View Full Version : US set to abstain from UN vote
The vote is with regard to a measure that condemns discrimination based on sexual orientation. Other countries that are abstaining, or voting against the measure, are Cuba, Latin American countries, and the arab nation.
Well lookie there, our government has something in common with the terrorists and thugs of the world! :roll:
Bah! (http://uk.gay.com/headlines/4194)
Silent_One
24-Apr-2003, 17:06
Link please...
John Reynolds
24-Apr-2003, 17:11
And with Bush in the oval office that surprises you how?
Which ties into something that crosses my mind on occasion since I work on a large Air Force base. Any regular posters here ever serve in the US military? I spent 9 years in the OANG (OH air national guard) so I have an opinion or two on the constitutionality of our military's tradition of discriminating against homosexuals. The opinion is that the policy is unethical and unconstitutional. "Oh, but I don't want some fairy boy looking at my butt in the shower!", said a friend of mine who was once in the army. My reply? Trust me, buddy, no self-respecting gay man would've looked at you twice. While still in the guard I recall mentioning to the office that a friend of mine had AIDS and when asked how he got it I said, "He's gay, so he probably got infected via unsafe sex." The reactions from people I'd worked with and known for almost nine years was mind-boggling. "What?! You have a gay friend? Are you gay? WTF?!!" It felt like a lynch mob in the making. My reply? "Hello people. Liberal arts major, most of the guys I meet at college are gay. I've lived with my girlfriend/wife for how many years now?"
Oh, well, mini-rant over.
MrsSkywalker
24-Apr-2003, 17:42
While I personally feel that no one should be discriminated for anything that have no control over (i.e. race, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities, etc...) or their religion, I can see where the issue at hand gets very complicated. It's easy to for us to forget that religion=government in many countries. It's a delicate matter to tell millions that their thousands of years old religious docterine is wrong, especially when we are trying to create peace in a region that adheres to these teachings.
We lose any shred of respectbility we have with those we are trying to bring together in peace if we vote yes.
We get blasted by "everyone else" if we vote no.
Since "everyone else" is harping on us to make peace in a region that believes homosexuality is a sin, then what choice does that leave us?
The US has vowed not to try and block the resolution, just to abstain from the vote, and I think that is a smart move at this particular time.
IMO, there doesn't need to be such a law. The UN already has signed into international law the following on human rights:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/int18.htm
Do the have a specific law against discrimination of Jews? Muslims? Men? Women? They don't need to. This international law states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Are you saying that we should waste the time to vote on and list every single type of human that could possibly be discriminated against?
This was passed in 1948. Perhaps all they need to do is print it out and pass it around. Then maybe they'll remember what they are supposed to be doing instead of wasting time re-passing a 55 year old law law.
Sabastian
24-Apr-2003, 18:11
I am for discrimanting against people based on how people act and I reserve that right to make my own judgement. The UN shouldn't even be voting on it IMO it isn't their fu*king place.
I am for discrimanting against people based on how people act and I reserve that right to make my own judgement. The UN shouldn't even be voting on it IMO it isn't their fu*king place.
:roll:
So you don't mind gay people. Just when we engage in relationships with one another like any other human being.
Link please...
Click "Bah!"
:)
Sabastian
24-Apr-2003, 18:39
I am for discrimanting against people based on how people act and I reserve that right to make my own judgement. The UN shouldn't even be voting on it IMO it isn't their fu*king place.
:roll:
So you don't mind gay people. Just when we engage in relationships with one another like any other human being.
Deny me my inherent right to be disgusted by anothers actions will you? You cannot outlaw discrimination against people based on the way a they behave no matter what the cause, it isn't worth it. Pedophiles need their love to but that doesn't make me appreciate their actions ether. Now the UN is taking on more then the organization ought to be and it is a good thing that there are governments that oppose the vote. Because the vast majority of the worlds population believe that it is wrong. .
I am for discrimanting against people based on how people act and I reserve that right to make my own judgement. The UN shouldn't even be voting on it IMO it isn't their fu*king place.
:roll:
So you don't mind gay people. Just when we engage in relationships with one another like any other human being.
Deny me my inherent right to be disgusted by anothers actions will you? You cannot outlaw discrimination against people based on the way a they behave no matter what the cause, it isn't worth it. Pedophiles need their love to but that doesn't make me appreciate their actions ether. Now the UN is taking on more then the organization ought to be and it is a good thing that there are governments that oppose the vote. Because the vast majority of the worlds population believe that it is wrong. .
Oh you can have your backward ideals and close mindedness all you like. No one is trying to take that away from you. Keep yourself as unenlightened as you like.
The UN is basically saying you can't trod on those who 'disgust' you. I'm quite sure there are many christian fundamentalists that despise the heresy of the middle east, and vice versa. But they don't have the right to deny those other groups their rights.
Homosexuality is not a way of 'acting' anymore than Heterosexuality is a way of 'acting.' Seeing a guy and a girl go at it doesn't particularly light a fire in my bones, but you don't see me going out of my way to kill all the straights or deny all the straights their rights.
p.s.: I love how you try to bring pedophilia into a discussion of gay rights. Typical. :roll:
Sabastian
24-Apr-2003, 19:15
Oh you can have your backward ideals and close mindedness all you like. No one is trying to take that away from you. Keep yourself as unenlightened as you like.
I will likely always discrimanate against people if I don't like their behavior. So will the rest of the world, if there is anyone whom thinks that they can simply change peoples minds by making laws about discrimanation they need to dig their head out of the dirt. Yeah me and my ignorance will most likely always think that discrimanation is something people do every day. Government (not to mention the UN.) should not be trying to jam these sorts of laws down peoples throats.
The UN is basically saying you can't trod on those who 'disgust' you. I'm quite sure there are many christian fundamentalists that despise the heresy of the middle east, and vice versa. But they don't have the right to deny those other groups their rights.
I am sorry, I don't intend to "trod" on anyone. I will however always discrimanate against people based on how they behave. Freedom of religion is not comparable .. but that certainly doesn't stop you or others form discrimanating against them via judgements and there should be no law forbiding it ether.
Homosexuality is not a way of 'acting' anymore than Heterosexuality is a way of 'acting.' Seeing a guy and a girl go at it doesn't particularly light a fire in my bones, but you don't see me going out of my way to kill all the straights or deny all the straights their rights.
If one behaves like a hetrosexual how is that not? There should be no laws of governance that say individuals cannot discrimanate against another based on actions or behavior. Is that more clear for you?
p.s.: I love how you try to bring pedophilia into a discussion of gay rights. Typical. :roll:
Why not? They use many of the same arguments that homosexuals use. I really was not trying to bring that into the argument but rather use it as a similar case where people are discrimanated against for their sexuality and their is no problem with it. BTW what percent of pedophiles are homosexaully inclined?
Oh you can have your backward ideals and close mindedness all you like. No one is trying to take that away from you. Keep yourself as unenlightened as you like.
I will likely always discrimanate against people if I don't like their behavior. So will the rest of the world, if there is anyone whom thinks that they can simply change peoples minds by making laws about discrimanation they need to dig their head out of the dirt. Yeah me and my ignorance will most likely always think that discrimanation is something people do every day. Government (not to mention the UN.) should not be trying to jam these sorts of laws down peoples throats.
The first step to changing a society's views is to change the laws. If you outlaw something, or make something legal, that will, over time, affect how society views it. Look at abortion as an example of something that was made legal. Or drunken driving as an example of something that was made illegal.
Anti-discrimination laws *do* have an impact on society because it becomes ingrained in the fabric of that society.
The UN is basically saying you can't trod on those who 'disgust' you. I'm quite sure there are many christian fundamentalists that despise the heresy of the middle east, and vice versa. But they don't have the right to deny those other groups their rights.
I am sorry, I don't intend to "trod" on anyone. I will however always discrimanate against people based on how they behave. Freedom of religion is not comparable .. but that certainly doesn't stop you or others form discrimanating against them via judgements and there should be no law forbiding it ether.
How is freedom of religion not comparable? Someone who believes in a different religion will act differently. They may even behave in a manner that is, according to "your" religion, unseemly.
Think about what an islamic fundamentalist would have to say about women in our society walking around with short skirts and no facial coverings. The horror!
So tell me, how is religion not comparable? And btw, I don't discriminate against religious people. I don't like it when they try to force their bigoted beliefs on me. I could care less in who believes in what, but when those beliefs impact my ability to live my life to the fullest, that's where I draw a line in the sand.
Homosexuality is not a way of 'acting' anymore than Heterosexuality is a way of 'acting.' Seeing a guy and a girl go at it doesn't particularly light a fire in my bones, but you don't see me going out of my way to kill all the straights or deny all the straights their rights.
If one behaves like a hetrosexual how is that not? There should be no laws of governance that say individuals cannot discrimanate against another based on actions or behavior. Is that more clear for you?
What exactly is behaving like a heterosexual? What exactly is behaving like a homosexual? If you behave like something, then you're mimicking. If you *are* something, that's something totally different.
There most *certainly* should be laws to protect people who are homosexual, as there are laws to protect people who have certain religious beliefs. It's called protection of minorities.
p.s.: I love how you try to bring pedophilia into a discussion of gay rights. Typical. :roll:
Why not? They use many of the same arguments that homosexuals use. I really was not trying to bring that into the argument but rather use it as a similar case where people are discrimanated against for their sexuality and their is no problem with it. BTW what percent of pedophiles are homosexaully inclined?
First of all, pedophiles (heterosexual pedophiles, homosexual pedophiles, male and female alike) are sexually interacting with beings that are, in general, too young to understand the psychological, emotional, and physical ramifications of their actions. *That* is what I do not agree with. That is what I think is not healthy.
Here are the different forms of pedophilia:
Fixated (or exclusive type) pedophilia. The fixated pedophiles consider themselves to be trapped in childhood. They usually have minimum relations with adult peers, and relate better with children. They are identified mainly as men and their primary interest is in boys, with whom they develop boy to boy relationships. They typically plan their activities to promote access to young boys through church, neighborhood, or sporting activities.
Regressed (or nonexclusive type) pedophilia. On the other hand, the regressed pedophile is not ordinarily attracted to children. Those with regressed pedophilia are typically heterosexual married males and most likely to sexually molest 8 or 9 year old female children. Some pedophiles complain of anxiety or tension related to employment or marital relationship as precursors to pedophilic impulses, as well as alcohol or drug usage. They view the child as an adult substitute, and relate to the child in an adult to adult manner. The first sexual encounter is usually sudden and unplanned.
Cross-sex pedophilia. Male pedophiles who sexually molest young girls are typically diagnosed with regressed pedophilia. They commonly befriend the young girl and gradually engage in sexually activities, enticing, rather than forcing, the child. The activities frequently include fondling the child, encouraging the child to fondle the male, and possibly oral stimulation, but rarely sexual intercourse.
Same-sex pedophilia. While most pedophiles who engage in or fantasize about same-sex children do not participate in heterosexual adult sexual relations, they also deny being homosexual. Instead, the pedophiles are more sexually aroused by male and female children than by either gender of adults. The average age of molestation among boys is between 10 and 12. Sexual activities typically involve fondling and adult masturbation and/ or oral stimulation of the boy, and anal sex with the adult male taking the active role.
Female pedophilia. Although the vast majority of pedophilia is among males, female pedophilia does exist. However, female pedophilia is not commonly reported, possibly because the female's affection shown toward a child is seen as maternal, as opposed to sexual in the males. Additionally, male children do not view sexual relations with adult women negatively, and therefore may not report the incident. However, it is reportedly fairly common for young males (12 years old or younger) to engage in sexual activities (usually sexual intercourse) with adult women, usually in their twenties, who are usually known by the boys and typically friends of parents, neighbors or baby-sitters.
And here is a study performed by the Journal of Pediatrics, published in July 1994 with regard to sexually abused children.
2% of the boys in the study were molested by gay males.
98% of the boys in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 75% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario.
0.05% of the girls in the study were molested by a lesbian.
99.5% of the girls in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 80% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario.
John Reynolds
24-Apr-2003, 20:13
I am for discrimanting against people based on how people act and I reserve that right to make my own judgement. The UN shouldn't even be voting on it IMO it isn't their fu*king place.
So if I take Communion and you're a protestant it's okay for you to not hire me for that new position your company just opened up based on my actions, eh? I think I see what you meant but what you wrote can be widely misconstrued. Unless a person's actions harm another person, I don't think discrimination is warranted. But in this case since the act defines the person (same-sex sex) there's no way around it. I also reserve the right to have an opinion on others due to their actions but that doesn't give me some inalienable right to discriminate against them.
RussSchultz
24-Apr-2003, 20:20
I have severe reservations about the males molesting boys actually being heterosexual, and not closetted gays.
But anyways...as Sen. Santorum said, if you make sexual orientation a constitutionally protected right based on the right to privacy, what then would prevent a constitutional challenge for laws preventing truly deviant behavior between consenting adults?
Could laws prohibiting consensual adult incest survive? Beastiality? Could a divorce law that factored in fault be upheld? Would polygamy be a right?
Silent_One
24-Apr-2003, 20:26
There most *certainly* should be laws to protect people who are homosexual, as there are laws to protect people who have certain religious beliefs. It's called protection of minorities
Natoma
While I probably agree with you in principle please clarify "It's called protection of minorities". (After all women are not minorities in society yet laws are written under the guise of the Disadvantaged ).
I have severe reservations about the males molesting boys actually being heterosexual, and not closetted gays.
Males in prison have a high incidence of homosexual rape. Yet most of the males are indeed heterosexual. Pedophilia is in many ways more about the control factor, psychologically, than anything else.
But anyways...as Sen. Santorum said, if you make sexual orientation a constitutionally protected right based on the right to privacy, what then would prevent a constitutional challenge for laws preventing truly deviant behavior between consenting adults?
Could laws prohibiting consensual adult incest survive? Beastiality? Could a divorce law that factored in fault be upheld? Would polygamy be a right?
Adult incest should be kept outlawed because of the possibility of having children who are horribly deformed and/or retarded. If you notice, there are quite a few states that allow you to marry your 2nd cousin. Why? Because the genetic differences are high enough to where your children have about as good a chance of escaping genetic defects as two people who are completely unrelated.
Beastiality is not consenual sex between two adult human beings. ;)
I'm not sure what you mean by the divorce law thing. Can you go into it further?
And polygamy, well, there are *many* religions around the world, including some sections of christianity *cough* mormonism *cough* that allow polygamy. The only reason it's outlawed in this country is because the dominant sub section of christianity is protestantism/catholicism, which sees polygamy as a sin.
There most *certainly* should be laws to protect people who are homosexual, as there are laws to protect people who have certain religious beliefs. It's called protection of minorities
Natoma
While I probably agree with you in principle please clarify "It's called protection of minorities". (After all women are not minorities in society yet laws are written under the guise of the Disadvantaged ).
Minority status is generally defined as those who are physically in a minority position (numbers wise), or those who are in a minority status due to their influence on the socio-political climate.
That's why you hear women and african americans, for instance, referred to as minorities, even though women comprise more than 50% of the population of the United States thank you very much wars of the past century.......
RussSchultz
24-Apr-2003, 20:37
"At fault" Divorce laws "punish" the party who is responsible for breaking up the marriage due to infidelity, etc. Generally the party not at fault has greater influence in determining child custody, alimony etc.
"At fault" Divorce laws "punish" the party who is responsible for breaking up the marriage due to infidelity, etc. Generally the party not at fault has greater influence in determining child custody, alimony etc.
Oh ic. But how does that fit in? I'm still a little lost.
John Reynolds
24-Apr-2003, 20:40
"At fault" Divorce laws "punish" the party who is responsible for breaking up the marriage due to infidelity, etc. Generally the party not at fault has greater influence in determining child custody, alimony etc.
Not sure I'm opposed to that. A person who's unfaithful in their marriage is certainly putting their wants ahead of the needs of their children and while not necessarily a bad parent isn't exactly my notion of an ideal parent.
RussSchultz
24-Apr-2003, 20:48
The "at fault" divorce fits in to the discussion because there are legal implications of bedroom activities. (infidelity causes you to lose legal rights)
If we proclaim that bedroom activities are protected by this growing "right to privacy", then laws such as this could be declared unconstitutional because the goverment has no right interfering with what goes on in the bedroom.
I don't think that is a good outcome.
The "at fault" divorce fits in to the discussion because there are legal implications of bedroom activities. (infidelity causes you to lose legal rights)
If we proclaim that bedroom activities are protected by this growing "right to privacy", then laws such as this could be declared unconstitutional because the goverment has no right interfering with what goes on in the bedroom.
I don't think that is a good outcome.
Ah I understand now. No, I don't think this would cover that. Marriage is, at the coldest viewing, a legal contract entered into between two people. If you break that contract, you can be held legally responsible if the other party so chooses, just like any other contract.
So no, I don't think this would invalidate that.
RussSchultz
24-Apr-2003, 20:59
Yet at the same time I couldn't enter a contract with my child's teachers that required them to be straight?
Yet at the same time I couldn't enter a contract with my child's teachers that required them to be straight?
Not anymore than you could enter a contract with your child's teacher that requires them to be religious, for instance. You can't contract something like that, or at least, you shouldn't be allowed to. I know the Boy Scouts can do that kind of thing because they are a private organization. But a public institution cannot.
RussSchultz
24-Apr-2003, 21:12
Like I said, if you base your constitutional protection of homosexuality on privacy, then other private activities become constitutionally protected also.
At that point, you could not contract fidelity into the marriage, regardless of the wellbeing of the children involved.
But anyways...as Sen. Santorum said, if you make sexual orientation a constitutionally protected right based on the right to privacy, what then would prevent a constitutional challenge for laws preventing truly deviant behavior between consenting adults?
Could laws prohibiting consensual adult incest survive? Beastiality? Could a divorce law that factored in fault be upheld? Would polygamy be a right?
Natoma covered some of this, but to build on what he said:
Polygamy refers to marriage, not sexual behavior. Marriage is a public function and is surely within the bounds of the state to regulate. (I happen to believe gay marriage should be legalized, but obviously the right to privacy has no bearing on that debate.) Instead the analogous question is whether threesomes (or, more generally, orgies) can be criminalized by the state, and the answer seems an obvious "no".
As for factoring in adultery in divorce proceedings (Natoma: "fault" in divorce law refers to taking account of whose fault it was--generally, who was cheating on whom--when divvying up the assets, children, etc. of the former couple), again that's completely out of the scope of the issue. Adultery already isn't illegal, and we would rightly recognize any law criminalizing it as a huge invasion of privacy rights. But it is very rightly recognized as an example of fault in divorce proceedings. So are many other non-illegal activities, e.g. not taking a shower for 10 years.
The prohibition on consensual adult incest, on the other hand, is much tougher to dismiss out-of-hand. The argument that a resulting child may have genetic defects seems promising, but doesn't hold as a general rule. For example, it is perfectly legal for two consenting adults to have sex even if they have some other genetic predisposition--either singly or as a pair--towards producing defective children. To bring it into sharper focus: as a woman gets older, and particularly above 42 or 43, the risk that a child born to her will have Down's Syndrome becomes extremely significant--probably higher than the risk of genetic defects with sibling parents. But it is certainly not illegal for pre-menopausal women over 43 to have consensual sex.
Hmm...
That's why there are quite a few states that allow you to marry your 2nd cousin because at that point genetic differences are high enough to allow procreation that will not result in the birth of a genetically defective child.
As for the older woman thing, the difficulty of a woman that age conceiving naturally is extremely high. In fact, the prime fertility for women *and* men is in their mid 20's (contrary to popular belief, men do indeed experience a decline in sperm genetic viability and general motility after their 20's).
Incestual relationships are still able to bring pregnancies to term due to the age of the participants (generally), but there is an overwhelming odds that, no matter *what* they do (natural or artificial techniques), the baby will be born with severe genetic defects.
A woman in her 40's still has a good chance of having a healthy baby, naturally or through artificial techniques, even if the risks are raised. This falls along the same train of thought that allows 2nd cousins to wed, due to genetic differences.
Sabastian
24-Apr-2003, 22:11
The first step to changing a society's views is to change the laws. If you outlaw something, or make something legal, that will, over time, affect how society views it. Look at abortion as an example of something that was made legal. Or drunken driving as an example of something that was made illegal.
Anti-discrimination laws *do* have an impact on society because it becomes ingrained in the fabric of that society.
Spoken like a true social engineer. Natoma where did you get your education? First off there are no laws to change rather what is being done is the creation of new laws. There are still a great opposition to abortion. What you are talking about is creating new social problems via laws. I disagree that law making equates moral values. But rather that laws should reflect the moral values of society otherwise you are being authoritative and repressive. How sanitized mentality you have laws equal morals. :roll:
How is freedom of religion not comparable? Someone who believes in a different religion will act differently. They may even behave in a manner that is, according to "your" religion, unseemly.
Think about what an islamic fundamentalist would have to say about women in our society walking around with short skirts and no facial coverings. The horror!.
So tell me, how is religion not comparable? And btw, I don't discriminate against religious people. I don't like it when they try to force their bigoted beliefs on me. I could care less in who believes in what, but when those beliefs impact my ability to live my life to the fullest, that's where I draw a line in the sand.
lol and this is coming from the guy whom can't see the parallels that pedophiles are facing. Freedom of Religion is a supernatural belief in God or likewise. It is about the mystery of life.... there are no parallels between two men rooting around in bed and a religion. My sakes man. They believe that it is poor behavior to "walk around in short skirts" that is part of their religion. But I don't think I would create a law where you could not make the judgement that you don't like it. Discrimination based on behavior is normal and everyone does it everyday. Just because junkies are allowed to shoot up in a park in Denmark doesn't make me think any more highly of them. Same goes for a throng of queers going down main street on top of a float of an erect penis I still think they are fu*ked up. If I was walking down the street and my child (or myself for that matter.) was forced to view one of them gay pride parades and my child were to ask me about it I would explain that it is the greatest injustice my country has ever done and that the people in the parade were sick in the head. How is that for discrimination? You keep your garbage social science away from my kids ......you hear me? No you don't discriminate against religious people you simply want to high jack their moral values.. eg Gay and lesbian marriage in a Christian church. A question for you Natoma do you discriminate at all? If so in what instances would you? If you don't you are one of the few. But here lets take this discriminatory argument a little further. What about all the people whom are ugly? Surely their case is a far worse fate then homosexuals. Why doesn't the UN (or for that matter our governments.) take their cause to hand? I mean it isn't even that they behave differently or anything it is purely something that they can do little about. But they would face discrimination on a daily minute by minute bases. Pedophiles are a lot like gays though in that you can't really tell about them until they are sexually engaged.
What exactly is behaving like a heterosexual? What exactly is behaving like a homosexual? If you behave like something, then you're mimicking. If you *are* something, that's something totally different.
lol, you never did start to chastise people whom don't think there is any human nature. Further there is very little evidence to say that you "are" gay based on biological or chemical differences in humans. There is not one trace of difference biochemically between a heterosexual male and a homosexual male. Behavior is an analytical term. For instance when I am having intercourse with my wife I would suggest to you that this is typical heterosexual behavior. You could apply the same term to your self and I would suppose that is the reason you call yourself homosexual. There now, was that so difficult?
There most *certainly* should be laws to protect people who are homosexual, as there are laws to protect people who have certain religious beliefs. It's called protection of minorities.
I would be careful if I were you here this is wear your start making for laws to protect *any* group with a law. The fat, ugly, stupid, pedophiles etc. There are all sorts of minorities and all sorts of people whom are discriminated against. I am discriminated against on a daily bases Natoma, care to guess how? I disagree there *certainly* shouldn't be laws that protect people for how they behave in bed. That is silly and the law is sure to fail, can't you see that Natoma? Would you report me to the thought police for not conforming?
First of all, pedophiles (heterosexual pedophiles, homosexual pedophiles, male and female alike) are sexually interacting with beings that are, in general, too young to understand the psychological, emotional, and physical ramifications of their actions. *That* is what I do not agree with. That is what I think is not healthy.
Here are the different forms of pedophilia:
<snip>
Thanks for that...but consider http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431
Gary Schoener, a clinical psychologist who has been diagnosing and treating clergy abuse for 28 years, told Salon.com, "There are far more heterosexual cases than homosexual."
In terms of sheer numbers, that may be true. But in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.
Baldwin says evidence he examined disproves the assertion that child molestation is more prevalent among heterosexuals.
Gay press promotes sex with children
Baldwin says his research not only "confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals," but it found that "the mainstream homosexual culture" even "commonly promotes sex with children."
"The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality," Baldwin wrote.
During his research, he also found:
The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, "Male Intergenerational Intimacy," containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home."
In 1995 the homosexual magazine "Guide" said, "We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual" and "deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …" The article went on to say: "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake."
Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, "Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist": "In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it."
In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a "Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.
Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
Also .......
http://drjudithreisman.org/whitep/regent.pdf
Crusher
24-Apr-2003, 23:00
Like I said, if you base your constitutional protection of homosexuality on privacy, then other private activities become constitutionally protected also.
At that point, you could not contract fidelity into the marriage, regardless of the wellbeing of the children involved.
Infidelity is having intercourse with someone who is not your chosen spouse. I don't see how that in any way has a correlation to the legality of sexual acts performed in the relationship between the person and their chosen spouse. They are completely unrelated acts, and a law protecting one cannot possibly be extended to protect another. The people who proclaim that homosexuality is deviant behavior are the same people who proclaim a heterosexual couple engaging in oral or anal sex is displaying deviant behavior (and quite a few states have laws against those acts, too... keep that in mind the next time your wive gives you a BJ).
Sabastian
24-Apr-2003, 23:01
I am for discrimanting against people based on how people act and I reserve that right to make my own judgement. The UN shouldn't even be voting on it IMO it isn't their fu*king place.
So if I take Communion and you're a protestant it's okay for you to not hire me for that new position your company just opened up based on my actions, eh? I think I see what you meant but what you wrote can be widely misconstrued. Unless a person's actions harm another person, I don't think discrimination is warranted. But in this case since the act defines the person (same-sex sex) there's no way around it. I also reserve the right to have an opinion on others due to their actions but that doesn't give me some inalienable right to discriminate against them.
Yeah I will take a page from what Russ argued that I should be able to discriminate whom say for example teaches my children. Also I would argue that spacial employment favoritism is incited by the suggestion that homosexuals are discriminated against in the worksforce. They happen to be generally in a higher income bracket. IMO of course I wouldn't' hire a homosexual if I thought that it would cause problems. If it is my business I would prefer that I have the choice of those whom I am employing. To suggest that because I have no employees whom are gay should be criteria for highering one. A law that enforces anti discriminatory ideals creates a situation where a business must apply some quota to their employment numbers. Where gays only account for 1-2% of the population I would suggest that this means that for every company that has 100 employees they must have at least one or two homosexuals. This anti discriminatory law is a form of AA for homosexuals.
Sabastian
24-Apr-2003, 23:09
Infidelity is having intercourse with someone who is not your chosen spouse. I don't see how that in any way has a correlation to the legality of sexual acts performed in the relationship between the person and their chosen spouse. They are completely unrelated acts, and a law protecting one cannot possibly be extended to protect another. The people who proclaim that homosexuality is deviant behavior are the same people who proclaim a heterosexual couple engaging in oral or anal sex is displaying deviant behavior (and quite a few states have laws against those acts, too... keep that in mind the next time your wive gives you a BJ).
I don't take so much issue with oral sex, other then it being taught to kids in grade 7.
On the issue of anal sex though there are problems. The stretching of the sphincter muscles over time causes many whom engage in anal sex to have problems to the extent that by the time they are mid aged they cannot hold their feces. In other words they end up wearing diapers. Also they use tampons to congest the area. I won't even bother talking about how much more dangerous it is to have anal sex particularly with regards to STDs and AIDS.
Like I said, if you base your constitutional protection of homosexuality on privacy, then other private activities become constitutionally protected also.
You are right. If you use privacy as a means of justifying protection of homosexual behavior under the constitution you open up a serious can of worms.
But why use a flimsy and loaded justification?
The recent remarks by one of our oh-so distinguished Republican senators were made in regards to a particular case. That case (I believe) is about sodomy laws, not privacy (although it can be argued that privacy comes into it, but lets put that aside for now).
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm
As you can see by this map, only 14 states (plus Puerto Rico and the military) have sodomy laws on the books that have not been repealed.
Of that 14, 4 of the sodomy laws only apply to homosexuals. This is clearly discrimination (which is a god given right under the constitution of Sabastian-Land apparently, but not in the USofA), since it singles out a minority. BTW - I am using the definiton of minority provided by Natoma, which homosexuals clearly fit into.
Minority status is generally defined as those who are physically in a minority position (numbers wise), or those who are in a minority status due to their influence on the socio-political climate.
The remaining 10 states have sodomy laws that apply to both hetro and homo sexuals. Sodomy is defined in several ways in each of these states, and many times has proven to difficult to enforce because of ambiguity in those defintions. But if we go by the biblical definition, Sodomy is roughly defined as any contact between the genitals of one person, and the mouth or anus of another. I would estimate that if enforced thoroughly, this would mean the imprisonment of a signifagantly large percentage of the population of these states. Basically, anyone who ever got or gave a blow-job or "went down on" or was "went down upon" would be in jail, heteros and homos. (side-note: some (but not all) of these state laws do not apply to married couples)
Sodomy laws in the US are rooted in Christianity's view of Sodomy. These views go way-way-way back, and are sometimes just as confusing in biblical text as they are in US State law. At one point Peter (the apostle) included masturbation under the umbrella of Sodomy (if we used that in US law, just about everyone would be in jail, and myself, i would be serving several consecutive life sentences).
I think that the repeal of sodomy laws is long overdue. It is clearly either discriminatory or based in secular religious doctrine. Neither of which is okay to be included in or the basis of a law. If there are no sodomy laws, then there is no need to for the protection of a homosexual persons right to do as they wish with a constenting partner, since what they are doing is no longer illegal in the eyes of the state. It would also keep pedofile behavior illegal, since they could not bring up the privacy issue, and the law that its not okay to have sexual acts with a minor would still stand.
In the end, this is really pretty silly. What do I care what Natoma does in his bedroom, or what Sabastian does in his, and by the same token you guys shouldn't care what I do in my bedroom (or living room, bathroom, or the hall closet (oh wait,. thats a little to much information I think)).
As my old Constitutional Law professor used to say (I am pretty sure he stole this from someone, and wasn't his quote), "Your rights end, where my nose begins" (or in this case, maybe not just the nose).
and lastly....
Surprisingly (dare i say SHOCKINGLY) when I search on Google for Sodomy, there was no porn on the first page. What is this world coming to?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Sodomy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
-stvn
John Reynolds
24-Apr-2003, 23:22
Pedophiles are a lot like gays though in that you can't really tell about them until they are sexually engaged.
Child molester = two consenting adults, therefore
Violation of free will = use of free will
I cannot believe anyone would write this. Besides the fact that every single child molester I know of lives a heterosexual life, a pedophile is a sick criminal who preys upon children while a gay is someone who has sex with a another person of the same gender. Where's the correlation? Oh, because both involve sex. Well, by that logic every male rapist who attacks women must be a Barbara Streissand concert ticket holding fruitcake. I mean, how do you tell such a rapist from a gay, unless you catch them in the act?
Yeah I will take a page from what Russ argued that I should be able to discriminate whom say for example teaches my children.
If the teacher stays within the curriculum, I don't think so. The best high school teacher I had taught biology and was truly an amazing teacher. However, he took one day off and launch into an anti-abortion speech, complete with photos of aborted fetuses lying in garbage cans. He was a Christian who attended a local church. And what he did was very, very wrong.
Sabastian
24-Apr-2003, 23:25
In the end, this is really pretty silly. What do I care what Natoma does in his bedroom, or what Sabastian does in his, and by the same token you guys shouldn't care what I do in my bedroom (or living room, bathroom, or the hall closet (oh wait,. thats a little to much information I think)).
As my old Constitutional Law professor used to say (I am pretty sure he stole this from someone, and wasn't his quote), "Your rights end, where my nose begins" (or in this case, maybe not just the nose).
Again I reserve the right to think how someone behaves is a valid point for discriminating ... we all do it every day. What I am most upset about is the political objectives that create laws that I don't agree with and teach these same values to my children as if it is normal. The UN has no place telling me whom I cannot discriminate based on an individuals behavior. Government has no place in this it is wrong? What next? After you have one special group whom cant be discriminated against based on the way they behave then what next? I can understand racism but actions? Hrm I think the ugly people are next in line,then the childes rights activists then Pedophiles after them and so on.
Where gays only account for 1-2% of the population I would suggest that this means that for every company that has 100 employees they must have at least one or two homosexuals.
What about a company with less than 100 employees? Would you then be required by law to have at least one or two repressed latent homosexual? In order to fill out the percentage.
You are allowed to hire who you want in your company, and as far as i know you are not required to hire anyone who does not qualify for the position you are offering.
If however, you were to dismiss a qualified canidate purely on the basis of their sexual orientation, race or creed, that is discrimiation, and not okay under current US law.
Let me pose a question to you Sabastian.
What would you say to your child if they told you they were a homosexual? How would you deal with that?
-stvn
Sabastian
24-Apr-2003, 23:37
Pedophiles are a lot like gays though in that you can't really tell about them until they are sexually engaged.
Child molester = two consenting adults, therefore
Violation of free will = use of free will
I cannot believe anyone would write this. Besides the fact that every single child molester I know of lives a heterosexual life, a pedophile is a sick criminal who preys upon children while a gay is someone who has sex with a another person of the same gender. Where's the correlation? Oh, because both involve sex. Well, by that logic every male rapist who attacks women must be a Barbara Streissand concert ticket holding fruitcake. I mean, how do you tell such a rapist from a gay, unless you catch them in the act?
Yeah I will take a page from what Russ argued that I should be able to discriminate whom say for example teaches my children.
If the teacher stays within the curriculum, I don't think so. The best high school teacher I had taught biology and was truly an amazing teacher. However, he took one day off and launch into an anti-abortion speech, complete with photos of aborted fetuses lying in garbage cans. He was a Christian who attended a local church. And what he did was very, very wrong.
My point is that homosexuals are as disgusting to me as pedophiles. The child rights activists and a number of gay and lesbian groups have been trying to lower the age of consent to that they are not molesters under the law. You understand? The notion is really that the laws create morals not the other way around. If you have no law then its ok, moral relativism.
On the matter of abortion high school students if they are being taught about abortion ought to see what abortion is and it is a sick act it isn't any more right because it is legalized then it was 30 years ago when it was not legal.
The first step to changing a society's views is to change the laws. If you outlaw something, or make something legal, that will, over time, affect how society views it. Look at abortion as an example of something that was made legal. Or drunken driving as an example of something that was made illegal.
Anti-discrimination laws *do* have an impact on society because it becomes ingrained in the fabric of that society.
Spoken like a true social engineer. Natoma where did you get your education? First off there are no laws to change rather what is being done is the creation of new laws. There are still a great opposition to abortion. What you are talking about is creating new social problems via laws. I disagree that law making equates moral values. But rather that laws should reflect the moral values of society otherwise you are being authoritative and repressive. How sanitized mentality you have laws equal morals. :roll:
1) I was educated at Berkeley Carroll in Brooklyn, NY. One of the best high schools in the nation actually. Then I went on to a little place called Yale.
2) On the books today there are laws that say sodomy is illegal. And in most cases, it's only illegal for homosexuals to engage in sodomy, generally defined as not only anal sex, but oral sex as well.
Actually, any type of non-vaginal sex is deemed in quite a few states as sodomy.
3) 100 years ago moral, decent people believed that keeping black people as second class citizens was the right thing to do. Some people used the bible to say that it was even endorsed by god! Actually what am I saying... There are *still* people today who will point out scriptures that say that african slavery was justified by god.
During that same time, moral decent people believed that denying women the right to vote and the right to work outside the home was the 'godly' thing to do. Man was to go out and work. Woman was to stay home and bear children. Anything else was ungodly and unseemly.
In the middle east, it's immoral for women to show anything more their ankles. And even then, in some spots, that is considered sinful. :shock:
Does that mean that middle eastern society should be allowed to subjugate women in the way they do, just because that's their moral values?
Please. Morality does not necessarily equate correctness. Hitler and his crew thought it was their moral duty to eliminate jews from the face of the earth because of what the jews did to christ. :roll:
4) Abortion will always have its foes. Frankly I agree with only certain kinds of abortion, such as first trimester abortion, or abortion in the second or third term only if the mother's life is in danger. I am vehemently opposed to partial-birth abortion because it is supremely barbaric, especially since it is only performed in the third trimester, when babies are most certainly capable of living outside their mother's womb, and are most certainly more than just a non-descript ball of cells.
The overwhelming majority of people in this country are against *partial-birth* abortions Sabastian. Not abortions in the first trimester.
How is freedom of religion not comparable? Someone who believes in a different religion will act differently. They may even behave in a manner that is, according to "your" religion, unseemly.
Think about what an islamic fundamentalist would have to say about women in our society walking around with short skirts and no facial coverings. The horror!
So tell me, how is religion not comparable? And btw, I don't discriminate against religious people. I don't like it when they try to force their bigoted beliefs on me. I could care less in who believes in what, but when those beliefs impact my ability to live my life to the fullest, that's where I draw a line in the sand.
lol and this is coming from the guy whom can't see the parallels that pedophiles are facing. Freedom of Religion is a supernatural belief in God or likewise. It is about the mystery of life.... there are no parallels between two men rooting around in bed and a religion. My sakes man. They believe that it is poor behavior to "walk around in short skirts" that is part of their religion. But I don't think I would create a law where you could not make the judgement that you don't like it. Discrimination based
on behavior is normal and everyone does it everyday. Just because junkies are allowed to shoot up in a park in Denmark doesn't make me think any more highly of them. Same goes for a throng of queers going
down main street on top of a float of an erect penis I still think they are fu*ked up. If I was walking down the street and my child (or myself for that matter.) was forced to view one of them gay pride parades and my child were to ask me about it I would explain that it is the greatest injustice my country has ever done and that the people in the parade were sick in the head. How is that for discrimination? You keep your garbage social science away from my kids ......you hear me? No you don't discriminate against religious people you simply want to high jack their moral values.. eg Gay and lesbian marriage in a Christian church. A question for you Natoma do you discriminate at all? If so in what instances would you? If you don't you are one of the few. But here lets take this discriminatory argument a little further. What about all the people whom are ugly? Surely their case is a far worse fate then homosexuals. Why doesn't the UN (or for that matter our governments.) take their cause to hand? I mean it isn't even that they behave differently or anything it is purely something that they can do little about. But they would face discrimination on a daily minute by minute bases. Pedophiles are a lot like gays though in that you can't really tell about them until they are sexually engaged.
Ok.
1) First off, please learn to use paragraph spacing.
2) Actually, I explained the differences between pedophilia (heterosexual and homosexual) and normal homosexuality and heterosexuality. But you snipped the definition out later on in the post you made. You also linked to a site (worldnetdaily) that is a fundamentalist christian website. Please you might as well link to the christian coalition website with their sponsored surveys and studies. I'm sorry, but I would not call them particularly unbiased.
The Journal of Pediatrics most certainly is unbiased, and definitely scientific. So believe what you will. I'll stick with scientific evidence regarding pedophilia.
3) You're right. Muslims believe it's poor behavior, unseemly even, to walk around in short skirts. It is certainly part of their religion.
Question though. Do you believe it's *right* for a country to legislate that women cannot walk around without looking like a bed sheet? Do you believe those muslim countries are *right* to force their female populations into subjugation, just because it's their religious beliefs?
Would you be for the Iraqis democratically voting in an anti-US theocratic regime in their first election? You do realize that the vast majority of Iraqis are shiite muslims who want the country to look like Iran.
So as I said earlier, just because the mob wants something doesn't mean that it's *right*.
3) You know what's sad Sabastian, while you're telling your kid that "those queers" are sick in the head, you could be insulting him/her. There are gay children Sabastian! It's not like we become adults and then all of a sudden we pop out into being gay. I grew up in a deeply rooted christian family, and was heavily influenced by christianity as a child, from the age of 2.
And *still*, even with all the negativity that surrounded me from my family and church goers, I still knew when I was 12 years old that I was gay. I had never been molested, never seen any gay imagery. I had never even seen two guys kissing, or heard about it. But I knew I was sexually attracted to the other boys in my class. I didn't know what it was until I looked it up in a dictionary, and read about it in the bible. *Then* I realized what I was feeling.
So guess what. You're telling your son/daughter that "those queers" are sick in the head, and you could be doing more psychological damage to them than anyone else could, because they look up to you, love you, and trust you more than anyone else in their life.
You heard me?
:roll:
4) There are religious people in this world that would cut off your penis for merely *looking* at their wife. There are religious people in this world that would stone you to death for having sex outside of marriage.
They can believe whatever it is they want to believe, just as long as it does not impinge on my ability to live my life in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, as every other american has the right to.
p.s.: There are gay and lesbian christians Sabastian. Just as there are gay and lesbian muslims. Hell, there are probably gays and lesbians out there who have a stronger and deeper faith than *you* do, if you believe in god that is, and whatever god it may be.
5) Pedophiles are a lot like gays though in that you can't really tell about them until they are sexually engaged?
:shock: :? :roll: :lol:
You're an idiot. Pedophiles are a like like straights in that you can't really tell about them until they are sexually engaged.
:roll:
6) Your use of "ugly people" is idiotic. "Ugly people" don't have laws on the books saying that if they have sex with one another they are committing illegal acts. "Ugly people" don't have to worry about being killed just because they're "ugly." "Ugly people" don't have to worry about being fired because some idiot in their job suddenly finds out that they're "ugly."
Sheesh. And why did I put ugly into quotes? Because imo "ugliness," is in the eye of the beholder, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One person's hideousness is another person's beauty contest winner.
