Immorality of Homosexuality

I can see two problems with a son marrying his mother that are not related to Christian morality. The first is the issue of 'grooming' which then means the son, in the eyes of the law, becomes a victim. The second issue is the potential product of such a relationship. Children borne of incestuous relationships, this gives you another potential victim. Homosexual relationships don't produce mentally and physically handicapped children, last I checked they don't directly produce any children.That is why I disagree with your statement. I think you intended it to be an emotionally charged statement to induce a sense of revulsion in the general reader. I think that it is disingenuous in that respect.-x

---

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

So you are going to maintain the "its OK to be gay, as long as you don't have gay sex" stance? Then why not apply this to everyone, "its OK to be a bigoted asshole and hate people as long as you don't burn any blackfolk"Why do you care about other peoples sexual predilections?-x

---

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

I am not advocating any limit to free thought, I am demonstrating the inanity of this way of thinking. Instead of reading into what I say, try reading what I say.-x

Saying something isn't OK, isn't saying something should be illegal, though that was a wonderful strawman. Way to misrepresent.-x

Its my 'marriage institution' too. I got a wife and two kids. Never felt gay marriage threatened me and mine in any way. So its not "other peoples marriage institutions" to me. And I think you should reread the dictionary for 'Rhetorical' I don't think you understand the usage.-xP.S. This is where you will probably cut and paste from some online dictionary...

Jar has pointed out in chat that I didn't specify 'hate speech' and that it seems I am leaving this as 'hate thought', my fault for not doing that I guess. I still maintain that 'hate thought' is wrong, not suggesting any legislation though. Yes I understand that hate is protected from criminal prosecution, it is however still actionable in civil litigation. To create an atmosphere of hate, creates an atmosphere of fear. That fear is used to repress. That repression is the issue at hand. Your right to hate ends when you create hostility towards others.-x

SHEEP-Man does have rights, but the law says that Animal abuse isn't one of those rights. It's illegal because its considered animal abuse in the legal realm.-x