You seem to miss the point. The government has the duty to protect the life and health of it’s people even from themselves. This is because no one lives in a vacuum and that is why AIDs which is passed by consent from one person to another is a social problem.

The government puts many laws and regulation into effect in order to regulate these social problems. They may choose to ignore a social problem as our behest but the should never encourage it. Homosexual marriages encourages homosexuality and therefore the spread of HIV/Aids.

Please provide a reliable study that shows that sex provides a significant benefit that is not explained by relationship benefits.

The question then becomes does the detriment outweigh the benefits. I doubt the answer is yes.

Heterosexuality is not much of a risk for passing HIV/Aids. It may be for passing other types of STD’s.

We could make homosexuality marriage legal and also make it illegal to have sex outside of marriage. Anyone with a STD would then be indicted for committing a crime and they would have to find evidence to exonerate them of the crime of having sex outside of marriage. That would probably wipe STD’s out after a short time. The problem with this solution is that there are other health risks associated with homosexuality.

I really don’t need to provide you with any evidence, because I’m not arguing against the facts you cite; I’m arguing against your application of said facts.

People who engage in gay sex do so willingly, in spite of any risk that may be involved. Save for a few rapists or sadistic individuals who would knowingly spread disease, homosexuals are not predators. Everything they do, they do it knowingly, and, in this day and age, with full knowledge of the risk involved.

Let’s look at some analogies to explore this further:

Straight sex: There is also a risk of spreading disease via vaginal sex. While not as high as that associated with anal sex, there is still a considerable risk. Should we outlaw vaginal sex, or has the associated risk not crossed the risk threshold?

Couch potatodom: Say someone wants to sit on a couch for 16 hours a day, watch TV, and consume 50,000 calories worth of potato chips, candy, donuts, and soda. Within just a few months the person would be extremely obese and at a much higher risk for heart disease (Check out ‘Super Size Me’ for a similar situation). Should we then ban couches, TV, and junk food, or was this person sitting, watching, and eating for a noble cause?

The commonality among all of these situations is that the parties involved are entering into them willingly and without coercion. If you want to see a tyrannical government, look at the one you’re advocating, in which the state is constantly monitoring its citizens and eliminating the right to privacy. Which is abusing power: a nanny state that is always looking over your shoulder to make sure you’re not doing anything risky or untoward (depending on a subjective moral code, no less) or a nation in which you may do what you want so long as you don’t intentionally cause harm to others?

While I’m here, I’ll also argue that sex – straight or gay – provides a tremendous benefit. Sexual gratification has a wonderfully positive effect on the psyche and leads to a much happier society. Would you want to live in a world without sex? I know I wouldn’t.

I admit that modern liberal may not look at it that way but then they are weird.

I don’t think modern conservatives or anyone with even a basic understanding of logic looks at it that way, either. The only things the government is depriving gays of is the right to marry and all that comes with it.

In the interest of time, just give us a list of the three or four things you think are completely harmless to the people.

Note to everyone else: Is this place haunted by ghosts? Who is this Beaming Visionary/BV character you keep talking to? I’m so confused!

“By your own definition, the following groups of people are also tyrants: gun sellers and manufacturers, tobacco companies and guys who own convenience stores, fast-food companies, tuna fishermen (mercury poisoning causes birth defects), and vinyard owners (vinyard = wine = alcohol = alcoholism).”

They could very well be tyrants but to determine that you have to decide if their cause is “noble”. Sexual gratification is not a noble cause. Tobacco companies are tyrants as pleasure is not a noble cause. Fast food, tuna fishermen, and vineyard owners have the we have to eat and drink going for them. Guns can be used in self defense which is a noble cause. That does not mean that these products should not be regulated. I believe the FDA regulates tuna and is talking about regulating portion sizes in restraints. Wine sales are regulated as far as the age of the purchaser. Gun sales are also regulated. In my opinion all of these need additional or reformed regulation in order to ensure the right of life and health of human beings. The Declaration of Independence states that it is the duty of the government to ensure the natural human right to life and health of it’s people. That is a goal that We the People should make sure our government strives to reach.

The definition I found on Princeton WordNet Search 2.1 is a person who uses power in a cruel way. That last I heard depriving human beings of their health or life for sexual gratification was considered cruel. I admit that modern liberal may not look at it that way but then they are weird.

Marriage is a man and a woman. That’s all there is too it. That’s the way it will stay. If you libs think its a victory that this gay marriage ban was shot down, you’re all dumber than you sound on all of your echo chamber blogs. The only states that will/have pass same sex marriage number in about 4 at the most. This is fine by me, all the homosexuals and those that want to pamper them can move to those states and leave the real America alone.

BV: You look like a bigger dumbass every time you post. Only a lonely, uneducated moron in desperate need for attention would call everyone here bigots right after trashing Christians, right-wingers, and everyone else that disagrees with you. You are the bigot, intolerant hate-mongor, the true sign of a liberal. The irony behind you and CR’s disdain for this site is staggering, since its the platform for your own unrespected blogs. If you are so much smarter, try actually blogging about something instead of dedicating an entire site to whining about this one. Because once again BV, you are the only one who cares.

Congratulations! You’ve sparked a new round of The Analogy Game! If you still think you’re right, feel free to leave a comment. We’ll have a discussion.

Oh, and Kerwin:

Words like “tyrant” exist so that we may decribe in just two syllables the truly heinous, violent, harsh people among us who do unconscionable things. Hitler and Pol Pot, for example, were tyrants. When you call gay people tyrants and their supporters Nazis, you rob the word of its meaning.

By your own definition, the following groups of people are also tyrants: gun sellers and manufacturers, tobacco companies and guys who own convenience stores, fast-food companies, tuna fishermen (mercury poisoning causes birth defects), and vinyard owners (vinyard = wine = alcohol = alcoholism).

These people are not Hitler. Not even close. Please find another word.

You are misinterpreting the U.S. Constitution in order to deprive homosexuals and their victims of their right to life and health. That makes you a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution.

Now that’s just adorable! I find solace in the fact that you and maybe three other people share this viewpoint.