consent? Buying alcohol used to be illegal but kids still can't buy it v

A person has no right to touch another without consent . A child can not give consent so you can never sexually touch a child

But two consenting adults ? They have every right to do what they do as long as it does not harm others
DCM in FL Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 3:10 PM
Sorry, "credible professional" doesn't mean "politically correct mouthpiece."

And of course I understand the difference between a consenting adult and a child. So do people who are pushing for changes to age-consent laws so as to erode that distinction.

The point is not the difference between adult and child. The point is that you can't call an abnormal thing normal without opening the door for the same to happen with other abnormal things.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 3:31 PM
DCM In Lawrence V Texas the Supreme Court of the US ruled that Homosexual acts between consenting adults were lawful.

To say that leads to a man being able to have sex with a 13 year old girl is ridiculous!

The court will not approve that because a child can not give legal informed consent. When that becomes the issue I am on your side. But it is not the issue.

For an analogy you are saying raising the speed limit on some highways from 55 to 75 will make people drive drunk or drive 75 in school zones. They are two separate things. One is reasonable and non-harmful to others and the other hurts and kills innocent people.

NOTE: This is the sixth and final column in a series of columns related to National Marriage Week, Feb. 7-14, 2013. The fifth column is available here.

Much of the debate surrounding same-sex marriage asks about societal harms. Many advocates of the change quickly dismiss the question and insist that a redefinition of marriage won’t hurt anyone. But that conclusion proceeds from a misperception about what marriage is—a failure to grasp marriage’s role as a public institution that shapes our thoughts and actions.

Marriage is not merely a legal arrangement that bestows various benefits and...