If you're going to make an argument, at least make one that is plausible.
What exactly is behaving like a heterosexual? What exactly is behaving like a homosexual? If you behave like something, then you're mimicking. If you *are* something, that's something totally different.
lol, you never did start to chastise people whom don't think there is any human nature. Further there is very little evidence to say that you "are" gay based on biological or chemical differences in humans. There is not one trace of difference biochemically between a heterosexual male and a homosexual male. Behavior is an analytical term. For instance when I am having intercourse with my wife I would suggest to you that this is typical heterosexual behavior. You could apply the same term to your self and I would suppose that is the reason you call yourself homosexual. There now, was that so difficult?
1) Actually quite a few differences have been found. One such difference is the size of a gland in the hypothalamus which just so happens to develop completely during pregnancy, and regulates sexuality in the human brain. Apparently it is roughly half the size in homosexual males than in heterosexual males, closer to the size of a heterosexual females. And apparently this same organ in lesbians is almost double the size of heterosexual females, closer to the size of heterosexual males. Scientists attribute this difference to a possible lack of testosterone during critical stages of development of the fetus, as well as other factors.
That is just one difference off the top of my head.
2) You are heterosexual if your sexual attraction is predominantly towards those of the opposite sex. You don't ever have to engage in sexual activity to be heterosexual. You are homosexual if your sexual attraction is predominantly towards those of the same sex. You don't ever have to engage in sexual activity to be homosexual.
Heterosexuals can engage in homosexual activities and *still* be heterosexual. You see it all the time in prison. Homosexuals can engage in heterosexual activities and *still* be homosexual. You see it all the time in men and women who are trying to "make" themselves straight.
The difference is quite easy to see Sabastian. Open your mind a little and stop being so goddamned bigoted.
There most *certainly* should be laws to protect people who are homosexual, as there are laws to protect people who have certain religious beliefs. It's called protection of minorities.
I would be careful if I were you here this is wear your start making for laws to protect *any* group with a law. The fat, ugly, stupid, pedophiles etc. There are all sorts of minorities and all sorts of people whom are discriminated against. I am discriminated against on a daily bases Natoma, care to guess how? I disagree there *certainly* shouldn't be laws that protect people for how they behave in bed. That is silly and the law is sure to fail, can't you see that Natoma? Would you report me to the thought police for not conforming?
Gays men and women aren't hurting anyone. They are engaging in normal sexual activity with their partner(s) in the privacy of their home, just as heterosexual couples do.
*However*, the sodomy laws on the books in most states *only* say that sodomy is illegal between *two males*, *not* between a man and a woman. That is most certainly discriminatory against gays because it applies *only* to gay men and women when heterosexual men and women most certainly engage in anal and oral sex.
Who gives a shit what you think Sabastian. You could have thoughts of murder, death, and mayhem against anyone you like for all I care. You can be disgusted all you want to. But as soon as you take those hateful bigoted thoughts into action, *then* you have broken the law. This isn't Minority Report.
First of all, pedophiles (heterosexual pedophiles, homosexual pedophiles, male and female alike) are sexually interacting with beings that are, in general, too young to understand the psychological, emotional, and physical ramifications of their actions. *That* is what I do not agree with. That is what I think is not healthy. Here are the different forms of pedophilia:
<snip>
Thanks for that...but consider http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431
As I said before, I don't deal with sites that are fundamentalist christian. Just as I would not expect you to take the word of a gay site that came out with their own "statistics" and "beliefs" based on those "statistics."
I'll stick with the scientific body of evidence available in the Journal of Pediatrics, a very well respected journal that almost all pediatric doctors in this country reference when dealing with pediatric care.
Drive through Sabastian. Drive through.
Massive edit due to damn spacing problems from notepad
Again I reserve the right to think how someone behaves is a valid point for discriminating ... we all do it every day. What I am most upset about is the political objectives that create laws that I don't agree with and teach these same values to my children as if it is normal.
I will never disagree with your right to think whatever you want.
But that same right is shared by all those around you. And if the majority of people think that we need a law to protect someone's rights, then the government makes one (of course i am simplifying this ALOT).
You also have the right to teach your children your beliefs as well. You are not required (in the US) to send your child to any particular school, and especially one who teaches rules you dont agree with, this is your right. You are only obligated to provide proof that your child is being educated in a reasonable manner, so home-school if you are so concerned and feel so strongly.
You are also not required by law to allow your children to watch cable TV, or to view any other form of media you deem offensive.
Of course these rights of yours to seek out a different life for you and your children from the one offered by current society are guaranteed by the constitution. But that same guarentee means that you cannot tell me how to raise my children.
I can understand racism but actions?
But is it really as simple as that? I doubt it. Racism is a complex social issue. Its roots go back as long as mankind has been around. It cannot be and certainly has not been legislated away. It could even be argued (albeit weekly) that racism is in some way, human nature, since it has been around for so long, and seems not to be unique to a specific culture or race. But that does not mean that it is okay to act in a racist manner that infringes upon the rights of someone else. Racism is bad (hows that for an understatement), it is the mark of an uncivilized society, at some point future societies will need to transend the whole idea of race in order to continue to exist and progress as a species.
So how is this different for homosexuality? Is homosexuality simply about the act? I seriously disagree with that. That is the same as saying that your marrige (or my marrige, or any other hetrosexual marrige) is just about "the act". And i would guess that you might disagree with that minimizing description of your married life.
Sex is the act. Love is something altogether different.
I know Natoma pretty well, I have worked with him on and off for over 4 years now. I know that what i see between him and his partner is not "about the act" but a genuine affection and love for one another. Do not try to minimize that which you do not understand, you will almost always be wrong.
Hrm I think the ugly people are next in line,then the childes rights activists then Pedophiles after them and so on.
I am sorry, am i the only one who finds humor in your ability to extend any idea to a level of utter ridiculousness?
This is just insane, and i wont even comment on it.
-stvn
RussSchultz
25-Apr-2003, 00:09
But why use a flimsy and loaded justification?
The recent remarks by one of our oh-so distinguished Republican senators were made in regards to a particular case. That case (I believe) is about sodomy laws, not privacy (although it can be argued that privacy comes into it, but lets put that aside for now).
Why use privacy as the justification? Don't ask me, ask the lawyers advocating to have sodomy laws to be struck down and rendered unconstitutional based on the "right to privacy".
You don't take a case to the supreme court simply because you don't like the outcome. They cannot reverse the decision of a lower court unless there has been some judicial error (misinterpretation of the law), procedural error, or the law is wrong in and of itself (unconstitutional). They cannot directly make law; their power exists because they can proscribe the outer limits that laws can have.
If a law is on the books, it's there (presumably) at the will of the people. The only way to circumvent the will of the people is to show that the will contradicts the constitution. At one point, the supreme court were strict constructionists (letter of the law), but recently they've become more loose (spirit of the law) and have begun distilling rights out of the essence of the constitution. This right to privacy, though mentioned no where explicitly in the constitution, is one of these distilled rights and has become a powerful tool for political advocacy.
Abortion, for example, rests its constitutionality on a womans privacy and self determination.
Abortion, for example, rests its constitutionality on a womans privacy and self determination.
That is interesting [to me] and not something I had heard before.
Well, at times like this it's hard to not be happy to live in a country where same-sex marriage is legal since a number of years and holds all legal rights that other marriages does. The only difference is that it's not called "marriage", but "partnership".
Sabastian
25-Apr-2003, 00:29
Let me pose a question to you Sabastian.
What would you say to your child if they told you they were a homosexual? How would you deal with that?
-stvn
http://www.trailblazerscape.org/Articles/somegayschange.html
Infidelity is having intercourse with someone who is not your chosen spouse. I don't see how that in any way has a correlation to the legality of sexual acts performed in the relationship between the person and their chosen spouse. They are completely unrelated acts, and a law protecting one cannot possibly be extended to protect another. The people who proclaim that homosexuality is deviant behavior are the same people who proclaim a heterosexual couple engaging in oral or anal sex is displaying deviant behavior (and quite a few states have laws against those acts, too... keep that in mind the next time your wive gives you a BJ).
I don't take so much issue with oral sex, other then it being taught to kids in grade 7.
On the issue of anal sex though there are problems. The stretching of the sphincter muscles over time causes many whom engage in anal sex to have problems to the extent that by the time they are mid aged they cannot hold their feces. In other words they end up wearing diapers. Also they use tampons to congest the area. I won't even bother talking about how much more dangerous it is to have anal sex particularly with regards to STDs and AIDS.
1) Jeez where are you getting your information with regard to anal sphincter stretching. And if you masturbate too often you'll get hairy palms!! :shock:
2) Anal sex presents a higher risk for STD transmission because the lining of the rectum is far more sensitive than vaginal lining, which is why it tears more easily and allows for a higher rate of transmission of sexual diseases.
However, oral sex is a higher risk for STD transmission than kissing is. Does that mean we should stop having oral sex, or those that engage in oral sex are somehow inherently evil because they engage in it? :roll:
p.s.: AIDS is an STD. They are not two separate categories.
However, oral sex is a higher risk for STD transmission than kissing is. Does that mean we should stop having oral sex, or those that engage in oral sex are somehow inherently evil because they engage in it? :roll:
Err... am I gonna get shotdown for saying 'yes'?
Heh... digging my own grave now.
Let me pose a question to you Sabastian.
What would you say to your child if they told you they were a homosexual? How would you deal with that?
-stvn
http://www.trailblazerscape.org/Articles/somegayschange.html
You're a sad sad man Sabastian. You really are.
What's terrible about people that go through these "orientation change" therapy sessions is that they usually end up with tremendous psychological damage that fucks them up even worse than they were before.
How do I know this to be true? Because there are studies that were done on these orientation change programs from the 60's and 70's. Back then they used electric shock among other things. Actually what am I saying. Some of these programs today use electric shock.
I can see your son or daughter now Sabastian.
"Gee dad. You think gays are disgusting, so you want to fuck me worse than society already tries to huh? Way to go. You really love me."
With the attitude you've got, you don't deserve children.
However, oral sex is a higher risk for STD transmission than kissing is. Does that mean we should stop having oral sex, or those that engage in oral sex are somehow inherently evil because they engage in it? :roll:
Err... am I gonna get shotdown for saying 'yes'?
Heh... digging my own grave now.
No, but you will get shotdown for not putting the "?" inside the quotes with the 'yes.'
Punctuation always goes inside the quotes. ;)
With the attitude you've got, you don't deserve children.
You shouldn't judge people like that Natoma. You are breeding hatred nothing more - there is no benefit to Sabastian or even yourself with a statement like that.
Judge not lest you be judged... or something like that.
However other than that, that is all I am going to say. Just try keeping things civil everyone. :)
Sabastian
25-Apr-2003, 01:03
Yeah I have no more time for this today. BTW Natoma I didn't know that http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ . was some sort of Christain site.. I thought you were not a discrimanating person.. Oh well I know that is really a crock. I will reply to you and your frend stvn when I get some time.
Signed
Sad Sad Sabastian :cry:
Let me pose a question to you Sabastian.
What would you say to your child if they told you they were a homosexual? How would you deal with that?
-stvn
http://www.trailblazerscape.org/Articles/somegayschange.html
And what if your son or daughter says to you, "But dad, I dont want to change? I am happy with who I am."
What would you do then?
-stvn
With the attitude you've got, you don't deserve children.
You shouldn't judge people like that Natoma. You are breeding hatred nothing more - there is no benefit to Sabastian or even yourself with a statement like that.
Judge not lest you be judged... or something like that.
However other than that, that is all I am going to say. Just try keeping things civil everyone. :)
Anyone that would try and force their child to go through that kind of torture doesn't deserve children. There are many parents who will accept their children for who they are and not try to force their own messed up mind jobs on them.
Let me pose a question to you Sabastian.
What would you say to your child if they told you they were a homosexual? How would you deal with that?
-stvn
http://www.trailblazerscape.org/Articles/somegayschange.html
About as effective and useful as trying to convert left-handed people.
Yeah I have no more time for this today. BTW Natoma I didn't know that http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ . was some sort of Christain site.. I thought you were not a discrimanating person.. Oh well I know that is really a crock. I will reply to you and your frend stvn when I get some time.
Signed
Sad Sad Sabastian :cry:
Uhm, I said that they were tremendously biased in their slant, not that they were bad. Big difference.
I will stick with scientifically proven studies, such as the Journal of Pediatrics which completely debunks the typical christian rhetoric that says that most sexual molesters of little boys are homosexuals.
Punctuation always goes inside the quotes. ;)
Which is something I really dislike with English standards. It doesn't make sense. Unless you intend to quote the punctuation too it should go outside of the quote.
Punctuation always goes inside the quotes. ;)
Which is something I really dislike with English standards. It doesn't make sense. Unless you intend to quote the punctuation too it should go outside of the quote.
You're with us or against us Humus. You're for the punctuation, or with the terrorists. Get with the program. :roll:
Lol, yeah. I'm all for punctuation, but it belongs outside the quote. :)
Force? I heard no mention of force?
How would you like me to prove I am not using force by showing you that I have used it? I never used it.
But we know you are using it!! - y
I am not forcing anything! Help, stop bullying me!! - x
Anyway this is getting silly. All I saw here was someone say another person didn't deserve to have children because they posted a link (that I do not entirely understand and have based no opinion on because of this fact). You should always keep what comes out of your mouth (or fingers) in check.
Now stop terrorising me and my crappy 'punctuation!'!!
edit: ""!
My point is that homosexuals are as disgusting to me as pedophiles. The child rights activists and a number of gay and lesbian groups have been trying to lower the age of consent to that they are not molesters under the law. You understand? The notion is really that the laws create morals not the other way around. If you have no law then its ok, moral relativism.
Lets get one thing straight k? Pedophilia is defined as adults having sex with pre-pubescent children. So if you see a 20yr old (man or woman) having sex with a 15 or 16yr old (man or woman), that is *not* pedophilia!
That is breaking the law for the age of consent. I hope we have this distinction set down, because it is pretty damned key. Pubescents, i.e. children who have entered puberty and have become sexually active/aware, can have sex with people that are older than 18 and that is *not* pedophilia.
By what you're trying to define pedophilia as, a teenage couple, one being 18 and the other being 15, should be prosecuted as pedophilia. What if they met when one was 17 and he/she happened to turn 18 a few months later? What then?
Oh wait, this has already been done. A gay teenage couple was broken up in Wyoming a few years ago by the parents of the younger teen. The couple was 16 and 14 when they met. The older one turned 18 when the younger one turned 16, and as soon as that happened, blamo. The parents called the police and had the 18yr old put away for a couple of years for statutory rape, and in the trial, they also accused him of pedophilia because he was 18 and their son was 16!
:roll:
Hmm, law is stranger than fiction.
Force? I heard no mention of force?
How would you like me to prove I am not using force by showing you that I have used it? I never used it.
But we know you are using it!! - y
I am not forcing anything! Help, stop bullying me!! - x
Anyway this is getting silly. All I saw here was someone say another person didn't deserve to have children because they posted a link (that I do not entirely understand and have based no opinion on because of this fact). You should always keep what comes out of your mouth (or fingers) in check.
Now stop terrorising me and my crappy 'punctuation!'!!
edit: ""!
Actually, in a sentence with quotes, the punctuation inside the quotes ends the sentence.
For instance, the sentence:
Now stop terrorising me and my crappy 'punctuation!'!!!
should be (and this is with spelling corrections as well :)):
Now stop terrorizing me and my crappy 'punctuation!!!!'
or
Now stop terrorizing me and my crappy 'punctuation!'
-----------
This has been your daily lesson from the Beyond3d spelling and grammar nazi. Please drive safely. :)
Well, at times like this it's hard to not be happy to live in a country where same-sex marriage is legal since a number of years and holds all legal rights that other marriages does. The only difference is that it's not called "marriage", but "partnership".
That's the only reason you're still around Humus. The conservatives in our government have been shocked and awed by your country's unbelievable liberty.
Nuclear weapons. Biological weapons. Chemical Weapons. Legalized Same-Sex marriages. They're all formidable deterrents to pre-emptive US invasion, led by the wonderful conservative wing of my country. :)
So how is this different for homosexuality? Is homosexuality simply about the act? I seriously disagree with that. That is the same as saying that your marrige (or my marrige, or any other hetrosexual marrige) is just about "the act". And i would guess that you might disagree with that minimizing description of your married life.
Sex is the act. Love is something altogether different.
I know Natoma pretty well, I have worked with him on and off for over 4 years now. I know that what i see between him and his partner is not "about the act" but a genuine affection and love for one another. Do not try to minimize that which you do not understand, you will almost always be wrong.
Thank you.
I usually dont get into these arguments, b/c I don't really care too much about 'gay rights'. In principle all for it, in practise the rhetoric is irratating.
Who cares about the Christian slant frankly. They're wrong about nearly every other big issue. There is plenty of reasonable people in the world that you need not concern yourself with a few zealots, who won't be altered no matter what. Their logic is intact, its from scripture.. Thats all there is to it. God says 'this is the way', and thats all you need to know.
Trying to convince them otherwise, is both futile, and actually flawed if you try to adopt their logic (which is perfectly self consistent). They have a premise, and they stand by it.
As for the US's position on this in the UN. Its probably diplomatically sensible, in the same way that not taking a Jewish president is. Wrong, maybe, but savy yes.
As for the governments stance. People need to get real. Marriage is all about tax benefits.
While I dont agree with the premise of legalized marriage with tax benefits in the first place, opening the door to homosexuals at this time does kinda posit a bit of a slippery slope.
Can I marry my dog for tax benefits? Polygamy?
At what point do you draw the line? The same arguments homosexuals use, can be applied here as well.
Get rid of marriage tax benefits in the first place, then sure we'll have no problem.
The only thing I disagree with though, is the fact that in some states samesex couples cannot adopt. Thats a bit of a nasty slap in the face. So long as they satisfy the requirements other adopters do, I see no problem with it.
RussSchultz
25-Apr-2003, 03:55
There's actually a tax dis-insentive to marry. Unless you're talking about inheritance (no tax between spouses).
Medical insurance is a more compelling reason to get married, unless you work for a company like Disney.
The marriage tax is vastly smaller than the overall tax perks one gets, including various home ownership writeoffs, medical/car insurance, taxation on death, school writeoffs, application for green cards, etc.
Its always been a big win to get married financially.
RussSchultz
25-Apr-2003, 13:52
I'll have to disagree.
Two engineers marrying causes all sorts of tax pain.
My wifes entire income is now taxed at 38% (this alone costs us ~$8k a year)
We're ineligible for any of the educational tax incentives.
Student loan interest is no longer tax deductable
Home ownership tax deductions (interest and local taxes) do not depend on marriage. Inheritance tax only comes into effect if the inheritance is over 600k.
The rest of your perks listed are not tax perks.
John Reynolds
25-Apr-2003, 14:19
My point is that homosexuals are as disgusting to me as pedophiles.
And that's your right to feel that way, but from the sound of it if you learned that one of your children's teachers were gay you might go after his or her job, which IMO isn't right. Say that teacher was loved by the students, has a perfectly clean legal record, and is just an all-around good person who does his/her job and never hurts another soul. Isn't it their right as a US citizen to live their life and be happy without being persecuted for what they are? Isn't that what this nation is all about?
To be clear, I don't think the UN needs additional laws on this subject. I don't think the US needs 'hate crime' laws. We just need to equally and fairly enforce the existing laws for all people. And as a Christian I'm not pro-gay by any means, but I try to live with the recognition that God gave us free will and what another adult chooses to do in his/her bedroom with another consenting adult is really none of my business. It's their life and what they're doing does not affect my in any way, so why should I care? Besides, I need to worry about keeping my own backyard clean and not point fingers at others.
Joe DeFuria
25-Apr-2003, 14:28
The vote is with regard to a measure that condemns discrimination based on sexual orientation. Other countries that are abstaining, or voting against the measure, are Cuba, Latin American countries, and the arab nation.
Well lookie there, our government has something in common with the terrorists and thugs of the world! :roll:
Bah! (http://uk.gay.com/headlines/4194)
Well, Natoma,
You seem to have issues if the U.S. ever elected a Jewish President because that would "upset" the "terrorst thugs of the world", and now condemn the current Administration for not doing the same.
Please be consistent. Oh, I forgot...you are consistent in just making posts aimed at bashing Bush.
In any case, lumping together voters who abstain vs. one's who vote against is completely unfair, and wrong to do. I might be concerned if the U.S. was voting AGAINST a such a measure...
As I stated in that thread earlier, I have no problems with a jewish president. However, *everyone* can see the problems that would be caused by having one, *at this time*, when trying to deal with the powder keg that is the middle east.
This ground has already been tread upon, and deftly so, by myself and others (and you admitted as much, in a realistic world having a jewish president could potentially compromise our abilities to look like an impartial arbiter in the middle east), so there is no need to get back into the subject. Especially since this has nothing to do with the topic.
There is certainly consistency with abhoring the policies of this administration, but still realizing that hey, realistically we cannot have a jewish president at this time. They are completely different.
As for your abstain vs. vote against. What reason would the administration have to abstain in a vote like this, other than trying to please their conservative constituency? And please don't tell me that voting for it would inflame the arab world, especially considering the actions of the past year.
And in many cases I might add, abstaining is *just as bad* as voting against a measure. That's just playing politics, but the motivation is certainly clear.
As for the governments stance. People need to get real. Marriage is all about tax benefits.
While I dont agree with the premise of legalized marriage with tax benefits in the first place, opening the door to homosexuals at this time does kinda posit a bit of a slippery slope.
Can I marry my dog for tax benefits? Polygamy?
At what point do you draw the line? The same arguments homosexuals use, can be applied here as well.
Get rid of marriage tax benefits in the first place, then sure we'll have no problem.
The only thing I disagree with though, is the fact that in some states samesex couples cannot adopt. Thats a bit of a nasty slap in the face. So long as they satisfy the requirements other adopters do, I see no problem with it.
Huh. My partner and I are legal domestic partners. We've been together roughly 2.5 years now (officially became a couple on November 28th, 2000), and we even have rings with vow inscribed on the inner surface. We can't go any further than we have currently.
Frankly we could give two craps about the taxes. In actuality the marriage penalty (considering where we are in life. we're not ready for a house, or anything else like that. we're still paying off credit card debt from moving into our lovely apartment, and student loans. we both went to, unfortunately expensive, ivy league schools) would hurt us tremendously because it would place us in a higher tax bracket than we currently both reside in alone. Considering I'm a stickler when it comes to money, we're certainly not doing it for the "tax breaks."
What we do want is the ability to affirm our love for one another just as heterosexuals are allowed to. We're basically a married couple anyways, but the government looks at us and says "no you're not. you're not as good as straight couples." That is what they government tells us by not allowing us to get married, and recognizing that on a federal level.
In fact, congress went out of its way to specifically *define* what marriage is in 1998 with the cursed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that specifically states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Before, it had never been defined. Why was it 'necessary?' Because before DOMA, states like Hawaii and Vermont were making laws that said gay marriages would be legalized in their states.
Now considering that the constitution says in the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" that each state must recognize the laws, proceedings, and records of other states, you can imagine the furor that arose in the conservative portions of this country as gay couples from all over the nation flocked to vermont and hawaii to have their unions fully legalized as marriage. Thus DOMA was born.
But I'm not really worried about DOMA, because it is unconstitutional, so it will eventually be overriden. It states that no state has to accept the marriage performed by a gay couple from another state. So if my partner and I get married in Vermont, New York would not have to recognize that union. This is seriously unconstitutional because it goes directly against the "Full Faith and Credit Clause," so it will be shot down eventually.
But the point is, we want to get married not because of tax breaks. It's the symbolism, in front of the two of us, our families and friends. It's the legal committment. Yes it's ceremonial, but we don't even have the opportunity to participate, for no other reason than we're gay! That's wrong.
Considering over 50% of all marriages in this country fail (my mother's marriage was unfortunately one of them, a few years ago), I don't see how DOMA or any other anti-gay anti-marriage law is supposedly "protecting" the institution of marriage, and why we should be banned. Oh wait, there is no reason, save for outright knee-jerk homophobia.
Heterosexual couples are given the chance to succeed or fail at marriage, as many times as they like in fact. My partner and I want the same opportunity to live our lives to the fullest and in full recognition. My love for him and his love for me is the genuine article. Most certainly more geniune than a lot of the "fake" marriages you see going on in hollywood or in the general populace when people marry for money or convenience, or myriad other reasons that actually have nothing to do with love. I want to marry my partner because I *love* him, and for no other reason.
Unfortunately the government basically says otherwise.
Had a little bit more to get off my chest. :)
Joe DeFuria
25-Apr-2003, 15:06
As I stated in that thread earlier, I have no problems with a jewish president. However, *everyone* can see the problems that would be caused by having one, *at this time*, when trying to deal with the powder keg that is the middle east.
Doing *anything* that is seen as suppportive of non-arab morals can be seen as a problem for the "powder keg" that is the middle east.
...Especially since this has nothing to do with the topic.
Says who? I laid out why it has something to do with the topic. The topic is about the U.S. stance on the U.N. measure, correct? And furthermore, exploring why the U.S. migh have the stance (abstention) that it does?
Is not upsetting the "arab world", and playing the "diplomacy is more important than what is right" card, not a valid point of view? Just you seem seem to admit is the case with a Jewish President?
There is certainly consistency with abhoring the policies of this administration, but still realizing that hey, realistically we cannot have a jewish president at this time. They are completely different.
No, they are not. Because I don't believe, and have never said, that it is not realistic to have a Jewish President. I said it would make things more difficult...not that it's not realistic.
As for your abstain vs. vote against. What reason would the administration have to abstain in a vote like this, other than trying to please their conservative constituency?
What I said above, (which was the reason for bringing up the Jewish President thing) which you have seemed to just dismiss. "Diplomacy in the middle east" vs. "doing the right thing."
And please don't tell me that voting for it would inflame the arab world, especially considering the actions of the past year.
Again, please try and be consistent.
You're allowed to say that electing a Jewish President would inflame the arab world further "even considering the actions of the past year," but I'm not allowed to suggest the same for open support for an issue that is morally against arab culture?
And in many cases I might add, abstaining is *just as bad* as voting against a measure. That's just playing politics, but the motivation is certainly clear.
Ahem. Politics...or diplomacy? You have a very inconsistent way of applying these to this administration. When the administration stands up for something, you say it's "bad diplomacy." When they abstain from taking action one way or another...it's "clear motivation" for something bad?
Give it a rest Natoma. The only motivations that are painfully clear are yours.
Joe DeFuria
25-Apr-2003, 15:17
What we do want is the ability to affirm our love for one another just as heterosexuals are allowed to. We're basically a married couple anyways, but the government looks at us and says "no you're not. you're not as good as straight couples." That is what they government tells us by not allowing us to get married, and recognizing that on a federal level.
I don't believe you're being sincere, or if you are, you have a pretty shallow way to determine your affirmation. I suspect your wanting to get "recognized" by the government as married is for reasons other than you "needing affirmation."
Personally, I don't give a crap if the "government" recoginzes my wife and I as married or not.
WE know that we are married. We are recongized as "married" by those who are important to us: our friends, our church, family, etc. That is all the "affirmation" we need. I could care less that I have a "certificate" that states that we are legally married. That doesn't affirm anything to me.
My wife and I love each other, and that's all the affirmation we need.
Joe, my guess Natoma just want the society recognition (the cerimonial side) and the government and the law are representative of the society (like a thermometer).
Also there are some more pratical consequences of legality like hereritance, etc...
Natoma, you have my support :) About the US abstaining to vote is hard to say. It could be interresting to see what is the official government position about that (if any).
Here in Brasil I have seen some public recognition of the gay marriage with all its pratical legal consequences, but there is still lots of work to be done.
Joe DeFuria
25-Apr-2003, 15:44
Joe, my guess Natoma just want the society recognition (the cerimonial side) and the government and the law are representative of the society (like a thermometer).
Like I said, a bit shallow. Using the government recoginition as the thermometor of "marraige", which is all about love.
Also there are some more pratical consequences of legality like hereritance, etc...
Which are some of the things I suspect Natoma is actually concerned about. And many of which are valid...I just don't see the need to disguise that with "need to feel affirmed" claims.
RussSchultz
25-Apr-2003, 15:45
Marriage, as defined by the folks who defined marriage, is indeed a union between a man and a wife. Gays shouldn't try to shoe-horn their definition of marriage into the commonly accepted one, but that doesn't mean their relationship is any less important to them, or shouldn't be afforded the same legal benefits. I just think trying to get a gay-union recognized as a marriage is going to be forever unwelcome.
Personally, the proper solution would be to abolish marriage alltogether as a legal status.
Allow people to designate heirs/partners/whatever you want to call it for the legal ramifications, but leave the church, and therefor marriage, out of it.
Of course, centuries of common and written law will go out the window...
Joe DeFuria
25-Apr-2003, 15:47
Personally, the proper solution would be to abolish marriage alltogether as a legal status.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
I agree with that as well. That is really the ultimate and just solution.
Joe, my guess Natoma just want the society recognition (the cerimonial side) and the government and the law are representative of the society (like a thermometer).
Also there are some more pratical consequences of legality like hereritance, etc...
Natoma, you have my support :) About the US abstaining to vote is hard to say. It could be interresting to see what is the official government position about that (if any).
Here in Brasil I have seen some public recognition of the gay marriage with all its pratical legal consequences, but there is still lots of work to be done.
Exactly. I don't consider legal status and acceptance of our relationship to be shallow at all. Our friends, co-workers, and family are all aware of our relationship and support us and see how deeply committed we are to one another (see Stvn's post that I quoted on page 3 as an example).
*However*, saying that "oh well, as long as you've got love, you don't need the government to retract its statement that gay marriages/relationships are invalid" is self-defeating Joe.
I don't even have to comment further on it because it is blatently defeatist.
p.s.: Joe, when you learn to respond to the entire thought of a post, rather than picking apart bits and pieces here and there as you see fit, then you'll become a good debater.
You build an entire argument, nay an entire post, on tiny snippets of someone else's post, instead of looking at everything in context. You can't debate in that manner effectively.
I've posted on your style of debate before Joe, and, in PMs and in real life, discussed it with other people. It's shallow, and not constructive at all because then people end up repeating their pov over and over and over again, while you only snip out a tiny portion and ignore the rest.
Please improve. You do nothing to add to the quality of this board with your current style.
Joe DeFuria
25-Apr-2003, 16:24
Exactly. I don't consider legal status and acceptance of our relationship to be shallow at all.
Neither do I. But you said:
What we do want is the ability to affirm our love for one another just as heterosexuals are allowed to.
You said affirm our love. Not affirm our legal marital standing.
Those are two entirely different things.
Our friends, co-workers, and family are all aware of our relationship and support us and see how deeply committed we are to one another (see Stvn's post that I quoted on page 3 as an example).
Right. And that's all you should need to have your love affirmed.
*However*, saying that "oh well, as long as you've got love, you don't need the government to retract its statement that gay marriages/relationships are invalid" is self-defeating Joe.
Personally, I'm more with Russ on this. I'd rather just see the government eliminate the legal standing of "marriages" altogether. That does open up a large can of worms though, but is ultimately the right thing to do, IMO.
I don't even have to comment further on it because it is blatently defeatist.
You don't have to comment on anything at all.
p.s.: Joe, when you learn to respond to the entire thought of a post, rather than picking apart bits and pieces here and there as you see fit, then you'll become a good debater.
Um, I do respond to the entire thought in the thread. I just don't REPEAT the entire thread in my post, thankyouverymuch. I just repeat the single most relevant quotes, so that you specifically know which points I'm referring to.
You build an entire argument, nay an entire post, on tiny snippets of someone else's post, instead of looking at everything in context. You can't debate in that manner effectively.
Wrong.
Your entire posts and thought process are built by the totality of all your statements. If you make statements that are not true or are contradictory (given the context), then that puts your entire argument in question and that is an effective form of debate.
I've posted on your style of debate before Joe, and, in PMs and in real life, discussed it with other people.
Oddly, I've not discussed your style of debate (duck and evade) with anyone. Don't need to waste my time.
It's shallow, and not constructive at all because then people end up repeating their pov over and over and over again, while you only snip out a tiny portion and ignore the rest.
That's funny...what I'm trying to do is get you, one time, to state your POV without being contradictory. You can repeat your POV over and over if you like, but if it's contradictory every time you state it, I'll keep asking for clarifications.
Until the point you decide of course to just ignore the contradiction alltogether, which is your usual tactic.
Please improve. You do nothing to add to the quality of this board with your current style.
Give me a break. :roll:
When one resorts to making accusations about post quality, you really must have nothing of value to say. I suppose next you'll be calling me "Hitler"....
Why do people get married Joe? To *affirm* their love for one another through the ceremony of marriage. People are together for years and years and years, yet you have many that *still* push for entering into the construct of marriage with their girlfriends or boyfriends.
Why is that the case if marriage is "just" a legality and has nothing to do with love? Why do men give women engagement rings?
Why? Because it's ceremonial! Gay men and women simply want the ability to participate in those ceremonies, as they are designed for couples to indeed show their love for one another in the deepest, most relational way possible.
It's quite obvious what marriage means to people, as more than just a legality.
RussSchultz
25-Apr-2003, 16:37
I understand that need, Natoma. However, there is no way in hell you're going to get your marriage affirmed by the Southern Baptist Church I grew up in, regardless of how much legal recognition you get. I suspect you'd never be legally recognized in an islamic state, either.
Marriage is both a religious and a legal construct. You can fight and get one side of it, but with a large portion of the population, you'll never get the other.
You cannot force your religious views on people, and you shouldn't try.
My point is that homosexuals are as disgusting to me as pedophiles. The child rights activists and a number of gay and lesbian groups have been trying to lower the age of consent to that they are not molesters under the law. You understand? The notion is really that the laws create morals not the other way around.
I submit this argument:
First i would like to coldly define some terms.
A hetrosexual is defined as someone whose sexuality is based upon an attraction and sexual stimulation of a member of the opposite sex.
A homosexual is defined as someone whose sexuality is based upon an attraction and sexual stimulation of a member of the same sex. (moral judgements and opinions aside).
A pedafile is someone who is sexually aroused and attracted to the pre-pubescent members of his or her own species. (No comments about gender here, since that is not inherient in the definition of pedafilia).
If you are to say that a pedafile and a homosexual are not all that different, and that many homosexuals are themselves pedafiles. That these 2 things go hand in hand. I see this as implying the following fact.
A homosexual is someone who is attacted to and sexually stimulated by members of thier own gender, including pre-pubescent members of their own gender.
This contradicts the initial definition (that i think most people will agree upon). But if we were to allow this to become part of the initially definition, then we too must change the definition of hetrosexual as well.
A heterosexual is someone who is attacted to and sexually stimulated by members of thier opposite gender, including pre-pubescent members of their opposite gender.
Now you may look at as not being right, or fair. But allow me to continue.
Homo means "of the same type".
Hetero means "of different type".
So there is no room in those words for the idea of pedafilia, since they do not have anything to do with sexuality or attraction.
So by implying that somewhere in the definition of homosexualilty, you can find a link to pedafilia. Then the only place left is in the definition of the word "sexuality", since we have eliminated "homo" and "hetero".
So are we to believe that inherint in the defintion of sexuality is the inclusion of pedafilia? Or is pedafilia something altogether different?
I would side more with the later, as i think most of society would.
Sure, there are plenty of homosexual pedafiles, and many heterosexual pedafiles. But they are certainly not pedafiles based on their homo or hetro leaning. They are pedafile because they are sexually aroused by pre-pubescent children regardless of gender.
Please think about the lines your draw, and what they imply.
-stvn
I understand that need, Natoma. However, there is no way in hell you're going to get your marriage affirmed by the Southern Baptist Church I grew up in, regardless of how much legal recognition you get. I suspect you'd never be legally recognized in an islamic state, either.
Marriage is both a religious and a legal construct. You can fight and get one side of it, but with a large portion of the population, you'll never get the other.
You cannot force your religious views on people, and you shouldn't try.
Marriage is a construct almost as old as civilization itself. In its historical context, it is consistently a legal construct, yet not always is it religious in nature.
I'm not worried about the Southern Baptist Church that won't marry my partner and me. There are plenty of churchs, pastors, clerics, etc that will, and do. Even if it isn't legally acknowledged, many people still do it, because of the ceremony and what it means.
Besides, it's just as easy to go down to City Hall and get married there. Not that that is the way I'd like to go, but you know what I'm saying. :)
Joe DeFuria
25-Apr-2003, 16:51
Why do people get married Joe? To *affirm* their love for one another through the ceremony of marriage.
Correct.
And I could care less if it's a "governmentally legal or official religious" ceremony, as long as it's a "cermony" that is accepted by those whom I care about to be an affirmation of our love.
Are you saying that you and your mate couldn't invite your 200 closest friends and relatives to some service of your own making where you exchange vows and exchange those rings you both currently wear?
Why is that the case if marriage is "just" a legality and has nothing to do with love? Why do men give women engagement rings?
And you gave each other rings, did you not?
Why? Because it's ceremonial!
THEN CREATE YOUR OWN CERMONY! Are you prohibited from doing that?
Gay men and women simply want the ability to participate in those ceremonies, as they are designed for couples to indeed show their love for one another in the deepest, most relational way possible.
Read the above. I perfectly understand your "need" to publically affirm your love. I DON'T understand, and DO see it as "shallow" to have a need to have love "affirmed" in a "LEGALLY RECOGNIZED" ceremony.
Gay men and women can (AND DO, btw) participate and create their own ceremonies for publically professing their love and devotion to one another.
It's quite obvious what marriage means to people, as more than just a legality.
Correct. It's just that the ONLY thing that gay people cannot do in many states is the legal aspect of marriage. So I still don't understand what problem you have with the legal status of gay marriages, as it pertains to affirming your love.
Joe, I'm going to forward your responses to your wife and she what she thinks of your thoughts on the affirmation of your marriage.
Think you'll be getting any tonight? ;)
Sabastian
25-Apr-2003, 17:46
1) I was educated at Berkeley Carroll in Brooklyn, NY. One of the best high schools in the nation actually. Then I went on to a little place called Yale.
Well, care to tell me what your major is? Whatever the matter seems that your education is no more advanced then intro courses.
2) On the books today there are laws that say sodomy is illegal. And in most cases, it's only illegal for homosexuals to engage in sodomy, generally defined as not only anal sex, but oral sex as well.
Actually, any type of non-vaginal sex is deemed in quite a few states as sodomy.
So the laws on the books say that sodomy is illegal yet seems that practice is wide spread. So much for laws being the pivotal factor in social mores. On one hand you say laws create social morals and on the other you say that there are laws that are outdated? How is it that sodomy has become a less valid offence when clearly the law is still intact? You say that laws determine social morals but yet we can see this isn't the case.
3) 100 years ago moral, decent people believed that keeping black people as second class citizens was the right thing to do. Some people used the bible to say that it was even endorsed by god! Actually what am I saying... There are *still* people today who will point out scriptures that say that african slavery was justified by god.
During that same time, moral decent people believed that denying women the right to vote and the right to work outside the home was the 'godly' thing to do. Man was to go out and work. Woman was to stay home and bear children. Anything else was ungodly and unseemly.
In the middle east, it's immoral for women to show anything more their ankles. And even then, in some spots, that is considered sinful.
Does that mean that middle eastern society should be allowed to subjugate women in the way they do, just because that's their moral values?
Please. Morality does not necessarily equate correctness. Hitler and his crew thought it was their moral duty to eliminate jews from the face of the earth because of what the jews did to christ.
I find it funny that you keep referring to 100 years into the past to look for your injustices. This suggest that indeed you see objective differences in society and that clearly it is better at this point in time. Lets look at this a little bit harder. 100 years ago the Irish were treated as low class people why is it you suppose that society changed its view of these people? It most certainly isn't a result of any action on behalf of the government so why is it now that they are treated as anyone else is? Do you look down on women that stay at home because they believe it is the right thing to do? Do you think less of men whom believe likewise? Are these women being patristic because they are not paying taxes? Do you think that such an arrangement ought to be incouraged for the sake of the well being of the children? Clearly you think there are other arrangements. While I would not argue that they are not viable I would argue that indeed children are fare better off in an environment where their biological parents are working together to look after their own children.
Clearly over 100 years ago there wasn't the great material wealth that the market economy has brought us today and these arrangements were more a matter of survival then anything else. The same arrangement has been predominant for the entire history of mankind. That is unless you want to go into the left wing theory that before society became market based we lived in some sort of suedo communal arrangement. Indeed hundreds of thousands of years ago the family where the mother is the primary caregiver and the father a more outside role of provider was the case. Which just lends more credence to the fact that society is patriarchal out of nature rather then nurture. Women have most always been subjugated. Even today men objectify the female. Women have always been more emotional on matters and this has always been a sign of weakness. Even in the feminist ruled Sweden they have a male as a figure head. ;)
No one made the equation that morality equates correctness. You did however say that law equate morals and no one better then you ought to know that laws don't equate correctness. The UN has no right to begin to determine what a peoples moral values should be and that is the thrust of my argument here. The debate on the matter of homosexuality being a genetic affliction or not will only be finalized with the discovery of the genes that cause the affliction. Oh the search could go on forever particularly if there are none. We don't know do we? You say you were born the way you are but there is no proof of it. Further to suggest that nurturing will not effect the outcome of a childes mentality really does not go in line with the rest of your left wing bias. You could finally articulate your cognitive dissonance here and explain that somehow society is patriarchal out of nurturing but when it comes to homosexuality you make some exception with human nature and suggest that it is a genetic predetermined destiny. Well, that is something really because most of the left wing support the gay movement has says there is no human nature and it is simply a matter of socialization theories that we turn out the way we do. I have brought this argument to you before and you fail to recognize the legitimacy of the argument.
