You framed that hypotheticals so a third-grader would get them. Your own words.
Then, you insist that I must address all four cases, even though a hypothetical third grader could predict my answers. According to you, if I don’t give you these answers that a schoolchild already knows, then my interpretation of the one example I did address (which calls into question your thesis) is somehow invalid.
Do you think I’m dumber than a third grader and evaluating your examples wrong? Do you have some brilliant “Gotcha” that you’re just waiting for a chance to use once I say which of C or D is more suspicious? Or are you just refusing to address that fact that you’ve undermined your own point by nitpicking procedure?
Sorry I can’t find a cite based on the criteria you’ve limited me too. It is a fact of our society that more heterosexual women take the pill them homosexual women thus tainting in your mind the findings heterosexual women have a higher rate of cervical cancer.
It is an undeniable fact that penetrative sex carries increased risk of HPV transmission, and a quite plausible one that female heterosexuals are probably going to have an increased incidence of this.
[QUOTE=david42]
it is an undeniable fact that anal sex carries increased risk of colo-rectal cancer, and a quite plausible one that male homosexuals are probably going to have an increased incidence of this.
[/QUOTE]
My overall point was to point out the ridiculousness of your post. You seem content with being ridiculous so by all means carry on people like you do wonders to help those of us on the pro-marriage side.
I noticed you completely skipped the lower risk of aids presented.
If a parent out there is trying to explain the pro’s and con’s of being homosexual to their child like they are going to get some choice in the matter, yes they are likely to be labeled a hater because it’s likely they are.
It is interesting that you tried to advance the notion that some homosexual parents would try to poison their children’s minds against heterosexuality as a reason to interfere with the rights of homosexuals to be parents and now you are trying to build a straw man argument in which I am supposed to be supporting suppression of anything.
You appear to have attempted to argue against SSM, (although whatever you were actually arguing was pretty vague), on the grounds that hetero kids should have the appropriate role models. You then attempted to support that assertion by making an argument about some gay parents denigrating heterosexuality.
My point was that such parents are too few to worry about in a serious discussiuon, and even if they exist, they provide no substantive argument against gay marriage or gay parenting.
You then wandered into some odd discussion of “tit-for-tat” that has nothing to do with anything that I have posted.
To address a second part of your earlier post that I had hoped to not have to, but you seem to dwell on the idea:
This is GEEPERS logic and is rather silly. Most people fail to admit thngs not in their favor. So what? You then extend that to an unsupportable claim that ‘everything that a parent might teach is “hate.”’ That is nothing more than your projectuion of what how you want specific people to believe. As such, it remains irrelevant to the discussion.
I have never said anything that could be construed as counting something as hate. That is your projection.
Certainly, all parents should caution their children against harmful behavior, but you selected one act as “gay” behavior when it is not universal among gays and is frequently practiced among heterosexuals. The fact that you selected such an act and pretended that it was “gay” behavior and then claimed that anyone who cuationed against it would be accused of promoting hatred is nothing but a straw man.
I have no numbers for the prevalence of anal penetrative sex among gay men; I simply know from conversations that it is not universally desired or performed. On the other hand, I also know that it is performed by heterosexual couples, so claiming that it is a “gay” act is silly. Everyone should tell all their kids about all possible issues. If one encounters a gay couple who actually claim that warnings of sexual issues is "hatred,’ then chastise that couple for stupidity. That is hardly a valid reason to oppose SSM–which certainly appeared to be your point.
Hah, the dispute was about paying estate taxes. I guess some tax-hating conservatives will have to make a decision which issue to cling to - lower taxes or “traditional” marriage.
I know he has switched sides but I would be interested if Bickler could comment on the use of “City of Cleburn v. Cleburn Living Center” as the cite for applying “intermediate scrutiny” I think this was my original claim too about what may happen in SCOTUS if not the “rational with bite” but now that this is not just the rambling of a citizen who’s only direct involvement with the law was as a grand juror and thus an admitted “non-expert” (me). Do you have any concerns about the 2nd Circuit’s decision?
Last weekend on my local public radio station (KQED) I heard a legal expert (sorry I don’t know who it was, I came in halfway through) predict that the Supremes would accept certiorari (sp?) on DOMA, because it only affects those states that individually allow for same sex marriage without forcing it on states that don’t want it, and that they would overturn it, because it is pretty much indefensible; but that they would deny cert for California’s Prop 8, because if that is upheld by the Supremes it could, in effect, force legal SSM for all states. This means, of course, that the 9th Circuit ruling against Prop 8 would stand, and the law would be overturned, but only in California.
This makes so much sense that I felt the need to check with other legal experts, of whom there are apparently several in this digital neighborhood.
Roddy
DOMA does a couple of different things. One section says that states do not have to recognize other states’ SSM laws. This section is, I think, on firm constitutional ground.
It also says that the federal government will not recognize any form of SSM, even if a state has recognized the marriage.
Ah, thank you; the “legal expert” did not, I think, make this distinction. Based on his remarks, I think he must have been talking about only the second part.
Roddy