Rick Warren: Comparing gay marriage to incest/polygamy/pedophilia gets you invited to Obama inauguration?

If people want to lower the age of consent, thats an entierly different argument ... but pedophiles (labeled by the attraction, not just happening to have relationships with those a few years younger than legal) are attracted to quite young children. I doubt consent laws will ever go low enough for them, and there are of course a bunch of other issues. I still would call it rape and can't condone it.

I don't think the consent age should be lowered any where near that much. I think this stuff should be illegal BUT I just don't understand how gay people can say that they are born this way and that it is their right to have marriage, while not allowing other people who have similar but distinctly different issues. But in the scheme of things it doesn't really bother me that much. I don't care what gays do, as there are much more important things for us all to ponder.

Homosexuality is a genetic disorder by logic as the purpose of human existence, as with all other animals, is to stay alive and reproduce. Gay couples can not reproduce without the help a member of the opposite sex and therefore, if not for our technology and adoption agencies (which do not naturally exist), they would die out. Gays are born gay, and thus it is possible for them to pass the genetic defects to their children. Eventually the human race will be extinct, but what should we do?

Your premise is wrong. An adult having sex with a minor is not necessarily rape, though it often is (as I stated above). And as for gay marriage becoming legal being used as an argument for your point of few, it is flawed because 40 years ago whites and blacks couldn't get married. And gays certainly couldn't. Now interracial marriage is totally legal and gay marriage is on its way to becoming legal. The way I see it, its only a matter of time before bestiality and pedophilia are legal as well.

I still don't see your connection with beastiality and homosexuality (any more than, say, interracial marriage) ... and of course there is the added problem with pedophilia that any relationships are intrinsically temporary. Once they age enough, the attraction is intrinsically not there for pedophiles.

People who are attracted to animals often exhibit these desires at a young age, just as homosexuals do and they are connected by the notion that they are both with you seemingly from birth and that they both are directly dealing with sexual orientation. As for pedophilia, that was a good point but my argument remains as the loss of attraction after a certain age is comparable to the lack of attraction to females.

Its all quite depends on simply what is seen as acceptable. Some people are prone to voilence, some from probably a very early age ... but I would fail to see how one could then argue violence is acceptable. Rights really end where they infringe on the rights of another, and in both violence and pedophilia ... its a pretty clear case. Homosexuality is just dealing with consensual sex between adults (and in the example of having sex with men, half of the population is allowed worldwide).

If anything, disallowing homosexuals their relationships legally (or even just not supporting them in that) just leads to problems ... for gays and straights. You can't, how hard you try, to get people to stop having sex .... and if they can't in open relationships, they WILL live second lives (a huge cause of disease, and brings it into the hetero population as well).

And beastiality as a natural, inborn attraction?? Humans, like all animals, are in almost all cases vastly more attracted to their same species. Homosexuals still have that human attraction (and again an attraction that about half of all heterosexuals have), its really just a difference in gender. And I would think that process that developes your attraction to males or females could much more easily go wrong (hormone levels in the womb can do it) than one that would get the species wrong.

PS: I know most of your inquiery in this is trying to understand how a group fighting for their situation could not support others fighting for something that could be associated with the first group. I really don't think that dilemma extends only/primarily to gays though ... especially with topics that are about as foreign and troubling/disturbing to them as anyone else.

Sexuality is a category ... sure, but so is religion (or race, nationality, disability, etc). Plenty of feuding there too.