Please explain just what human nature is to us all as it seems you have some inside track on it.
4) Abortion will always have its foes. Frankly I agree with only certain kinds of abortion, such as first trimester abortion, or abortion in the second or third term only if the mother's life is in danger. I am vehemently opposed to partial-birth abortion because it is supremely barbaric, especially since it is only performed in the third trimester, when babies are most certainly capable of living outside their mother's womb, and are most certainly more than just a non-descript ball of cells.
The overwhelming majority of people in this country are against *partial-birth* abortions Sabastian. Not abortions in the first trimester.
Well finally we agree on something for the most part. But even though partial birth abortions were legal we still find them a discusting aberration don't we? I disagree with the idea that women should have total control over the pregnancy. But one always has to make some sort of concessions on these sorts of matters. I personally lost a child to abortion, a child that I wanted and the abortion happened after the first trimester. I simply did not have a say in the matter and this is wrong. The pro abortion mentality is that a woman should have a choice. I say they already have made a choice before they got pregnant to have sex with someone they would not have a child with. Personally I don't see how the child is at fault. Current laws are that a baby is not human until it is out of the womb, what kind of sick mentality makes such a claim. Abortion after the first trimester ought to be banned outright.
2) Actually, I explained the differences between pedophilia (heterosexual and homosexual) and normal homosexuality and heterosexuality. But you snipped the definition out later on in the post you made. You also linked to a site (worldnetdaily) that is a fundamentalist christian website. Please you might as well link to the christian coalition website with their sponsored surveys and studies. I'm sorry, but I would not call them particularly unbiased.
The Journal of Pediatrics most certainly is unbiased, and definitely scientific. So believe what you will. I'll stick with scientific evidence regarding pedophilia.
Again I don't think that worldnetdaily is a Christian Fundamentalist website but your bias comes shining through there doesn't it. Actually the link you provided for this thread is from some radical social gay activist web page. lol. There are all sorts of evidence regarding pedophilia. I provided a link from a doctor. http://drjudithreisman.org/whitep/regent.pdf Please read this and tell me what you think of it.(everyone.) I included that link in the same response but you ignore that as well.
The link that you have provided includes commentary from the US National Gay and Lesbian Task force. Ironic this is the same organization that lead the intimidation campian that actually managed to force a 1973 convention of the American Psychiatric Association to declare that homosexuality was not a deviant condition but rather a normal condition. But there were all sorts of accusations doctors were compared to racists and the like in this intimidation campaign, funny how this still occurs Natoma. A small but well organized political lobby had actually succeeded in the first changing, then totally eradicating a medical diagnosis. Funny though only 58% of the American Psychiatric Association actually agreed with the charge.
The thing is the whole arrangement was a sham. Even four years later a survey of 2500 psychiatrists found that 69% actually still believed that homosexuality was a pathological adaptation. About 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. In 1989 Dr.Joseph Nicolosi said "many members of our profession still privately express the opinion that homosexual development is not normal. The 1973 ruling did not resolve the issue-it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation". After the ruling all that remained to be done was change the publics discourse of the behavior of homosexual activities. There are plenty of scientific conclusions that suggest that homosexuality is not a normal condition and something that needs worked on. But todays Politically correct world does not alow for such perspectives. So much for science remaining objective as now it seems that homosexuality is some sort of untouchable absolute.
3) You're right. Muslims believe it's poor behavior, unseemly even, to walk around in short skirts. It is certainly part of their religion.
Question though. Do you believe it's *right* for a country to legislate that women cannot walk around without looking like a bed sheet? Do you believe those muslim countries are *right* to force their female populations into subjugation, just because it's their religious beliefs?
Would you be for the Iraqis democratically voting in an anti-US theocratic regime in their first election? You do realize that the vast majority of Iraqis are shiite muslims who want the country to look like Iran.
So as I said earlier, just because the mob wants something doesn't mean that it's *right*.
Listen if you have a serious problem with the way Muslims treat their women you should speak out and criticize them a little harder. Instead all you do is speak out against what the US government does even though it seems you find this country considerably more just. Shame on you your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I suggest that you start rallies imiadiately to protest Muslim treatment of women today. Start picking at the subjugating Islamic religion. I don't know that these Islamic people need to be converted to our Judo Christian heritage, is that what you are suggesting? Funny that.
3) You know what's sad Sabastian, while you're telling your kid that "those queers" are sick in the head, you could be insulting him/her. There are gay children Sabastian! It's not like we become adults and then all of a sudden we pop out into being gay. I grew up in a deeply rooted christian family, and was heavily influenced by christianity as a child, from the age of 2.
And *still*, even with all the negativity that surrounded me from my family and church goers, I still knew when I was 12 years old that I was gay. I had never been molested, never seen any gay imagery. I had never even seen two guys kissing, or heard about it. But I knew I was sexually attracted to the other boys in my class. I didn't know what it was until I looked it up in a dictionary, and read about it in the bible. *Then* I realized what I was feeling.
So guess what. You're telling your son/daughter that "those queers" are sick in the head, and you could be doing more psychological damage to them than anyone else could, because they look up to you, love you, and trust you more than anyone else in their life.
You heard me?
I don't know if there is such a thing as "gay children" at all. Seems you have resolved the age old nature nurture debate in one foul swoop with your homosexuality is genetic argument. I don't know what else to call people in chaps on a float of a giant erect penis. They are sick in the head. There are no homosexuals in my family we all come from heterosexuals. You keep your political agenda away from my children and stop trying to high jack societal values with your junk social science.
4) There are religious people in this world that would cut off your penis for merely *looking* at their wife. There are religious people in this world that would stone you to death for having sex outside of marriage.
They can believe whatever it is they want to believe, just as long as it does not impinge on my ability to live my life in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, as every other american has the right to.
p.s.: There are gay and lesbian christians Sabastian. Just as there are gay and lesbian muslims. Hell, there are probably gays and lesbians out there who have a stronger and deeper faith than *you* do, if you believe in god that is, and whatever god it may be.
Listen I am not a Christian. Don't even pretend to be. Your suggesting that possibly one has to be a Christian or some other religious affiliation to be opposed to the proliferation of the idea that homosexuality is normal. Your wrong.
Your use of "ugly people" is idiotic. "Ugly people" don't have laws on the books saying that if they have sex with one another they are committing illegal acts. "Ugly people" don't have to worry about being killed just because they're "ugly." "Ugly people" don't have to worry about being fired because some idiot in their job suddenly finds out that they're "ugly."
Sheesh. And why did I put ugly into quotes? Because imo "ugliness," is in the eye of the beholder, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One person's hideousness is another person's beauty contest winner.
If you're going to make an argument, at least make one that is plausible.
Well.. this is coming from the person whom continuously make correlations between racism and homosexuality. But for the sake of argument people whom are ugly do face discrimination on a regular bases while not for the same reasons they are no less discriminated against. Oh I see it is only when you are discriminated against for what you do in bed that counts. The hypocrisy stinks here. People whom are ugly don't have the same chances of success in becoming gainfully employed. They face discrimination by members of the opposite sex. They do despite what you say get beat up and so on. But don't get me wrong here I am not out to get the government to change peoples preception of ugly people, fat people gays and lesbians etc... but you are. I am afraid that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" only solidifies my argument. Why is it that we can come to a conclusion that one woman is considerably more attractive then another? Oh it must be a socialized phenomena. Something to do with advertising and the like. That couldn't be true in the US and Canada where obesity is rampid.
1) Actually quite a few differences have been found. One such difference is the size of a gland in the hypothalamus which just so happens to develop completely during pregnancy, and regulates sexuality in the human brain. Apparently it is roughly half the size in homosexual males than in heterosexual males, closer to the size of a heterosexual females. And apparently this same organ in lesbians is almost double the size of heterosexual females, closer to the size of heterosexual males. Scientists attribute this difference to a possible lack of testosterone during critical stages of development of the fetus, as well as other factors.
That is just one difference off the top of my head.
Yeah could you provide an objective link? Please no pro gay site. Also I would love to see where they have found a gene and not a "possible" reasoning. Lets find legitimate science not speculation.
2) You are heterosexual if your sexual attraction is predominantly towards those of the opposite sex. You don't ever have to engage in sexual activity to be heterosexual. You are homosexual if your sexual attraction is predominantly towards those of the same sex. You don't ever have to engage in sexual activity to be homosexual.
My sakes man. If your heterosexual your attracted to the opposite sex .... exclusively not "predominantly". If you are "homosexual" you are attracted to the same sex exclusively not "predominantly" to suggest otherwise makes arguments that you are bisexual not homosexual or heterosexual. Besides I never made the conclusion that you must engage in sex to be anything. Rather I made a clear reference to the behavior of heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Heterosexuals can engage in homosexual activities and *still* be heterosexual. You see it all the time in prison. Homosexuals can engage in heterosexual activities and *still* be homosexual. You see it all the time in men and women who are trying to "make" themselves straight.
The difference is quite easy to see Sabastian. Open your mind a little and stop being so goddamned bigoted. .
No this defies the biological explanation you give and you betray yourself here. No these people would clearly fall in the bisexual arena. The difference is clear. You fail to recognize that the possibility of homosexual behavior can be induced from nurturing but rather it must be a biological affliction in your case. But with others it is clear that they can be made to act differently. Yeah I would agree there are very few cases of exclusive homosexuals and this only lends credence to the possibility that indeed it is a matter of choice that you choose to be exclusively homosexual and choose to be in a group that is discriminated against. I didn't say that BTW you did. I just helped you put your foot in your mouth. While you are not free to be heterosexual it is others that are.
Gays men and women aren't hurting anyone. They are engaging in normal sexual activity with their partner(s) in the privacy of their home, just as heterosexual couples do.
They are only hurting each other in my opinion. What I am opposed to is the assumption that what they do is as normal as what heterosexuals do. Intercourse is based on the predisposition to reproduce. Homosexuals cannot ever reproduce.
*However*, the sodomy laws on the books in most states *only* say that sodomy is illegal between *two males*, *not* between a man and a woman. That is most certainly discriminatory against gays because it applies *only* to gay men and women when heterosexual men and women most certainly engage in anal and oral sex.
lol, here we go on the sodomy laws again. Personally I think sodomy is disgusting, dangerous and damaging and don't engage in it at all. It is the proliferation of pornography that has popularized the use of sodomy. BTW have you ever been charged with sodomy? Anyhow it sounds as though you blame the law for the moral. I think it is the connection with the idea that feces is yucky and the lower intestine is not for sex but rather digestion that many think it is disgusting. But with the proliferation of the idea via porn it seems that we can see how the act can indeed be sexualized and nurtured into being a thing to do. Same goes with homosexuality eh?
Who gives a shit what you think Sabastian. You could have thoughts of murder, death, and mayhem against anyone you like for all I care. You can be disgusted all you want to. But as soon as you take those hateful bigoted thoughts into action, *then* you have broken the law. This isn't Minority Report.
As I said before, I don't deal with sites that are fundamentalist christian. Just as I would not expect you to take the word of a gay site that came out with their own "statistics" and "beliefs" based on those "statistics."
Well well.. I take my thoughts into action as we speak. I never gave a link to any Christian Fundamentalist site. You however did give us a link to some radical gay activist site that is somehow more legitimate then http://www.worldnetdaily.com . give me a break.
I'll stick with the scientific body of evidence available in the Journal of Pediatrics, a very well respected journal that almost all pediatric doctors in this country reference when dealing with pediatric care.
Drive through Sabastian. Drive through.
Heh, and the evidence I provided must be invalid? I am afraid that I will not "drive through" and I will always voice my opinions despite the law and political correctness.
I will never disagree with your right to think whatever you want.
Oh thanks for that.
But that same right is shared by all those around you. And if the majority of people think that we need a law to protect someone's rights, then the government makes one (of course i am simplifying this ALOT).
What if the majority don't? Steam ahead with the political agenda until they do of course. Intimidate them with words like homophobic(not really a scientific term at all.), bigot, racist and so on of course.
You also have the right to teach your children your beliefs as well. You are not required (in the US) to send your child to any particular school, and especially one who teaches rules you dont agree with, this is your right. You are only obligated to provide proof that your child is being educated in a reasonable manner, so home-school if you are so concerned and feel so strongly.
Not in Canada and things are going that way in the states as well. In the US they have this growing movement called the Gay/Straight Alliance that is funded by US tax payers. I used to be able to find the recording of it for free but now it seems it is difficult to find. Gays activists are trying to shut down opposition to this organization. Take a look here to find out about what they have done.
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/Schools/fistrep.htm
You are also not required by law to allow your children to watch cable TV, or to view any other form of media you deem offensive.
Of course these rights of yours to seek out a different life for you and your children from the one offered by current society are guaranteed by the constitution. But that same guarentee means that you cannot tell me how to raise my children.
Well you are wrong I do have to make sure my children are educated and sense I don't have the qualifications for it I must send them to the public schools where they will learn that homosexuality is normal etc. They won't learn the down side of it they will only learn the politically correct notion.
But is it really as simple as that? I doubt it. Racism is a complex social issue. Its roots go back as long as mankind has been around. It cannot be and certainly has not been legislated away. It could even be argued (albeit weekly) that racism is in some way, human nature, since it has been around for so long, and seems not to be unique to a specific culture or race. But that does not mean that it is okay to act in a racist manner that infringes upon the rights of someone else. Racism is bad (hows that for an understatement), it is the mark of an uncivilized society, at some point future societies will need to transend the whole idea of race in order to continue to exist and progress as a species.
Yeah likely there will always be racism to one degree or another despite the law. But I am not really interested in the racism debate. For fun though: If I told you I think that blacks have superior genes does that make me racist?
So how is this different for homosexuality? Is homosexuality simply about the act? I seriously disagree with that. That is the same as saying that your marrige (or my marrige, or any other hetrosexual marrige) is just about "the act". And i would guess that you might disagree with that minimizing description of your married life.
Sex is the act. Love is something altogether different.
I don't disagree. Marriage is not about sex nor is it necessarily about love. What marriage is about traditionally is a family and the married couple looking after their own children. Today however after the onslaught of the "sexual revolution" we have a high divorce rate causing allot of deviance in the children of divorced families, impoverished single parents and the wider proliferation of simply horrible STDs that absolutely ruin peoples lives.
I know Natoma pretty well, I have worked with him on and off for over 4 years now. I know that what i see between him and his partner is not "about the act" but a genuine affection and love for one another. Do not try to minimize that which you do not understand, you will almost always be wrong.
Some of my best frends are gay too. ;)
I am sorry, am i the only one who finds humor in your ability to extend any idea to a level of utter ridiculousness?
This is just insane, and i wont even comment on it.
Why so? You seem to think that racism is a legitimate cause. People whom are fat also come under lots of discrimination regularly. The ugly are no exception. The problem here is that you cannot rationalize ending all discrimination and I would agree it is prepostourus. The hypocrisy comes when you defend one small group and forget about the rest.
You're a sad sad man Sabastian. You really are.
What's terrible about people that go through these "orientation change" therapy sessions is that they usually end up with tremendous psychological damage that fucks them up even worse than they were before.
How do I know this to be true? Because there are studies that were done on these orientation change programs from the 60's and 70's. Back then they used electric shock among other things. Actually what am I saying. Some of these programs today use electric shock.
I can see your son or daughter now Sabastian.
"Gee dad. You think gays are disgusting, so you want to fuck me worse than society already tries to huh? Way to go. You really love me."
With the attitude you've got, you don't deserve children.
I am sad am I? More like extremely fed up with this left wing mentality that focuses on discrimination selectively. Again there are not any gay people in my family we all come from heterosexuals. Funny thing is now because of my political opposition to your political agenda I for some reason don't deserve to have children. But you deserve to have marriage in a Christian church with rights to adopt because you can't reproduce yourself. Am I right ? yeah that is what I thought..
PS: Sorry for the horribly long post.
covermye
25-Apr-2003, 17:50
Sorry, Fred, but this required a response...
I usually dont get into these arguments, b/c I don't really care too much about 'gay rights'. In principle all for it, in practise the rhetoric is irratating.
I agree, which is why I haven't really read this thread until today...
Who cares about the Christian slant frankly. They're wrong about nearly every other big issue. There is plenty of reasonable people in the world that you need not concern yourself with a few zealots, who won't be altered no matter what. Their logic is intact, its from scripture.. Thats all there is to it. God says 'this is the way', and thats all you need to know.
Trying to convince them otherwise, is both futile, and actually flawed if you try to adopt their logic (which is perfectly self consistent). They have a premise, and they stand by it.
Wow. Awfully simplistic (and hateful?) view of Christianity, isn't it? I think Stvn said it best just a post before this one:
Do not try to minimize that which you do not understand...
As a Christian, I easily tire of people making ridiculously sweeping generalizations like the one above (zealots?). I base my independent beliefs on available information and form my own opinions. Last time I checked, I was free to do as much in this country. Because you don't agree with my ideals, you call myself and others like me "zealots?" You say we're "wrong about nearly every other big issue?"
Look at those statements and see how ignorant they sound. Wrong compared to what? Your ideas? The ideas of the majority even? How does that make something wrong? In a thread about homosexuals not getting enough respect in our "free country", I find it irritating that Christians are simple-mindedly persecuted, for the most part, because "they" (every single person who believes Jesus died for us) are "wrong about nearly every other big issue."
Did it ever occur to you that most Christian ideals aren't evil at all? That they actually HELP promote goodwill and peace? The ignorant will bring up the wars in the Old Testament to argue this, but that's not Christianity, man. Christianity is about love AND TOLERANCE, to an extent. How bout Galations 5:22-23? How bout Jesus's choice of friends and people he frequently talked with (tax collectors, prostitutes, fishermen, etc..). He wasn't hateful to them, although he disagreed with the way they lived their lives.
I guess in your head though, Fred, it's evil to ever disagree with the way someone else chooses to live.
*Sigh*
As for the US's position on this in the UN. Its probably diplomatically sensible, in the same way that not taking a Jewish president is. Wrong, maybe, but savy yes.
Agreed here. Another twist: perhaps... just maybe... the U.S. feels that the UN shouldn't be concerned with this matter and this is motivation behind the abstention?
MrsSkywalker
25-Apr-2003, 17:59
Huh. My partner and I are legal domestic partners. We've been together roughly 2.5 years now (officially became a couple on November 28th, 2000), and we even have rings with vow inscribed on the inner surface. We can't go any further than we have currently.
Not true. Go to Vermont.
Huh. My partner and I are legal domestic partners. We've been together roughly 2.5 years now (officially became a couple on November 28th, 2000), and we even have rings with vow inscribed on the inner surface. We can't go any further than we have currently.
Not true. Go to Vermont.
Unions in Vermont are not recognized in NY. Yet.
K.I.L.E.R
25-Apr-2003, 18:16
WOW! :shock:
You guys are worse than I am. Talking about beastiality, homosexuality, heterosexuality, pedofiles, necrophelia, incest etc...
Normally I am the only person who goes into in depth discussions about those things. Who are you people anyway? :lol:
MrsSkywalker
25-Apr-2003, 18:39
Unions in Vermont are not recognized in NY. Yet.
*sigh* Then move. Or do something to change it.
Do you realise how many congressman you could have written to or called in the time it took you to write the above novella? You could have organized a petition, or held a public debate, or written a letter to the editor of your local paper, or requested/participated in a local radio talk show about the subject, or paid $50 for a 1/2 hour of local access cable to address your community and gain support....
There are so many more productive things you could have done. Instead, you chose to sit back and debate it with all of us...none of whom, to my knowledge, write the laws of NY.
That said, here's a piece of advice. My marriage is not sanctioned or recognized by the religion in which I was raised. You know what I say about that? F*ck 'em. I know that my love for my husband is real...I know that we were meant to be together...I know that there are only three entities that count: my husband, myself, and God, and all three approve of this union. If you are in love with your partner, then ignore the piece of paper and say "F*ck 'em" to anyone who has a problem with it. Because at the end of the day, you only have to face yourself and God. If you and your partner are sure of your love, that's really the only thing that matters. Go up on a hilltop, gather your friends and family, get a JOP to perform a union ceremony if it makes you feel better about your relationship. I'm telling you, the ceremony and piece of paper is NOT what makes it real. Being recognized by the state is NOT what makes it real.
Unions in Vermont are not recognized in NY. Yet.
*sigh* Then move. Or do something to change it.
Do you realise how many congressman you could have written to or called in the time it took you to write the above novella? You could have organized a petition, or held a public debate, or written a letter to the editor of your local paper, or requested/participated in a local radio talk show about the subject, or paid $50 for a 1/2 hour of local access cable to address your community and gain support....
There are so many more productive things you could have done. Instead, you chose to sit back and debate it with all of us...none of whom, to my knowledge, write the laws of NY.
That said, here's a piece of advice. My marriage is not sanctioned or recognized by the religion in which I was raised. You know what I say about that? F*ck 'em. I know that my love for my husband is real...I know that we were meant to be together...I know that there are only three entities that count: my husband, myself, and God, and all three approve of this union. If you are in love with your partner, then ignore the piece of paper and say "F*ck 'em" to anyone who has a problem with it. Because at the end of the day, you only have to face yourself and God. If you and your partner are sure of your love, that's really the only thing that matters. Go up on a hilltop, gather your friends and family, get a JOP to perform a union ceremony if it makes you feel better about your relationship. I'm telling you, the ceremony and piece of paper is NOT what makes it real. Being recognized by the state is NOT what makes it real.
1) My partner and I are not going to move from our home over this. That's unrealistic. We might as well go all the way and go someplace like The Netherlands or Sweden if we're going to go that far.
I want to change the land I live in because I love it. Not leave it behind in disgust.
2) You make the assumption that I haven't already been involved in the process of legalizing gay marriages in this state. An incorrect one at that.
3) Your marriage isn't sanctioned by your religion, so be it. Is it sanctioned by the law of the land? Most certainly. And that is the big difference.
4) I never said my relationship with my bf isn't real or doesn't feel real because we can't get married. Read what I've written before. I said that we want, as well as a lot of other gay couples, to participate fully in the social ceremonies that help define who we are as a culture. If I felt that my relationship with my bf was a sham unless I got married to him, that'd be pretty sad. It's a good thing I don't feel that way isn't it.
p.s.: Don't worry Sabastian. I'm going to get to you. I'm just building up the psychic strength to deal with your baffling narrow minded ignorance. :)
Hey I was raised christian, I know full well that they are generally really great people.
As far as the political ruckus they make, generally their political caucus makes a fuss over outdated completely scientifically flawed issues.
Eg abortion, stemcell research, homosexuality, genetics, creationism, safesex, etc.
In no way does disagreeing with their stance make a person nonchristian, however there is a zealot crowd that won't budge on this, and thats where my post is directed too. Creationism is the classic example. Why they keep flaunting that bs in our face, is beyond me. Time and time again, its laughed at, mocked, disproven in every conceivable way by intellectual circles. yet miraculously its still around. /boggle
More on topic, the christian stance on homosexuality. Essentially has no scientific basis, one can reword it as one will, but their is clear evidence for genetic predisposition (a mix actually of environment and genetics, but both are clearly present). Its of course a contradiction to them (why would god make you a certain way), therefore science must be wrong.
Fine. Why Natoma and others like him, seek approval by these people, is still beyond me. Frankly it just strikes me as a way to stir up flames, since obviously no side will ever budge.
-shrug- If marriage is indeed worthless financially (take that as a assumption), I don't see the big fuss other than righteous indignation. Whine about a more worthwhile endeavour.
deep_sky
25-Apr-2003, 20:39
I don't even know where to start with this morass, so let's just go right on down the line ....
Well, care to tell me what your major is? Whatever the matter seems that your education is no more advanced then intro courses.
Pot calling the kettle black, apparently. Your arguments are very inconsistent and riddled with half-truths and stereotypes. Who is the uneducated one here? A degree does not make one intelligent or capable of decent discourse.
So the laws on the books say that sodomy is illegal yet seems that practice is wide spread. So much for laws being the pivotal factor in social mores. On one hand you say laws create social morals and on the other you say that there are laws that are outdated? How is it that sodomy has become a less valid offence when clearly the law is still intact? You say that laws determine social morals but yet we can see this isn't the case.
It's widespread because plenty of people enjoy it despite your distaste of it, and it's not a law that is easily enforceable. Why keep a law on the books that is mostly religious in nature, and only serves to repress, not protect or enhance?
I find it funny that you keep referring to 100 years into the past to look for your injustices. This suggest that indeed you see objective differences in society and that clearly it is better at this point in time. Lets look at this a little bit harder. 100 years ago the Irish were treated as low class people why is it you suppose that society changed its view of these people? It most certainly isn't a result of any action on behalf of the government so why is it now that they are treated as anyone else is? Do you look down on women that stay at home because they believe it is the right thing to do? Do you think less of men whom believe likewise? Are these women being patristic because they are not paying taxes? Do you think that such an arrangement ought to be incouraged for the sake of the well being of the children? Clearly you think there are other arrangements. While I would not argue that they are not viable I would argue that indeed children are fare better off in an environment where their biological parents are working together to look after their own children.
We as a humanity are partially the sum of our history, so it's not wrong to look to our past to see mistakes and learn how to not make them again.
Women who stay at home these days by and large choose to raise their family over having a career. While it's not the choice I would make, that is their choice to make and I respect them for that. I don't hold it against them because it's not my choice. What you are advocating is holding things against people because they don't choose as you do.
Is a crack-addicted mother and an absent father better for a child than a loving gay couple simply because they are a child's biological parents? Hardly. By denying gay couples the right to adopt, you strip them of their humanity, which is criminal in my estimation. Slavery strips people of their humanity, and thus it has been made illegal. Do you propose that there are humans who are less human for the purpose of satisfying your morals? Are we not all equal in the eyes of of the law, according to the consistitution? Why you do think you are justified in imposing your morals on those that don't choose to live as you do? Don't like homosexuality or homosexual acts? Don't engage in homosexual activities, and don't associate yourself with homosexuals. Your loss, their gain.
Clearly over 100 years ago there wasn't the great material wealth that the market economy has brought us today and these arrangements were more a matter of survival then anything else. The same arrangement has been predominant for the entire history of mankind. That is unless you want to go into the left wing theory that before society became market based we lived in some sort of suedo communal arrangement. Indeed hundreds of thousands of years ago the family where the mother is the primary caregiver and the father a more outside role of provider was the case. Which just lends more credence to the fact that society is patriarchal out of nature rather then nurture. Women have most always been subjugated. Even today men objectify the female. Women have always been more emotional on matters and this has always been a sign of weakness. Even in the feminist ruled Sweden they have a male as a figure head. ;)
Now who's uneducated? It's "psuedo" not "suedo" :roll:
Oh, so because it's always been that way is a valid argument to keep it that way. Bullshit. That kind of argument keeps humanity in stagnation, and leads to eventual decay. Society is the way it is because people worship materialism, greed, and shallowness. Until people in general find something to fill the spirit (which is not necessarily religion), then people will remain empty, and fill that emptiness with hatred, intolerance, ignorance, and fear of that which is different from themselves. Humanity has potential to move beyond such things, and people like you would have us crawl in the dregs because that's what we have always done.
No one made the equation that morality equates correctness. You did however say that law equate morals and no one better then you ought to know that laws don't equate correctness. The UN has no right to begin to determine what a peoples moral values should be and that is the thrust of my argument here. The debate on the matter of homosexuality being a genetic affliction or not will only be finalized with the discovery of the genes that cause the affliction. Oh the search could go on forever particularly if there are none. We don't know do we? You say you were born the way you are but there is no proof of it. Further to suggest that nurturing will not effect the outcome of a childes mentality really does not go in line with the rest of your left wing bias. You could finally articulate your cognitive dissonance here and explain that somehow society is patriarchal out of nurturing but when it comes to homosexuality you make some exception with human nature and suggest that it is a genetic predetermined destiny. Well, that is something really because most of the left wing support the gay movement has says there is no human nature and it is simply a matter of socialization theories that we turn out the way we do. I have brought this argument to you before and you fail to recognize the legitimacy of the argument.
Please explain just what human nature is to us all as it seems you have some inside track on it.
He has a point, you know. He is a member of a minority that has been persecuted since the beginnings of organized religion, and has had members tortured and killed because of who and what they are. I would say that he does have some insight in the laws and how they are becoming the say on whats morally right. Since the religious right has a large influence politically, it could be argued that laws are defining morals.
It's NOT a damned affliction. You argue like gays hate what they are and wish they could change. The only wishing they do is to wish for acceptance in this narrow-minded, puritanical, and un-free society. Some attempt to change not because they hate what they are, but because others hate what they are, and no one wants to be hated. Some don't have the strength to live an ostracized life, and I can't blame them for wanting to find some acceptance.
Well finally we agree on something for the most part. But even though partial birth abortions were legal we still find them a discusting aberration don't we? I disagree with the idea that women should have total control over the pregnancy. But one always has to make some sort of concessions on these sorts of matters. I personally lost a child to abortion, a child that I wanted and the abortion happened after the first trimester. I simply did not have a say in the matter and this is wrong. The pro abortion mentality is that a woman should have a choice. I say they already have made a choice before they got pregnant to have sex with someone they would not have a child with. Personally I don't see how the child is at fault. Current laws are that a baby is not human until it is out of the womb, what kind of sick mentality makes such a claim. Abortion after the first trimester ought to be banned outright.
So you would leave a mother to die before you would allow an abortion after the first trimester to save her life? If performed correctly, she can always have other children.
It's not their humanity that is in question, it's their rights, and current law dictates that a fetus has no rights, or rights that are less than a born humans'.
I personally find it offensive when you imply that women are stupid for having sex with people that they might not want to have children with, and should always bear the consequences even when they act responsibly, (use condoms, take birth control, etc.). However men get to screw around as much as they want and they are admired for the notches on their belt. If anything is disgusting, it's that.
I don't know if there is such a thing as "gay children" at all. Seems you have resolved the age old nature nurture debate in one foul swoop with your homosexuality is genetic argument. I don't know what else to call people in chaps on a float of a giant erect penis. They are sick in the head. There are no homosexuals in my family we all come from heterosexuals. You keep your political agenda away from my children and stop trying to high jack societal values with your junk social science.
Do you realize how patently STUPID you sound when you say you have no homosexuals in your family because you came from heterosexuals? Homosexuals can biologically reproduce. Just because they prefer same sex partners doesn't mean that they can't be the father or mother of a child. You don't KNOW that there are no homosexuals in your family, because you and probably your entire extended family breed such an air of intolerance and hatred of homosexuals that they may be afraid or unwilling to come out. You don't KNOW either way. So stop making your purist claims that the "taint" of homosexuality isn't your family.
You keep your political agenda out of MY life. Societal values are not writ in stone, nor are they some high and untouchable code that cannot and should not be altered.
Listen I am not a Christian. Don't even pretend to be. Your suggesting that possibly one has to be a Christian or some other religious affiliation to be opposed to the proliferation of the idea that homosexuality is normal. Your wrong.
I don't buy that at all. Your attitude screams fundamentalist zealot. Only in religious doctrine does one see the argument that homosexuality is "wrong". I can buy that a non-religous person can be opposed to abortion, but to be non-religious and as virulently opposed to homosexuality as you are, that I do not buy.
They are only hurting each other in my opinion. What I am opposed to is the assumption that what they do is as normal as what heterosexuals do. Intercourse is based on the predisposition to reproduce. Homosexuals cannot ever reproduce.
Sterile heterosexual couples are screwed then. They should get a divorce and find someone else because they are not reproducing. That just gives more strength to my notion that marriage on the outside is naught a church-sanctified excuse for screwing and breeding.
Every time you have sex with your wife, you think about reproducing? I feel sorry for your wife, to be afflicted with a husband who is more concerned about reproducing than giving and sharing in mutal enjoyment of the act.
Let me let you in a little fact, since you seem incapable of grasping anything different than what you do. I am heterosexual, and I do not want to have children. By your fallacious logic, I am hurting myself and my partner every time I have sex, because neither one of us has intent to reproduce. WRONG. I am not hurting anyone, nor is my partner, because we are not bring children into this world we dont want just because some obsolete text tells us to.
lol, here we go on the sodomy laws again. Personally I think sodomy is disgusting, dangerous and damaging and don't engage in it at all. It is the proliferation of pornography that has popularized the use of sodomy. BTW have you ever been charged with sodomy? Anyhow it sounds as though you blame the law for the moral. I think it is the connection with the idea that feces is yucky and the lower intestine is not for sex but rather digestion that many think it is disgusting. But with the proliferation of the idea via porn it seems that we can see how the act can indeed be sexualized and nurtured into being a thing to do. Same goes with homosexuality eh?
Now I know you know nothing about anal sex with this little gem of ignorance. For most men, it is about the whole dominant/passive mentality that men are forced to accept from this society. A man who isn't totally aggressive and dominant is seen as weak and inferior. Anal sex implies passivity in this society, hence why so many heterosexual men are hysterically homophobic like you are.
Do like it? Don't do it. But don't force your morals down other people's throat because you don't like it.
Well you are wrong I do have to make sure my children are educated and sense I don't have the qualifications for it I must send them to the public schools where they will learn that homosexuality is normal etc. They won't learn the down side of it they will only learn the politically correct notion.
You mean they actually might come to the conclusion that it isn't as horrifying as you make it out to be, which seems to lead the the conclusion that you don't want your children to think differently than you do, and to accomplish that you would rather keep them ignorant than let them choose what they think and feel about things.
You can homeschool your children if you so choose. It doesn't have to be you who teaches, either. My boyfriend was homeschooled, and he had a teacher who was not either of his parents that he submitted his homework to and learned from. Do some research.
I don't disagree. Marriage is not about sex nor is it necessarily about love. What marriage is about traditionally is a family and the married couple looking after their own children. Today however after the onslaught of the "sexual revolution" we have a high divorce rate causing allot of deviance in the children of divorced families, impoverished single parents and the wider proliferation of simply horrible STDs that absolutely ruin peoples lives.
You have been TOLD what marriage is SUPPOSED to be and you accept that. The problem is here is that you refuse to accept that other people have different definitions of what marriage is, and what it means to them.
Another instance of "stagnation is better than progress because I can't handle change or difference, so one else will either". :roll:
The higher divorce rate is not due to the "sexual revolution" (frankly I don't care what you mean when you quote it, since everything out of you is negative stereotypes so far), but rather due to the fact that people rush into a lifelong commitment not ready for it, and since divorces are easily obtained, there you are. We as a society are force-fed this notion that marriage is one thing and one thing only, and that it;s necessary to engage in one to love someone or have children.
The societal problems encountered in the past 200 years are due to the fact that we have a large influential population that would keep us 2000 years in the past with strict adherence to rules no longer capable of guiding current society, and a population that wants to move forward. Hence there is a segment that is caught in the middle, and there is rampant lack of education among all segments, which leads to the stereotypes you have been spouting this entire thread. Ignorance breeds ignorance. The only way to stop it is through education that isn't castrated by any one segment of the population.
Some of my best frends are gay too. ;)
No self-respecting gay person would put up with your total lack of tolerance and your drive to deride their way of life at every opportunity, so I seriously doubt you have any gay friends.
I am sad am I? More like extremely fed up with this left wing mentality that focuses on discrimination selectively. Again there are not any gay people in my family we all come from heterosexuals. Funny thing is now because of my political opposition to your political agenda I for some reason don't deserve to have children. But you deserve to have marriage in a Christian church with rights to adopt because you can't reproduce
As the rest of us are fed up with fundamentalist zealots like you who would destroy cultures and force feed your morals down everyone else's throats purely to keep eveything status quo, and everyone reduced to a sheeple who are not allowed to live differently if they so choose.
~Edited to clean up tags and remove typos.
Silent_One
25-Apr-2003, 20:40
Natoma,
Can you (or anybody) find a transcript of the actual resolution to be voted upon? Can anyone find the transcript in which the US delagation indicated that the US is abstaining form the vote? Usually the reasoning of the US's position is stated in the transcript. All I can find is information from Amnesty International-
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGIOR410132003
Joe DeFuria
25-Apr-2003, 21:01
Joe, I'm going to forward your responses to your wife and she what she thinks of your thoughts on the affirmation of your marriage.
Think you'll be getting any tonight? ;)
Go on. Her address is sara@defuria.com
I'm sure she'll be pleased to know that I could give a shit about a legal piece of paper.
She knows we love each other, and she's very happy that we've had a public affirmation of our love in the form of a ceremony. Neither of which you are prevented from doing by any legislation.
And thanks for just dodging my whole post, and not addressing my responses. That give me "affirmation" that I am correct: you are either shallow in your view of what it "means" to be married, or "affirmation of love" is not your real motivation behind why you want gay marriages legalized.
Joe DeFuria
25-Apr-2003, 21:10
I said that we want, as well as a lot of other gay couples, to participate fully in the social ceremonies that help define who we are as a culture.
As I said before. You are not prevented from doing this, any more than the rest of us are. You can have whatever "social ceremony" you want, as long as you abide by the "social rules" of whatever body dictates the particular terms of their own ceremony.
Catholics have their own terms if you want to have a "Catholic sanctioned" ceremony. Jewish ones are different. Every society and sub-cultre has their own social ceremonies and "rules" by which you must abide to be able to partake in those ceremonies. If you don't abide by the rules, you don't get to partake in their ceremony.
There is NOTHING prventing you or other gays from coming up with your own social ceremony for "marriage" or "partnership" or whatever. It can exclude heterosexuals for all I care. It simply won't be legally recognized by most states, which isn't relevant to the "affirmation of love" unless (as I said) you are shallow IMO.
Joe, I'm going to forward your responses to your wife and she what she thinks of your thoughts on the affirmation of your marriage.
Think you'll be getting any tonight? ;)
Go on. Her address is sara@defuria.com
I'm sure she'll be pleased to know that I could give a shit about a legal piece of paper.
She knows we love each other, and she's very happy that we've had a public affirmation of our love in the form of a ceremony. Neither of which you are prevented from doing by any legislation.
And thanks for just dodging my whole post, and not addressing my responses. That give me "affirmation" that I am correct: you are either shallow in your view of what it "means" to be married, or "affirmation of love" is not your real motivation behind why you want gay marriages legalized.
Joe there's no need to respond to your post. It's full of drivel and self-defeating inane logic.
Obviously since I'm fighting for gay rights, one such right being legally recognized marriage, I have no clue what it means to be in a committed relationship with someone else because I think the actual act of marriage is more important than the love my relationship entails. Obviously my motives are shallow.
Dude Joe. Get a clue. :roll:
But that same right is shared by all those around you. And if the majority of people think that we need a law to protect someone's rights, then the government makes one (of course i am simplifying this ALOT).
What if the majority don't? Steam ahead with the political agenda until they do of course. Intimidate them with words like homophobic(not really a scientific term at all.), bigot, racist and so on of course.
This is democracy + capitalism, pure and simple. I do not agree with the corporate welfare system, but enough people made enough noise in the right ears for it to happen. I suppose I should clarify/revise my assertion (which I noted as an extreme simplification).
If the majority of voices clamoring for change think that we need a law to protect someone's rights, then the government makes one (of course i am simplifying this ALOT as well).
You also have the right to teach your children your beliefs as well. You are not required (in the US) to send your child to any particular school, and especially one who teaches rules you dont agree with, this is your right. You are only obligated to provide proof that your child is being educated in a reasonable manner, so home-school if you are so concerned and feel so strongly.
Not in Canada and things are going that way in the states as well. In the US they have this growing movement called the Gay/Straight Alliance that is funded by US tax payers. I used to be able to find the recording of it for free but now it seems it is difficult to find. Gays activists are trying to shut down opposition to this organization. Take a look here to find out about what they have done.
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/Schools/fistrep.htm
No matter what you believe about homosexuality, I think most people would agree that "fisting" is not an appropriate subject for both a public school, and for children of that age group. I am just as astonished and abhorred as you are by what this article talks about. I'll leave it at that.
You are also not required by law to allow your children to watch cable TV, or to view any other form of media you deem offensive.
Of course these rights of yours to seek out a different life for you and your children from the one offered by current society are guaranteed by the constitution. But that same guarantee means that you cannot tell me how to raise my children.
Well you are wrong I do have to make sure my children are educated and sense I don't have the qualifications for it I must send them to the public schools where they will learn that homosexuality is normal etc. They won't learn the down side of it they will only learn the politically correct notion.
There are plenty of resources for home schooling, as well as support groups, and possible even grants/scholarships/etc (not 100% sure about this, but i recall seeing something that effect). Home schooling has recently increased greatly in popularity largely for the same reasons you have put forth. And with the internet, it has grown even more in terms of effectiveness and range. It is not something you need a degree or training to do, just a love and commitment for child and their education. Several members of my extended family home-school because of the same reasons you put forth, and to much success.
So how is this different for homosexuality? Is homosexuality simply about the act? I seriously disagree with that. That is the same as saying that your marriage (or my marriage, or any other heterosexual marriage) is just about "the act". And i would guess that you might disagree with that minimizing description of your married life.
Sex is the act. Love is something altogether different.
I don't disagree. Marriage is not about sex nor is it necessarily about love. What marriage is about traditionally is a family and the married couple looking after their own children. Today however after the onslaught of the "sexual revolution" we have a high divorce rate causing allot of deviance in the children of divorced families, impoverished single parents and the wider proliferation of simply horrible STDs that absolutely ruin peoples lives.
I disagree with the thought that the "sexual revolution" caused all that.
I think that you are forgetting about the surge of media in our culture, brought on by the TV and its now near ubiquity, and cheaper faster printing presses (and the computers doing the typesetting) that allowed for the boom in publishing. Let's not forget that in these same years the practice of psychology and psychiatry really got legitimized and brought into the public consciousness. This lead to a deeper investigation of the human psyche and in some ways a state of confusion in our culture as a whole. There was also a big "questioning of the establishment" going on in many areas of our society such as Racism and Women's Rights, this too contributed alot to the makeup of current society.
