A bit of education here (which google can also provide you with should you bother).

Incest is against the law because it has been scientifically proven that children born out of incestuous relationships are very much more likely to suffer from birth defects. One could say outlawing incest is not so much based on moral arguments but economic ones, where insurance companies and the public health sector face a higher economic cost should incestuous relationships be legalized.

Coming to sex with underage individuals – children are deemed less able to make wise, logical choices of their own until they reach a legal age. As such, setting a minimum legal age for sex would ensure that the act is carried out with full awareness of possible consequences and of course, consent from the individual under the condition that he/she is wise enough to make his/her own choices. If you would like to go further and argue about what the age set by the law should be, you can decide to educate yourself with the help of a search engine.

The reason why many feel that gay rights (i.e the right to have consensual sex with another individual of the same sex, provided both are of legal age) are basic human rights is because heterosexual 'straight rights' (term coined by self) are deemed basic human rights as well and gays are no different from heterosexual people, except for their sexual orientation, much like skin colour. Or if you'd like to argue that it is a choice, much like religion.

Erm…if FT doesnt turn out, no problem, coward or not it s his CHOICE in the end.

Sexual orientation is an elusive term – why include or exclude one orientation or sexual behaviour and not the next? Why accept or reject homosexuals, lesbians and not voluntary incest or under age sex? Our laws draw lines at every point, laws embody specific moral values. Let's not pretend. What is at stake here is whether we like someone else's sexual moral viewpoints. What's the difference between the following assertions:-
1. It is right for one to engage in sexual activity with another person of the same sex.
2. It is wrong for one to believe that marriage should be betweeen people of opposite sex.
3. It is right for a law academic to support legalized homosexual sex.
4. It is wrong for a man to have sexual relations with a legally under-aged person (why does 1 day or 5 months make a difference?)
5. It is illegal for a man to marry his sister or mother.

Are the above not normative assertions? Why should one position be superior to the other? How do we decide this in a democratic country? Or are we no longer interested in what another has to say?

If the Asian law universities' communities have warmly received and heard diverse views of their Western counterparts, surely, we can do the same without calling our opponents names and saying that they are not competent to teach?

Prof Thio has spoken to constitutional and human rights issues. We should examine the merits of her arguments (and she has written on many issues not just sexual orientation) instead of engaging in inaccuracies and name calling so characteristics of American politics.

Let's be more than 'moderate' – let's be accurate and not engage in slanderous and vindictive personal and professional attacks against the individual.

In the name of freedom of speech and conscience. This should be applied both ways.

If only the wanton use of capitalization and exclamation points could get that thought airborne you might have a point; unfortunately, every credible study done on the subject begs to differ.

Unless you mean homosexuals could force themselves to have sex with someone to whom they are not attracted. Even if you would wish that kind of loveless and sexless marriage on me, though, why would you wish it on your daughter?

* Which would be typical hypocrisy and worse if they did — shooting the professor not required…

It's still PC campus brownshirt stuff, and entirely predictable.

Hahaha…. that's obvious. Some people prefer to have sex with women and some people prefer to have sex with men. Why do you have sex (assuming you do) with the people (or person) you do? And why should you care who someone you don't even know is having sex with? What difference does it make?

My point is that just because people can physically refrain from doing something, it does not give the majority the moral right to outlaw it. Almost everyone now accepts that it is wrong to ban religions you don't adhere to, or even that you think are wrong, because of the fundamental importance of religion in life. Surely love is something rather fundamental to a person's identity, life, and happiness as well. But what did Thomas Jefferson know?

Freedom from religion I have. Freedom to Suppress Dr. Thio, you don’t have.

…and there she is teaching at NYU. The tip of the sword.

Jews? Oh good grief no they don‘t bother anyone. More like reverend Phelps and his home grown Baptists, but then you would have to agree with me on a point. God Forbid.

Laws can be reversed. I find Dr. Thio's remarks remarkably interesting in a field where there don't seem to be enough educated thought applied to this issue.

I suggest that its time to start pushing back against the, “Lesbian” “Gay”
“Bi-SEXUAL” “TRANSGENDER” extra rights movement.

I want to know EXACTLY what they want and where it ends. No Generalizations and no Rhetoric attempting to associated LGBT with RACE.

Race has no choice. Whom you have sex with IS a choice!