No gay scout leaders but lots of molested boys

[_Dr. Shades]

Abuse of sex, entirely for personal satisfaction without regard for the other individual or society at large.

Can you honestly say that every time you had sex you took into account society at large?

[_Chap]

Abuse of sex, entirely for personal satisfaction without regard for the other individual or society at large.

Can you honestly say that every time you had sex you took into account society at large?

Lord help us.

Look, listen to a grown-up for a bit, Nipper. Two facts:

1. Stable couples provide a great contribution to society in many ways, from the raising of well-balanced kids to the general contribution that two people who are happy and mutually supportive make to the wider world around them.

2. Having sex with one another in the most enjoyable ways possible (and it's up to them to decide what those are) is an excellent way of helping a couple to be happy and stable. By concentrating on delighting one another in acts of love which are performed for no-one else but the people involved, a couple is indirectly making a great contribution to society, even though they are making love 'entirely for personal satisfaction'.

And you don't know this? I hope you are currently celibate. If you are married (I assume that since you are LDS it is one or the other), you may have some thinking to do on an urgent basis.

[_DarkHelmet]

It would be pointless of me to mention that in the Bible there is not one, not two, but three elderly couples which had a child.

Do you really think when an elderly couple gets married they are planning to have kids?

[_LittleNipper]

It is not what one says but how one says it --- that declares one's motives and attitude towards those they disagree with.

So Paul should be nice when you tell him he is less of a person and doesn't deserve equal protection of law?

Paul has a right to do everything I have a right to do. Paul does not have a right to what is biologically impossible. And Paul can at least be civil and not act as if he is without corruption and anyone who has another point of view must be silenced and beaten and hanged and cursed at...

[_Darth J]

So Paul should be nice when you tell him he is less of a person and doesn't deserve equal protection of law?

Paul has a right to do everything I have a right to do. Paul does not have a right to what is biologically impossible. And Paul can at least be civil and not act as if he is without corruption and anyone who has another point of view must be silenced and beaten and hanged and cursed at...

What's the rational basis for denying him the ability to marry a same-sex partner if he wants to?

Not what you think the Bible says.

Not your religious dogma.

What is the rational basis in law for denying him the same right to marry his chosen partner that you have?

You might start by explaining what the legal elements of marriage are that two people of the same sex cannot fulfill. Please note that neither procreating, nor having the ability to procreate, is a necessary element of marriage in any jurisdiction in the United States.

[_just me]

Paul does not have a right to what is biologically impossible.

Truth! That is why we can rest assured that Paul does not engage in anything that is biologically impossible. *giggle*

[_LittleNipper]

It would be pointless of me to mention that in the Bible there is not one, not two, but three elderly couples which had a child.

Do you really think when an elderly couple gets married they are planning to have kids?

Do you really think that when an elderly couple gets married, they consider sex important? I find that most want someone to talk to, walk with, and share expenses. Don't get me wrong, I believe the elderly can and do have sex, but it is not the motivating force. My grandpop remarried his childhood sweetheart when my grandmom died. The husband of the "childhood" sweetheat had also passed. They got married but because they were both lonely and shared fond memories. With homosexuality, a type of sex seems to be the main driving force. They are not marrying to have children, most obviously. They seem not concerned with being made complete by the arrangement, but to rather play... This can be said of some heterosexuals, but I personally have found that soon, wanting a baby comes to be a desire of the heart. I can only imagine that the elderly may wish they had a second chance at youth and starting a family once again...

[_LittleNipper]

It would be pointless of me to mention that in the Bible there is not one, not two, but three elderly couples which had a child.

Do you really think when an elderly couple gets married they are planning to have kids?

Do you really think that when an elderly couple gets married, they consider sex important? I find that most want someone to talk to, walk with, and share expenses. Don't get me wrong, I believe the elderly can and do have sex, but it is not the motivating force. My grandpop married his childhood sweetheart when my grandmom died. The husband of the "childhood" sweetheat had also passed. They got married but because they were both lonely and shared fond memories. With homosexuality, a type of sex seems to be the main driving force. They are not marrying to have children, most obviously. They seem not concerned with being made complete by the arrangement, but to rather play... This can be said of some heterosexuals, but I personally have found that soon, wanting a baby comes to be a desire of the heart. I can only imagine that the elderly may wish they had a second chance at youth and starting a family once again...

[_LittleNipper]

Abuse of sex, entirely for personal satisfaction without regard for the other individual or society at large.

Lord help us.

Look, listen to a grown-up for a bit, Nipper. Two facts:

1. Stable couples provide a great contribution to society in many ways, from the raising of well-balanced kids to the general contribution that two people who are happy and mutually supportive make to the wider world around them.

2. Having sex with one another in the most enjoyable ways possible (and it's up to them to decide what those are) is an excellent way of helping a couple to be happy and stable. By concentrating on delighting one another in acts of love which are performed for no-one else but the people involved, a couple is indirectly making a great contribution to society, even though they are making love 'entirely for personal satisfaction'.

And you don't know this? I hope you are currently celibate. If you are married (I assume that since you are LDS it is one or the other), you may have some thinking to do on an urgent basis.

The question may arise if homosexuality honestly fits your number one, and if such really engage in sex to satisfy anyone but the individual. Sex for sex sake is shallow. Sex for the sake of love means to fulfill, comfort, and provide. And again, Society should be supportive of the IDEAL and not the SHOW. What people choose to do among themselves is between them and God. But when society begins to embrace what could be considered vulgarity to be equally desirable as love, there is a problem with that society that will bring it to ruin...

[_LittleNipper]

Paul has a right to do everything I have a right to do. Paul does not have a right to what is biologically impossible. And Paul can at least be civil and not act as if he is without corruption and anyone who has another point of view must be silenced and beaten and hanged and cursed at...

What's the rational basis for denying him the ability to marry a same-sex partner if he wants to?

Not what you think the Bible says.

Not your religious dogma.

What is the rational basis in law for denying him the same right to marry his chosen partner that you have?

You might start by explaining what the legal elements of marriage are that two people of the same sex cannot fulfill. Please note that neither procreating, nor having the ability to procreate, is a necessary element of marriage in any jurisdiction in the United States.

A rational bases for marriage is not about what one wants, but what it represents. Marriage doesn't represent sex. Marriage represents an IDEAL of totally committed love, founded in trust, respect, and selflessness. The fruit of that relationship is expressed by the birth of a baby. What one government deems suitable, does not (in and of itself) mean it is acceptable to a healthier governing body. At times, some in government engaged in prostitution; however, no one considers such "arrangements" worthy of a societal blessing --- at least not yet...