And to be honest, from what i know the sexual revolution was not really about "free love and STDs", as much as it was about a strive for sexual equality between men and women.
I know Natoma pretty well, I have worked with him on and off for over 4 years now. I know that what i see between him and his partner is not "about the act" but a genuine affection and love for one another. Do not try to minimize that which you do not understand, you will almost always be wrong.
Some of my best friends are gay too. ;)
And how do they feel about your opinions/beliefs? I find this very interesting. Or are you just pulling my leg, I am afraid i cannot tell (such is the limit of ASCII text).
I am sorry, am i the only one who finds humor in your ability to extend any idea to a level of utter ridiculousness?
This is just insane, and i wont even comment on it.
Why so? You seem to think that racism is a legitimate cause. People whom are fat also come under lots of discrimination regularly. The ugly are no exception. The problem here is that you cannot rationalize ending all discrimination and I would agree it is prepostourus. The hypocrisy comes when you defend one small group and forget about the rest.
I agree that fat and/or ugly people do get discriminated, and that many people do it unknowingly. I am not defending only a small group and forgetting about the rest though. I believe the vote before the UN was in regards to whether a discrimination against homosexuals is a violation of human rights. Its a much more serious issue than the whole fat/ugly debate. Sure on a theoretically level they are the same, and on that level i agree with you and do not think your comments are ridiculous. But in the context of human rights violations, in cases around the world where homosexuals are being killed, tortured or in some other way seriously punished for just being homosexual, it is ridiculous.
Sabastian, I would like to know a few things. Do you have any children yourself? I am interested because you have alluded to children in your life, and have made one mention of the loss of an aborted child, but you have never said if you do have children or not.
I ask you this because you ideas and beliefs about how you would raise your children strike me as extreme and deeply opinionated. Are they rooted in theory or in practice?
Also, you did not address my question re: what would you do if your children were homosexual. I have quoted it here again for you to respond.
Let me pose a question to you Sabastian.
What would you say to your child if they told you they were a homosexual? How would you deal with that?
-stvn
http://www.trailblazerscape.org/Articles/somegayschange.html
And what if your son or daughter says to you, "But dad, I dont want to change? I am happy with who I am."
What would you do then?
-stvn
Joe DeFuria
25-Apr-2003, 21:50
Joe there's no need to respond to your post. It's full of drivel and self-defeating inane logic.
You post some crap about e-mailing my wife, which I encourage you to do, and go on about having concerns about me "getting any", and I'M the one spouting inane logic? Good grief.
Obviously since I'm fighting for gay rights, one such right being legally recognized marriage, I have no clue what it means to be in a committed relationship with someone else because I think the actual act of marriage is more important than the love my relationship entails. Obviously my motives are shallow.
Whether or not you are shallow all depends on what your true motives are, Natoma, which I'm trying to drag out of you. I REPEAT. You are EITHER shallow, or your MOTIVES are not what you stated.
You spout all kinds of crap about "social ceremonies" and having your "love affirmed." And yet have not once drawn some connection from that...to the concept of a marriage "legally" recognized by the government.
Dude Joe. Get a clue. :roll:
Dude, Natoma, be honest with us, not to mention yourself. You either feel that having a marriage being "legal" is in fact important to having your "love affirmed", or not.
If it is important, then yes, you are shallow.
If it's NOT important, (in which case you are contradicting what you said earlier was a big reason for wanting legalized marriage), then as I said, you have some other "real" motivation for leagalized marriage, such as having the same practical reality (legally) that married heteros have. I'm not saying or making any judgement about whatever other motivation you might have, because quite honestly, you have not said what it is.
But clearly, it cannot have it both ways. You can't claim to want to have legal marriage because it "affirms your love" if in fact you are now saying that it's not really important to the relationship.
Apparently, all that "Columbia and Yale" education didn't include a logic course.
Joe there's no need to respond to your post. It's full of drivel and self-defeating inane logic.
You post some crap about e-mailing my wife, which I encourage you to do, and go on about having concerns about me "getting any", and I'M the one spouting inane logic? Good grief.
Joe, the fact that you can't distinguish the difference between an obvious joke and reality just goes to show how futile it is trying to talk to you about anything.
Obviously I wasn't going to contact your wife. Why should I care what goes on between you two. :lol:
But again, I don't blame you. In your natural way of snipping out pertinent parts of a post, you obviously missed the :wink: symbol at the end. Or maybe you didn't miss it. Maybe you just chose to ignore it completely. Btw, I'm not ignoring the other parts of your post when you tried to make a connection between my fight for equal rights and shallowness. But if you have absorbed *anything* that I've written on this thread, and others (and I mean truly absorbed, not just looked at the words), you would understand how utterly ridiculous your attempted line of argumentation is.
As I said before. Get a clue.
p.s.: If anyone else thought that I was being in any way serious by that comment to contact Joe's wife, please raise your hand......
p.p.s.: Did you think that I was serious when I told Humus that he's a terrorist because he doesn't support the english system for punctuation? And to get with the program?
You do have a sense of irony/humor about you don't you joe? Yeesh.
Joe DeFuria
25-Apr-2003, 22:40
Joe, the fact that you can't distinguish the difference between an obvious joke and reality just goes to show how futile it is trying to talk to you about anything. Obviously I wasn't going to contact your wife. Why should I care what goes on between you two. :lol:
Um, obviously it was a joke. But there would be no point in you making that joke unless you thought that if you DID contact her, you might think she would actually disagree with me.
I'm merely highlighting the ironic accusation that you levied against ME not having logic. Based on YOUR logic, my wife would have some issue with me. And I was telling you that you're wrong. (Again, what would be the point of that joke if you thought otherwise?)
But again, I don't blame you. In your natural way of snipping out pertinent parts of a post, you obviously missed the :wink: symbol at the end.
And I don't blame you for not showing any semblence of logic, since that's not your demonstrated strong point.
Btw, I'm not ignoring the other parts of your post when you tried to make a connection between my fight for equal rights and shallowness.
You certainly haven't responded to them.
But if you have absorbed *anything* that I've written on this thread, and others (and I mean truly absorbed, not just looked at the words), you would understand how utterly ridiculous your attempted line of argumentation is.
As I said before. Get a clue.
I am begging you to give me a clue, Natoma, without being contradictory. You just won't oblige. All I understand is how utterly contradictory your attempted line of reasoning is.
Repeatedly telling me to "get a clue" doesn't do much for your line of argumentation, Natoma. It just makes you look childish. Be a grown-up and attempt to address my points to you.
p.s.: If anyone else thought that I was being in any way serious by that comment to contact Joe's wife, please raise your hand......
Um, if anyone else thought that if Natoma actually DID contact my wife, that he expected she would take some issue with my stance, raise your hand.
I know my "style" must drive you nuts, Natoma. It's always frustrating to have your contradictions pointed out. There is an easy solution to it though: Wither don't make contradictions in the first place, or actually explain how they are not contradictory at all.
You choose to take the "ignore" route, which only leads everyone to believe you have no explanation.
:? :shock:
Ah Mah Gawd..... Now you believe that I made that joke because I believe that your wife would agree with me? That subliminally I must have said that because I really had the intention of contacting her and having her lambast you for your foolishness?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Damn joe you really are messed up. Either you're completely nuts or you take yourself far too seriously. Either way you need some therapy.
You don't upset me Joe. In fact, the more I read and understand you, the more I realize how much of a joke you are, how much of a joke the way you think is, and really, truly, how pathetic you can be. I really mean it this time. I'm not going to waste my time responding to you in the future because frankly you're showing me more and more that you're kinda loopy there. How can you debate logically with someone when they show no semblance of ability to think logically or form a coherant thought? Dear lord save him Jeebus.
And if you were wondering, that last paragraph was not in any way intended to be humorous, joking, or include any double entendre. It means exactly what it states. I write this disclaimer since obviously you have a hard time comprehending even the simplest of thoughts.....
:shock: :roll:
Um, if anyone else thought that if Natoma actually DID contact my wife, that he expected she would take some issue with my stance, raise your hand.http://www.asusboards.com/forums/images/smilies/abwave.gif
:lol:
Now serious. My guess is that Natoma dont need the society recognition in the form of government/law but he want recognition because in some way it is opressive to him the lack of society recognition. Of course he can say F@ck the society but he want to be an integral part of it. He already is a citizen, working menber, taxpayer, son, brother, friend, etc... but not officially a "partner" (lets forget the term married for a moment).
Just substitute "afirmation" by "recognition".
He probably see the US stance as a lack of society recognition then He has this chest pressure and want to be complete menber of the society.
This is more a psycological thing and words will probably not explain it.
The legal side is a plus.
Now I have to go to a dinner, have a nice weekend all.
Joe DeFuria
25-Apr-2003, 23:30
You don't upset me Joe. In fact, the more I read and understand you, the more I realize how much of a joke you are, how much of a joke the way you think is, and really, truly, how pathetic you can be. I really mean it this time. I'm not going to waste my time responding to you in the future because frankly you're showing me more and more that you're kinda loopy there. How can you debate logically with someone when they show no semblance of ability to think logically or form a coherant thought? Dear lord save him Jeebus.
I'm very disappointed in you, Natoma. I give you every chance to explain your contradictions, and the best you can do is throw the personal insults? (*shakes head*).
And I'll wager that despite this "serious" stance of yours, that you WILL from time to time respond to me in the future "when it suits you." Because you can't resist trying to battle logic and reasoning with emotionally charged rhetoric. That's what leftists do.
And you say that my posting style doesn't add value to this board? Do YOU see the irony in this situation, Natoma?.
If there was ever a use for this emoticon, it's now:
:roll:
And if you were wondering, that last paragraph was not in any way intended to be humorous, joking, or include any double entendre. It means exactly what it states. I write this disclaimer since obviously you have a hard time comprehending even the simplest of thoughts.....
:shock: :roll:
Sigh...If you spent 1/10th of the effort to address my points than you do evading them with misguided attempts to personally discredit me, you might make for a sensible poster.
And this might be a first time that you actually mean what you say. Given the fact that you never seem to be able to explain the contradictory things that you actually say.
And that's no joke either.
Joe DeFuria
25-Apr-2003, 23:46
Um, if anyone else thought that if Natoma actually DID contact my wife, that he expected she would take some issue with my stance, raise your hand.http://www.asusboards.com/forums/images/smilies/abwave.gif
:lol:
Indeed. ;)
Now serious. My guess is that Natoma dont need the society recognition in the form of government/law but he want recognition because in some way it is opressive to him the lack of society recognition...
What are you doing "guessing" what Natoma meant? Shouldn't it be unquestionably obvious?
Of course he can say F@ck the society but he want to be an integral part of it.
He may want to be an integral part of the Boy Scouts also...but if they don't want him, why does he want them? What's stopping him from creating the "Gay Boy Scouts" with his own values?
In other words, he sees legalization as some important aspect
That may be...but what important aspect? The only thing he's SAID so far is the aspect related to the affirmation of love not being as it is with "heteros", because he's not legally recognized by the federal gov't.
He said:
What we do want is the ability to affirm our love for one another just as heterosexuals are allowed to. We're basically a married couple anyways, but the government looks at us and says "no you're not. you're not as good as straight couples." That is what they government tells us by not allowing us to get married, and recognizing that on a federal level.
And
Heterosexual couples are given the chance to succeed or fail at marriage, as many times as they like in fact. My partner and I want the same opportunity to live our lives to the fullest and in full recognition. My love for him and his love for me is the genuine article. Most certainly more geniune than a lot of the "fake" marriages you see going on in hollywood or in the general populace when people marry for money or convenience, or myriad other reasons that actually have nothing to do with love. I want to marry my partner because I *love* him, and for no other reason.
It's clear to me that the federal government not legally recognizing his "marriage" doesn't allow in his mind the affirmation of love "just like heterosexuals."
And I'm saying that THIS hetersexual doesn't care about the federal government legally recognizing THIS heterosexual's marriage, in terms of affirmation of love.
He already is a citizen, working menber, taxpayer, son, brother, friend, etc... but not officially a "partner" (lets forget the term married for a moment).
Just substitute "afirmation" by "recognition".
In what context?
He probably see the US stance as a lack of society recognition then He has this chest pressure and want to be complete menber of the society.
What do you mean "probably?" Isn't he clear? ;)
You also have to define "society". You are saying that he's defining "society" by U.S. government terms. That's one way to do it, and one that I don't agree with in general.
I'm sorry to break the news here, but having his marriage legal wouldn't make him any more "accepted" by "society" than he is now. Those that accept it now, still will, those that don't, won't.
Um, if anyone else thought that if Natoma actually DID contact my wife, that he expected she would take some issue with my stance, raise your hand.http://www.asusboards.com/forums/images/smilies/abwave.gif
:lol:
Now serious. My guess is that Natoma dont need the society recognition in the form of government/law but he want recognition because in some way it is opressive to him the lack of society recognition. Of course he can say F@ck the society but he want to be an integral part of it. He already is a citizen, working menber, taxpayer, son, brother, friend, etc... but not officially a "partner" (lets forget the term married for a moment).
Just substitute "afirmation" by "recognition".
He probably see the US stance as a lack of society recognition then He has this chest pressure and want to be complete menber of the society.
This is more a psycological thing and words will probably not explain it.
The legal side is a plus.
Now I have to go to a dinner, have a nice weekend all.
Yep. You hit it the nail on the head, once again, Pascal. Laws that, by their nature, keep gay relationships as second class when compared to their heterosexual counterparts, help engender an atmosphere of denial and lack of respect.
What's funny is that up until the late 60's/early 70's, there were states that still had anti-interracial marriage laws on the books. They were not always enforced, much like the sodomy laws today are not always enforced. But the fact of the matter remains that they were on the books, which is symbolic in and of itself. I wonder if certain people here would have said the same thing to those trying to change those laws and have the state respect their relationships. Oh, you don't need the state to recognize your relationship. As long as you have each other, that's enough.
heh.
oops on the timeline
Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving were married in June 1958. She was black; he was white. The wedding was performed in Washington, D.C., where the law permitted racially mixed marriage. The Lovings then settled in Caroline County, Virginia. That October a grand jury indicted the Lovings for violating Virginia’s law against marriage between whites and non-whites. The two pleaded guilty in January 1959 and were given a choice: Go to jail for a year, or take a 25-year suspended sentence on condition that they leave Virginia and not return. The Lovings opted for the latter and retreated to Washington.
The judge who exiled the Lovings wrote that “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.”
Their banishment must have rankled the Lovings. In 1963, just after the Rev. Martin Luther King led his march to the nation’s capital, they launched a court fight to overturn their convictions. Virginia’s courts upheld the anti-miscegenation law, which was enacted in that state as the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924,” citing a 1955 ruling in which the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia concluded that the state had a legitimate purpose for its anti-miscegenation laws. This was “to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,” and to prevent “the corruption of blood,” the creation of “a mongrel breed of citizens” and “the obliteration of racial pride.”
I can see the argument so clearly today, just transposed to saving the children and the social fabric of society itself. Same arguments of hate and bigotry repeated over and over. History really and truly does repeat itself.
Sabastian
26-Apr-2003, 00:20
I don't even know where to start with this morass, so let's just go right on down the line ....
There now that is a nice start.
Pot calling the kettle black, apparently. Your arguments are very inconsistent and riddled with half-truths and stereotypes. Who is the uneducated one here? A degree does not make one intelligent or capable of decent discourse.
Is that right. Just where are these "inconsistent" "half-truths"? I didn't imply that a degree makes "one intelligent or capable of decent discourse" but rather the quality of the arguments presented were of novice quality. Like yours.
It's widespread because plenty of people enjoy it despite your distaste of it, and it's not a law that is easily enforceable. Why keep a law on the books that is mostly religious in nature, and only serves to repress, not protect or enhance?
Plenty of people liked cocain. People like all sorts of things but that doesn't make it all right or does it?
We as a humanity are partially the sum of our history, so it's not wrong to look to our past to see mistakes and learn how to not make them again.
Women who stay at home these days by and large choose to raise their family over having a career. While it's not the choice I would make, that is their choice to make and I respect them for that. I don't hold it against them because it's not my choice. What you are advocating is holding things against people because they don't choose as you do.
Yes I didn't suggest that the past was wrong only that he must go back there to find the inequalities he needs to find the justifications for the things that he wants now. I don't really have a lot of problems with mothers whom are not stay at home care givers. I have no problem with that really, what I am advocating is that both parents be responsible for their childrens well being. If they can do the optimal thing and have a stay at home mother and father working as a provider I think that it is a good thing. There was that so difficult?
Is a crack-addicted mother and an absent father better for a child than a loving gay couple simply because they are a child's biological parents? Hardly. By denying gay couples the right to adopt, you strip them of their humanity, which is criminal in my estimation. Slavery strips people of their humanity, and thus it has been made illegal. Do you propose that there are humans who are less human for the purpose of satisfying your morals? Are we not all equal in the eyes of of the law, according to the consistitution? Why you do think you are justified in imposing your morals on those that don't choose to live as you do? Don't like homosexuality or homosexual acts? Don't engage in homosexual activities, and don't associate yourself with homosexuals. Your loss, their gain.
lol, no. But a far better solution is to put the child in a home with both a male and a female as role models. Your hypothetical situation does not give me the option even though there are far more willing heterosexual couples in the world to offer such an environment. Even the psychiatric community would indorse a family with both genders to offer over a homosexual set of adopted parent. There isn't even any contest. So I would put the child of crack addicts with one of the hundreds of thousands of heterosexual parents waiting on a list for an adopted child before a "gay" couple. As for the later part of your argument it looks a bit more like a childes rant who has been denied candy or something. I don't impose my morals on anyone. In fact the reverse is being done. They are the ones imposing their morals and I don't like it one fucking bit, you get it? I don't want them teaching their garbage social science to my children. I happen to know it as I am a massive turncoat.
Now who's uneducated? It's "psuedo" not "suedo"
Pathetic nit pick.
Oh, so because it's always been that way is a valid argument to keep it that way. Bullshit. That kind of argument keeps humanity in stagnation, and leads to eventual decay. Society is the way it is because people worship materialism, greed, and shallowness. Until people in general find something to fill the spirit (which is not necessarily religion), then people will remain empty, and fill that emptiness with hatred, intolerance, ignorance, and fear of that which is different from themselves. Humanity has potential to move beyond such things, and people like you would have us crawl in the dregs because that's what we have always done.
My sakes your a real lefty aren't you. Wow, some real gumbos in there. Don't know where to start on this one. Are you implying that we have been decaying or something? WTF are you talking about? What is this materialism stuff? Do you mean to say that humans are materialistic, greedy and shallow? I wouldn't disagree with them ideas, but you think it is simply a matter of socialization isn't that right? Just what sort of tyranny would you need to put in place to rid ourselves of these horrible human conditions? Or shouldn't people just do it themselves rather then have the government force them..... Hate is a human emotion like it or not and no amount of social engineering will remove it. Ignorance is often a chosen state of mind, try to get a mass of people to watch news coverage. If by intolerance you mean that I do not tolerate then we have a matter of words. If by tolerating you mean accepting then I have a problem with the word usage. tol·er·ate: to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction b : to put up with. I tolerate homosexuality but I do not accept it. Stop using the word tolerate out of context. lol, I love your portrail of me, I would have you "crawl in the dregs". I never suggested that anyone crawl anywhere just that you ought to keep your crap science away from my children and am begging your sorts to not parade down the public streets as if everyone approves of your morality. Lets get this straight (no pun intended.) You can do what ever you want in you god dammed bedroom, just fucking leave it there.
He has a point, you know. He is a member of a minority that has been persecuted since the beginnings of organized religion, and has had members tortured and killed because of who and what they are. I would say that he does have some insight in the laws and how they are becoming the say on whats morally right. Since the religious right has a large influence politically, it could be argued that laws are defining morals.
lol, more ignorance. Blacks have not been persecuted since the beginnings of organized religion where do you get that crap? Every race has been tortured and killed because of who and what they are. I don't give a dam if he thinks that Affirmative Action is appropriate or not and it certainly doesn't have any bearing on the argument. Certainly he wouldn't be discriminated against any more then a fat or ugly persons for example. There is nothing particularly impressive about the victimization of groups for the sake of political egalitarian motive. Equality of biblical proportions is what it amounts to. The religious right only has influence on the political scene in terms of whom it is that Christians will vote for any other sort of influence is founded in conspiracy theory.
It's NOT a damned affliction. You argue like gays hate what they are and wish they could change. The only wishing they do is to wish for acceptance in this narrow-minded, puritanical, and un-free society. Some attempt to change not because they hate what they are, but because others hate what they are, and no one wants to be hated. Some don't have the strength to live an ostracized life, and I can't blame them for wanting to find some acceptance.
There are all sorts of genetic inheritance that humans are afflicted with that a parent certainly would avoid if they could help their child. But this is not to say that it is necessarily a genetic affliction and I wouldn't argue as you have implied that I have that they "wish they could change" but many do and there are examples of them actually changing and being very happy about it. Further if it is not a genetic affliction they choose their way of life and should not expect the government to intervene. I don't blame them for not wanting to be "gay", I certainly wouldn't wish the affliction on anyone.
So you would leave a mother to die before you would allow an abortion after the first trimester to save her life? If performed correctly, she can always have other children.
It's not their humanity that is in question, it's their rights, and current law dictates that a fetus has no rights, or rights that are less than a born humans'.
I personally find it offensive when you imply that women are stupid for having sex with people that they might not want to have children with, and should always bear the consequences even when they act responsibly, (use condoms, take birth control, etc.). However men get to screw around as much as they want and they are admired for the notches on their belt. If anything is disgusting, it's that.
In how many instances does a woman need to have an abortion to save their lives? Would you murder hundreds of thousands of innocent children to save one woman? This is not to say that if a womans life was in danger that I wouldn't recommend an abortion only that you suggest that the slaughter of thousands for the sake of one womans life. Clearly a C section would save both in many cases.
I don't give a dam about when the child has "rights" they are alive inside the womb and don't need to be taken out to magically receive "rights". Personally I see rights as something that we have and the state should not need to confer them on to us but rather that we have them. You imply that in order to be human you must have rights conferred to us by the state.. That is a sad argument.
I don't think that men running around is a good thing at all ether. Sex should not be as trivialized as it is and people ought to take it much more seriously then they do. Just ask someone on their death bed with AIDS and see what they have to say about promiscuity. I don't approve of promiscuous behaviour at all. So it isn't just silly women running around getting pregnant as you say. Both men and women are being ill responsible in my opinion.
Do you realize how patently STUPID you sound when you say you have no homosexuals in your family because you came from heterosexuals? Homosexuals can biologically reproduce. Just because they prefer same sex partners doesn't mean that they can't be the father or mother of a child. You don't KNOW that there are no homosexuals in your family, because you and probably your entire extended family breed such an air of intolerance and hatred of homosexuals that they may be afraid or unwilling to come out. You don't KNOW either way. So stop making your purist claims that the "taint" of homosexuality isn't your family.
You keep your political agenda out of MY life. Societal values are not writ in stone, nor are they some high and untouchable code that cannot and should not be altered.
Oh.... my sakes, now not only are my arguments "inconsistent" and full of "half truths" but now I am being straight out stupid. Great. BTW you have a rather weak argument. First off you are wrong all together with your pretext here. The basic argument of the "gay" movement is that they are genetically inclined to be "gay". Otherwise they are not homosexual but rather bisexual and that they can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. I wouldn't argue with a great many of them being able to swing .... hence we have bisexuals. But the problem is that they are not arguing they are bisexual they are arguing that they are exclusively homosexual. That is what being a homosexual is. There are very few homosexuals that are exclusive and I would hardly call this something that is normal.
Thanks for filling me in on my family and that I don't know them. BTW you couldn't be more wrong there are none that I know of. All have children and are quite heterosexual. lol. I love this garbage about how we don't know if someone in our family is "gay" or not. Yeah that is great science. Heck I am surprised you are not trying to tell me that I can't tell if I am or not. What a pile of crap
I don't buy that at all. Your attitude screams fundamentalist zealot. Only in religious doctrine does one see the argument that homosexuality is "wrong". I can buy that a non-religous person can be opposed to abortion, but to be non-religious and as virulently opposed to homosexuality as you are, that I do not buy.
You know something I don't give a dam if you "buy" it or not. I am not a Christian and I resent the notion that you have to be a Christian to dislike this particular political movement. Just where is in my posting any reference to the Bible or any religious material? You can't find any and that is hard to deal with I realize but like it or not I am not a Christian. I don't have anything against Christians though. I bet you do.
Sterile heterosexual couples are screwed then. They should get a divorce and find someone else because they are not reproducing. That just gives more strength to my notion that marriage on the outside is naught a church-sanctified excuse for screwing and breeding.
Every time you have sex with your wife, you think about reproducing? I feel sorry for your wife, to be afflicted with a husband who is more concerned about reproducing than giving and sharing in mutal enjoyment of the act.
Let me let you in a little fact, since you seem incapable of grasping anything different than what you do. I am heterosexual, and I do not want to have children. By your fallacious logic, I am hurting myself and my partner every time I have sex, because neither one of us has intent to reproduce. WRONG. I am not hurting anyone, nor is my partner, because we are not bring children into this world we dont want just because some obsolete text tells us to.
lol, they try to reproduce just the same don't they? I didn't insinuate that sex between a man and a woman always end in pregnancy but rather humans when they have intercourse are doing so because we are hard wired for reproduction just like every other form of life in the world does. Only the combination of both sexes can actually reproduce, no others. So basically it is simple other forms of attempting to reproduce are naturally less natural. You don't have to want children to ejaculate and spread your seed.
Now I know you know nothing about anal sex with this little gem of ignorance. For most men, it is about the whole dominant/passive mentality that men are forced to accept from this society. A man who isn't totally aggressive and dominant is seen as weak and inferior. Anal sex implies passivity in this society, hence why so many heterosexual men are hysterically homophobic like you are.
Do like it? Don't do it. But don't force your morals down other people's throat because you don't like it.
lol, that is quite a peace of work you have there something about passivity... BTW where do you get that garbage? Homophobia is not a real phobia rather an intimidation tactic. Men are generally not wanting to be seen as afraid of anything and when they express their disgust with homosexuality they are labeled "homophobic". This gets under their skin and they say I am not homophobic. I personally have a fear of heights but I wouldn't confuse my disgust with homosexual activity as something that is fearful. lol. As you can tell I am not afraid of the label "homophobic" because it has no real scientific backing. It is simply an effective debate stifling tactic nothing more. Again I am not trying to force my moral on anyone but rather it is the "gay" movement trying to force their mentality on me and mine through political channels and I am not happy about them doing it at all, so get your argument straight.
You mean they actually might come to the conclusion that it isn't as horrifying as you make it out to be, which seems to lead the the conclusion that you don't want your children to think differently than you do, and to accomplish that you would rather keep them ignorant than let them choose what they think and feel about things.
You can homeschool your children if you so choose. It doesn't have to be you who teaches, either. My boyfriend was homeschooled, and he had a teacher who was not either of his parents that he submitted his homework to and learned from. Do some research.
Well I have and in Canada the rules for homeschooling are obviously different. I am upset about the idea that they will teach these "gay" morals to my child even if I don't consent, is that so hard to grasp? Further they are teaching it not because there is overwhelming evidence that they are right but that because the "gay" political movement has managed to convince courts using charter law that indeed they ought to be teaching in schools because to do otherwise is discriminatory in some way. There is no reason for a grade 7 student to wonder if they are "gay" particularly after the teacher tells them they can't tell, which BTW happened to my niece. So I have told it to Natoma and I will tell it to you keep your fucking garbage social political agenda away from me and mine.
You have been TOLD what marriage is SUPPOSED to be and you accept that. The problem is here is that you refuse to accept that other people have different definitions of what marriage is, and what it means to them.
Another instance of "stagnation is better than progress because I can't handle change or difference, so one else will either".
Somehow I get the distinct impression that you think the break down of the traditional family is a good thing. Somehow the proliferation of the traditional family is "stagnation" I think you ought to elaborate your position here. I got a whiff of something that I have been harping about for sometime so lets hear it. Why is it good that the nuclear family is destroyed?
The higher divorce rate is not due to the "sexual revolution" (frankly I don't care what you mean when you quote it, since everything out of you is negative stereotypes so far), but rather due to the fact that people rush into a lifelong commitment not ready for it, and since divorces are easily obtained, there you are. We as a society are force-fed this notion that marriage is one thing and one thing only, and that it;s necessary to engage in one to love someone or have children.
Marriage is about family as far as I know. It always has and despite recent set backs it likely always will. Well why has the divorce rate did nothing but increase sense the "sexual revolution"? Oh and while we are at it (revolution) lets change what marriage is about. A lifelong commitment is just that and having children is a life long commitment. People are not being prepared for marriage correctly ever sense the "sexual revolution". People think it is about love for loves sake but it isn't nor was it ever solely about love.
As for the STDs .... Sense the movement to serial monogamy began there has been a spike in the number of STDs. A whole variety are rampid now. This is a sign that the "sexual revolution" is becoming old and grey. There are a number of epidemics of STDs out there now if you like I could list them.
The societal problems encountered in the past 200 years are due to the fact that we have a large influential population that would keep us 2000 years in the past with strict adherence to rules no longer capable of guiding current society, and a population that wants to move forward. Hence there is a segment that is caught in the middle, and there is rampant lack of education among all segments, which leads to the stereotypes you have been spouting this entire thread. Ignorance breeds ignorance. The only way to stop it is through education that isn't castrated by any one segment of the population.
lol, another gem. My sakes God forbid someone disagree with you. They ought to be "castrated" or re-educated eh? Or do you mean brainwashed? I took a healthy dose of liberal arts education and I know the ignorance breeding in liberal arts universities. Assumption after assumption so that they can have their utopia.
No self-respecting gay person would put up with your total lack of tolerance and your drive to deride their way of life at every opportunity, so I seriously doubt you have any gay friends.
Why not? I simply resent the political efforts for the most part. Surely if they believe that their movement has any credibility they can stand some criticism for their political aspirations. Everyone else has to endure critique for their political aspirations. Why is the "gay" agenda untouchable? That goes against everything democracy is about.
As the rest of us are fed up with fundamentalist zealots like you who would destroy cultures and force feed your morals down everyone else's throats purely to keep eveything status quo, and everyone reduced to a sheeple who are not allowed to live differently if they so choose.
lol, another gem. The only zealots that are destroying a culture are born of left wing association hell bent on destroying anything that is traditional about our society. BTW the status quo is to jam modern liberal garbage down everyones throat with as much zeal as possible. That is why I am happy the US did not conform to the vote in the UN. That is a good thing.
PS I liked the bolding idea. It is much more simple then making the quotes and FWIW welcome to the forms.
EDIT: I also take note of your convenient neglection of this portion of my last post. Not that the posting was directed at you or anything but if you must reply don't be so selective in your arguments. There may be more that you disregarded but I am simply making a point don't simply reply were you only think you have a leg to stand on. Thanks in advance.
Again I don't think that worldnetdaily is a Christian Fundamentalist website but your bias comes shining through there doesn't it. Actually the link you provided for this thread is from some radical social gay activist web page. lol. There are all sorts of evidence regarding pedophilia. I provided a link from a doctor. http://drjudithreisman.org/whitep/regent.pdf Please read this and tell me what you think of it.(everyone.) I included that link in the same response but you ignore that as well.
The link that you have provided includes commentary from the US National Gay and Lesbian Task force. Ironic this is the same organization that lead the intimidation campian that actually managed to force a 1973 convention of the American Psychiatric Association to declare that homosexuality was not a deviant condition but rather a normal condition. But there were all sorts of accusations doctors were compared to racists and the like in this intimidation campaign, funny how this still occurs Natoma. A small but well organized political lobby had actually succeeded in the first changing, then totally eradicating a medical diagnosis. Funny though only 58% of the American Psychiatric Association actually agreed with the charge.
The thing is the whole arrangement was a sham. Even four years later a survey of 2500 psychiatrists found that 69% actually still believed that homosexuality was a pathological adaptation. About 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. In 1989 Dr.Joseph Nicolosi said "many members of our profession still privately express the opinion that homosexual development is not normal. The 1973 ruling did not resolve the issue-it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation". After the ruling all that remained to be done was change the publics discourse of the behavior of homosexual activities. There are plenty of scientific conclusions that suggest that homosexuality is not a normal condition and something that needs worked on. But todays Politically correct world does not alow for such perspectives. So much for science remaining objective as now it seems that homosexuality is some sort of untouchable absolute.
No this defies the biological explanation you give and you betray yourself here. No these people would clearly fall in the bisexual arena. The difference is clear. You fail to recognize that the possibility of homosexual behavior can be induced from nurturing but rather it must be a biological affliction in your case. But with others it is clear that they can be made to act differently. Yeah I would agree there are very few cases of exclusive homosexuals and this only lends credence to the possibility that indeed it is a matter of choice that you choose to be exclusively homosexual and choose to be in a group that is discriminated against. I didn't say that BTW you did. I just helped you put your foot in your mouth. While you are not free to be heterosexual it is others that are.
MrsSkywalker
26-Apr-2003, 01:13
You make the assumption that I haven't already been involved in the process of legalizing gay marriages in this state. An incorrect one at that.
Nope. I made the corect observation that instead of using your time to further the cause, you have wasted many hours over the last 2 days debating the issue with us chuckleheads. Don't get all defensive...you know I am right. It's your life. If you want to spend your time complaining to a group of people who can't change the law in your state, that's fine. When I don't like something going on in my town or state, I make a stink. If it works, great; if not, at least I gave it my all. You have to give it your all to expect change, and right now, natoma, you just aren't doing it. Yet, you moan and complain that it's the rest of the world that's not getting anything done...interesting.....
Go ahead and waste more time blasting me back. I already wrote my congressman about my issue of the week (NH budget proposal...nasty business)...I've got some time to kill. Can't wait to read the flame.
Ok so basically I'm supposed to use every waking second of my day contacting my political officials about this issue. Right. As if that's even possible.
You're basically saying that I shouldn't bring up a topic that hits me and people I love directly here, because it's just a waste of time. I'm sorry, but that's pretty ridiculous.
Why are you posting here when you could be calling, emailing, or writing yet another letter to your congressperson regarding your current "issue of the week?" Isn't this a waste of your time? I mean, you said you've got time to kill. Shouldn't you be doing something more constructive than posting here?
I mean, what's the use of discussing anything then? Why all the discussions about Iraq over the past few months. Why the discussion about other social issues like social security or AA? No laws will change here right?
Joe DeFuria
26-Apr-2003, 01:35
I wonder if certain people here would have said the same thing to those trying to change those laws and have the state respect their relationships.
No, I wouldn't.
And I'm not saying anything to those trying to change gay marriage laws today either, so I hope you're not referring to me. Because if you are, then you haven't understood one single thing that I said...not that I would be surprised if that's the case.
Oh, you don't need the state to recognize your relationship. As long as you have each other, that's enough.
I don't need the state to recognize my relationshiop to have any more or less a sense of the "affirmation of love." As long as the state doesn't prohibit my right to have some public ceremony where we can declare our love for one another, that's enough as far as me being satisfied with my desire to publically affirm my love for my other half..
THERE ARE reasons why I want the state to recognize my marriage, but they have NOTHING to do with any kind of "societal stamp of acceptance".
deep_sky
26-Apr-2003, 02:26
Plenty of people liked cocain. People like all sorts of things but that doesn't make it all right or does it?
Cocaine is harmful, this has been documented. Anal sex is not harmful as you portray it. I know a few older gay men, and they are not incontinent from having anal sex. I have yet to see any proof from you that anal sex is any more harmful than vaginal sex if safe sex is practiced.
Yes I didn't suggest that the past was wrong only that he must go back there to find the inequalities he needs to find the justifications for the things that he wants now. I don't really have a lot of problems with mothers whom are not stay at home care givers. I have no problem with that really, what I am advocating is that both parents be responsible for their childrens well being. If they can do the optimal thing and have a stay at home mother and father working as a provider I think that it is a good thing. There was that so difficult?
That is not so difficult. I also think that both parents can have a fulfilling career and raise kids to be normal productive adults. Of course it is much more difficult, but I would not deny the option for either partner to go out and work. My personal choice is to not have any children, and have a career instead.
lol, no. But a far better solution is to put the child in a home with both a male and a female as role models. Your hypothetical situation does not give me the option even thought there are far more willing heterosexual couples in the world to offer such an environment. Even the psychiatric community would indorse a family with both genders to offer over a homosexual set of adopted parent. There isn't even any contest. So I would put the child of crack addicts with one of the hundreds of thousands of heterosexual parents waiting on a list for an adopted child before a "gay" couple. As for the later part of your argument it looks a bit more like a childes rant woes been denied candy or something. I don't impose my morals on anyone. In fact the reverse is being done moron. They are the ones imposing their morals and I don't like it one fucking bit, you get it? I don't want them teaching their garbage social science to my children. I happen to know it as I am a massive turncoat.
I have seen plenty of examples of children/adults who raised by same-sex partners and don't lack for role models of both genders, and come out as normal as a hetero parent unit. There is still a conception that gay parents live a wild drug and sex filled lifestyle and drag any adoptive child into it, and hetero parents are always a better solution because of the religious influences of this society. When I see a situation in which a child is raped day after day for years by her father, and the mother stood by and did nothing, it doesn't convince me that a hetero couple is always better than any gay parent unit. Sexual orientation should not prevent a couple from adopting. As long as the child has access to role models of both genders, what is the problem? Love is love, no matter where it comes from.
Pathetic nit pick.
You accused of Natoma of being uneducated, and then you misspell words, so although it is a nitpick, it makes a point that you should not be accusing people of being uneducated and then show uneducated tendencies.
My sakes your a real lefty aren't you. Wow, some real gumbos in there. Don't know where to start on this one. Are you implying that we have been decaying or something? WTF are you talking about? What is this materialism stuff? Do you mean to say that humans are materialistic, greedy and shallow? I wouldn't disagree with them ideas, but you think it is simply a matter of socialization isn't that right? Just what sort of tyranny would you need to put in place to rid ourselves of these horrible human conditions? Or shouldn't people just do it themselves rather then have the government force them..... Hate is a human emotion like it or not and no amount of social engineering will remove it. Ignorance is often a chosen state of mind, try to get a mass of people to watch news coverage. If by intolerance you mean that I do not tolerate then we have a matter of words. If by tolerating you mean accepting then I have a problem with the word usage. tol·er·ate: to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction b : to put up with. I tolerate homosexuality but I do not accept it. Stop using the word tolerate out of context. lol, I love your portrail of me, I would have you "crawl in the dregs". I never suggested that anyone crawl anywhere just that you ought to keep your crap science away from my children and am begging your sorts to not parade down the public streets as if everyone approves of your morality. Lets get this straight (no pun intended.) You can do what ever you want in you god dammed bedroom, just fucking leave it there.
You are encouraging the status quo, and that people should never challenge traditions no matter what. "It worked in the past, why can't it work now?" seems to be your argument.
I would indeed say that it is a matter of socialization, because all the tripe one sees in the media encourages the buying of things to make you happy, that more and more and more is better, and that these things make you a better person. You tell me that isn't the message that media is broadcasting. It's the same as fashion magazines encouraging women to make themselves literally deathly thin in order to be attractive; there are a whole group of people who are dying to attain an impossible ideal because they believe that the media hype is right. There are many forms of socialization, and the obsession with money and things is one of them.
I do see that you do not tolerate homosexuals. You do not want them demonstrating in the streets, you do not want your children to know anything else about them other than what they do sexually is morally wrong and disgusting, and that homosexuals are "afflicted" and want to change. This does not spell tolerance to me.
As for "crap science", I see nothing better out of you, so look to your own house before you start calling foul.
lol, more ignorance. Blacks have not been persecuted since the beginnings of organized religion where do you get that crap? Every race has been tortured and killed because of who and what they are. I don't give a dam if he thinks that Affirmative Action is appropriate or not and it certainly doesn't have any bearing on the argument. Certainly he wouldn't be discriminated against any more then a fat or ugly persons for example. There is nothing particularly impressive about the victimization of groups for the sake of political egalitarian motive. Equality of biblical proportions is what it amounts to. The religious right only has influence on the political scene in terms of whom it is that Christians will vote for any other sort of influence is founded in conspiracy theory.
More misinterpretation on your part. I am not referring to the color of Natoma's skin, I am referring to the fact that he is a gay man, and as such, is part of a minority apart from his race.
Our President is Christian, and packs the Supreme Court with justices that happen to support his beliefs. His highest ranking officers in the administration are known to have strong antipathies towards many things Christianity deems offensive or wrong. I see the religious right everywhere, and I seem them legislating their morals on every aspect of my life.
There are all sorts of genetic inheritance that humans are afflicted with that a parent certainly would avoid if they could help their child. But this is not to say that it is necessarily a genetic affliction and I wouldn't argue as you have implied that I have that they "wish they could change" but many do and there are examples of them actually changing and being very happy about it. Further if it is not a genetic affliction they choose their way of life and should not expect the government to intervene. I don't blame them for not wanting to be "gay", I certainly wouldn't wish the affliction on anyone.
If any child of mine was gay and it was as simple as that to change a gene and make them straight, I wouldn't. Being gay is not a handicap, its not a disease, and its not an horrible afflication. Changing that would be like changing the fact that I am left-handed. I could have been forced to be right-handed, but why bother? It's not painful, does not induce suffering, and does not reduce the quality of life.
Your "examples" seem to be examples of people who are bi-sexual in nature, but swayed over to homosexuality, found out how hard it is to be homosexual in this intolerant society, and found acceptance in being heterosexual. Who wouldn't be happy in finding acceptance? I would be willing to bet that they still find same gendered people attractive, they no longer pursue such people or act on such thoughts.
