True.

Generally laws are enforced to protect people, from others and from themselves.

While I'm a live and let live type person...it''s legislating this as good, equal, normal, etc. that is wrong for society to do in my view. So Yes, i object to buggery just as I do any legislation that would condone or legitimize acceptance of fornication or adultery.  

Yes of course to the first question. No to the 2nd. First, infertile marriages are the exception and not the rule and second, many adopt children and their children receive the benefits of a mother and a father....a benefit that's impossible for a homosexual couple to bestow.   

Do you mean difference between immorality and crimes?  either way the answer is Yes....

There are loads of things that are immoral or wrong but not crimes.

But this isn't to undermine the fact that the state enacts and enforces laws related to public order and well-being on the premise that public order and well-being are "moral" goods. Some immoral acts don't impinge upon the public good and therefore aren't subject to legislation.

Take drunk drivers and motorists for example....if certain conduct is harmful it must be outlawed or restricted to discourage its incidence and to protect innocent people,  right?....but also protect the drunk driver from killing himself.

Again, keeping in mind that laws discriminate against behaviors or actions. Just laws regarding homosexuality are the same...they're designed to discourage potential harmful conduct in order to protect society as well as those who participate in those acts from unwanted consequences. Laws should not encourage immoral and unhealthy behavior for any reason.

In the case of drivers, responsible laws set speed limits......

Take the healthfulness of the homosexual lifestyle.....A study taken on obituaries indicated longetivity and the median age of death for homosexual men who did not have AIDS is 42! for those with AIDS it's 39. This indicates the lifestyle is so unhealthy that they are dying at nearly half the age of the general population. Compare this with the average death of smokers who according to the CDC, on average die 7 years  earlier than non-smokers. If we believe that  it's right to discourage and restrict smoking in our society and we sure do bigtime, how can we honestly believe it is right to sanction and encourage homosexual behavior which is proven inherently dangerous and unhealthy?

Should we legislate morality that kills people by the age of 42 or the one that preserves them to 75 or 80?

hmmmm interesting point Lula. 

I never thought about it like that.  My uncle (homosexual) died way too young so he would have fit this profile of dying before he should have. 

What about laws that legitimise children born outside of marriage?

speak fer yourself.......

This study instrested me so I did some digging, and guess what?  Its a pile of misreported sh** and carried out by a man who set up what is now the Family Research Institute whoes mission is to 'to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality', so nice an impartial

They looked at the ages of the men who died in the late 1980-early 1990 and who's death was mentioned in 'gay' magazines and the like.  Thats it.  They didn't take into the accout of sampling error of the age of the people who are likely to be mentioned in the openly gay media, the proportion of gay people that represented or anything.

It's simular to me going into the childs section of a USA graveyard and proclaiming to the world that living the USA means that you have a median age of death of seven, therefore we should prevent anybody following the US lifestyle.

Your results don't surprise me. Religiously influenced opinions seek data to support their claims, not vice versa.

Scientific method: Seek a claim that supports the data.

Religious method: Seek data that supports the claim.

Science ignores many claims, religion ignores much data.

LULA POSTS:

I'm blanking out.....Which laws? Children born outside of marriage are at a great disadvantage .....what laws legitimise that?

I'm opposed to any legislation that condones or legalizes sexual licence becasue children always end up being the big losers.

I always wondered if homosexuality disproved evolution, otherwise the non-reproducing trait would have not survived.....

No it hasn't.  Not everything in humans needs to be 'correctly' evolved and numerous things are good in one situation and poor in others. 

For example instead of thinking of a 'homosexual' gene think of a gene for 'being attracted to men'.  When combined with other things it produces gay mem who don't have any children or a woman who has more children as she sleeps with anybody who asks, if the net affect of the second is greater than the first it carries a selective advantage.

I'm with you little-whip,

JOA

Ya, except the genome has been mapped and no "gay" genes of any kind were found.  There are no inborn biological marker that compels anyone to be a homosexual. That we are even discussing "gay" genes as a stamp of legitimacy proves we can manipulate and denature almost anything.

Even though scientists haven't even come close to to proving a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality, activists still clamour that it's the same as race or gender. Black Americans voted 70% for Prop 8 in part becasue they are sick and tired of the bona fide civil rights movement being hijacked by those pushing for special rights based upon sexual behavior, something that's changeable.   

I tend to agree with Dr. Charles Socarides...rather than a "gay" gene, for some homosexuality is unconsciously determined in  a child's early years and that we have a practical science that can grapple with those unconscious beginnings...it's called psychoanalysis and it's a science that can bring freedom to the lives of many who are stuck in a place they would not otherwise choose." pg. 7 of his blookbuster book, "Homosexuality, A freedom Too Far".

LULA POSTS:

Okay, you don't like the messenger but that doesn't change the facts one iota.

I think FRI published their findings in the 80s and early 90s...and my reaction was the same as KFC's is. I've personally noted this when reading the obituaries. Since then, there has been an avalance of data that documents the "gay" lifestyle results in early death, disease, and unhappiness. Ever read reports from the New England Journal of Medicine about the strong coincidence of homosexuality and the occurrence of anal cancer? Or the Annuls of Internal Medicine or the Centers for Disease Control Mortality rates?

In general, married men live longer than single men....does that fact put you in a tailspin?

Why do homosexual activists spin fairy tales and propigate myths about the homosexual lifestyle as if there wasn't a formidable body of evidence that shows the tragic reality that homosexuality is unhealthy and self-destructive and leads to a shorten life span? To advance their agenda by getting laws passed that promulgate homosexuality without any restraints.

All the window dressing in the world can't change the fact that same-sex sex can never equal the conjugal love between a man and a woman bonded in the unity of marriage in accordance with God's plan and natural law.  

No, but the method they used to determine the "facts" does. As he said.

An excellent argument for gay marriage!

Ok you are right, I shouldn't have said gene, I was trying to make it simpler to read.  Replace gene for trait.

If there is no biological basis in any way shape or form can you explain the, several, peer-reviewed scienctific articles disussing the different ratios of finger lenghts in homosexual women compared to straight women?

For example, Williams et al, Nature 2000:404 455-456?

If there is no biological basis why do lesbians hands resemble straight men more than straight women?  (The leading theory is that it refects the levels of various hormones in the womb, turning the women into 'semi' blokes.)

At what point did I say that there was no lifespan reduction?  There almost certainly is but not 30+ years as that study would say, but my answer to that would be to spend a fraction of the resources used to fight this reglious fight to fight the causes of this change.

As an aside not having medical cover reduces life span more that the established, correctly carried out, studies of gay men work out that being gay does.  Are you campgaining for medical cover for all?

'In general, married men live longer than single men....does that fact put you in a tailspin?'

No.  But it doesn't prove that marriage causes longer lifespan either only that marriage is assoiated with a longer span, they might both be caused by a very different factor.