In how many instances does a woman need to have an abortion to save their lives? Would you murder hundreds of thousands of innocent children to save one woman? This is not to say that if a womans life was in danger that I wouldn't recommend an abortion only that you suggest that the slaughter of thousands for the sake of one womans life. Clearly a C section would save both in many cases.
I don't give a dam about when the child has "rights" they are alive inside the womb and don't need to be taken out to magically receive "rights". Personally I see rights as something that we have and the state should not need to confer them on to us but rather that we have them. You imply that in order to be human you must have rights conferred to us by the state.. That is a sad argument.
I don't think that men running around is a good thing at all ether. Sex should not be as trivialized as it is and people ought to take it much more seriously then they do. Just ask someone on their death bed with AIDS and see what they have to say about promiscuity. I don't approve of promiscuous behaviour at all. So it isn't just silly women running around getting pregnant as you say. Both men and women are being ill responsible in my opinion.
I am not sure why you are presenting the problem of murdering thousands to save one woman's life? That situation is not plausible. I do happen to support early term abortion, but think that the woman should have to go through counseling before it is done, in order to make it clear what she is doing and what her options are. I do not support late term abortions or partial birth abortions. I take birth control to make sure that I never have to be in that position. Only education will prevent abortions being done for no reason, or out of ignorance of the options.
I am simply stating what the law recognizes currently. Fetuses do not have as many rights as you or I do. Who confers these rights if the state should not?
There is a difference between what I do, for example, and promiscuity. I have a monogamous relationship with my boyfriend for 3 years now, and I don't think that what I do in the bedroom with my boyfriend is wrong nor irresponsible simply because some old book would like to tell me that men need to own me or control my sexuality. Promiscuity is irresponsible, and again, education is key.
Oh.... my sakes, now not only are my arguments "inconsistent" and full of "half truths" but now I am being straight out stupid. Great. BTW you have a rather weak argument. First off you are wrong all together with your pretext here. The basic argument of the "gay" movement is that they are genetically inclined to be "gay". Otherwise they are not homosexual but rather bisexual and that they can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. I wouldn't argue with a great many of them being able to swing .... hence we have bisexuals. But the problem is that they are not arguing they are bisexual they are arguing that they are exclusively homosexual. That is what being a homosexual is. There are very few homosexuals that are exclusive and I would hardly call this something that is normal.
Thanks for filling me in on my family and that I don't know them. BTW you couldn't be more wrong there are none that I know of. All have children and are quite heterosexual. lol. I love this garbage about how we don't know if someone in our family is "gay" or not. Yeah that is great science. Heck I am surprised you are not trying to tell me that I can't tell if I am or not. What a pile of crap
By your logic, every person is bisexual, and some tend to one end of the spectrum, and others to the other end, but no one is 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual. I happen to agree with this, as it makes sense to me. However, your position seems to lend credibility to the idea of that you would reject being anything less than totally heterosexual. Would you?
None that you know of. You come off like you are free of the homosexual "taint" when you say that you have no homesexuals in your family because every one of you "came from heterosexuals". Just because they appear to be happy and have children doesnt mean that they don't have any homosexual tendencies. They might not, but you don't know that. All you know is what you see.
You know something I don't give a dam if you "buy" it or not. I am not a Christian and I resent the notion that you have to be a Christian to dislike this particular political movement. Just where is in my posting any reference to the Bible or any religious material? You can't find any and that is hard to deal with I realize but like it or not I am not a Christian. I don't have anything against Christians though. I bet you do.
I know you don't give a damn whether I buy it or not. I am gonna tell you anyways, however, because I feel like it. You are still a zealot and still seemingly incapable of understanding that people think and feel differently than you, and that everyone has the right to demonstrate their opinions and feelings in this country (although it seems like that right is fast disappearing).
lol, they try to reproduce just the same don't they? I didn't insinuate that sex between a man and a woman always end in pregnancy but rather humans when they have intercourse are doing so because we are hard wired for reproduction just like every other form of life in the world does. Only the combination of both sexes can actually reproduce, no others. So basically it is simple other forms of attempting to reproduce are naturally less natural. You don't have to want children to ejaculate and spread your seed.
We might be biologically wired to reproduce, and hence partially the reason I take birth control. I don't let my biology dictate my relationships or how I live my life, and people who have a problem with that should not have the right to interfere with or repress me to status lesser than the majority.
lol, that is quite a peace of work you have there something about passivity... BTW where do you get that garbage? Homophobia is not a real phobia rather an intimidation tactic. Men are generally not wanting to be seen as afraid of anything and when they express their disgust with homosexuality they are labeled "homophobic". This gets under their skin and they say I am not homophobic. I personally have a fear of heights but I wouldn't confuse my disgust with homosexual activity as something that is fearful. lol. As you can tell I am not afraid of the label "homophobic" because it has no real scientific backing. It is simply an effective debate stifling tactic nothing more. Again I am not trying to force my moral on anyone but rather it is the "gay" movement trying to force their mentality on me and mine through political channels and I am not happy about them doing it at all, so get your argument straight.
Homophobia is real. I have met men who can't even stand to look at a nude male, or an underwear commercial for fear of being thought gay. That is homophobia. Your virulent hate and disgust of homosexuals and the activities they engage in seems to be rather out of hand as your reasons are nothing other than it's disgusting and "wrong". Seems to me you have some fear of being labelled homosexual for reasons false or true.
Well I have and in Canada the rules for homeschooling are obviously different. I am upset about the idea that they will teach these "gay" morals to my child even if I don't consent, is that so hard to grasp? Further they are teaching it not because there is overwhelming evidence that they are right but that because the "gay" political movement has managed to convince courts using charter law that indeed they ought to be teaching in schools because to do otherwise is discriminatory in some way. There is no reason for a grade 7 student to wonder if they are "gay" particularly after the teacher tells them they can't tell, which BTW happened to my niece. So I have told it to Natoma and I will tell it to you keep your fucking garbage social political agenda away from me and mine.
If it's that important to you, then learn to homeschool your children. Otherwise deal with the possibility that they won't learn in school that its digusting and wrong like you would like them to think.
Your keep your narrow-minded garbage away from me and I'll be plenty happy.
Somehow I get the distinct impression that you think the break down of the traditional family is a good thing. Somehow the proliferation of the traditional family is "stagnation" I think you ought to elaborate your position here. I got a whiff of something that I have been harping about for sometime so lets hear it. Why is it good that the nuclear family is destroyed?
Traditions are traps, to me. Traditions tie me into a way of action and thinking that becomes ultimately limiting and a tool to repress different ideas, opinions, and ways of thinking. I am not out to break up the traditional nuclear family, I am out to allow different configurations of a family. Family should not be about who has what gender, it should be a unit of people who care, protect, and love each other. I fail to see how sexual orientation interferes with that. Adherence to the concept of that parents have to be one male and one female is inflexible and indicates that other family units are somehow less loving, caring, and protecting than the traditional family unit.
Marriage is about family as far as I know. It always has and despite recent set backs it likely always will. Well why has the divorce rate did nothing but increase sense the "sexual revolution"? Oh and while we are at it (revolution) lets change what marriage is about. A lifelong commitment is just that and having children is a life long commitment. People are not being prepared for marriage correctly ever sense the "sexual revolution". People think it is about love for loves sake but it isn't nor was it ever solely about love.
As for the STDs .... Sense the movement to serial monogamy began there has been a spike in the number of STDs. A whole variety are rampid now. This is a sign that the "sexual revolution" is becoming old and grey. There are a number of epidemics of STDs out there now if you like I could list them.
And why does a family have to consist of one male, one female, and various children?
Divorce is so prevalent because because it's easy to get married, and equally easy to get a divorce. Marriage is no longer exclusively a religious ceremony you risk your happiness, your future, and your position in society to break up. Divorce no longer carries the stigma is used to, and as such, people feel they can get out of a relationship they feel they no longer should be in. People dive into marriage without a fair test of the person they are choosing to marry (hence why I think the idea that living together and having sex before marriage being wrong and a bad idea seems to be a deliberate blinding of oneself to potential problems and incompatibilities with one's mate), have a child, then find they can no longer deal with it, and get divorced, and the children of such unions get caught in the middle. I feel that that is the real crime, not the divorce rate itself.
Many STD's are rampant now because people go and have unprotected sex, and are completely ignorant of the consequences. Education AGAIN is key to reducing many of the world's problems.
lol, another gem. My sakes God forbid someone disagree with you. They ought to be "castrated" or re-educated eh? Or do you mean brainwashed? I took a healthy dose of liberal arts education and I know the ignorance breeding in liberal arts universities. Assumption after assumption so that they can have their utopia.
By "castration" I meant selectively edited to the point in which the education is useful because any one segment has influence the contect of the education to not include anything they disagree with.
You make many assumptions yourself by assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is out to destroy your very way of life because they want their way of life recognized.
Why not? I simply resent the political efforts for the most part. Surely if they believe that their movement has any credibility they can stand some criticism for their political aspirations. Everyone else has to endure critique for their political aspirations. Why is the "gay" agenda untouchable? That goes against everything democracy is about.
The "gay" agenda is not untouchable, at least not in my mind. It does have credibility, however, which is why I am arguing for recognition of same-sex marriages, eqivalent of opposite-gender marriages. You have this "not in my backyard" syndrome because you don't want to see anything you don't agree with. You simply don't agree and leave it at that. You don't deny gay people their right to celebrate their pride in their way of life. If there was a parade to celebrate left-handed pride, trust me I would be there.
lol, another gem. The only zealots that are destroying a culture are born of left wing association hell bent on destroying anything that is traditional about our society. BTW the status quo is to jam modern liberal garbage down everyones throat with as much zeal as possible. That is why I am happy the US did not conform to the vote in the UN. That is a good thing.
Another gem of ignorance and stereotypes. You argue for things to never change, for us to cling to outdated traditions for tradition's sake. Sorry I discard traditions when they become limiting, because I see no need to stick with something when valid or preferable alternatives exist.
PS I liked the bolding idea. It is much more simple then making the quotes and FWIW welcome to the forms.
I've done a fair bit of long-winded debating on www.arstechnica.com, and quoting makes long posts even longer, so I've adopted the bolding idea.
EDIT:
I had nothing to say to the parts I didn't reply to, so I didn't reply. I don't like to get into a quoting war, so I'll let Natoma tackle that part if he wishes
MrsSkywalker
26-Apr-2003, 03:40
You're basically saying that I shouldn't bring up a topic that hits me and people I love directly here, because it's just a waste of time. I'm sorry, but that's pretty ridiculous.
Not at all. I was saying that you waste a lot of time criticizing others and getting way to defensive over every retarded statement, while at the same time ignoring the valid ones. You haven't addressed my original post in this thread at all. You ignore the stuff for which you have no counterpoint, and rave about trivial differences. That IMO is a waste of time for someone who is as passionate about changing the status quo as you seem to be.
As far as my free time goes...this isn't about me. I haven't filled six pages of a thread complaining about something that I could work towards fixing.
To get back on topic, I'll say it again. In 1948 the UN passed into international law a civil rights bill which states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Why is a new vote even necessary? Unless your view is that homosexuals are not human beings, then I really don't see the point. It's useless, it's purely political, and it's a waste of everyone's time. It's just another way for the other countries to stick their noses up in the air and pretend that they are perfect. I am glad we are abstaining.
You're basically saying that I shouldn't bring up a topic that hits me and people I love directly here, because it's just a waste of time. I'm sorry, but that's pretty ridiculous.
Not at all. I was saying that you waste a lot of time criticizing others and getting way to defensive over every retarded statement, while at the same time ignoring the valid ones. You haven't addressed my original post in this thread at all. You ignore the stuff for which you have no counterpoint, and rave about trivial differences. That IMO is a waste of time for someone who is as passionate about changing the status quo as you seem to be.
As far as my free time goes...this isn't about me. I haven't filled six pages of a thread complaining about something that I could work towards fixing.
To get back on topic, I'll say it again. In 1948 the UN passed into international law a civil rights bill which states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Why is a new vote even necessary? Unless your view is that homosexuals are not human beings, then I really don't see the point. It's useless, it's purely political, and it's a waste of everyone's time. It's just another way for the other countries to stick their noses up in the air and pretend that they are perfect. I am glad we are abstaining.
Just because I didn't respond to your post doesn't mean that I didn't have a valid counter argument. Sometimes you just skip over posts for whatever reason. If you feel slighted or ignored or whatever, sorry.
Example:
"All Men Are Created Equal" -- Declaration of Independence (1776)
Yet we had to have the 13th amendment outlawing slavery and then the Civil Rights Voting Act of 1965 so that American Blacks could take part equally in affecting the political institutions of this nation.
Keep in mind that there were specific laws created as well that stated that a black man was 1/4 white, in order to try and circumvent the Declaration of Independence, and voting rights given to white, land owning males.
And even after the emancipation proclamation, blacks *still* had to deal with 70 years under Jim Crow, which completely flew in the face of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.
Here's a link to the Jim Crow Laws btw, if you want to know what they were in detail:
http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm
And we don't even need to get into women do we?
Sometimes laws are made even more specific for symbolic reasons, moreso than the legalities that surround them. Witness hate crime legislation as an example of a law that specifically defines what a hate crime is, yet when you look at it, murder is murder (an example of a hate crime, naturally). Or what about crimes of passion? If someone kills their husband cause he sleeps with someone else, shouldn't that person be prosecuted simply as a murderer? It's the symbolism. That's why these laws are created sometimes.
As for filling six pages complaining about something that I could be working toward fixing, I consider that a pretty retarded statement considering you don't know what I do in my life and have done. But I choose to address it nonetheless don't I.
Ugh edits. Back to basketball.
CosmoKramer
26-Apr-2003, 04:59
To deep_sky: I agree with pretty much everything you say except one thing - I don't agree with what you think causes homophobia (among males anyhow).
Personally I'm intellectually liberal (non-homophobic) but emotionally homophobic. That simply means that I'm uncomfortable around gay people, but that I intellectually understand that it's irrational and that it's none of my business whatsoever what they do in their bedrooms etc.
This has nothing to do with some active/passive role-playing theory. It''s about the babes! :D
Thus, as a young male heterosexual you never ever want to be associated with gay men. So you put them down instead, more or less agressively (why we do this is all subconsciously hidden of course). As you grow up you eventually realize how irrational and unfair these feelings are.
To deep_sky: I agree with pretty much everything you say except one thing - I don't agree with what you think causes homophobia (among males anyhow).
To be honest, I cannot find her reasoning (the post are all starting to blur together for me at this point). But I know that the explaination I have heard, which to me make alot of sense, is this:
Men are made uncomfortable by the idea that another man (gay of course) is objectifying them as much as they are objectifying women. The idea that a man would hit on them in the same forceful and unrelenting manner that they themselves pursue women. (This begins one some levels to touch maybe on the whole passive/active role playing idea, but i think the explaination less abstract and easier to understand).
Thus, as a young male heterosexual you never ever want to be associated with gay men.
So you put them down instead, more or less agressively (why we do this is all subconsciously hidden of course). As you grow up you eventually realize how irrational and unfair these feelings are.
I believe on some level, most men are actually intimidated by gay men. Before, you reject this, let me explain a bit more. Given that many men have been raised (by their parents and/or the media & society) to think of women as the weaker sex, and to think of gay men as just "pansies" and "weak like women", these feelings of intimidation tend to get very mixed up. Surely, a "real man" shouldn't be intimidated by some "pansy ass girly man". This then manifests itself in anger and/or violence, or on to a lesser degree as plain old (subconciously driven) discomfort.
Even reasonably liberally and intelligently raised boys can fall prey to these ideas i mention above. Maybe to a lesser degree, but its hard to avoid the media and the underlying prejudices and steroetypes it feeds to us everyday.
Men are taught from very early on to feverently defend their "manhood". To be "tough", and "strong", and "not let anyone push you around". Any guy who has even played organized sports has been feed this line of horse-shit. I will tell you now, that is NOT what "makes you a man". I tend to think this whole brutish mentality is responsible for much of the violence in today's society.
This has nothing to do with some active/passive role-playing theory. It''s about the babes! :D
Thus, as a young male heterosexual you never ever want to be associated with gay men.
To be honest Cosmo, I think that your argument is fatally flawed here. It is a well known fact that hot women hang around gay men. I mean come on, don't you watch Will & Grace!
Actually to be totally serious, and maybe this is not a universal thing, but I have found in the past that many a girl is impressed with a man's confidence if he is not intimidated by gay men. And that since most young gay men (if they are open about it, or act too "gay") will end up being friends with more girls in high-school and college. I can think of several instances of this phenomenon from my high-school/college days.
To "stay away from gay guys" in order to "get the chicks" may not be the best way to go. Most girls/women are not as up tight about homosexuality as men are.
In the end, my guess is that you never really encountered a gay person, and especially never gotten to know one. I am not faulting you for this, not until i was in college had i gotten to know a gay person (shit it was art school though, so there was almost no way i wasnt going to). But i do suggest that you try to look at this uncomfortable feeling you have, see it for what it truely is (maybe something i mentioned above, maybe not), and then get past it. The truth of the matter is that most gay men will not even look at you twice if they know you are a hetero, why waste their time trying to "convert" you. (kinda funny when you think of how the opposite is true for hetero men and lesbians, ah the wonders of the male ego).
And again, many a woman will be highly impressed with your confidence in you own sexuality and manhood if you are comfortable around a gay man.
Thats really how you get the chicks :D
-stvn
Sabastian
27-Apr-2003, 01:09
Cocaine is harmful, this has been documented. Anal sex is not harmful as you portray it. I know a few older gay men, and they are not incontinent from having anal sex. I have yet to see any proof from you that anal sex is any more harmful than vaginal sex if safe sex is practiced.
Heh, just about any doctor worth their salt will indeed admit that anal sex is far more dangerous then vaginal sex. There are a number of extra deseases and bacteria that can be transmitted simply because the walls of the lower intestinal tract where feces is excreted. There is even a term for the host of these problems associated with a number of the problems it is called "Gay" Bowel Syndrome. The problem with the name is that it isn't politically correct and a number of "gay" activist are trying to force the name from medical journals and the like. The name of the disease certainly indicates that indeed it is the homosexual community that suffers most from these problems. Here are a list of these deseases or infections that are associated with this syndrome.
Amebiasis - a disease of the colon caused by parasites. Results in dysentery, sometimes liver abscess, and is spread by fecal ingestion or contamination of food.
Giardiasis - also prevalent in day-care centers because of wandering fecal material; a parasitic disease that produces diarrhea and inflammation of the bowel tract. Spread by fecal ingestion and contamination of food and water.
Salmonellosis - a bacterial disease causing food poisoning and gastroenteritis vomiting, severe diarrhea in infants and the elderly.
Can lead to death by dehydration. Spread by fecal ingestion and contaminated foodstuffs.
Shigellosis - an acute bacteria infection like salmonellosis, it can lead to a diarrhea-induced dehydration death in infants and the elderly. Infected individuals should NOT HANDLE FOOD.
Hepatitis A and B - a viral liver disease spread by fecal contamination (A), or by blood (B). The latter type is considered to be transmitted "by 'parenteral injection' of saliva or semen positive for B antigen through breaks in anal or oral mucosa during anilingual (tongue/anus) contact or proctogenital intercourse (penile/rectal sodomy)" (New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, p.302.)
Tuberculosis and Syphilis - these are charging back since the beginning of the 1980s, in both the United States and Canada, among other things, because of AIDS and cocaine use, the latter because it promotes high-risk sex activity, often performed in exchange for the drug. Officials express huge concern because syphilis sores provide an easy route of entry for the AIDS virus (Globe and Mail, June 7, 1991). As for tuberculosis? AIDS patients are particularly vulnerable because of weakened immune systems. Nearly half the AIDS patients in some New York State AIDS clinics have the disease. The North York, Ontario, public health department has reported "a one hundred per cent increase" in 1991. No reason given." William Gairdner, "The War Against the Family a parent speaks out" (Toronto Stoddart, 1992). p. 398
There really is no such thing as "safe sex" the only way to absolutely avoid sexually transmitted disease is to avoid sex all together. If your partner had AIDS would you really on a condom for protection? Condoms have a failure rate of approximately 10%. Never mind the fact that the AIDS virus is smaller then the holes in latex. The lower intestine is also more delicate then the inner surface of the vagina and so when engaged in anal sex the inner surface of the lower intestinal tract is considerably more likely to remain intact resulting in bleeding, hence the considerably higher rate of AIDS in the homosexual portion of society. Anal sex is not as safe as vaginal intercourse and logically so. The vagina is meant for intercourse where the lower intestinal tract is meant for the excresion of feces. The move amongst educators to blanch this fact is because it is homosexuals primary way of intercourse. Funny that, it seems that homosexuals are imitating heterosexual intercourse, I wonder why?
http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/cache/-603586526.htm
http://216.251.241.163/semdweb/InternetSOMD/ASP/1571073.asp
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?gay+bowel+syndrome
http://www.wfcr.com/diseases.html
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/aidsline/1987/apr/M8740156.html
http://www.anthrax-chlamydia-gonorrhea-syphilis-symptoms-pictures.com/pelvic_inflammatory_disease_pid.htm
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/analsex.htm
That is not so difficult. I also think that both parents can have a fulfilling career and raise kids to be normal productive adults. Of course it is much more difficult, but I would not deny the option for either partner to go out and work. My personal choice is to not have any children, and have a career instead.
No particularly where if both parents are working they can afford all sorts of different alternatives in particular day-care. I don't advocate that mothers must stay at home while fathers be provider absolutely only that it would be the optimal parenting technic as a result of women being better nurturers and males being better laborers ..... in general. ;) If you should choose to have a career instead of a family that is fine it is your choice. My wife works but if we could afford it she would be stay at home. It wouldn't be so difficult if taxation wasn't so bloody high.
I have seen plenty of examples of children/adults who raised by same-sex partners and don't lack for role models of both genders, and come out as normal as a hetero parent unit. There is still a conception that gay parents live a wild drug and sex filled lifestyle and drag any adoptive child into it, and hetero parents are always a better solution because of the religious influences of this society. When I see a situation in which a child is raped day after day for years by her father, and the mother stood by and did nothing, it doesn't convince me that a hetero couple is always better than any gay parent unit. Sexual orientation should not prevent a couple from adopting. As long as the child has access to role models of both genders, what is the problem? Love is love, no matter where it comes from.
I have not and there really are not "plenty" of them out there. I never said anything about a "wild drug and sex filled lifestyle", I simply don't believe that a child growing up in a same gender parent family are getting an accurate picture of reality. For instance there is no such thing as a child having "two moms" or for that matter "two dads". The idea is prepostorus. Certainly a young man filled with testosterone will not fully connect with "two moms". There is definitely something to be said for the traditional styled family that both genders are available for children to draw on. The genders being so different and all out of nature there is all sorts of psychiatric support for the idea that a family with both genders as parents are absolutely better then a one gender idea. You seem to assume that somehow two fathers would be better then one. Considering the higher rates of pedophiles amongst men you are making some sort of queer argument against the two father idea for a family. But lets take this one step further the gay and lesbian movement has continuously in the past attempted to lower age of consent for sexual contact between adults and children.
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm
The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972
6. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.
and then in the same breath.......
7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
The assumption is that sex with children is ok because it is a socialized moral. There is no room on the left for morals and they insist on the notion of moral relativity. NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association)consistently makes attempt to lower the age of consent using human rights. You talk about fathers abusing their children and this happens, but the number of others whom abuse children a far more frequent. I would suggest to you that instances where the woman simply ignores the abuse is rare and hardly any sort of rational to indicate that same sex couples would be better at parenting. In fact if you think about it same sex "parents" couple based on the way they prefer their sex rather then a child seeing their parents they are looking at a sexual unit. This would lead to an overly sexualized environment. Psychologically speaking it is far better to have both genders present so that the child does not get such a scewed perspective on gender and sexuality.
You accused of Natoma of being uneducated, and then you misspell words, so although it is a nitpick, it makes a point that you should not be accusing people of being uneducated and then show uneducated tendencies.
OK fine, lets just leave it at this. Natoma belittled my arguments so .... one good turn deserves another in my opinion. I am not going to continue with this portion of the thread. OK?
You are encouraging the status quo, and that people should never challenge traditions no matter what. "It worked in the past, why can't it work now?" seems to be your argument.
I would indeed say that it is a matter of socialization, because all the tripe one sees in the media encourages the buying of things to make you happy, that more and more and more is better, and that these things make you a better person. You tell me that isn't the message that media is broadcasting. It's the same as fashion magazines encouraging women to make themselves literally deathly thin in order to be attractive; there are a whole group of people who are dying to attain an impossible ideal because they believe that the media hype is right. There are many forms of socialization, and the obsession with money and things is one of them.
I do see that you do not tolerate homosexuals. You do not want them demonstrating in the streets, you do not want your children to know anything else about them other than what they do sexually is morally wrong and disgusting, and that homosexuals are "afflicted" and want to change. This does not spell tolerance to me.
As for "crap science", I see nothing better out of you, so look to your own house before you start calling foul.
What is the current status quo? From what I see the status quo is a mess. Look at the high divorce rate, look at the spread of sexually transmitted deceases, look at all the poverty of single parent families, consider the plight of children that come from broken homes and their level of deviance. The status quo is something you are defending not me. In fact you are incuraging more chaotic social strife with your insistence that the traditional family is some sort of "stagnant" entity. The primal and inescapable natural family triangle- Mother, Father and children is the most basic universal fact of our existence. Everything else is a familial or social complexity arising from this singular reality. The natural family is thus universal a small fact to seldom emphasized. The fundamental reason for the existence of the natural family in the first place is that is is the only entity in human history that has ever been dedicated to the nurturing and protection of children. Your assumption that it is some sort of socialized unit denies all reality and history. Instead you really on the simplistic argument that we are forming familial unites as a result of television.... My sakes the television has only been around for what...50 + years. The natural family unit has been around sense the beginning of man kind. Ho hum must be a trivial socialized creation, yeah right. Get past your "education" and stop regurgitating what you've been told and think for yourself. I am a free thinker and I don't simply regurgitate the current status quo...... you do.
I do tolerate homosexuals. I don't accept their sexuality as something that should be considered normal though. Less then 1% of homosexuals are exclusively homosexual how is being homosexual normal?
What is crap science? lol. Science is found in trial and error. The scientific method goes like this. First you decide what it is you want to test, then you make assumptions create your hypothesis, test and then devise some theory based on that outcome. The area where most errors are made are at the assumption portion of the process. Now lets talk about crap science. ;) Crap science is where you have a conclusion based on assumptions that are incorrect. The biggest and most glareing incorrect assumption is that there is no human nature and what we are is the culmination of nurturing. "A blank slate". There are also other unresolved philosophical conflicts that are important. eg . Individualism and Collectivism. These are really important issues.... but many sociologist (particularly the liberal arts sort, of which I believe are the only sociologist out there.) that have made the assumption that indeed there is no human nature and as a result there is no individual and we are all a sum of our socializations.. This is simply not the case. But the logic flows out of these classes like this sense there is not human nature and nurturing is the sum of our beings then we must work collectively. There is no individual and no human nature in their "science" I would suggest to you that this logic is highly flawed. Further on the matter of homosexuality they make some sort of exception, tangentially of course. Homosexuality is being portrayed as some sort of genetic affliction and therefore they("gays") cannot do anything about their lifestyles. On these grounds they make an argument for homosexuality being natural and therefor much in the same way that spacial acceptance was made for racial protection of minorities. On the other side of the left so to speak they continue with their logic that there is no human nature and the left is actually showing some real ambiguities in their logic. If indeed homosexuality is genetic then this gives credence to allot of other social anomalies to be a matter of genetic inclination ..... including heterosexuality and the family unit coming from that naturally. Now I don't make the argument that homosexuality is a genetic inclination or for that matter absolutely a nurtured creation. I simply don't know ... but what I do know is that there are people whom are susceptible to the behavior and that considering only 1% of homosexuals are exclusively homosexual I don't consider the behavior normal and wouldn't want my children to consider that it is ether.
More misinterpretation on your part. I am not referring to the color of Natoma's skin, I am referring to the fact that he is a gay man, and as such, is part of a minority apart from his race.
Our President is Christian, and packs the Supreme Court with justices that happen to support his beliefs. His highest ranking officers in the administration are known to have strong antipathies towards many things Christianity deems offensive or wrong. I see the religious right everywhere, and I seem them legislating their morals on every aspect of my life.
Sorry about that I really misread the post. Clinton packed a pile of democrats in the "supreme court" when he was in office as well. This happens regularly. In Canada the government is full of beaucracy that is pro liberal and so on... Why you only focus on President Bush is beyond me outside of plain old hypocrisy. Well I believe it was the population of the US that voted Bush in I guess you really don't like a large portion of people in America. Yes that is right the conservative/republicans will do what they think is right and the liberals/democrats do what they think is right. Liberals are not right about all of their agenda yet I don't hear you attacking their platform..... more hypocrisy. It is as if there is only one party to criticize. BTW it was my sensing this arrogance of liberals and the left and the growing sense of this in general that drove me out to see what potential problems there really is with left thinking and too my surprise I was accutally able to come up with some very legitimate and glaring issues with left wing logic.
If any child of mine was gay and it was as simple as that to change a gene and make them straight, I wouldn't. Being gay is not a handicap, its not a disease, and its not an horrible afflication. Changing that would be like changing the fact that I am left-handed. I could have been forced to be right-handed, but why bother? It's not painful, does not induce suffering, and does not reduce the quality of life.
Well I am glad for you and your convictions. But to put it as simply as possible I certainly would and so would the vast majority of people on the planet. Being "gay" isn't about being happy as the name suggest. Certainly you would be locking your child out of being a father and having their own family. You would be denying them the right to a normal life. They might wish you had helped them and not relegated them to a life of homosexuality. That may be a real disservice. lol, your left hand argument is ironic. I read somewhere once that there are a higher percentage of left handed people in the homosexual community as opposed to heterosexuals. I find that an interesting thing. First off it may explain why so many of them simply feel different as we all know the world is highly engineered for right handed people even something as basic as a can opener is created with right handed people in mind. But I won't pursue that line of argument as it is highly speculative.
Your "examples" seem to be examples of people who are bi-sexual in nature, but swayed over to homosexuality, found out how hard it is to be homosexual in this intolerant society, and found acceptance in being heterosexual. Who wouldn't be happy in finding acceptance? I would be willing to bet that they still find same gendered people attractive, they no longer pursue such people or act on such thoughts.
No you really missed my point with that argument. It was Natoma that clearly brought the suggestion that homosexuals can behave like heterosexuals. I simply indicated that this would be indicative of a bisexual and not a homosexual as a genetically inclined homosexual cannot have heterosexual sex. There is no logic in your argument that intolerance leads them to behave like heterosexuals. Clearly if they are homosexual they cannot have sex with the opposite sex and do not find them attractive and persue other homosexuals. My unacceptance of their sexuality simply could not have a bearing on what they are doing in their bedrooms or what makes them excited. Your argument suggest that my and others acceptance of their sexuality will magically make them more sexually excited by other homosexuals. That is bad logic.
I am not sure why you are presenting the problem of murdering thousands to save one woman's life? That situation is not plausible. I do happen to support early term abortion, but think that the woman should have to go through counseling before it is done, in order to make it clear what she is doing and what her options are. I do not support late term abortions or partial birth abortions. I take birth control to make sure that I never have to be in that position. Only education will prevent abortions being done for no reason, or out of ignorance of the options.
I am simply stating what the law recognizes currently. Fetuses do not have as many rights as you or I do. Who confers these rights if the state should not?
There is a difference between what I do, for example, and promiscuity. I have a monogamous relationship with my boyfriend for 3 years now, and I don't think that what I do in the bedroom with my boyfriend is wrong nor irresponsible simply because some old book would like to tell me that men need to own me or control my sexuality. Promiscuity is irresponsible, and again, education is key.
The reason I gave that hypothetical situation is because I was presented with an equally illogical argument. There is no reason to make abortion legal after the first trimester based on the argument you provided suggesting that in some instances a womans life is in danger for carrying a child to full term.( A rare incident indeed.) Why should the law protect abortion for those whom are past the first trimester and life is not in danger. Simply put you make that argument for rare occasions but don't close the door on other instances where the life of the mother is not in danger. As far as I know the law still protects abortions after the first trimester but I don't see the left attacking late abortions. The left never had a problem with partial abortions and it was the republican government that did something about them.
No as far as I am aware a child in the womb has no rights until they are out of the womb but I don't hear any left wing protest for the rights of babies that are unborn.
Well indeed I agree that promiscuity is irresponsible and we agree on this. I want though for you to consider something about educating the children and looking after their minds for a moment. Please if you would consider that children are often given the impression that contraceptives such as condoms and pills are good protection against pregnancy, STDs and AIDS.
-Planned Parenthoods own publication (Summer 1973, pp133-42) Family Planning perspective. showed that teens who regularly use the pill experience a pregnancy rate four to five times higher the that for older women using the pill.
-A Cornell University study reported in the Journal of Adolescent Health Care (sept 1987, pp393,395) showed an 18 percent pregnancy rate in the first year of use among teenagers who used the pill with a high rate of compliance.
-Zelnick and Kanter in Family Planning Perspective (sept/oct 1980 pp 230-37) showed that the compliance was 9.9-13 percent annually.
-Side effects: 22 percent show weight gain. 18 percent have menstrual problems, 16 percent have nausea, 10 percent have head aches, 10 percent suffer abdominal pain and if smokers some have blood clotting. Many teens receive pills without parental consent and therefore can give no family medical history.
- The rate of sexulally transmitted diseases among teens is three times higher then the general population. Many of these diseases such as herpes, genital warts and papilloma virus are incurable. Chlamydia is epidemic at 30% and females sexually active 16 and under are twice as likely to get cervical cancer. (British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol 93 1986 p787)
-Condoms have a much higher failure rate in anal sex (British Medical Journal, Nov 7,1987 p94) indicating all sex educators ought to be directing youth away from this practise instead of attempting to normalize it or recommending it as safe intercourse.
-The general public and surely most sex educators in North America are unaware that the incidence of many STDs has been skyrocketing in recent years. Syphilis is at a 40 year high level. Human papilloma virus (HPV) has been found in 38 percent of 13-21 year old women. This virus can produce sterility and it cannot be cured.
On and on. Do you want to see more evidence that sex education is a failure and does nothing to protect the children or for that matter adults. The illusion of liberating people from the "stagnant" attitudes and lifestyles there are a great many whom will have to suffer lifelong STDs or the consequences of them from which there may not be any "liberation" particularly if they die from a disease such as AIDS. Funny that the sexual revolution promised liberation and "free love" but mostly what has been delivered is broken families, misery, disease and death.
By your logic, every person is bisexual, and some tend to one end of the spectrum, and others to the other end, but no one is 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual. I happen to agree with this, as it makes sense to me. However, your position seems to lend credibility to the idea of that you would reject being anything less than totally heterosexual. Would you?
Oh my sakes, just where do you get that? lol, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not ends of a spectrum.... I don't know where you are getting this. I believe it was Natoma that suggested some heterosexuals could behave like homosexuals and some homosexuals could behave like heterosexuals. What I suggested was that rather these few that are able to be both are neither and that they ought to be considered bisexual. The problem with the existence of the bisexual suggest that indeed one does not have to be genetically inclined to be homosexual thus a really possibly severe damaging argument against homosexuality being a genetic affliction and threatening their cause much so.
None that you know of. You come off like you are free of the homosexual "taint" when you say that you have no homesexuals in your family because every one of you "came from heterosexuals". Just because they appear to be happy and have children doesnt mean that they don't have any homosexual tendencies. They might not, but you don't know that. All you know is what you see.
Oh my sakes...."gays" are everywhere.lol. No there are none in my family. This is not strange or even unlikely so get over .... sheash. I would suggest that there are plenty of families out there that don't have any "gays" in them ether. I can't believe that you people insist on this line of argument. Not only is it speculative but you have no idea and all you are doing is trying to insert some doubt even though I know that there are none on ether side as far as I can tell. Oh I get it now.... secretly everyone has "gay" people in their families so we can intimidate them with that insinuation... this is pure trash.
I know you don't give a damn whether I buy it or not. I am gonna tell you anyways, however, because I feel like it. You are still a zealot and still seemingly incapable of understanding that people think and feel differently than you, and that everyone has the right to demonstrate their opinions and feelings in this country (although it seems like that right is fast disappearing).
lol, who is the zealot. I am a free thinker and I stand up for what I believe despite the status quo. I believe it is you whom is regurgitating current very popularized liberal philosophy so please spare me your outdated label. If my opinion happens to be in line with right wing ideology what does that mean? Does it mean that I am absolutely wrong and all my motives are based out of religious bias? There is a new religion found in the absolute belief that left wing thinking is absolutely correct and they can not be wrong about any of their conclusions. But indeed they are wrong and it is on many counts yet these ambiguities are overlooked, sounds like zealotry to me.
We might be biologically wired to reproduce, and hence partially the reason I take birth control. I don't let my biology dictate my relationships or how I live my life, and people who have a problem with that should not have the right to interfere with or repress me to status lesser than the majority.
No it isn't that we might be at all. We are hard wired for reproduction just as all life is. It does not matter how you trigger the hard wiring but that it exists that is the premise of the argument that heterosexuality is more natural then say getting excited by shoes.
Homophobia is real. I have met men who can't even stand to look at a nude male, or an underwear commercial for fear of being thought gay. That is homophobia. Your virulent hate and disgust of homosexuals and the activities they engage in seems to be rather out of hand as your reasons are nothing other than it's disgusting and "wrong". Seems to me you have some fear of being labelled homosexual for reasons false or true.
How so? Because you say it is? It is not an excepted psychological affliction. There are no real scientific bases for the idea. If I am upset that some people life to have sex with animals does that mean I am fearful of sheep? It truly is a preposterous label intended on stifling debate and has absolutely nothing to do with .... underwear or passivity or whatever. It is an example of garbage science.
If it's that important to you, then learn to homeschool your children. Otherwise deal with the possibility that they won't learn in school that its digusting and wrong like you would like them to think.
Your keep your narrow-minded garbage away from me and I'll be plenty happy.
As I made clear before I don't have the qualifications. I am afraid that I disagree thought that the state ought to be preaching that morality and it really isn't the place for the state to be intervening. Further I resent that I and many others pay taxes to have that same morality that we don't agree with being taught as though it is normal when clearly there are many whom are sceptical of the mentality and that includes a large portion of scientist.
Traditions are traps, to me. Traditions tie me into a way of action and thinking that becomes ultimately limiting and a tool to repress different ideas, opinions, and ways of thinking. I am not out to break up the traditional nuclear family, I am out to allow different configurations of a family. Family should not be about who has what gender, it should be a unit of people who care, protect, and love each other. I fail to see how sexual orientation interferes with that. Adherence to the concept of that parents have to be one male and one female is inflexible and indicates that other family units are somehow less loving, caring, and protecting than the traditional family unit.
"Traditions are traps" you ought to patent that one. I am not bound by my tradition at all. My tradition is that my family was broken, I learned sex education, I learned about Socialism... I am not trapped by tradition and neither are you. But somehow while you are not "trapped" by tradition given your frank ability to do what you like others somehow are "trapped by tradition" sounds like some sort of bad and elitist argument to me. Ironic that somehow you believe that tradition is a trap but yet you are able to do what you like based on your own choice.
And why does a family have to consist of one male, one female, and various children?
Divorce is so prevalent because because it's easy to get married, and equally easy to get a divorce. Marriage is no longer exclusively a religious ceremony you risk your happiness, your future, and your position in society to break up. Divorce no longer carries the stigma is used to, and as such, people feel they can get out of a relationship they feel they no longer should be in. People dive into marriage without a fair test of the person they are choosing to marry (hence why I think the idea that living together and having sex before marriage being wrong and a bad idea seems to be a deliberate blinding of oneself to potential problems and incompatibilities with one's mate), have a child, then find they can no longer deal with it, and get divorced, and the children of such unions get caught in the middle. I feel that that is the real crime, not the divorce rate itself.
I simply have given you the example of the natural family. Mother, Father and their children.(not various.) This is also the definition of the traditional family. You seem to think that it exists simply because of religious motivations but nothing could be further from the truth. In the past before Christianity people lived in families and they looked after their families themselves and this is the right thing. That people be responsible for their own children and not pass the responsibility off on the state or others. If they do pass it off on others plenty of times it stays within their family which is a good thing. But I don't rationalize a welfare state and high taxation simply because a couple whom were not married (or married for that matter.) breaks up because one or the other suddenly wants to have sex with their neighbor and this is very ill responsible and it ought to be viewed as such. There are all sorts of different reasons why families break up. But the original reason that the family existed primarily has been lost to lofty notions of eternal love and the like. While such ideas are great the reality is that often after 10 years and 2-3 children people become tired of their partners or what have you. In the meantime they are bringing new lives into the world ..... this is the life long commitment and it ought to be the focus. That is the difference between a house were a woman and her 3 children all of whom are from different fathers is on welfare and they are making designs on getting rid of their current live in partner for Joe blow next door. This is not a family ... it is chaos and an absolute mess. Further it ought to be viewed as such. (This is purely a hypothetical situation, but none the less I am sure we have all seen this mess at one point or another in the not to distant past.)
Many STD's are rampant now because people go and have unprotected sex, and are completely ignorant of the consequences. Education AGAIN is key to reducing many of the world's problems.
Yeah they are. What you ought to be doing is educating them to engage in less promiscuous behavior. You ought to tell them that condoms don't really prevent STDs like AIDS and HPV. The AIDS virus is smaller then the holes in latex, condoms have a higher failure rate during anal sex......
Condoms don't stop HPV http://www.geocities.com/thehpvvirus/condoms.html and the virus is spreading like wild fire amongst sexually active people.
You ought not to be teaching children in grade 7 about sex ed because they believe it gives them licence to go out in do it,state sponsored licence if you like. Maybe you should consider advocating abstinence untill marriage.... Certainly Education has had a hand at causing the spread of STDs, pregnancies, deaths from AIDS ruined lives and the like. So mayhap an overhaul of the message with the removal of the condom touting sex education teacher and a serious view about what sex is about possibly in grade 12 classes with kids that will more likely take the subject serious.
By "castration" I meant selectively edited to the point in which the education is useful because any one segment has influence the contect of the education to not include anything they disagree with.
You make many assumptions yourself by assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is out to destroy your very way of life because they want their way of life recognized.
But you are the one that is arguing that the current status quo is "stagnant" and it needs changing. Obviously we have different view of what the current status quo is. By your own stated logic tradition is a trap of some sort and that it needs to be changed. That is quite something to say coming from a liberal moral relativist. But what it also says is that indeed all tradition is inherently wrong and must be corrected in some way, but you want to replace it with what? I am willing to believe that there are good reasons for society to held onto certain social mechanisms via social mores and that one of them is the natural family. Have you ever heard of the old say "wisdom of the ages" well there may very well be something in these that you are missing. I believe that all our material wealth has made us arrogant and somehow over the past 100 years we have magically become more intelligent then people in the past. Never mind the genetic impossibility. But at least in the 1800s they knew the thinkers knew something about the ambiguities of the nature/nurture debate and seriously considered them as viable arguments. Unlike today where we have literally millions of zealots believing somehow there is no human nature.
The "gay" agenda is not untouchable, at least not in my mind. It does have credibility, however, which is why I am arguing for recognition of same-sex marriages, eqivalent of opposite-gender marriages. You have this "not in my backyard" syndrome because you don't want to see anything you don't agree with. You simply don't agree and leave it at that. You don't deny gay people their right to celebrate their pride in their way of life. If there was a parade to celebrate left-handed pride, trust me I would be there.
The "gay" agenda and its allies are full of contradictions and there is plenty to debate on before we take political action. You have this impression it seems that you can put it in my backyard, even if I don't want it there. lol, yeah left handed pride. Well at least they wouldn't be acting like a bunch of idiots riding down the street on top of a giant penis. Truly this is a great injustice that it is allowed and I believe that it is for lack of a better word pathetic.
Another gem of ignorance and stereotypes. You argue for things to never change, for us to cling to outdated traditions for tradition's sake. Sorry I discard traditions when they become limiting, because I see no need to stick with something when valid or preferable alternatives exist.
I don't argue for things to never change. I am upset with the current ill responsible attitude with regards to social mores. What is becoming outdated like it or not is the sexual revolution that started before I was born. Again somehow you are free to throw out your traditions but others are not. So much for socialization theories.
CosmoKramer
27-Apr-2003, 02:01
Stvn: First of all, thank you for misunderstanding my whole post. To spell it out - I believe (active) homophobia is a sign a immaturity. There are a couple of loud people in this thread who must be very very young...
Men are made uncomfortable by the idea that another man (gay of course) is objectifying them as much as they are objectifying women.
Sure. This will never change. I bet gay people are annoyed/uncomfortable when they get the wrong attention from the wrong sex.
I believe on some level, most men are actually intimidated by gay men.
Sure.
Even reasonably liberally and intelligently raised boys can fall prey to these ideas i mention above. Maybe to a lesser degree, but its hard to avoid the media and the underlying prejudices and steroetypes it feeds to us everyday.
Sure.
I will tell you now, that is NOT what "makes you a man". I tend to think this whole brutish mentality is responsible for much of the violence in today's society.
Sure, but why are you telling me this? You don't think I know this?
To be honest Cosmo, I think that your argument is fatally flawed here. It is a well known fact that hot women hang around gay men. I mean come on, don't you watch Will & Grace!
I think your basic argument here is flawed. Why do you think women feel comfortable around gay men? That's however irrelevant. People don't always act rationally. I don't think most young heterosexual men are clever enough to realize that hanging around gays might not be such a bad idea strategically, instead we loudly distance ourselves to make sure the Babes know that we're available. Especially those of us who don't easily get chicks and thus become a little insecure in general. I still feel today the need to tell my parents in earnest that I'm not gay when debating gay rights (I'm all for, they're not).
To "stay away from gay guys" in order to "get the chicks" may not be the best way to go. Most girls/women are not as up tight about homosexuality as men are.
Like I said, people are not always rational - especially not teenagers. We all have our lessons to learn. Sadly some people never do.
In the end, my guess is that you never really encountered a gay person, and especially never gotten to know one.
Well I do actually - it's just that I didn't know he was gay until we had stopped being in the same circles. Before I found out that he was gay I considered myself to be totally okey with the whole gay concept/package so I was shocked at my initial reaction of fear/loathing (he had spent the night in my apartment for god's sake!!! :D). Nowadays I'm more honest about this. This means that I am intellectually all for gay rights but I know that I will always feel uncomfortable around gay men (which I avoid being if possible).
But i do suggest that you try to look at this uncomfortable feeling you have, see it for what it truely is (maybe something i mentioned above, maybe not), and then get past it.
Not possible - I can't control my feelings. Luckily I make sure my Celebral Cortex is in charge... :wink:
1) I was educated at Berkeley Carroll in Brooklyn, NY. One of the best high schools in the nation actually. Then I went on to a little place called Yale.
Well, care to tell me what your major is? Whatever the matter seems that your education is no more advanced then intro courses.
If you must know, even though it has nothing to do with this discussion, I began college as pre-med. Then when I realized I didn't want to spend the next 15 years of my life in school, I switched to my next favorite subject, i.e. History. Then in my first semester, sophomore year, I switched to what has become my vocation, i.e. computer science, and stuck with that.
Happy?
2) On the books today there are laws that say sodomy is illegal. And in most cases, it's only illegal for homosexuals to engage in sodomy, generally defined as not only anal sex, but oral sex as well.
Actually, any type of non-vaginal sex is deemed in quite a few states as sodomy.
So the laws on the books say that sodomy is illegal yet seems that practice is wide spread. So much for laws being the pivotal factor in social mores. On one hand you say laws create social morals and on the other you say that there are laws that are outdated? How is it that sodomy has become a less valid offence when clearly the law is still intact? You say that laws determine social morals but yet we can see this isn't the case.
Then I should clarify my prior statement. Laws *can* affect a society for the better. They can also be detrimental. One instance of laws affecting society for the better, even against the judgement of the society at large, are the laws that gave women the right to vote. Much of the public was against it at the time. The same goes for the emancipation proclamation. Sure there were millions in the south who did not like their slaves being set free, and I'm sure there were some in the north who didn't like the idea of freed black people running wild, it was still a very progressive law that enabled our society to move one step beyond our barbaric past.
3) 100 years ago moral, decent people believed that keeping black people as second class citizens was the right thing to do. Some people used the bible to say that it was even endorsed by god! Actually what am I saying... There are *still* people today who will point out scriptures that say that african slavery was justified by god.
During that same time, moral decent people believed that denying women the right to vote and the right to work outside the home was the 'godly' thing to do. Man was to go out and work. Woman was to stay home and bear children. Anything else was ungodly and unseemly.
In the middle east, it's immoral for women to show anything more their ankles. And even then, in some spots, that is considered sinful.
Does that mean that middle eastern society should be allowed to subjugate women in the way they do, just because that's their moral values?
Please. Morality does not necessarily equate correctness. Hitler and his crew thought it was their moral duty to eliminate jews from the face of the earth because of what the jews did to christ.
I find it funny that you keep referring to 100 years into the past to look for your injustices. This suggest that indeed you see objective differences in society and that clearly it is better at this point in time. Lets look at this a little bit harder. 100 years ago the Irish were treated as low class people why is it you suppose that society changed its view of these people? It most certainly isn't a result of any action on behalf of the government so why is it now that they are treated as anyone else is? Do you look down on women that stay at home because they believe it is the right thing to do? Do you think less of men whom believe likewise? Are these women being patristic because they are not paying taxes? Do you think that such an arrangement ought to be incouraged for the sake of the well being of the children? Clearly you think there are other arrangements. While I would not argue that they are not viable I would argue that indeed children are fare better off in an environment where their biological parents are working together to look after their own children.
Clearly over 100 years ago there wasn't the great material wealth that the market economy has brought us today and these arrangements were more a matter of survival then anything else. The same arrangement has been predominant for the entire history of mankind. That is unless you want to go into the left wing theory that before society became market based we lived in some sort of suedo communal arrangement. Indeed hundreds of thousands of years ago the family where the mother is the primary caregiver and the father a more outside role of provider was the case. Which just lends more credence to the fact that society is patriarchal out of nature rather then nurture. Women have most always been subjugated. Even today men objectify the female. Women have always been more emotional on matters and this has always been a sign of weakness. Even in the feminist ruled Sweden they have a male as a figure head. ;)
No one made the equation that morality equates correctness. You did however say that law equate morals and no one better then you ought to know that laws don't equate correctness. The UN has no right to begin to determine what a peoples moral values should be and that is the thrust of my argument here. The debate on the matter of homosexuality being a genetic affliction or not will only be finalized with the discovery of the genes that cause the affliction. Oh the search could go on forever particularly if there are none. We don't know do we? You say you were born the way you are but there is no proof of it. Further to suggest that nurturing will not effect the outcome of a childes mentality really does not go in line with the rest of your left wing bias. You could finally articulate your cognitive dissonance here and explain that somehow society is patriarchal out of nurturing but when it comes to homosexuality you make some exception with human nature and suggest that it is a genetic predetermined destiny. Well, that is something really because most of the left wing support the gay movement has says there is no human nature and it is simply a matter of socialization theories that we turn out the way we do. I have brought this argument to you before and you fail to recognize the legitimacy of the argument.
Please explain just what human nature is to us all as it seems you have some inside track on it.
1) The reason why I "keep referring to" 100 years in the past is because that is a time that is relatively close to today, and it is easy to illustrate the black and white barbarism that the human race possessed then. There were no shades of gray.
Back then blacks were abused day in and day out, just for being black. In fact the law sanctioned it. Today blacks are pulled over more often than whites in what is called racial profiling. One is definitively evil while another is closer to a shade of gray, thus harder to debate because you can find so many "well this and that and what about something other" situations that don't exist for the abuses under Jim Crow.
2) Historically the argument can be made that the Irish were treated like shit for a *very* long time in this country. You are correct. However, the Irish were not abused daily on the same level as blacks were. The Irish were generally hated early on, like every other group that came to this country, because they were *immigrants* and no other reason. As they were "absorbed" by this society, the animosity against them began to decrease.
Witness the animosity that many people have toward mexican immigrants today as an example. There has always been a sense of "You're not welcome here!" toward immigrants, simply because they are outsiders trying to fit in.
However, I was born in this country, as were most of the other gay men and women in this country. We're citizens already. We've grown up in this culture. We *are* this culture. And yet we're ostracized because of the circumstances of our birth, our being. You can't compare us to the immigrant situation. But you can certainly compare us to other groups who grow up in this country and were historically treated as second class citizens, i.e. blacks and women.
3) I don't look down on women who stay home and are caretakers of their family. Frankly I'm pleased when anyone can be involved in the vocation of their choice. I know I am involved in my job of choice, and certainly, work doesn't feel like work when you love your job. I would wish that on anyone. It's a fantastic feeling to have.
However, the sheer fact that a woman has the *choice* to work at home, or outside the home today, is what is key to me. For centuries, women were not allowed anything *but* tending to the home and the children. That is the key difference between the situation that women find themselves in today. Frankly I get upset with some feminists, and especially men (some husbands), who look down on homemakers, or say that homemaking isn't a real job, because certainly it is.
Now, I agree that children are better off when they have two parents as opposed to one. Hell, children are better off when they are raised by their entire family. I was raised by my mother and a man who was as close to my father as anyone could get even though he wasn't my biological father, my grandparents, my uncles and aunts, my cousins, my pastor, etc etc etc. I had an *enormous* support system growing up. Biology has nothing to do with the efficacy of raising children. There are foster parents out there who simply destroy their biological counterparts in terms of raising children. If someone is loving and capable, it shouldn't matter if they are the child's biological parents or not.
Now I will grant you that in the past, human societies were very patriarchal. In almost every society we know of, women were subjugated and kept indoors to basically be baby factories and raise children. Now, some societies respected the female more than others, but in almost every society, women were kept as the "lesser" gender.
However, this can be attributed more to the hunter/gatherer aspect of our species that was pretty prevalant up until the advent of the industrial revolution. Before the industrial revolution, only the strongest could go out and hunt for food, wage war, kill animals for clothing, etc etc etc. And who, biologically, tended to be the strongest? Males. So I agree with you that the structure of our societies indeed grew *moreso*, not entirely, because of the demands of nature, rather than nurture. However, because of the fact that our society today is no longer hunter/gatherer, it negates the biological advantage in terms of strength, that men have over women, on average. A woman is just as capable of going off into battle today. A woman is just as capable of working a fork lift. A woman is just as capable of sitting in a board meeting and leading.
We have been moving from a physical labor society to an information society for a few centuries now, but especially in the past 100 years with the advent of the industrial revolution when physical labor was replaced by machinery, the assembly line, and today, computers. *That* is one of the main reasons why it is no longer required for us to be a patriarchal society. We have advanced to the point where we no longer have to be dominated by the needs of our biology as much as in the past. Obviously we are still very much influenced by our biology because of the fact that on an evolutionary timescale, the past few centuries have been a blip. But we are rapidly moving past the limitations of the past. It's one of the main reasons why we, as a society, have much more material wealth today than in the past. It's because 50% of the population is now allowed to work, obviously.
4) I never said that laws equate morals. I said that one of the first steps to changing a society is through its laws.
5) The fact that you equate homosexuality with an affliction already shows that no matter what comes out you're still going to be the same bigoted person you are today. You've already made up your mind.
6) I know that I was born gay the same way I know you were born straight. Actually who knows. You might be a repressed homosexual in real life. there are certainly enough examples of the worst gay bashers and homophobes actually being gay themselves and doing whatever they can to repress it, which sometimes comes out in vehemently anti-social ways such as the attitude you display sabastian.
7) Here's some food for thought sabastian. Let's say that you do indeed choose to be gay. Let's say I grant you that. That must mean that the entire world is bisexual, and that *everyone* has homosexual attractions, desires, and leanings, as well as heterosexual attractions, desires, and leanings. The difference is that most people choose to follow their heterosexual attractions and a minority choose to follow their homosexual attractions.
You cannot argue that homosexuality is something you choose and on the flip side of the coin state that heterosexuality is natural. A choice involves two options at the least. The two arguments are completely diametrical. Either homosexuals and heterosexuals choose their sexuality, which means that we're all bisexual and we made the choice to be with the opposite or the same sex, or we're born that way.
Are you really ready to admit that you're equally attracted to guys as you are to girls sabastian? I mean, I know how I feel, and I know that I'm not attracted to women, so I guess I must be a freak for not fitting into your "Choice" scenario of equal attraction to both males and females. Right?
4) Abortion will always have its foes. Frankly I agree with only certain kinds of abortion, such as first trimester abortion, or abortion in the second or third term only if the mother's life is in danger. I am vehemently opposed to partial-birth abortion because it is supremely barbaric, especially since it is only performed in the third trimester, when babies are most certainly capable of living outside their mother's womb, and are most certainly more than just a non-descript ball of cells.
The overwhelming majority of people in this country are against *partial-birth* abortions Sabastian. Not abortions in the first trimester.
Well finally we agree on something for the most part. But even though partial birth abortions were legal we still find them a discusting aberration don't we? I disagree with the idea that women should have total control over the pregnancy. But one always has to make some sort of concessions on these sorts of matters. I personally lost a child to abortion, a child that I wanted and the abortion happened after the first trimester. I simply did not have a say in the matter and this is wrong. The pro abortion mentality is that a woman should have a choice. I say they already have made a choice before they got pregnant to have sex with someone they would not have a child with. Personally I don't see how the child is at fault. Current laws are that a baby is not human until it is out of the womb, what kind of sick mentality makes such a claim. Abortion after the first trimester ought to be banned outright.
I believe that a baby is "human" once it is capable of living outside the womb. As far as I know, fetuses are capable of living outside the womb, albeit with the help of prenatal womb-like machinery, late in the 2nd trimester. Btw, I'm sorry that you lost a child to abortion and were not notified, given the chance, to have input on the decision. I believe you were robbed of your right to fatherhood by that act, and you have a right to be upset.
Personally, my mother told me that she contemplated abortion, and was even pressured by some family and friends to have an abortion because they felt she was too young at the time to raise a child. She was 23. Thankfully she chose to keep and raise me, but I do not begrudge her or feel in any way shape or form less loved because she contemplated it. Quite the contrary, I feel even more loved because she decided that she wanted to have and raise me. And frankly she did a damn good job of it. I have no fault with her parenting.
So I believe I have a more personal track on what I'm talking about when it comes to being on the *receiving* end of abortion sabastian. I'm not degrading the pain you feel or saying that it's any less, but considering I could have been one of the aborted, I think my stance on this matter maybe carries a little more weight. I generally don't share things such as that because they are indeed so personal, but in this case I felt that you needed to know where I'm coming from with regard to my stance. I'm not some oblivious "nose stuck in the air" high minded idealist who doesn't see the reality of what is going on.
2) Actually, I explained the differences between pedophilia (heterosexual and homosexual) and normal homosexuality and heterosexuality. But you snipped the definition out later on in the post you made. You also linked to a site (worldnetdaily) that is a fundamentalist christian website. Please you might as well link to the christian coalition website with their sponsored surveys and studies. I'm sorry, but I would not call them particularly unbiased.
The Journal of Pediatrics most certainly is unbiased, and definitely scientific. So believe what you will. I'll stick with scientific evidence regarding pedophilia.
Again I don't think that worldnetdaily is a Christian Fundamentalist website but your bias comes shining through there doesn't it. Actually the link you provided for this thread is from some radical social gay activist web page. lol. There are all sorts of evidence regarding pedophilia. I provided a link from a doctor. http://drjudithreisman.org/whitep/regent.pdf Please read this and tell me what you think of it.(everyone.) I included that link in the same response but you ignore that as well.
The link that you have provided includes commentary from the US National Gay and Lesbian Task force. Ironic this is the same organization that lead the intimidation campian that actually managed to force a 1973 convention of the American Psychiatric Association to declare that homosexuality was not a deviant condition but rather a normal condition. But there were all sorts of accusations doctors were compared to racists and the like in this intimidation campaign, funny how this still occurs Natoma. A small but well organized political lobby had actually succeeded in the first changing, then totally eradicating a medical diagnosis. Funny though only 58% of the American Psychiatric Association actually agreed with the charge.
The thing is the whole arrangement was a sham. Even four years later a survey of 2500 psychiatrists found that 69% actually still believed that homosexuality was a pathological adaptation. About 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. In 1989 Dr.Joseph Nicolosi said "many members of our profession still privately express the opinion that homosexual development is not normal. The 1973 ruling did not resolve the issue-it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation". After the ruling all that remained to be done was change the publics discourse of the behavior of homosexual activities. There are plenty of scientific conclusions that suggest that homosexuality is not a normal condition and something that needs worked on. But todays Politically correct world does not alow for such perspectives. So much for science remaining objective as now it seems that homosexuality is some sort of untouchable absolute.
1) Worldnetdaily is most certainly a christian fundamentalist website. Ann Coulter, for example, is one of the most right wing christian fundamentalists in the world. She's the "Rush Limbaugh" of fundies on the web. Besides, if you don't think they're christian fundamentalists, you must not think Al-Jazeera has an overly islamic, anti-american slant. ;)
2) The link for this thread was merely reporting the *news* of the United States and the UN vote, *not* trying to form some scientific study with "gay funded" participants. Big difference. If the news of the United States abstaining from this vote was on the worldnetdaily website, I wouldn't have an issue with it. That's the news.
There's a big difference between scientific studies that are commissioned by a bigoted group explicitly looking to find proof for their bigotry, and a renouned scientific journal commissioning the same study for the explicit furthering of science. One tries to be impartial. The other does not.
Frankly, I would be skeptical if I were you if I had given a link to the studies regarding homosexuality and pedophilia if it had come from the National Gay and Lesbian organization as well, because it would be in their best interests for the events of the study to come out in a certain manner.
The Journal of Pediatrics has no such interest, which is why I trust their judgement more than worldnetdaily and the doctors associated with them.
3) I agree that homosexuality can produce abnormal behavior. The incidence of suicide is more than 5 times higher among homosexual children and teens than their heterosexual counterparts. Depression, anti-social behavior, substance abuse. They are all higher among gay teens. Then again, it's not surprising considering the amount of self-loathing and resentment and hatred gay teens develop because of the society they grow up in.
Considering I grew up in a *heavily* christian family and surrounding, not to mention the society I grew up in (black community, very macho, anti-gay), I spent the better part of my teens and early 20s going through constant depression. When I was 16 I contemplated suicide and was *this* close to going through with it because I couldn't take the mental and emotional abuse anymore.
And I wasn't even out of the closet!
So you're definitely correct there, as those psychiatrists were. Homosexuality, due to societal pressures, biases, and hatreds, can most certainly induce abnormal behavior.
3) You're right. Muslims believe it's poor behavior, unseemly even, to walk around in short skirts. It is certainly part of their religion.
Question though. Do you believe it's *right* for a country to legislate that women cannot walk around without looking like a bed sheet? Do you believe those muslim countries are *right* to force their female populations into subjugation, just because it's their religious beliefs?
Would you be for the Iraqis democratically voting in an anti-US theocratic regime in their first election? You do realize that the vast majority of Iraqis are shiite muslims who want the country to look like Iran.
So as I said earlier, just because the mob wants something doesn't mean that it's *right*.
Listen if you have a serious problem with the way Muslims treat their women you should speak out and criticize them a little harder. Instead all you do is speak out against what the US government does even though it seems you find this country considerably more just. Shame on you your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I suggest that you start rallies imiadiately to protest Muslim treatment of women today. Start picking at the subjugating Islamic religion. I don't know that these Islamic people need to be converted to our Judo Christian heritage, is that what you are suggesting? Funny that.
I'm trying to clean my own country first before I go to any others. What's the use of fighting for the rights of others in other countries when I don't even have my own rights here at home? I find no use for it, and that is why I concentrate on the home front first and foremost. Simple.
I know that those countries are not in the best of shape, but ours is certainly far from perfect. Since I live *here*, this is the place that I'm trying to change first and foremost.
3) You know what's sad Sabastian, while you're telling your kid that "those queers" are sick in the head, you could be insulting him/her. There are gay children Sabastian! It's not like we become adults and then all of a sudden we pop out into being gay. I grew up in a deeply rooted christian family, and was heavily influenced by christianity as a child, from the age of 2.
And *still*, even with all the negativity that surrounded me from my family and church goers, I still knew when I was 12 years old that I was gay. I had never been molested, never seen any gay imagery. I had never even seen two guys kissing, or heard about it. But I knew I was sexually attracted to the other boys in my class. I didn't know what it was until I looked it up in a dictionary, and read about it in the bible. *Then* I realized what I was feeling.
So guess what. You're telling your son/daughter that "those queers" are sick in the head, and you could be doing more psychological damage to them than anyone else could, because they look up to you, love you, and trust you more than anyone else in their life.
You heard me?
I don't know if there is such a thing as "gay children" at all. Seems you have resolved the age old nature nurture debate in one foul swoop with your homosexuality is genetic argument. I don't know what else to call people in chaps on a float of a giant erect penis. They are sick in the head. There are no homosexuals in my family we all come from heterosexuals. You keep your political agenda away from my children and stop trying to high jack societal values with your junk social science.
1) So I guess my childhood and everything I went through didn't exist eh? I guess all the gay children out there growing up in the closet or out of the closet don't exist either.
2) You rail against gay people as "chaps on a float of a giant erect penis." Jesus Sabastian. Not every gay person does that! There are straight people out there who go on Jerry Springer and tell the world about how they f*cked their brother, killed their boss, aborted their child, and on top of that, they're currently sleeping with another man and they want to tell their husband about it indignantly, with the "Roooh Roooh Roooh" and "Woof Woof Woof" of the audience behind them.
Also, you *think* that there aren't any gay people in your family. With your attitude it's any wonder that they wouldn't want to come out, especially if your attitude is the prevailing attitude in your family. It's attitudes like yours that kept me in the closet to my family for so long. The funny thing is, quite a few of the homophobic people in my family turned around once they realized "one of their own" is gay. You might be surprised.
3) Gay people are biologically capable of having kids you know :lol:. There are many gay people who have come out in their later years after raising families.
4) I pray for your children if they are gay sabastian. If you treat them and think of them the way you treat and think of other gay people, you're going to scar them more than anyone else could. And if you honestly think there's no way they could be gay, and they do turn out to be gay, you'll be in for a rude awakening. I know my mother was. We almost lost our relationship together because of it. She was smart enough in the end to realize that she'd rather have me in her life than not at all. I wasn't going to change, and I certainly wasn't going to accept any abuse from her, mentally or emotionally.
I hope you realize that as well sabastian, if they turn out to be gay. Or all you'll end up doing is push them away, and that would be truly sad. Trust me on this. I came face to face with that possibility, and it hurts.
4) There are religious people in this world that would cut off your penis for merely *looking* at their wife. There are religious people in this world that would stone you to death for having sex outside of marriage.
They can believe whatever it is they want to believe, just as long as it does not impinge on my ability to live my life in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, as every other american has the right to.
p.s.: There are gay and lesbian christians Sabastian. Just as there are gay and lesbian muslims. Hell, there are probably gays and lesbians out there who have a stronger and deeper faith than *you* do, if you believe in god that is, and whatever god it may be.
Listen I am not a Christian. Don't even pretend to be. Your suggesting that possibly one has to be a Christian or some other religious affiliation to be opposed to the proliferation of the idea that homosexuality is normal. Your wrong.
Your use of "ugly people" is idiotic. "Ugly people" don't have laws on the books saying that if they have sex with one another they are committing illegal acts. "Ugly people" don't have to worry about being killed just because they're "ugly." "Ugly people" don't have to worry about being fired because some idiot in their job suddenly finds out that they're "ugly."
Sheesh. And why did I put ugly into quotes? Because imo "ugliness," is in the eye of the beholder, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One person's hideousness is another person's beauty contest winner.
If you're going to make an argument, at least make one that is plausible.
Well.. this is coming from the person whom continuously make correlations between racism and homosexuality. But for the sake of argument people whom are ugly do face discrimination on a regular bases while not for the same reasons they are no less discriminated against. Oh I see it is only when you are discriminated against for what you do in bed that counts. The hypocrisy stinks here. People whom are ugly don't have the same chances of success in becoming gainfully employed. They face discrimination by members of the opposite sex. They do despite what you say get beat up and so on. But don't get me wrong here I am not out to get the government to change peoples preception of ugly people, fat people gays and lesbians etc... but you are. I am afraid that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" only solidifies my argument. Why is it that we can come to a conclusion that one woman is considerably more attractive then another? Oh it must be a socialized phenomena. Something to do with advertising and the like. That couldn't be true in the US and Canada where obesity is rampid.
Sabastian, ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. One person's beauty is another person's hag. There is no room for interpretation with racism and homophobia. I'll leave the distinction at that and move on to the next.
1) Actually quite a few differences have been found. One such difference is the size of a gland in the hypothalamus which just so happens to develop completely during pregnancy, and regulates sexuality in the human brain. Apparently it is roughly half the size in homosexual males than in heterosexual males, closer to the size of a heterosexual females. And apparently this same organ in lesbians is almost double the size of heterosexual females, closer to the size of heterosexual males. Scientists attribute this difference to a possible lack of testosterone during critical stages of development of the fetus, as well as other factors.
That is just one difference off the top of my head.
Yeah could you provide an objective link? Please no pro gay site. Also I would love to see where they have found a gene and not a "possible" reasoning. Lets find legitimate science not speculation.
Here's a site:
PBS.org (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/evidence.html)
They speak of quite a few studies done on this matter. I'd consider PBS to be quite objective.
p.s.: Science is *built* upon theory sabastian. You take an assumption and then, through scientific method, qualitatively prove it, or at least get enough proof to say "yes, we believe this is correct."
Think about it. That means that Galileo's belief that the earth revolved around the sun was not legitimate science, it was speculation. Einstein's theories must not have been legitimate science, only speculation. Speculation does not automatically negate legitimacy. That's a basic truism of science.
2) You are heterosexual if your sexual attraction is predominantly towards those of the opposite sex. You don't ever have to engage in sexual activity to be heterosexual. You are homosexual if your sexual attraction is predominantly towards those of the same sex. You don't ever have to engage in sexual activity to be homosexual.
My sakes man. If your heterosexual your attracted to the opposite sex .... exclusively not "predominantly". If you are "homosexual" you are attracted to the same sex exclusively not "predominantly" to suggest otherwise makes arguments that you are bisexual not homosexual or heterosexual. Besides I never made the conclusion that you must engage in sex to be anything. Rather I made a clear reference to the behavior of heterosexuals and homosexuals.
You obviously don't understand human sexuality sabastian. Many studies have been completed by scientifically objective bodies such as The Journal of Sex Research, The Journal of Clinincal Psychology, The Journal of Human Sexuality, etc etc etc, that show that human beings are for the most part not exclusively heterosexual or homosexual.
This does *not* mean that human beings are perfect bisexuals, capable of engaging with either sex in romantic/sexual manner. It simply means that the attractions are there, be they conscious or subconscious. For example, have you ever looked at a guy and said, "Hey, he's good looking," without being sexually aroused by that person or romantically aroused? I know I can look at Jennifer Lopez and appreciate her beauty even though I have no predilection to jump her bones, or even want to go out with her.
That innate human ability to appreciate attractiveness in both sexes is because of our sexuality. Current scientific numbers place exclusive homosexuality and heterosexuality as only 2% to 10% of the human population. Everyone else is somewhere in between. Our current definitions of sexuality are merely that way because they are convenient descriptors, but they are certainly flawed.
Heterosexuals can engage in homosexual activities and *still* be heterosexual. You see it all the time in prison. Homosexuals can engage in heterosexual activities and *still* be homosexual. You see it all the time in men and women who are trying to "make" themselves straight.
The difference is quite easy to see Sabastian. Open your mind a little and stop being so goddamned bigoted. .
No this defies the biological explanation you give and you betray yourself here. No these people would clearly fall in the bisexual arena. The difference is clear. You fail to recognize that the possibility of homosexual behavior can be induced from nurturing but rather it must be a biological affliction in your case. But with others it is clear that they can be made to act differently. Yeah I would agree there are very few cases of exclusive homosexuals and this only lends credence to the possibility that indeed it is a matter of choice that you choose to be exclusively homosexual and choose to be in a group that is discriminated against. I didn't say that BTW you did. I just helped you put your foot in your mouth. While you are not free to be heterosexual it is others that are.
It doesn't defy the biological explanation I gave earlier because you can be born gay or straight and still have sex with someone of the same sex or opposite sex. If you close your eyes and receive a blow job sabastian, and you never open them, you can get off and not even realize it's a guy's mouth rather than a girls. It's the psychological/mental orientation that defines us overall.
Frankly the idea of having sex with a woman turns my stomach, but that doesn't mean that all gay men have that reaction. I'm sure the idea of having sex with a man turns your stomach sabastian, but that doesn't mean that all straight men have that reaction. You'd be surprised by the responses people would give if this society weren't so repressive of sexuality.
Gays men and women aren't hurting anyone. They are engaging in normal sexual activity with their partner(s) in the privacy of their home, just as heterosexual couples do.
They are only hurting each other in my opinion. What I am opposed to is the assumption that what they do is as normal as what heterosexuals do. Intercourse is based on the predisposition to reproduce. Homosexuals cannot ever reproduce.
Then I guess you are opposed to old couples and young infertile couples since they have no ability to reproduce. I guess couples such as those should not engage in intercouse either.
You telling me that the only reason you have sex with your wife or girlfriend is when you want a kid? Damn. No wonder you're so pent up and frustrated and angry with the world. :lol:
*However*, the sodomy laws on the books in most states *only* say that sodomy is illegal between *two males*, *not* between a man and a woman. That is most certainly discriminatory against gays because it applies *only* to gay men and women when heterosexual men and women most certainly engage in anal and oral sex.
lol, here we go on the sodomy laws again. Personally I think sodomy is disgusting, dangerous and damaging and don't engage in it at all. It is the proliferation of pornography that has popularized the use of sodomy. BTW have you ever been charged with sodomy? Anyhow it sounds as though you blame the law for the moral. I think it is the connection with the idea that feces is yucky and the lower intestine is not for sex but rather digestion that many think it is disgusting. But with the proliferation of the idea via porn it seems that we can see how the act can indeed be sexualized and nurtured into being a thing to do. Same goes with homosexuality eh?
1) Sodomy is defined as anal *and* oral sex in most states Sabastian. Let's get that part straight.
2) Anal sex most certainly does not occur while there is feces present anymore than vaginal sex occurs when a woman is menstruating *shudder*. It's called cleansing. Unless of course you happen to be into the uterine-tissue-and-blood-on-the-penis fetish :shock: :lol: *puke*.
3) The mouth is also used only for speaking, eating/drinking, and breathing. What's the use of kissing then? I mean, kissing is pretty disgusting when you think about it. Our mouths are *full* of bacteria. When you swap saliva with someone else, you're also swapping old food they missed when they brushed their teeth, plaque, and a hell of a lot of germs.
Definitely disgusting when you think about it eh?
4) People that seek out particular porn generally do so because they already *have* those inner feelings. However, as you've stated, people also start off not knowing things sexually. In some cases when they see something new, it turns them on and they incorporate it in their sex life. In other cases they see something new and know they don't like it, and discard it as a sexual option.
I've watched movies with sadomasochism. I definitely am not turned on by it. I'm sure if you watched gay porn, unless you're a closet case, you wouldn't be turned on it. I don't get turned on my heterosexual porn either. Well that's not true. When the guy is hot. But seriously, straight porn is all about the women. 9 times out of 10 they have some 60yr old fat tub of lard screwing some 20 year old and it works cause all the straight men looking at the porn are looking at the women. :lol:. But I digress. :)
Who gives a shit what you think Sabastian. You could have thoughts of murder, death, and mayhem against anyone you like for all I care. You can be disgusted all you want to. But as soon as you take those hateful bigoted thoughts into action, *then* you have broken the law. This isn't Minority Report.
As I said before, I don't deal with sites that are fundamentalist christian. Just as I would not expect you to take the word of a gay site that came out with their own "statistics" and "beliefs" based on those "statistics."
Well well.. I take my thoughts into action as we speak. I never gave a link to any Christian Fundamentalist site. You however did give us a link to some radical gay activist site that is somehow more legitimate then http://www.worldnetdaily.com . give me a break.
As I've stated before, the link that I began this thread with was merely a *news* report. It was not some scientific study or attempt to prove or disprove some scientific study. It was merely a news report.
I'll stick with the scientific body of evidence available in the Journal of Pediatrics, a very well respected journal that almost all pediatric doctors in this country reference when dealing with pediatric care.
Drive through Sabastian. Drive through.
Heh, and the evidence I provided must be invalid? I am afraid that I will not "drive through" and I will always voice my opinions despite the law and political correctness.
As I said before, I'll stick with the scientific body of evidence available at the unbiased Journal of Pediatrics.
But that same right is shared by all those around you. And if the majority of people think that we need a law to protect someone's rights, then the government makes one (of course i am simplifying this ALOT).
What if the majority don't? Steam ahead with the political agenda until they do of course. Intimidate them with words like homophobic(not really a scientific term at all.), bigot, racist and so on of course.
I'm sure the majority didn't want equal rights for blacks in the 60's, or equal rights for women in the 70's. Certainly doesn't mean the decision to give address those rights was wrong.
You are also not required by law to allow your children to watch cable TV, or to view any other form of media you deem offensive.
Of course these rights of yours to seek out a different life for you and your children from the one offered by current society are guaranteed by the constitution. But that same guarentee means that you cannot tell me how to raise my children.
Well you are wrong I do have to make sure my children are educated and sense I don't have the qualifications for it I must send them to the public schools where they will learn that homosexuality is normal etc. They won't learn the down side of it they will only learn the politically correct notion.
The major downside to homosexuality is society's reaction, particularly people like you. But gay children and teens don't need schools to teach them that.
So how is this different for homosexuality? Is homosexuality simply about the act? I seriously disagree with that. That is the same as saying that your marrige (or my marrige, or any other hetrosexual marrige) is just about "the act". And i would guess that you might disagree with that minimizing description of your married life.
Sex is the act. Love is something altogether different.
I don't disagree. Marriage is not about sex nor is it necessarily about love. What marriage is about traditionally is a family and the married couple looking after their own children. Today however after the onslaught of the "sexual revolution" we have a high divorce rate causing allot of deviance in the children of divorced families, impoverished single parents and the wider proliferation of simply horrible STDs that absolutely ruin peoples lives.
Uhm, people have been getting divorced for millennia. There have been impoverished single parents just as long, and there have been well off single parents too. And btw, my mom was basically a single parent in terms of my legal guardian, but I would hardly call the situation I grew up in impoverished. Way to generalize. And man, STDs have been around since the dawn of time and are not and have not been limited only to those who are single. Come on now, you can come up with something better than that can't you?
I know Natoma pretty well, I have worked with him on and off for over 4 years now. I know that what i see between him and his partner is not "about the act" but a genuine affection and love for one another. Do not try to minimize that which you do not understand, you will almost always be wrong.
Some of my best frends are gay too. ;)
I seriously doubt that Sabastian. Either you keep your opinions to yourself, you're deluding yourself, or you're outright lying. No gay person would put up with your closed minded bigotry for long anymore than any self respecting woman would put up with a male chauvinist or a black person would put up with a white supremacist.
You're a sad sad man Sabastian. You really are.
What's terrible about people that go through these "orientation change" therapy sessions is that they usually end up with tremendous psychological damage that fucks them up even worse than they were before.
How do I know this to be true? Because there are studies that were done on these orientation change programs from the 60's and 70's. Back then they used electric shock among other things. Actually what am I saying. Some of these programs today use electric shock.
I can see your son or daughter now Sabastian.
"Gee dad. You think gays are disgusting, so you want to fuck me worse than society already tries to huh? Way to go. You really love me."
With the attitude you've got, you don't deserve children.
I am sad am I? More like extremely fed up with this left wing mentality that focuses on discrimination selectively. Again there are not any gay people in my family we all come from heterosexuals. Funny thing is now because of my political opposition to your political agenda I for some reason don't deserve to have children. But you deserve to have marriage in a Christian church with rights to adopt because you can't reproduce yourself. Am I right ? yeah that is what I thought..
PS: Sorry for the horribly long post.
1) As I stated before, you don't know if there are gay people in your family. If your attitude is the prevailing attitude in your family I wouldn't be surprised why no one would have come out.
2) It's not your opposition sabastian. It's the fact that you'd subject your children to psychologically damaging "therapy" in an attempt to "change" their natural sexuality. This is of course assuming that you can choose to be straight or gay, which as I stated before, means that you're willing to admit that you yourself have gay feelings but you just choose to "act" straight.
3) I couldn't be bothered to be married in a christian church or any church for that matter. I could just as easily go down to city hall. It's the *right* to marry that is deserved. The venue is of little circumstance, just as it is to heterosexual couples.
4) Infertile couples have the right to adopt. They can't reproduce. Your point?
Stvn: First of all, thank you for misunderstanding my whole post. To spell it out - I believe (active) homophobia is a sign a immaturity. There are a couple of loud people in this thread who must be very very young...
Sorry if you thought i misunderstood you, truth be told, i think we agree on more than we disagree. I, in no way was trying to insinuate that you were either homophobic, or immature, or rather that you in particular were anything. Mostly i was trying to present what i feel is a more easily digestable view of the active/passive idea, which was partially the subject of your post.
But enough about misunderstandings and converstational semantics, blah blah blah. I am thoroughly disinterested in that type of discussion, otherwise i would be "getting into the thick of it" with the others.
:wink:
I will tell you now, that is NOT what "makes you a man". I tend to think this whole brutish mentality is responsible for much of the violence in today's society.
Sure, but why are you telling me this? You don't think I know this?
Sorry, again, not directed at you. More at the board, and as fodder for a possible discussion about something other than oh so tiresome "who is more left <-> who is more right" debate.
To be honest Cosmo, I think that your argument is fatally flawed here. It is a well known fact that hot women hang around gay men. I mean come on, don't you watch Will & Grace!
I think your basic argument here is flawed. Why do you think women feel comfortable around gay men? That's however irrelevant. People don't always act rationally. I don't think most young heterosexual men are clever enough to realize that hanging around gays might not be such a bad idea strategically, instead we loudly distance ourselves to make sure the Babes know that we're available. Especially those of us who don't easily get chicks and thus become a little insecure in general. I still feel today the need to tell my parents in earnest that I'm not gay when debating gay rights (I'm all for, they're not).
First, the Will & Grace ref was a joke, and the "fatally flawed" part was the build up. Sorry, the limits of ASCII are coming shining through here. (That and in the end, its not that funny anyway).
But since you do bring up some good points, questions, lets dig in.
Why do you think women feel comfortable around gay men?
They feel safer. And this is not based upon my opinion, or some male rationale or anything of the sort. Its a quote from my wife.
I think that our culture/society presents a world where women are the subordinate, and men the dominant. Sure its been like this for a loooooong time, and in some animal species this is true as well. But are we not more evolved than animals? Of course we are. So this primative and certainly out-dated idea is on its way out. But none the less, on a subliminal level it exists all over the place (the media, pay scales, fashion, on and on and on).
Throw in some hormones, and you have alot of sexual tension. I think that some women (and i know alot, so i am not just speculating) find the lack of sexual tension enjoyable. Having a "guy friend" who they are 100% sure is never undressing them in his head, probably makes some women more comfortable.
And of course, if the guy is hot, they too (like men and lesbains) hope that they can "change" him. But unless they go to Sabastians summer camp (see his post re: What would you do if you kid was gay), this is highly unlikely.
I don't think most young heterosexual men are clever enough to realize that hanging around gays might not be such a bad idea strategically, instead we loudly distance ourselves to make sure the Babes know that we're available.
Your right, your average teenager will not see this logic, and probably i am slanted on this due to the type of school i went to (art school) and the higher rate of liberals and homosexauls that you find there. But this worked like a charm for some of my friends back in school (to be fair though it wasnt really a strategy as much as it was that we already had gay friends in our group).
To "stay away from gay guys" in order to "get the chicks" may not be the best way to go. Most girls/women are not as up tight about homosexuality as men are.
Like I said, people are not always rational - especially not teenagers. We all have our lessons to learn. Sadly some people never do.
Amen to that brother!
In the end, my guess is that you never really encountered a gay person, and especially never gotten to know one.
Well I do actually - it's just that I didn't know he was gay until we had stopped being in the same circles. Before I found out that he was gay I considered myself to be totally okey with the whole gay concept/package so I was shocked at my initial reaction of fear/loathing (he had spent the night in my apartment for god's sake!!! :D). Nowadays I'm more honest about this. This means that I am intellectually all for gay rights but I know that I will always feel uncomfortable around gay men (which I avoid being if possible).
Sorry, that was not meant in an accusitory way. I apologize if you took it that way. (damn these 7-bit characters!)
But i do suggest that you try to look at this uncomfortable feeling you have, see it for what it truely is (maybe something i mentioned above, maybe not), and then get past it.
Not possible - I can't control my feelings. Luckily I make sure my Celebral Cortex is in charge... :wink:
Actually, i am not proposing so much that you control your feelings, more that you look for the root of them, and then examine what you find. You may find that your Cerebral Cortex is fucking with you. Many times "knee-jerk" reactions, and uncomfortable feelings are masking a more complex question in your mind.
If you were okay with the guy when you thought he liked girls, then why did that change anything when you found out he liked boys? Did he try and hit on you when he stayed at your place? (Obviously not, since that would have been a bit of a hint, prior to you finding out for sure :wink: )
Something is there, something is causing your aversion on a more instinctual and primative level, because on a more high-brain level (intellectual) you are fine with it.
Seriously, you might miss out if you spend your life avoiding gay people only because they make you uncomfortable. Think of how many great writers and artists were gay, would you avoid them if you found yourself in their company? I think it safe to assume you are in some way involved in computers and computer programming (since you are on this board), would you shy away from the chance to have meet Alan Turing, the man who was largely responsible for the invention (and assembly) of the concepts with which every computer in existence today is run on? He was a homosexual and persecuted for it, despite the fact that his work helped end WW2 on the German front in a way comparable to the effect of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the Japanese front.
I mean come on, you feel a little uncomfortable, is it really that big of a deal?
-stvn
CosmoKramer
27-Apr-2003, 05:03
stvn: I knew we agreed more than disagreed - glad to have it confirmed :)
Btw, this following quote was rhetorical but your reply spelled it out perfectly:
Why do you think women feel comfortable around gay men?
you were okay with the guy when you thought he liked girls, then why did that change anything when you found out he liked boys?
I wish I knew. I don't think I know myself well enough to be able to give a definitive answer. I *think* you have a point, I also *think* that my Babe-theory is related. I don't know. All I know is that I'm not going to let my personal quirks invade the privacy or violate the rights of other human beings, if you know what I mean.
JF_Aidan_Pryde
27-Apr-2003, 09:35
I propose that all future debates be carried out in the language of discrete mathematics. That way we wont' get dragged into irrelavent non-sense and personal attacks.
Joe DeFuria
27-Apr-2003, 12:53
I was saying that [Noatma] wastes a lot of time criticizing others and getting way to defensive over every retarded statement, while at the same time ignoring the valid ones.
To be clear, he criticizes individuals with insults, and doesn't critique certain arguments with counter arguments. Whether he is just ignoring the points because he doesn't have an answer to it, or whether he does have an answer that he just isn't willing to share, it's irrelevant.
It's bad form.
To get back on topic, I'll say it again. In 1948 the UN passed into international law a civil rights bill which states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Why is a new vote even necessary? Unless your view is that homosexuals are not human beings, then I really don't see the point. It's useless, it's purely political, and it's a waste of everyone's time. It's just another way for the other countries to stick their noses up in the air and pretend that they are perfect. I am glad we are abstaining.
Pretty much agree.
Because I think such things are shallow, as is Natoma's need for his relationship to be legalized for a full sense of "affirmation of love."
deep_sky
27-Apr-2003, 18:26
Joe I think that Natoma is mis-stating his reasoning. I believe that he wishes for the societal recognition that all hetero marriages have at this point. There are certain legal advantages to being married as well (such as getting health insurance for the partner), as well as disadvantages (taxes), and Natoma asks for that same right that you and your wife have to be legally joined. Not having that legal recognition doesn't sway his love and commitment to his partner, but he wants the right to be married as you are.
If his reasoning is so shallow, then why are you married to your wife? If the legal union is trivial, then your love and commitment should be enough for you to live with each other, love each other, and raise children together. Why bother getting married?
Think about it this way. If your legal marriage to your wife was suddenly illegal because society suddenly viewed hetero marriages as something perverted and unclean (take note that this is a hypothetical situation here) , would you not be at least somewhat upset? It would not change your feelings for each other or the commitment you have to each other, but would it not bother you that society denies you the legal right to join your lives together? I think that this is what Natoma is getting at, not that the legal union defines his commitment and love for his partner.
I stated that over and over again deep_sky. You basically said the same thing I did. He just refuses to see that and keeps harping on his completely incorrect train of thought. I can understand why you'd think I'd be mis-stating my pov if you were just reading what Joe was writing and hadn't seen the posts I had made earlier on the subject. I'd be confused if I mainly read Joe's reasoning for what I'm saying as well.
You should know that pascal said the same exact thing as well, and he ignored pascal as well, along with my response to pascal saying "yep, you hit the nail on the head." Wouldn't be surprised if he ignored you too, or came up with some inane thought process that completely ignores your post.
Then maybe a page later from now, he'll come up with the same paragraph from above saying "Oh well this is what he's saying. It's hypocritical."
It happens all the time. So much that at this point I laugh at it because it's pretty pathetic. Welcome to the boards. Can't be a true member here until you've experienced his illogic. ;)
I never said my relationship with my bf isn't real or doesn't feel real because we can't get married. Read what I've written before. I said that we want, as well as a lot of other gay couples, to participate fully in the social ceremonies that help define who we are as a culture. If I felt that my relationship with my bf was a sham unless I got married to him, that'd be pretty sad. It's a good thing I don't feel that way isn't it.
What we do want is the ability to affirm our love for one another just as heterosexuals are allowed to. We're basically a married couple anyways, but the government looks at us and says "no you're not. you're not as good as straight couples." That is what they government tells us by not allowing us to get married, and recognizing that on a federal level.
The fact that the government has the audacity to say that my relationship with my partner is not as good as heterosexual relationships, simply because we're gay, is what upsets me and a hell of a lot of other gay men and women in this country.
We are not saying that our relationships have no meaning without marriage. We're saying that the government denying us the right to marriage is wrong. We should have the same right to participate in the ceremonies defined in this society for relationships as heterosexuals do.
That most certainly does not mean that because we are currently denied that right that our relationships currently have no meaning or love in them.
I liken it to a time decades ago (and I posted about this earlier, yet it was ignored yet again) when interracial marriages were banned. Interracial coupling still occured despite the ban placed by the government. But that didn't stop them from trying to have their relationships legally recognized by the government. To lift the injustice and the disrespect.
That's a point I've stated over and over deep_sky, yet some people choose to ignore it completely. Just as they seem to ignore the post I made in response to mrs skywalker right after with regard to the UN measure saying all human beings are born free and equal. It's a useless endeavor with certain people.
And just so we make sure that that post I made with regard to the UN is seen,
You're basically saying that I shouldn't bring up a topic that hits me and people I love directly here, because it's just a waste of time. I'm sorry, but that's pretty ridiculous.
Not at all. I was saying that you waste a lot of time criticizing others and getting way to defensive over every retarded statement, while at the same time ignoring the valid ones. You haven't addressed my original post in this thread at all. You ignore the stuff for which you have no counterpoint, and rave about trivial differences. That IMO is a waste of time for someone who is as passionate about changing the status quo as you seem to be.
As far as my free time goes...this isn't about me. I haven't filled six pages of a thread complaining about something that I could work towards fixing.
To get back on topic, I'll say it again. In 1948 the UN passed into international law a civil rights bill which states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Why is a new vote even necessary? Unless your view is that homosexuals are not human beings, then I really don't see the point. It's useless, it's purely political, and it's a waste of everyone's time. It's just another way for the other countries to stick their noses up in the air and pretend that they are perfect. I am glad we are abstaining.
Just because I didn't respond to your post doesn't mean that I didn't have a valid counter argument. Sometimes you just skip over posts for whatever reason. If you feel slighted or ignored or whatever, sorry.
Example:
"All Men Are Created Equal" -- Declaration of Independence (1776)
Yet we had to have the 13th amendment outlawing slavery and then the Civil Rights Voting Act of 1965 so that American Blacks could take part equally in affecting the political institutions of this nation.
Keep in mind that there were specific laws created as well that stated that a black man was 1/4 white, in order to try and circumvent the Declaration of Independence, and voting rights given to white, land owning males.
And even after the emancipation proclamation, blacks *still* had to deal with 70 years under Jim Crow, which completely flew in the face of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.
Here's a link to the Jim Crow Laws btw, if you want to know what they were in detail:
http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm
And we don't even need to get into women do we?
Sometimes laws are made even more specific for symbolic reasons, moreso than the legalities that surround them. Witness hate crime legislation as an example of a law that specifically defines what a hate crime is, yet when you look at it, murder is murder (an example of a hate crime, naturally). Or what about crimes of passion? If someone kills their husband cause he sleeps with someone else, shouldn't that person be prosecuted simply as a murderer? It's the symbolism. That's why these laws are created sometimes.
As for filling six pages complaining about something that I could be working toward fixing, I consider that a pretty retarded statement considering you don't know what I do in my life and have done. But I choose to address it nonetheless don't I.
Ugh edits. Back to basketball.
Joe DeFuria
27-Apr-2003, 19:45
Joe I think that Natoma is mis-stating his reasoning.
Anything's possible. And that's exactly why I am probing him further. I have asked him repeatedly to clarify his contradictory statements. Rather than admit the contradiction or a mis-statement, and offer a clarification, he chooses to post endless rants and insults.
You are now the second person to say something along the lines of "I think what he meant was" or "I think he mis-stated what he meant..."
In other words, you are trying to rectify his contradictory statements for him. That's fine, it's just unfortunate that Natoma feels he's above everyone else to the point where he won't do it himself. No one can REALLY clarify what he meant except him.
I believe that he wishes for the societal recognition that all hetero marriages have at this point.
Possibly, as this is what Pascal was interpreting. Though this hinges on "societal recognition" being only that which the federal givernment recognizes.
There are certain legal advantages to being married as well (such as getting health insurance for the partner), as well as disadvantages (taxes), and Natoma asks for that same right that you and your wife have to be legally joined.
I understand that completely, and don't have any problem with that, as I've stated several times. Thos "legal" advantages (while a valid concern), don't say anything about his proposed "affirmation of love" though. It's a separate issue entirely.
Not having that legal recognition doesn't sway his love and commitment to his partner, but he wants the right to be married as you are.
I never said not having legal recognition would sway his love and commitment. What NATOMA said is that not having the legal recognition somehow lessens the "affirmation of love" that heteros have.
If his reasoning is so shallow, then why are you married to your wife? If the legal union is trivial, then your love and commitment should be enough for you to live with each other, love each other, and raise children together. Why bother getting married?
1) We had a public wedding ceremony, exchange vows, etc., because we love each other, want to devote our lives exclusively to each other, and we want those who are important to us to know it.
2) We are legally married to each other because of the legal advantages and legal structure we have in this country, which treats married couples differently than single individuals.
Those are two entirely separate issues..
I don't consider wanting to be legally married because of the legal issues / legal society a shallow reason. It's indeed a practical reason.
I DO consider wanting to be legally married for any emotional reason to be a shallow reason.
As I stated in the beginning. Natoma can do "number 1" above with no interference or hindrance from the government.
Think about it this way. If your legal marriage to your wife was suddenly illegal because society suddenly viewed hetero marriages as something perverted and unclean (take note that this is a hypothetical situation here) , would you not be at least somewhat upset?
I would be upset to the point where we would lose any legal benefits to being married. Full stop.
I would not care in the least what the gov't thought of our "perverted" relationship, in terms of my emotional well being. We know we love each other, and those we care about know it.
I think that this is what Natoma is getting at, not that the legal union defines his commitment and love for his partner.
Again, I never argued that not being legal would change his personal commitment..
I only repeated what he said. That is, not being legally recognized somehow does not hold the same "affirmation of love" that heteros enjoy.
As long as Natoma continues to refuse to explain himself further, it's almost pointless for all of us to keep "guessing" what he really meant. :(
deep_sky
27-Apr-2003, 20:01
So what do you want him to do, CC my post and put his name on it before you will accept that he mis-stated his opinion? He has already said that he agrees with what I and pascal have been saying, yet I see no acknowledgement of that from you.
Joe DeFuria
28-Apr-2003, 01:03
Deep_Sky,
He has already said that he agrees with what I and pascal have been saying,
And yet, what you and pascal have been saying (with Natoma nodding his head) doesn't completely reconcile with what Natoma had said earlier. See my previous responses to your and Pascal's posts. Do you have any responses to my points raised in direct response to your last post?
yet I see no acknowledgement of that from you.
"I acknowledge that Natoma agrees with what you and Pascal said." OK?
Now, you have acknowledged that Natoma had "mis-stated his reasoning," and yet I see no acknowledgement from Natoma on that. Only personal insults. So unless he acknowledes that (and specifically addresses the issue that I raised), I cannot be 100% clear on what his position is.
What do I want from him? I want clarity. Not re-affirmations of positions that as far as I'm concerned are still contradictory to he previous statements. Most civilized posters are happy to correct their positions if they are first stated in a way that's contradictory or otherwise unclear. Instead, he threw insults. So aside from clarity, I think an apology would be in order, don't you?
In sum:
It is perfectly clear that---
** Natoma desires "societal recognition just like for heteros" of his marriage. And by "societal recognition", he means it must include "legal recognition by the federal government."
It is also clear, and we ALL agree that
** Legal marriage has pratcial consequences (like health care, etc.) that make it desirable and is a worthy reason to persue legalization.
It is still NOT clear on what type of emotional or "social" consequence he feels is addressed by gaining the ability to have a piece of paper that says he's legallay married.
Again, what started all of this:
Natoma said: (Note, no guessing or assuming going on here):
What we do want is the ability to affirm our love for one another just as heterosexuals are allowed to. We're basically a married couple anyways, but the government looks at us and says "no you're not. you're not as good as straight couples." That is what they government tells us by not allowing us to get married, and recognizing that on a federal level.
You can not interpret that in any other way than this: If the government doesn't legally recognize us as married, then we have not affirmed our love for one another the same way heterosexuals have.
Then I pressed him to clarify. I said I thought it was shallow to need the gov't stamp of approval to have a full affirmation of love "like heteros", because I'm a hetero, and the gov't stamp of approval doesn't factor in to my own sense of "affirmation of love" at all. All he said, and continues to repeat in his last post, was stuff about social ceremonies:
Natoma said:
I never said my relationship with my bf isn't real or doesn't feel real because we can't get married. Read what I've written before. I said that we want, as well as a lot of other gay couples, to participate fully in the social ceremonies that help define who we are as a culture. If I felt that my relationship with my bf was a sham unless I got married to him, that'd be pretty sad. It's a good thing I don't feel that way isn't it.
Again, what legal issue is there concerning a gay's ability to participate "fully in a social ceremony" publically affirming his love? All there would be is a legal difference. Not a social / ceremonial one.
Joe DeFuria
28-Apr-2003, 03:15
On a very related note, and to help explain my own position:
http://www.perkel.com/politics/issues/samesex.htm
I don't agree with a lot of what this guy says on many other topics, but for the most part, I'm in agreement on the topic at hand. A few choice quotes:
But all that has changed. By allowing for no fault divorce the State has changed the definition of a marriage as far as the government and society is concerned. The provision of a lifelong commitment is no longer something that is part of the law. For all practical purposes, the "traditional marriage" is a concept that is already dead as far as the government is concerned. The United States no longer recognizes the concept of marriage as a life commitment in law. Therefore, I contend that there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals in that no one can really get married in the traditional sense anymore. What we think of as marriage no longer has an official place in society as far as support in the law. What we think of as marriage is gone. What we are fighting over is what's left of it.
Which is one main reason why I agreed with DC earlier in this thread that "marriage" should be gotten rid of altogther in terms of a legal standing. And also why I couldn't give two shits, in terms of emotional /social well being, about whther "the government" recognizes my marriage as legal or not.
Emotionally/socially...it doesn't mean anything.
Interestingly, he presents a "legal alternative" to "marriage":
In this modern world I think that the definition of marriage has changed and that the old definition, as modified by no fault divorce laws, should be replaced by a new system where the rights of marriages and domestic partners are contracted for individually and specifically as part of the legal joining process. There would be the requirement for the terms of terminating the relationship as well as to who would get what in death or divorce. That way the couple doesn't fall victim to a legal system that allows the courts to give everything you own to lawyers should the relationship fail. Thus, in order to get state recognition of the relationship, the relationship should be defined and that the same set of rights to contract as domestic partners should be available to everyone.
Sounds good to me on the surface.
Sabastian
28-Apr-2003, 15:13
Then I should clarify my prior statement. Laws *can* affect a society for the better. They can also be detrimental. One instance of laws affecting society for the better, even against the judgement of the society at large, are the laws that gave women the right to vote. Much of the public was against it at the time. The same goes for the emancipation proclamation. Sure there were millions in the south who did not like their slaves being set free, and I'm sure there were some in the north who didn't like the idea of freed black people running wild, it was still a very progressive law that enabled our society to move one step beyond our barbaric past.
I don't think you are looking at this issue of the woman vote rightly. First off half of the population is women, where did they all go when it came to the issue. Are you suggesting that all men and a large portion of women were opposed to the idea? To look at the implement of the law and then suggest that "most were against it at the time" is simply silly. There was indeed considerable support for the law to be implemented.
We are not taking about the disenfranchisement of women but rather the behavior of homosexuals whom believe they ought to have the same outcome as heterosexuals. It isn't a matter of skin color or gender but rather of behavior. Now obviously both blacks and women can attribute their dilemma to genetic predispositions but on the matter of homosexuality you are saying that genes that have not been discovered yet cause you to act in a certain manner.... Your genetic predisposition somehow causes you to behave unusually so and the government ought to create special laws for the protection of or even the promotion of homosexuality. Even without objective proof of homosexuality is genetic..... But there is all sorts of evidence that suggest possibly it is learned or can be. I don't think the government should make a ruling on the issue until the gene is discovered until then people ought to be able to make their own moral judgements on homosexual behavior.
1) The reason why I "keep referring to" 100 years in the past is because that is a time that is relatively close to today, and it is easy to illustrate the black and white barbarism that the human race possessed then. There were no shades of gray.
Back then blacks were abused day in and day out, just for being black. In fact the law sanctioned it. Today blacks are pulled over more often than whites in what is called racial profiling. One is definitively evil while another is closer to a shade of gray, thus harder to debate because you can find so many "well this and that and what about something other" situations that don't exist for the abuses under Jim Crow.
The "shades of grey" on the issue of homosexuality come from the fact that we don't know if it is a genetic affliction or not. While the matter of skin color is clearly more a matter of genetics where this behavior has yet to be linked to genes. Your argument gives allot of credibility to the study of genetics if true. Also if true is disqualifies a mass of fairly well accepted left wing Sociological theory particularly socialization theories.
The matter of racial profiling in terms of the law are difficult. Clearly there is a case for the argument of using the method of racial profiling to help with law enforcement. Case in point is terrorism. Clearly it helps investigators spot potential trouble but surely they do put allot of innocents through grief.
2) Historically the argument can be made that the Irish were treated like shit for a *very* long time in this country. You are correct. However, the Irish were not abused daily on the same level as blacks were. The Irish were generally hated early on, like every other group that came to this country, because they were *immigrants* and no other reason. As they were "absorbed" by this society, the animosity against them began to decrease.
Witness the animosity that many people have toward mexican immigrants today as an example. There has always been a sense of "You're not welcome here!" toward immigrants, simply because they are outsiders trying to fit in.
However, I was born in this country, as were most of the other gay men and women in this country. We're citizens already. We've grown up in this culture. We *are* this culture. And yet we're ostracized because of the circumstances of our birth, our being. You can't compare us to the immigrant situation. But you can certainly compare us to other groups who grow up in this country and were historically treated as second class citizens, i.e. blacks and women.
You simply write off the animosity held towards them by suggesting they were "absorbed" but there was not one bit of government enforcement of this. There was already a steadfast growth in the anti racist movement well before the government made any sorts of implements towards racists. The civil war was to end slavery. Further the stigma of being Irish would have followed these people around to say that they lost all racial strife upon exiting the immigration situation is silly. I certainly wouldn't compare blacks and womens cause of the past to the homosexual dilemma based on the argument that being "gay" is genetic and therefore our behavior is a result of genes. If that is the case then we can attribute allot more human behavior on genes then the left would like to admit.
3) I don't look down on women who stay home and are caretakers of their family. Frankly I'm pleased when anyone can be involved in the vocation of their choice. I know I am involved in my job of choice, and certainly, work doesn't feel like work when you love your job. I would wish that on anyone. It's a fantastic feeling to have.
However, the sheer fact that a woman has the *choice* to work at home, or outside the home today, is what is key to me. For centuries, women were not allowed anything *but* tending to the home and the children. That is the key difference between the situation that women find themselves in today. Frankly I get upset with some feminists, and especially men (some husbands), who look down on homemakers, or say that homemaking isn't a real job, because certainly it is.
Thats good because allot of women choose to do just that .... if it can be afforded. In terms of vocations it becomes a bit more complex for women then men. Simply put when a women becomes a mother there is a strong tendency for them to be a mother rather then say a CEO. But there are even more complex problems for women in the labour market, military, police roles, firemen- fireperson ;), construction and so on that their gender does not accommodate them generally as well. So what happens, it seems, is that women enter the work place and choose to go into higher paying areas of occupation rather then the slovenly work of labour and the like. Although many are taking low paying service industry jobs like for example food servers, cashiers etc.(but men don't or can't compete for these positions usually in the past held by women anyhow.)
Further, I do think that you are making working in a place of your choosing seem a bit more rewarding then it really is. Most jobs in the real world are not that rewarding at all and when you get your pay check it is gone shortly afterwards. I personally have never liked any job to the point where I found it that rewarding. I have always found that after I get what I think I want in the work place there is always something else that becomes a matter. Mostly time/money/stress from work are the largest issues. There is always pressure to perform better/faster/cheaper. This isn't to say that I don't think working hard has its rewards but keeping the bills paid and scraping by the skin of your teeth are hardly things to glorify. In other words I don't think that women were really missing out on much by not being a part of the labour market in the past. Also the injection of such a large force of labour has reduced the value of males labours. Now it seems that rather then have one parent work and the other stay at home being primary care giver to their children we must have both out of the home just in most cases to make ends meet. My home situation is case in point.
I find it ironic the way now women have the choice to go to work ... it seems we have no choice at all financially speaking but to both work. I would also mention that I do think being a mother of children and looking after the home is a fair bit of work, but to appeal to the state for some sort of monies to compensate them for looking after what is theirs is not realistic. I don't know if that is what you were suggesting but not too long ago there was a movement to do just that. Still feminist rave on about this, personally I think the idea is preposterous and reeks of welfare state mentality.
Now, I agree that children are better off when they have two parents as opposed to one. Hell, children are better off when they are raised by their entire family. I was raised by my mother and a man who was as close to my father as anyone could get even though he wasn't my biological father, my grandparents, my uncles and aunts, my cousins, my pastor, etc etc etc. I had an *enormous* support system growing up. Biology has nothing to do with the efficacy of raising children. There are foster parents out there who simply destroy their biological counterparts in terms of raising children. If someone is loving and capable, it shouldn't matter if they are the child's biological parents or not.
Yeah well we do agree on the two parent matter. The one of each gender is an even better solution. On the biological aspect I believe it would simply be the optimal situation where the people whom were responsible for bringing the children into the world were also responsible for their own childrens well being. In terms of the parenting situation I certainly would have to say unambiguously that indeed one parent of each gender ought to be present. Also there are so many heterosexual couples out there that are already on a waiting list looking to adopt..
Now I will grant you that in the past, human societies were very patriarchal. In almost every society we know of, women were subjugated and kept indoors to basically be baby factories and raise children. Now, some societies respected the female more than others, but in almost every society, women were kept as the "lesser" gender.
Universally humans are patriarchal and I don't disagree with your above statement at all. 100% agreement.
However, this can be attributed more to the hunter/gatherer aspect of our species that was pretty prevalant up until the advent of the industrial revolution. Before the industrial revolution, only the strongest could go out and hunt for food, wage war, kill animals for clothing, etc etc etc. And who, biologically, tended to be the strongest? Males. So I agree with you that the structure of our societies indeed grew *moreso*, not entirely, because of the demands of nature, rather than nurture. However, because of the fact that our society today is no longer hunter/gatherer, it negates the biological advantage in terms of strength, that men have over women, on average. A woman is just as capable of going off into battle today. A woman is just as capable of working a fork lift. A woman is just as capable of sitting in a board meeting and leading.
Um, I think that for thousands of years before the industrial revolution humans were living in an agrarian society which means that agriculture was the primary source of subsistence. This puts hunting and gathering societies well in the past before the advent of agrarian societies we would have hunters and gatherers. But that is besides the point, I understand.
You are generalizing when you say that women are just as capable as men in the workforce. As I already mentioned it is not always more prudent to have women employed in certain areas. The simple fact of the matter is that men in general are considerably more strong then females from the get go. This is not a socialized difference and while I do realize that in many occupations such as nursing, doctors, teaching even managerial positions suit women they are not as physically able to do allot of work. Some attitudes such as women ought to only be homemakers are absolutely outlandish but if you are objectively looking at the physical differences men are more appropriate for employment.
There are plenty of extreme hard labour jobs out there that most women would not be well suited for. We ought not to have "normalization" tests for potential women soldiers and an all together different and more difficult set of criteria for potential male soldiers. Same would apply to a firemens position. Now I am not arguing to lower that standard for everyone so that all can easily attain the positions but rather they ought not to expect any less of a soldier or firefighter simply because they are female. Consider in the situation of policing a women is often if by themselves in a very percarious position of dealing with males that are dangerous. These are only a few situations were we can apply certain disadvantages women face in the workplace off the top of my head. There shouldn't be a quota in place to insure that women are employed simply because there are none employed and political pressure is on these employers to have women on regardless of the job at hand.
We have been moving from a physical labor society to an information society for a few centuries now, but especially in the past 100 years with the advent of the industrial revolution when physical labor was replaced by machinery, the assembly line, and today, computers. *That* is one of the main reasons why it is no longer required for us to be a patriarchal society. We have advanced to the point where we no longer have to be dominated by the needs of our biology as much as in the past. Obviously we are still very much influenced by our biology because of the fact that on an evolutionary timescale, the past few centuries have been a blip. But we are rapidly moving past the limitations of the past. It's one of the main reasons why we, as a society, have much more material wealth today than in the past. It's because 50% of the population is now allowed to work, obviously.
I do think it is interesting though how what used to be considered wealthy is now poor. Consider that in the early 20th century and late 1800s you were farely well if you had a wood stove in your kitchen with pots and pans. Today however that isn't even a consideration as it is assumed that it is there as well as the pots and pans, washer, dryer, vacuums, televisions, carpets, stereos, phones, computers ..... on and on. The material wealth is staggering if you think about it. All this certainly flys in the face of that the old left wing saying the rich get richer and the poor get poorer this is absolutely wrong.... Rather it says when the rich become richer the poor will become more wealthy. Kind of contradictory isn't it? But that is what we see. The next time you hear someone say "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" set them straight would you?
I am not sure if your logic on why society is patriarchal is 100% though. There are a lot of factors as to why. Males are more aggressive then females over all and often make a bid for leadership positions this is likely do to the fact that males produce considerably higher levels of testosterone. But I would suggest to you that monogamy is patriarchal as well and is a result of the unwillingness of males to look after/pay for another mans children, particularly in the past. The simple fact of the matter is that the natural family is inherently tied to the arrangement of monogamy via the life long commitment of child rearing. This may indeed explain why societies are universally Patriarchal. The universally preferred method of relationships brings on the arrangement of Patriarchy. Now even though I see mens work value being cut down because of the injection of females into the work place I don't think that we will see Patriarchy disappear any time soon as a result though. The biological drive of females to have dominant males, strength as well as intelligence will always create a situation where males seek leadership and power, women like these things in a mate and their children. ;)
4) I never said that laws equate morals. I said that one of the first steps to changing a society is through its laws.
Ok so you indorse coorsive government laws in a top down model, but I already knew that Natoma. I was maybe looking for an advanced argument there sorry I read more into what you were saying then you were but that is a good thing..
5) The fact that you equate homosexuality with an affliction already shows that no matter what comes out you're still going to be the same bigoted person you are today. You've already made up your mind.
No, show me the gene that causes the homosexual behavior and you will get acceptance.
6) I know that I was born gay the same way I know you were born straight. Actually who knows. You might be a repressed homosexual in real life. there are certainly enough examples of the worst gay bashers and homophobes actually being gay themselves and doing whatever they can to repress it, which sometimes comes out in vehemently anti-social ways such as the attitude you display sabastian.
It makes sense to be born able to reproduce as all life does try to reproduce it is one of the defining characteristics of life. I am afraid I don't "bash" gays. While I do think that their sexuality is disgusting I don't go around beating up people or anything of the sort. I would certainly hope that you are not a heterosexual "basher" because you think heterosexuality is disgusting. Further my opposition to the homosexual consistutional rights grab has more to do with attacking the left wing social agenda and protecting the integrity of the traditional/natural family. I refuse to be put on some sort of defensive mode simply because you are using another sort of intimidation to stifle the debate and continue on with your political agenda as if everyone is in agreement that indeed you are deserving of your political ends. Your constant labeling of bigotry, "homophobia" and even more advanced intimidation of suggesting that indeed someone because they oppose you is themselves possibly homosexual the more they protest the more it is possible idea will not work with me. It is shallow and pathetic.
7) Here's some food for thought sabastian. Let's say that you do indeed choose to be gay. Let's say I grant you that. That must mean that the entire world is bisexual, and that *everyone* has homosexual attractions, desires, and leanings, as well as heterosexual attractions, desires, and leanings. The difference is that most people choose to follow their heterosexual attractions and a minority choose to follow their homosexual attractions.
You cannot argue that homosexuality is something you choose and on the flip side of the coin state that heterosexuality is natural. A choice involves two options at the least. The two arguments are completely diametrical. Either homosexuals and heterosexuals choose their sexuality, which means that we're all bisexual and we made the choice to be with the opposite or the same sex, or we're born that way.
Are you really ready to admit that you're equally attracted to guys as you are to girls sabastian? I mean, I know how I feel, and I know that I'm not attracted to women, so I guess I must be a freak for not fitting into your "Choice" scenario of equal attraction to both males and females. Right?
lol, ok. It was you whom suggested that some homosexuals can choose to be with the other sex and it was you whom also in the same breath said some heterosexuals can choose to be with the same sex. Now what I did was suggest that indeed if they can do this then you are not talking about heterosexuals or homosexuals but a bisexual. I did not say that homosexuals choose to be homosexual but that the existence of bisexuals lends credence to the possibility that homosexuals are not necessarily biologically inclined. If you do choose to be homosexual, this is far worse then you being genetically inclined. This is why you would deny the existance of bisexuality isn't it? For all I know there are no real homosexuals and all we have are some people whom are genetic bisexuals that are able to choose.
Funny thing is though Natoma I don't think you would really admit to choosing your sexuality simply to suggest that I might be also.... or would you? ;)
For me I don't know if you are born, made or homosexual by choice. As far as I am concerned there really is no choice in it for me so how could there be one for you? I don't know. Certainly the genetic problem is a possibility. Possibly it is a matter of socialization. Or it could be that you choose, just how it is that you choose .... I don't know and wouldn't pretend to. But until you can absolutely prove that there is a "gay" gene that forces you to behave like you do then there is no grounds for law making to be done as no one knows why you behave the way that you do and there are allot of scientist that don't know why ether.
My view is that any human population could be made under extreme conditions homosexual. Imagine a group of young children with no prior sexual knowledge raised on an island by a homosexual. It is likely these children would take some fancy to homosexuality. In other words I believe that it is quite possible to train a young person to like homosexuality. Now what prevents that sort of thing from occurring on a large scale are the social mores against it. Natural societies suppress homosexual behavior so that such unusual conditions don't come to be... There may also be, in very small numbers of course, people with a predisposition to choose homosexual behavior. Some may be predisposed I suppose to drink in the way an alcoholic may be predisposed to drink if drink is close by. But nothing except some personal desire makes the bottle be brought to his lips. After all society has all sorts of people with predispositions of all kinds ...necrophilism, lesbianism, suicide, overeating, stealing, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, bad tempers the list is nearly endless. Society has always been like this and it isn't likely going to change anytime in the near future. I think it is possible that we always end up in some sort of conflict of expertise where biased experts with opposite political agendas fight on for an eternity which really seems like a dead end. That is unless you can produce the genetic evidence to prove that homosexuality is a genetic affliction.
I believe that a baby is "human" once it is capable of living outside the womb. As far as I know, fetuses are capable of living outside the womb, albeit with the help of prenatal womb-like machinery, late in the 2nd trimester. Btw, I'm sorry that you lost a child to abortion and were not notified, given the chance, to have input on the decision. I believe you were robbed of your right to fatherhood by that act, and you have a right to be upset.
Where do you get the grounds for your belief that a baby is human once it is capable of living outside of the womb, the feminist manifesto ? Come on.... I have seen babes in ultra sounds, moving around kicking. Their central nervous system is well developed they can hear voices. I actually remember hearing my mothers voice while I was inside her. I also can remember hearing another voice from outside that I can only assume was my fathers .... Moms voice was louder I can only assume that was because I was inside of her. It sounds funny to say it but I remember it quite vividly actually as well as a continuous heart beat. Do you know the baby trys to escape from the forceps the doctors use to break the child into peaces. I saw a video once on this type of common abortion. It is sick. Partial birth abortions another sick method where the childs head is only partially out and the abortionist quickly jab a hollo tube into the childs skull and then the brain is sucked out. Thankfully the republicans have ended partial birth abortions truly a barbaric medical standard. My sakes it makes my stomach turn to think about it.
I am afraid that I was notified and it didn't matter what I had to say about the arrangement, thank you for that acknowledgement. It was even worse then that though not only did I lose my daughter but also it felt like a rejection of me. It was a fairly traumatic event. I don't think I will ever get over it.
Personally, my mother told me that she contemplated abortion, and was even pressured by some family and friends to have an abortion because they felt she was too young at the time to raise a child. She was 23. Thankfully she chose to keep and raise me, but I do not begrudge her or feel in any way shape or form less loved because she contemplated it. Quite the contrary, I feel even more loved because she decided that she wanted to have and raise me. And frankly she did a damn good job of it. I have no fault with her parenting.
So I believe I have a more personal track on what I'm talking about when it comes to being on the *receiving* end of abortion sabastian. I'm not degrading the pain you feel or saying that it's any less, but considering I could have been one of the aborted, I think my stance on this matter maybe carries a little more weight. I generally don't share things such as that because they are indeed so personal, but in this case I felt that you needed to know where I'm coming from with regard to my stance. I'm not some oblivious "nose stuck in the air" high minded idealist who doesn't see the reality of what is going on.
No and I didn't get that sense. There are allot of them "nose stuck in the air" high minded idealist whom wont even listen to what you have to say...
1) Worldnetdaily is most certainly a christian fundamentalist website. Ann Coulter, for example, is one of the most right wing christian fundamentalists in the world. She's the "Rush Limbaugh" of fundies on the web. Besides, if you don't think they're christian fundamentalists, you must not think Al-Jazeera has an overly islamic, anti-american slant. ;)
Hrm I didn't get that sense even after I went back to the site. Besides I just picked it out of google anyhow.
2) The link for this thread was merely reporting the *news* of the United States and the UN vote, *not* trying to form some scientific study with "gay funded" participants. Big difference. If the news of the United States abstaining from this vote was on the worldnetdaily website, I wouldn't have an issue with it. That's the news.
There's a big difference between scientific studies that are commissioned by a bigoted group explicitly looking to find proof for their bigotry, and a renouned scientific journal commissioning the same study for the explicit furthering of science. One tries to be impartial. The other does not.
Frankly, I would be skeptical if I were you if I had given a link to the studies regarding homosexuality and pedophilia if it had come from the National Gay and Lesbian organization as well, because it would be in their best interests for the events of the study to come out in a certain manner.
The Journal of Pediatrics has no such interest, which is why I trust their judgement more than worldnetdaily and the doctors associated with them.
But there was a PDF. I am not sure if you had the time to bother with it or not. http://drjudithreisman.org/whitep/regent.pdf
3) I agree that homosexuality can produce abnormal behavior. The incidence of suicide is more than 5 times higher among homosexual children and teens than their heterosexual counterparts. Depression, anti-social behavior, substance abuse. They are all higher among gay teens. Then again, it's not surprising considering the amount of self-loathing and resentment and hatred gay teens develop because of the society they grow up in.
Considering I grew up in a *heavily* christian family and surrounding, not to mention the society I grew up in (black community, very macho, anti-gay), I spent the better part of my teens and early 20s going through constant depression. When I was 16 I contemplated suicide and was *this* close to going through with it because I couldn't take the mental and emotional abuse anymore.
And I wasn't even out of the closet!
So you're definitely correct there, as those psychiatrists were. Homosexuality, due to societal pressures, biases, and hatreds, can most certainly induce abnormal behavior.
We don't know why it produces the abnormal behavior there is some genetic connection so it is difficult to say if it is a social or genetic matter. I know that my sister is Scitso with a Manic-depressive bi-polar disorder this runs in the family on my fathers side. Surely all of these problems would be subsiding now that the environment is so pro homosexual? Don't know any of the figures but I am willing to bet that indeed the problem is not so much that everyone else thinks homosexuals have problems but they themselves feel different and don't like that knowing most everyone else is normal. This in itself would cause some serious internal strife correct me if I am wrong.
I'm trying to clean my own country first before I go to any others. What's the use of fighting for the rights of others in other countries when I don't even have my own rights here at home? I find no use for it, and that is why I concentrate on the home front first and foremost. Simple.
I know that those countries are not in the best of shape, but ours is certainly far from perfect. Since I live *here*, this is the place that I'm trying to change first and foremost.
The matter is that your country doesn't need any more cleaning up IMO. The problem with the critical mind is that it will try to fix everything and then once everything is fixed it will look and find more problems to fix. My favorite saying to apply here is "if it isn't broken don't fix it."
2) You rail against gay people as "chaps on a float of a giant erect penis." Jesus Sabastian. Not every gay person does that! There are straight people out there who go on Jerry Springer and tell the world about how they f*cked their brother, killed their boss, aborted their child, and on top of that, they're currently sleeping with another man and they want to tell their husband about it indignantly, with the "Roooh Roooh Roooh" and "Woof Woof Woof" of the audience behind them.
Hey I don't like that garbage anymore then you do. But the matter is that this is coming from the garbage morality the left preaches. "if it feels good do it" mentality. Left thinkers like to sit back and watch how easily a once highly moral society can be turned into a sprawling mess on the stage on a cable broadcast channel. They want to create a situation where the traditional family is no longer able to be responsible enough to look after itself so that the government is given permission to swoop down and rescue people from themselves. They really like to destabilize the current environment as much as possible so that people will say "thats enough, do something about it." I have even seen university professors in sociology incourage it in their students. Just pathetic. Springer is known to have paid slobs come on his show and the crowd are a bunch of morons in my opinion. Oh I gotta say it .... the same people who like Jerry Springer like watching WWFgarbage as well. Bah, mostly I watch the news(always have.) discovery channel and I like a few sit coms.
EDIT: I hear J. Springer is running for the Democrates, funny that.
Also, you *think* that there aren't any gay people in your family. With your attitude it's any wonder that they wouldn't want to come out, especially if your attitude is the prevailing attitude in your family. It's attitudes like yours that kept me in the closet to my family for so long. The funny thing is, quite a few of the homophobic people in my family turned around once they realized "one of their own" is gay. You might be surprised.
Listen I don't go around looking for "gays" or trying to sniff them out or go on tangents to anyone in my family about "gays". There simply isn't any. I am not going to even bother replying to any more suggestions that there are some sercret "gays" in my family I have told you this mulitiple times now. It is simply rediculus speculation.
3) Gay people are biologically capable of having kids you know :lol:. There are many gay people who have come out in their later years after raising families.
Then they couldn't be biologically homosexual could they?
Sabastian, ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. One person's beauty is another person's hag. There is no room for interpretation with racism and homophobia. I'll leave the distinction at that and move on to the next.
Is that right? Now I am going to cheat here a bit Natoma, sorry. ;) Who here thinks that this woman is ugly?... http://207.44.134.36:8080/images0/240b.jpg
Here's a site:
PBS.org (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/evidence.html)
They speak of quite a few studies done on this matter. I'd consider PBS to be quite objective.
Public Broadcasting System is fairly unbiased but I read the article and found nothing that suggest conclusively that the differences were a result of genes but rather they clearly give a number of possibilities as to why they were different including this only three paragraphs from the bottom.
A second idea is that the hypothetical gene acts indirectly, through personality or temperament, rather clan directly on sexual-object choice. For example, people who are genetically self-reliant might be more likely to acknowledge and act on same-sex feelings than are people who are dependent on the approval of others.
In other words they don't know, just like us. Likely they should have addressed this possibility a little bit more closely in this document. I wouldn't get excited over the prospect simply because they see it runs in families like many recessive genes do. But they really didn't conclude that either.. The last line should have said... we don't know.
p.s.: Science is *built* upon theory sabastian. You take an assumption and then, through scientific method, qualitatively prove it, or at least get enough proof to say "yes, we believe this is correct."
Think about it. That means that Galileo's belief that the earth revolved around the sun was not legitimate science, it was speculation. Einstein's theories must not have been legitimate science, only speculation. Speculation does not automatically negate legitimacy. That's a basic truism of science.
Science is trial and error. Most every experiment includes assumptions which may or may not be right. This is the achilleas heal of the scientific method and it isn't my creation but rather a credible philosophical argument that I have applied to the "science" of Sociology as a result of their basic premise in socialization theories that their is no such thing a human nature and our behavior is a product of our environment. Indeed they tried to erase what was on the board and even attempted to rewrite overtop of it.
You obviously don't understand human sexuality sabastian. Many studies have been completed by scientifically objective bodies such as The Journal of Sex Research, The Journal of Clinincal Psychology, The Journal of Human Sexuality, etc etc etc, that show that human beings are for the most part not exclusively heterosexual or homosexual.
Oh yet another intimidation tactic ... the suggestion of ignorance. I am certain that indeed there are far more heterosexuals that are entirely and exclusively heterosexual. While on the other hand you would find at all the places that you point out there are very few exclusive homosexuals. The really are not comparable. The percentage disparities would be staggeringly different. lol... If they are not exclusive they are not either homosexual or heterosexual but bisexual. The percentages of exclusively heterosexual people clearly stand for the vast majority of the worlds population, don't play games here. Exclusive homosexuals only account for less then 1% of the population.
That innate human ability to appreciate attractiveness in both sexes is because of our sexuality. Current scientific numbers place exclusive homosexuality and heterosexuality as only 2% to 10% of the human population. Everyone else is somewhere in between. Our current definitions of sexuality are merely that way because they are convenient descriptors, but they are certainly flawed.
lol, this is a pile of crap. This is how I believe the measurement goes. Your familiar with the bell cure correct? Well lets put a gender on each end. The less then 1% of exclusive homosexuals represented on one side and exclusive lesbians on the other. In the center you would most certainly have the vast majority of heterosexuals representing the largest portion of the population with bisexuals of each extreme on either side. It would not be that bisexuals represent the majority as you are suggesting at all. This is purely a hypothetical measurement ideal and is highly speculative. If you were to measure it that is how you would do it in my opinion.
http://www.fsmitha.com/com/curve.JPG
It doesn't defy the biological explanation I gave earlier because you can be born gay or straight and still have sex with someone of the same sex or opposite sex. If you close your eyes and receive a blow job sabastian, and you never open them, you can get off and not even realize it's a guy's mouth rather than a girls. It's the psychological/mental orientation that defines us overall.
But this is not how we go about things is it? We don't separate the psychological from the physical. When we are looking for a mate we don't do it with our eyes closed do we? And yes it does defy the explanation of homosexuality being a genetic affliction and lends credence to the possibility that you are indeed making a choice. To choose to be homosexual are not grounds for government legislation of this morality.
Frankly the idea of having sex with a woman turns my stomach, but that doesn't mean that all gay men have that reaction. I'm sure the idea of having sex with a man turns your stomach sabastian, but that doesn't mean that all straight men have that reaction. You'd be surprised by the responses people would give if this society weren't so repressive of sexuality.
Oh you heterosexual basher... ;) I don't know nor do you know what sorts of responses people would give but if you are suggesting that in a pro homosexual environment there would be pro homosexual statements attitudes.... this lends more credence to the learned or made homosexual.
1) Sodomy is defined as anal *and* oral sex in most states Sabastian. Let's get that part straight.
Oh, heh, learn something new everyday.
2) Anal sex most certainly does not occur while there is feces present anymore than vaginal sex occurs when a woman is menstruating *shudder*. It's called cleansing. Unless of course you happen to be into the uterine-tissue-and-blood-on-the-penis fetish :shock: :lol: *puke*.
Man, I don't think you could fool anyone with the statement that there are no feces present in the anus. Trace amounts would always be present and bowel movements are something that occur daily. Where menstruation is on a monthly cycle. Comparing the anus to the vagina is silly. lol, your reaction is appreciated though I don't think that there are many out there that really like sex in that time period. lol *puke*. :lol: . The rectum is not for sex biologically at all while the vagina is specially suited for it.. ;)
3) The mouth is also used only for speaking, eating/drinking, and breathing. What's the use of kissing then? I mean, kissing is pretty disgusting when you think about it. Our mouths are *full* of bacteria. When you swap saliva with someone else, you're also swapping old food they missed when they brushed their teeth, plaque, and a hell of a lot of germs.
Definitely disgusting when you think about it eh?
Yeah, certainly the spread of STDs to the mouth and throat area are becoming more and more of a problem with the proliferation of oral sex. http://www.alice.columbia.edu/highlight/page3.html Looks like you will have to use a condom for that as well, where oral sex used to be touted as something that was safe it is now becoming more risky. Funny that. Some viruses like HPV are not inhibited by the use of condoms.
http://www.geocities.com/thehpvvirus/condoms.html
4) People that seek out particular porn generally do so because they already *have* those inner feelings. However, as you've stated, people also start off not knowing things sexually. In some cases when they see something new, it turns them on and they incorporate it in their sex life. In other cases they see something new and know they don't like it, and discard it as a sexual option.
I've watched movies with sadomasochism. I definitely am not turned on by it. I'm sure if you watched gay porn, unless you're a closet case, you wouldn't be turned on it. I don't get turned on my heterosexual porn either. Well that's not true. When the guy is hot. But seriously, straight porn is all about the women. 9 times out of 10 they have some 60yr old fat tub of lard screwing some 20 year old and it works cause all the straight men looking at the porn are looking at the women. :lol:. But I digress. :)
Consider a young man wants to see a naked woman.... any half way decent looking woman would suffice. But when they finally do get to view one she is having anal sex for example. I believe what happens is that repeated exposure to soft porn lends way to more and more graphic and hard core porn as a result of a desensitization of the reader to simply for example a naked woman. Perversity is progressive and what used to be suitable with soft porn is no longer as exciting to the persons in question and they seek out more perverse ideas and porn. In other words if exposure to soft pornography was kept to a minimum the person in question would most certainly be excited by most any woman at all. But this is not what is happening and great many people are becoming more and more desensitized to porn and subsequently the types of sex or even sexuality that they want to experience are possibly becoming more varied. It starts off out of innocents and curiosity made becomes more perverse from there. That is my opinion.
I'm sure the majority didn't want equal rights for blacks in the 60's, or equal rights for women in the 70's. Certainly doesn't mean the decision to give address those rights was wrong.
I think you are exagerating things here. In the 60s and 70s there were all sorts of people(majority) whom thought that racism was wrong. There were not any laws disinfranchising women or blacks in the time you are talking about AFAIK.
The major downside to homosexuality is society's reaction, particularly people like you. But gay children and teens don't need schools to teach them that.
Yes they do and they should if they do teach about homosexuality.
Uhm, people have been getting divorced for millennia. There have been impoverished single parents just as long, and there have been well off single parents too. And btw, my mom was basically a single parent in terms of my legal guardian, but I would hardly call the situation I grew up in impoverished. Way to generalize. And man, STDs have been around since the dawn of time and are not and have not been limited only to those who are single. Come on now, you can come up with something better than that can't you?
The mushroom of divorce rates sense the sexual revolution and "free sex" are not really something you can say ever existed in the past.
The alarming increase in STDs that has accompanied the increase in sexual promiscuity sense the "sexual revolution" and "free sex" also cannot be wrote off as a epidemic that always existed in equally devastating numbers before the "sexual revolution". There simply was not nearly the levels of promiscuity before that we have now and certainly the millions killed by AIDS should not be overlooked but it seems that somehow it is. But that is just the numbers of AIDS victims consider the plight of millions of others infected with a whole variety of different incurable diseases and you can only conclude that we have to stop proliferating the idea that promiscuous sex is something that is ok. We can't give that message out though BTW if at the same time we are sporting condoms as some sort of protection. Rather we ought to be suggesting abstinence or considerably less sex with multiple partners and the message should be clear and unambiguous for their sake.
I seriously doubt that Sabastian. Either you keep your opinions to yourself, you're deluding yourself, or you're outright lying. No gay person would put up with your closed minded bigotry for long anymore than any self respecting woman would put up with a male chauvinist or a black person would put up with a white supremacist.
Well I am openly sexist. I think men and women are different. I am racist in that I believe blacks have a better set of genes. I never keep my opinions to myself.....;) and your right I know very few "gays" and hence my joke that "some of my best friends are "gay". But that isn't because I wouldn't have a conversation with one, I simply don't know any, oh with the exception of yourself of course. Imagine that. ;)
3) I couldn't be bothered to be married in a christian church or any church for that matter. I could just as easily go down to city hall. It's the *right* to marry that is deserved. The venue is of little circumstance, just as it is to heterosexual couples.
Thats nice but I am not interested in what you are doing personally but rather what the gay movement is doing on a national scale. I am not interested in persectuting anyone what I am interested in is debating the political motives of the left. It just so happens that on the list of left wing political agenda is the homosexual agenda. The problem is that you want to use charter or constitutional law to evolke the government into providing speacial protective rights to homosexuals not over skin color or gender but actions and behavior with special regards to sexuality. I submit to you that other special interest groups will use that precedent to achieve some sort of likewise protection including poligymist, pedophiles, sexual sadist, sexual masochist and whom ever else that wants to argue that they are discrimanated against.
4) Infertile couples have the right to adopt. They can't reproduce. Your point?
My point on this is that adoptive parents ought to be at the very least a heterosexual couple that represents both mother and father figures and are best to give the adopted children the assemblance of a normal natural family.
I really have had enough of these long posts. It takes a considerable bit of my time to reply and it is time that I really don't have. I realize that I had a hand in perpetuating them so... but from here on out I will not respond to these massive posts I simply don't have the time. The last couple of days I have been working allot so the response was belated sorry for that.
On that note Natoma, over the past few days I really have become struck at how victimized you portray yourself and feel that this discussion is not good for you. I would submit an idea to you that possibly the fact that you see yourself as a victim of not only of racism but human sexuality is not a healthy mentality. Now please don't get me wrong here, I am not trying to be crass, but rather sensitive believe it or not. I suggest that you cease this self victimization and not focus on it and just try to be happy my friend. Stop trying to change the world if it will change it will do it in good time. MrSkywalker has a point when he says there is no one here that can do anything for your plight.
Nagorak
30-Apr-2003, 08:53
The "at fault" divorce fits in to the discussion because there are legal implications of bedroom activities. (infidelity causes you to lose legal rights)
If we proclaim that bedroom activities are protected by this growing "right to privacy", then laws such as this could be declared unconstitutional because the goverment has no right interfering with what goes on in the bedroom.
I don't think that is a good outcome.
This argument is just totally ridiculous. The truth is something that Santorum just pulled out of his ass to try to explain away the big, fat foot he was sucking on. No need to actually put a foot in your mouth as well, by actually trying to defend its spurious credibility.
Evildeus
30-Apr-2003, 09:11
My point of view on the subject: ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. That's the only place where i can see egalitarism.
Then, i would say that any human being lives by discrimination of friends, votes, jobs, products, etc. That's human life. I won't accept any nazi in my house, i'm discriminating. Same perhaps for other people who dislike me. The important thing is to be free and not invades/diminishes people's rights.
I think that the law should be un-conflictible (?) saying that by followinf each law you can't break any law and then there's no conflict of rights. Otherwise there are issues and discrimination in the law.
Nagorak
30-Apr-2003, 09:13
As for the US's position on this in the UN. Its probably diplomatically sensible, in the same way that not taking a Jewish president is. Wrong, maybe, but savy yes.
Agreed here. Another twist: perhaps... just maybe... the U.S. feels that the UN shouldn't be concerned with this matter and this is motivation behind the abstention?
Is this the same US that proclaims to be going around "liberating" people? It's OK for the UN to tell countries not to practice genocide, but it's NOT within the scope of the UN to tell countries they can't persecute people for their sexuality?
The reason the US is abstaining is because otherwise the ultra-religious zealots wouldn't vote for good ol' Georgie boy next time. Or maybe Bush's real stance on the matter is that homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal, but he can't "come out of the closet" about it or he'd scare off all the moderates and win 10% of the vote. Actually, I think the latter is more likely, to be honest.
Joe DeFuria
30-Apr-2003, 12:30
Is this the same US that proclaims to be going around "liberating" people?
When it's in the interest of our National Defense (as in Iraq), absolutely.
...Or maybe Bush's real stance on the matter is that homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal, but he can't "come out of the closet" about it or he'd scare off all the moderates and win 10% of the vote. Actually, I think the latter is more likely, to be honest.
Or maybe it's like me:
That he believes homosexuality is in fact wrong, but doesn't think that the federal government (or world government) is the place to legislate right or wrong in this case. It's much the same way I feel about abortion up to a certain point during pregnancy. It's a more local / cultural issue, and if it's addressed, should be addressed there. (In the U.S., that means being addressed on the state level.)
That's the most direct way to read an abstention vote without having to place all kinds of conspiracy / ulterior motives behind it. But then, I know ulterior motives are the leftist modus operandi, so I expect that you believe all people work the same way.
I though for the most part, the Bush administration had demonstrated that it is more straightforward (brutally so) than not...much to the dismay of "diplomacy" freaks.
I guess he's just brutally straightforward when it suits you, and then "highly secretive" at other times, right? :roll:
Joe DeFuria
30-Apr-2003, 12:32
This argument is just totally ridiculous. The truth is something that Santorum just pulled out of his ass to try to explain away the big, fat foot he was sucking on. No need to actually put a foot in your mouth as well, by actually trying to defend its spurious credibility.
Question for you, Nagorak.
Do you think polygamy should be a legalized marriage, just like heteros? How about incestual partnerships...? I can explain my own thoughts on that after I get yours....
RussSchultz
30-Apr-2003, 14:05
This argument is just totally ridiculous. The truth is something that Santorum just pulled out of his ass to try to explain away the big, fat foot he was sucking on. No need to actually put a foot in your mouth as well, by actually trying to defend its spurious credibility.
Don't shoot the messenger. Its all about constitutional law, which many people just seem to throw out the window and demand what they think is right, rather than what is proscribed by the constitution (both on the left and right)
But, to continue on, do you even read up on the subject? You do realize that that was the exact argument given (apparently poorly) by the Texas Attorney General at the US Supreme court hearing on the case in question. Its the same argument forwarded by Scalia. This argument over the right to privacy is the reason why its in the supreme court in the first place!
People point to Ashcroft as the one wiping his ass with the constitution, but I'll stand up and point my little finger at the leftists too. Nowhere does it mention the RIGHT to abortion, or the RIGHT to sexual union with you you want, or the RIGHT to recognition of whatever lifestyle you choose.
Whether you think the right should or should not be exist is immaterial. COMPLETELY IMMATERIAL. The right isn't protected by the constitution. If you want it to be, you need an amendment, or some logical argument that construes whatever activity you want to be covered by a protected right, or some sympathetic majority of the supreme court that wants the right as much as you and are willing to wipe their ass with the constitution to create the right.
Roe v. Wade was the last method, by inventing a right to privacy and self determination. These rights are, as I mentioned before, being used as a powerful tool by political advocates to attempt to shape the law in their image, rather than the will of the people. The problem I have is this shaping is not done by the proscribed methods in the constitution.
This current case is trying to use that created right to privacy to forward their political cause by extending it further to cover what goes on in the privacy of the bedroom. And yes, if you widen the umbrella covered by the right, you'll likely end up with unintended consequences.
And, mind you, this has nothing to do with whether I believe gays deserve the same legal benefits conferred by (the legal institution of) marriage or not. I think they do. Its just not (currently) a right guaranteed by the constitution.
Crusher
30-Apr-2003, 22:12
Marriage and family are is not rights guaranteed by the Constitution, either. Yet those "god-given rights" are the foundation for the argument against a right to privacy. But what the constitution does say, is that you have the right to the pursuit of happiness, and that all men are created equal. I think outlawing private acts between consenting adults and outlawing marriage based on gender should probably be considered unconstitutional under those terms, even without a right to privacy.
It seems to me like some people are grossly confusing the Bible with the Consitituion.
RussSchultz
30-Apr-2003, 22:21
It seems to me that somebody (hint hint Crusher) is confusing the Declaration of Independance with the Constitution.
Crusher
30-Apr-2003, 22:27
Blah, see how easily things get confused? :lol:
You get my point though... documents that the nation is founded upon vs. religious beliefs
To everyone who said "The UN should not be forming this type of legislation":
The gay rights provisions would make it illegal to discriminate against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people in matters of employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and union membership.
http://uk.gay.com/headlines/4252
Some of us here speak so sanctimoniously about how we in the US must deliver democracy and freedom and tolerance to other nations. It's too bad we can't get it quite right in our own sometimes.
I'm quite happy that this bill was passed in New Mexico, and I certainly hope it stands up to this ridiculous conservative push. We in this country need to move past the bigotries of the past so that we can advance into the future. I certainly don't see how we can lead the world into further enlightenment when we have such conservative mantra here at home.
RussSchultz
06-May-2003, 17:27
I love that little advert thats on the website you sent us. I just love looking at guys with nothing on but a cowboy hat covering their privates.
I love that little advert thats on the website you sent us. I just love looking at guys with nothing on but a cowboy hat covering their privates.
Oh please. As if straight advertising isn't just as provocative. *cough* GAP *cough* abercrombie & fitch *cough* *cough* any beer advert *cough*.
But anyways that still doesn't address the article itself. Though it's kinda funny it was the advertising that caught your eye. I guess they must have made a good campaign. You remembered it. :)
RussSchultz
06-May-2003, 17:34
Here I was innocently reading this article at work, when a naked gay cowboy popped up on my screen.
Me + naked gay cowboy = not interested.
Me + naked gay cowboy + work = not happy.
About the article: meh. Don't really care either way. Some folks support explicit protection of "minorities", others feel the laws we have now are fine. It takes all types.
I do think its silly that gays are included in the Minnesota definition of holocaust survivors.
Uhm, considering the Nazis were indeed explicitly exterminating Jews, Gypsies, Gays, among other groups, I'd consider gays holocaust survivors. The Nazis were targetting gays along with jews and other groups, so why not include them?
The Nazis explicitly targetted and exterminated 12 Million people, 6 Million of which were Jews, not to mention the millions they killed during the fighting itself. The 6 million other people that died were most certainly holocaust victims.
But this is getting away from the topic of the article. Some people here have argued that "Marriage" is not a right to be had. But I would hope that at the very least those same people would say that getting and keeping a job, or living quarters, and not having to worry about being kicked out because of one's sexual orientation, is most certainly a right that should be enjoyed by all.
This is an article that touches on the subject that Stvn and CosmoKramer were discussing earlier, regarding one of the reasons heterosexual men don't like gay men is that there's a feeling that straight men don't want to be "objectified" like they objectify women, or something to that effect.
The following article is regarding Colorado Rockies reliever Todd Jones stating that he does not believe gays should be allowed to play major league baseball. Thankfully, the Rockies management and his teammates condemned his remarks.
http://uk.gay.com/headlines/4268
Some pertinent quotes from the article:
The one thing many people don't understand is just how delicate the clubhouse atmosphere is. If there were a gay guy on the team, you can't tell me that it wouldn't be a huge distraction from what the team was trying to accomplish. It would be harder if he were open and out about his lifestyle. Some guys would have no problem with him, other guys would be willing to overlook it as long as they didn't feel threatened. Some guys would hate it. It would be very uncomfortable.
But, when it comes down to the bottom line, Jones reveals his real fear is being seen naked by a gay man.
1) Why would it be a huge distraction to the team if the gay man/men was/were just as dedicated to winning as everyone else? Just because you're gay doesn't mean that you find every single man irresistable. I know that men in general have huge egos about who finds them attractive and what not, but damn. Get over yourself.
2) Why would anyone have a reason to feel threatened? Again this goes back to the typical male response (straight and gay) that *everything* that walks must be attracted to that person, and that they must want them so badly that they're getting off just thinking about that person.
And I think that's the underlying problem behind a lot of homophobia. Fear of being sexually objectified by another male as straight males do to females. I think it's shown by his revelation that he fears being seen by a gay man while naked.
First, I'd fear for the gay man more than him. Second, being seen by a gay man most certainly wouldn't make him gay. Third, even if a guy found him attractive, I don't see why it would be an issue to have someone tell him "Hey I think you're attractive."
I mean gosh, when I'm told by women that I'm really attractive, I don't take it badly at all because frankly I'm happy that there are people that find me attractive in general. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder imo, and to know that you are attractive to people of both sexes is a wonderful feeling. But that doesn't mean that just because someone finds you attractive you've got to jump in the sack with them.
Unfortunately too many close minded fools don't share that opinion.
Guys go in, do their thing, get clean and get out. They don't want to think about another guy
So if all you gotta do is go in, do your thing, get clean, and get out, wtf are you thinking about another guy? Why get worried about another guy? I mean sheesh! Gay men don't spend their time obsessing over every straight man that pass their way. Again, typical male ego, which causes lots of homophobia in the world unfortunately.
I think that's why you don't see as much resistance to lesbians in mainstream culture. It's because males just see it as an opportunity to get it on with two girls.
"Oh wow! Two girls going at it! Well I'm ALL man, so they'll definitely want me too!" even if the lesbians are really thinking "Uggh, get the hell away from us."
It's the definitive fantasy of practically every porno ever made. Two girls and one guy. And it's funny because the proliferation of pornography tends to be a wonderful study on the psychological sexual wants of the general public.
Joe DeFuria
08-May-2003, 19:37
First of all, I personally wouldn't care about "gay men in my locker room."
However, you are dismissing that line of thought (causes disruptions, etc.) too readily, and being way too harsh on those who have that point of view.
To put it simply:
Why are there separate men's and women's bathrooms? Men's and women's locker rooms?
Should female cheerleaders shower with male athletes on the same team? Certainly, some women or men wouldn't care, but some would. For any woman who objects to such a thing, would you tell them to just "get over it?"
And I think that's the underlying problem behind a lot of homophobia. Fear of being sexually objectified by another male as straight males do to females.
And I personally think that's mostly a load of crap, though it might apply to a few select cases.
I think it's much more simpler reason behind "homophobia:" some people are just genuinely disgusted by homosexuality, and rather than just be honest and offer that up as an excuse (because of the P.C. times we live in), they try and find another way to explain why "they don't want gays."
This is what I suspect is happening in this case.
I also thing the term homophobia is way over-used and mis-used. Not LIKING homosexuality is not the same as FEARING it. All too often, homosexauls, like to protray their lifestyle as that of being "feared", rather than simply not being liked. I guess the "male ego" just doesn't apply to us heteros, eh, Natoma?
First of all, I personally wouldn't care about "gay men in my locker room."
I'm glad you're secure in your sexuality Joe. That is a trait that a lot of straight men do not share.
However, you are dismissing that line of thought (causes disruptions, etc.) too readily, and being way too harsh on those who have that point of view.
To put it simply:
Why are there separate men's and women's bathrooms? Men's and women's locker rooms?
Should female cheerleaders shower with male athletes on the same team? Certainly, some women or men wouldn't care, but some would. For any woman who objects to such a thing, would you tell them to just "get over it?"
Well there are key differences here.
Men and women in our society have never showered together in any circumstance, in the manner in which you espouse. Why? Because there was the strong fear that given that nakedness, the showers would turn into massive orgies, and that the men and women would not be able to control themselves.
This was also one of the beliefs behind restricting women from serving in the armed forces. If women were to be with men on the battlefield and in the barracks, there would be a breakdown of moral. Men would lose their fighting edge as they gave in to the wiley sexual ways of the women they shared their living quarters with.
But that wasn't the case.
Now looking at gay men (because I know you're wondering what any of that has to do with the gay male situation), we've been in the showers with straight men since there have been showers. In high school and college I always undressed in front of straight men, and they undressed in front of me. Hell, when I go to the gym there are guys undressing everywhere and showering together.
Do I see guys checking one another out? Yes. Does it seem to bother anyone? Not particularly. Generally I don't think it's a good idea to stare at *anyone* for too long, because it's the staring that gets uncomfortable, irrespective of the situation. But that's just me.
As I said before, I honestly think it comes down to straight men being scared of gay sexuality, or maybe sexuality in general. I mean, straight men are generally denigrated if they don't talk about how many women they screw, how much pussy they got, how long their dick is, etc etc etc. Like it's some notch on a bed post or something. There's a societal stigma against male sexual exploration, but females in our society are allowed that sexual exploration. Women are allowed to walk down the street holding hands. They're allowed to kiss in public.
I think it relates back to the idea that men are not threatened by women doing those types of things, and in fact encourage it, because it plays into the whole "role" situation of one man, many women, that biologically drives humanity as a whole.
But again this is getting into psychology and philosophy, which is a difficult topic to have any debate on that will result in a resolution.
And I think that's the underlying problem behind a lot of homophobia. Fear of being sexually objectified by another male as straight males do to females.
And I personally think that's mostly a load of crap, though it might apply to a few select cases.
I think it's much more simpler reason behind "homophobia:" some people are just genuinely disgusted by homosexuality, and rather than just be honest and offer that up as an excuse (because of the P.C. times we live in), they try and find another way to explain why "they don't want gays."
This is what I suspect is happening in this case.
Actually the guy explicitly stated that he didn't want guys looking at him, and he didn't think that guys should feel threatened by having a gay guy in the locker room with them. I mean, where exactly are these feelings of "Don't look at me" and feeling threatened coming from? I mean, from my understanding, feeling threatened means that there's a certain modicum of fear involved.
Fear of homosexuality, of how it's perceived in society? Maybe. "Oh that guy is looking at me and says he's attracted to me. Wtf, do I give off a gay vibe? Do people think I'm gay now? Shit I better beat the shit out of him before anyone else gets any ideas. I need to prove my manhood."
Or some crap like that. I've heard it tons of times. You must have too.
I also thing the term homophobia is way over-used and mis-used. Not LIKING homosexuality is not the same as FEARING it. All too often, homosexauls, like to protray their lifestyle as that of being "feared", rather than simply not being liked. I guess the "male ego" just doesn't apply to us heteros, eh, Natoma?
Again, where is the dislike coming from? Where is the gut reaction against gays coming from, that results in homophobic comments such as these? I mean, it doesn't exactly set my heart a flutter to see a guy and a girl kissing and making out and sexing and whatnot. But I don't get feelings of hatred and revulsion and disgust and "I don't want that around me."
I have nothing against heterosexuality. People that say that they have nothing against homosexuality, but "don't want that" around them obviously have something against homosexuality. I've gone into the reasons above.
Oh, and I said that the male ego does indeed apply to all males, straight and gay. Please, I've seen a few gay men say that they can "change" a straight man. I tell them the same thing. Get over yourself.
The male ego is definitely something that homos and heteros share alike.
Joe DeFuria
08-May-2003, 21:54
[Being secure with your sexuality] is a trait that a lot of straight men do not share.
I don't necessarily agree with that, nor do I know where you get that idea from. Sounds like what a lot of homosexuals SAY a "lot of striaght men do not have," just because a lot of stright men disagree with homosexuality.
I presume you are secure iwth your own sexuality, at least at this point in your life, and I would argue that a lot higher proportion of homo/bi/trans sexuals have issues with being secure in their sexuality than heteros.
Men and women in our society have never showered together in any circumstance, in the manner in which you espouse. Why? Because there was the strong fear that given that nakedness, the showers would turn into massive orgies, and that the men and women would not be able to control themselves.
Where did this factoid come from? I don't presume to know the "origins of sexual separation", but if I had to guess, it's less about fear of massive origies breaking out, and more about personal sexuality generally being (historically) viewed as "sacred."
Now looking at gay men (because I know you're wondering what any of that has to do with the gay male situation), we've been in the showers with straight men since there have been showers. In high school and college I always undressed in front of straight men, and they undressed in front of me. Hell, when I go to the gym there are guys undressing everywhere and showering together.
Right, and there would be no problem with men and women showering together, if the men didn't know the women were actually women and vice versa. ;)
As I said before, I honestly think it comes down to straight men being scared of gay sexuality, or maybe sexuality in general. I mean, straight men are generally denigrated if they don't talk about how many women they screw, how much pussy they got, how long their dick is, etc etc etc.
Are there any other stereotypes you can throw out there about us "striaght men?" For somone who often claims how many (most?) heteros don't understand homos and just repeat the same old cliche's and stereotypes about them, you seem to do a good job of doing that yourself to the heteros.
I think it relates back to the idea that men are not threatened by women doing those types of things, and in fact encourage it, because it plays into the whole "role" situation of one man, many women, that biologically drives humanity as a whole.
Possibly, though I think that both men and women can actually appreciate the beauty that is the form of a feminine woman's body. In other words, ask a man (or woman) if he/she minds seeing two "butch" women together. I find that about as repulsive as seing two men together. Two supermodels? (Whether or not they are actually gay or striagt). Woohoo!
But again this is getting into psychology and philosophy, which is a difficult topic to have any debate on that will result in a resolution.
Agreed.
Actually the guy explicitly stated that he didn't want guys looking at him, and he didn't think that guys should feel threatened by having a gay guy in the locker room with them. I mean, where exactly are these feelings of "Don't look at me" and feeling threatened coming from? I mean, from my understanding, feeling threatened means that there's a certain modicum of fear involved.
As I said, it's possible that what he said is his actual reason, but I would be inclined to think his statement is his politically correct way of saying "homos repulse me. I just don't want them around."
He may not even know why he's repulsed by it...anymore than you know why you are attracted to men. But if just comes out and says that publically, he'd really get blasted.
Fear of homosexuality, of how it's perceived in society? Maybe. "Oh that guy is looking at me and says he's attracted to me. Wtf, do I give off a gay vibe? Do people think I'm gay now? Shit I better beat the shit out of him before anyone else gets any ideas. I need to prove my manhood."
Or some crap like that. I've heard it tons of times. You must have too.
I've heard that from homosexuals a lot, just like I'm hearing it from you now. I can't ever recall hearing that from a straight man. Ever. I hear homosexuals "explain" the actions of those piece-of-shit heteros that you describe.
Again, where is the dislike coming from? Where is the gut reaction against gays coming from, that results in homophobic comments such as these?
Like most bias (be it ethnic, religious, etc.), a lot of dislike probably comes from a lack of understanding and education. And to be clear, I don't hear such homophobic comments such as those much at all. That's how I hear homosexuals explain hedeous acts against them. I don't equate "dislike" comments or even "hateful" comments with "fearful" comments.
However, I think because many homos just don't want to admit that some people just genuinely replused by their lifestyle. And again, you can't really expect an answer to why any more than you can explain why I like women, or you like men.
"We just do."
(And just to be clear, I'm not saying that any amount of dislike is justification for any type of violent action.)
I mean, it doesn't exactly set my heart a flutter to see a guy and a girl kissing and making out and sexing and whatnot. But I don't get feelings of hatred and revulsion and disgust and "I don't want that around me."
But you have to understand that a "guy and a girl" doing those things is the natural order. Even though that's not your order, you innately know that it's natural. I'm not sure how you could have feelings of "hatred" for something that was responsible for producing you, for example.
Many heteros just don't see homosexuality as natural. It is in and of itself repulsive. I can't really blame them for that thought.
Would you be repulsed and disgusted by beastiality? (I'm assuming so.) Can you explain why? Whatever reason you come up with, it's basically the same reason why some heteros are repulsed by homosexuality, even if you don't agree with it. (No, I'm not equating the two.)
I have nothing against heterosexuality. People that say that they have nothing against homosexuality, but "don't want that" around them obviously have something against homosexuality.
That is true, but not really contradictory. Again, think about beastiality...I personally don't care if John Smith goes home every night and fucks a sheep. Doesn't bother me in the least. (Let's not get side tracked about whether it can be determined if the sheep is a "willing participant" or not. ;) ) I prefer not to be exposed to it though, because seeing it repulses me.
Again, I'm not "equating" homosexuality with beastiality. But the point is, they can be related on some level: it not being the "natural order".
And many people, while they don't care what "unnatural" thing you do in the privacy of your own home, do care about being exposed to it.
The male ego is definitely something that homos and heteros share alike.
OK, we agree on that! ;)
[Being secure with your sexuality] is a trait that a lot of straight men do not share.
I don't necessarily agree with that, nor do I know where you get that idea from. Sounds like what a lot of homosexuals SAY a "lot of striaght men do not have," just because a lot of stright men disagree with homosexuality.
I presume you are secure iwth your own sexuality, at least at this point in your life, and I would argue that a lot higher proportion of homo/bi/trans sexuals have issues with being secure in their sexuality than heteros.
You misunderstand where I'm coming from. I know many straight men who are not in any way shape or form attracted to other guys. In fact they tell me that thinking about having sex with other guys is not something they consider sexy, and in many cases it actually turns their stomach.
However, they do not go out of their way to through that in my face, and in fact are quite respectful when I'm around with my partner. It's the ones who are some vehemently against homosexuality that they feel the need to go out of their way to voice their "icky" "ewwwwww" "nasty" attitudes whenever they see a gay person walking down the street, generally being unnecessarily disrespectful, that I have issues with. It's those people that I believe are not secure with their sexuality.
In almost every case, I've found that many of those people are indeed fighting their own sexuality and desires. Every case of the people I've known personally that is, and seeing profiled stories on television, and reading about them on the internet.
You're right, I am secure in my sexuality. However, that took years and years and years. It wasn't because of my own inhibitions. Quite the contrary, it was because I was afraid of what my family and friends would do to me. I was, at 12, 13, 14, etc, afraid that I'd get kicked out of my parent's home. That I'd lose my friends, or get harassed. I also had years of religious upbringing to fight my way through. I grew up in church from 2yrs old until I was 19.
That is what causes many gay men and women to hide their sexuality.
Men and women in our society have never showered together in any circumstance, in the manner in which you espouse. Why? Because there was the strong fear that given that nakedness, the showers would turn into massive orgies, and that the men and women would not be able to control themselves.
Where did this factoid come from? I don't presume to know the "origins of sexual separation", but if I had to guess, it's less about fear of massive origies breaking out, and more about personal sexuality generally being (historically) viewed as "sacred."
You'd be surprised, but it's a fairly recent occurrence. Today's puritanical views toward sex that is. Most of the societal ideas toward sex were formed during the Renaissance, nurtured during the Elizabethan age, and truly permeated all facets of society during the Victorian age. Google "victorian age separation sexes" and "elizabethan age separation sexes" for some quality articles.
Most of the ideas toward sex were not personal, but religious. Sex, gender, and sexuality were viewed as constructs of marriage only. At least, the good kind was. You know, the whole madonna/whore complex.
You may not know this, but the puritans for example, only engaged in sexual intercourse, even while married :shock:, only if there was a sheet between them, with a little hole for the actual physical intercourse to take place.
Chastity belts, showing no skin, sheet sex, madonna/whore complex, etc. They were all a result of the overly religious context with which sex was placed. So it's no surprise that women and men were never allowed to be in the showers with one another.
Fear that carnal thoughts would take over and raunch and debauchery would rule the day, because we're all evil flesh in the eyes of god, or some other religious doggerel.
As I said before, I honestly think it comes down to straight men being scared of gay sexuality, or maybe sexuality in general. I mean, straight men are generally denigrated if they don't talk about how many women they screw, how much pussy they got, how long their dick is, etc etc etc.
Are there any other stereotypes you can throw out there about us "striaght men?" For somone who often claims how many (most?) heteros don't understand homos and just repeat the same old cliche's and stereotypes about them, you seem to do a good job of doing that yourself to the heteros.
After I wrote that and was on the way home, I realized that I should have clarified my statement. Many *immature* heterosexual men, and you find a lot of them in sports locker rooms, high schools, and other "I'm All Man" venues, engage in such puerile behavior.
How many girls did you screw? How long is your dick? C'mon, call that girl out on the street and hoot at her. Walking with quite a few of my girlfriends, and hanging out with quite a few of my heterosexual male friends, I've seen both sides of the coin.
I think it relates back to the idea that men are not threatened by women doing those types of things, and in fact encourage it, because it plays into the whole "role" situation of one man, many women, that biologically drives humanity as a whole.
Possibly, though I think that both men and women can actually appreciate the beauty that is the form of a feminine woman's body. In other words, ask a man (or woman) if he/she minds seeing two "butch" women together. I find that about as repulsive as seing two men together. Two supermodels? (Whether or not they are actually gay or striagt). Woohoo!
I think straight men are easily capable of appreciating the attractiveness of other men, just as gay men are easily capable of appreciating the attractiveness of women. It doesn't mean that they want to bag that person though. hehe. But it is not something that is generally smiled upon by our society unfortunately.
You can hear a woman say "Oh wow she is so beautiful!" and mean it as nothing more than an innocuous compliment. But if you hear a man say "Oh wow he is so gorgeous" people automatically turn their head and sneer, even if it was an innocent appreciation of physical beauty. There is certainly a double standard there in terms of what men are allowed to express while maintaining their heterosexual masculinity, if there is such a thing.
Fyi people always tell me I'm the straightest male they know. My cousin and my brother, who I'm both close to, simply would not believe me when I told them I was gay, because of the stereotype they had in their head about what a gay man is supposed to act and look like. To many people, because of how I'm built, how I carry myself, etc, I come across as a stereotypical heterosexual male, whatever that's worth. hehe.
See what I'm getting at? Again, this goes back to how comfortable I am with my sexuality these days.
But again this is getting into psychology and philosophy, which is a difficult topic to have any debate on that will result in a resolution.
Agreed.
Holy shit milk just shot out my nose all over the monitor! Joe agrees with me? :shock:
:wink:
Actually the guy explicitly stated that he didn't want guys looking at him, and he didn't think that guys should feel threatened by having a gay guy in the locker room with them. I mean, where exactly are these feelings of "Don't look at me" and feeling threatened coming from? I mean, from my understanding, feeling threatened means that there's a certain modicum of fear involved.
As I said, it's possible that what he said is his actual reason, but I would be inclined to think his statement is his politically correct way of saying "homos repulse me. I just don't want them around."
He may not even know why he's repulsed by it...anymore than you know why you are attracted to men. But if just comes out and says that publically, he'd really get blasted.
I dunno. Saying that he feels threatened by gay men, and saying "Don't come around me" is a pretty strong statement of his dislike for gays. It sounds about even with "homos repulse me. I just don't want them around."
But he did say why he didn't want gays in the majors. He said that he didn't want to feel threatened, and that he didn't want to have to think about some guy looking at him. I mean, those are pretty blatant statements from him. That's why I spent the earlier part of my prior post discussing the possible motivations behind the feeling of being under threat, for example.
Fear of homosexuality, of how it's perceived in society? Maybe. "Oh that guy is looking at me and says he's attracted to me. Wtf, do I give off a gay vibe? Do people think I'm gay now? Shit I better beat the shit out of him before anyone else gets any ideas. I need to prove my manhood."
Or some crap like that. I've heard it tons of times. You must have too.
I've heard that from homosexuals a lot, just like I'm hearing it from you now. I can't ever recall hearing that from a straight man. Ever. I hear homosexuals "explain" the actions of those piece-of-shit heteros that you describe.
Maybe you should talk to some people you are close to, if you know they're homophobic or whatever, and have a serious heart to heart. I've had them a lot, even before I came out, and generally that was the response I got. "I don't want people thinking I'm gay. I need to assert my manhood."
Again, where is the dislike coming from? Where is the gut reaction against gays coming from, that results in homophobic comments such as these?
Like most bias (be it ethnic, religious, etc.), a lot of dislike probably comes from a lack of understanding and education. And to be clear, I don't hear such homophobic comments such as those much at all. That's how I hear homosexuals explain hedeous acts against them. I don't equate "dislike" comments or even "hateful" comments with "fearful" comments.
However, I think because many homos just don't want to admit that some people just genuinely replused by their lifestyle. And again, you can't really expect an answer to why any more than you can explain why I like women, or you like men.
"We just do."
(And just to be clear, I'm not saying that any amount of dislike is justification for any type of violent action.)
Joe, like religious and racial bias/hatred, a lot of times people don't understand why they hate gays. They just do. I consider that to be an easy out, rather than actually examining the true reasons behind the dislike and/or the revulsion.
Every "dislike" or feeling of revulsion has a cause somewhere. I remember watching an episode of The Real World. One of the most homophobic cast members turned out to have been abused when he was a child, and he hadn't even thought about it. It was the Las Vegas Real World cast.
I mean, it doesn't exactly set my heart a flutter to see a guy and a girl kissing and making out and sexing and whatnot. But I don't get feelings of hatred and revulsion and disgust and "I don't want that around me."
But you have to understand that a "guy and a girl" doing those things is the natural order. Even though that's not your order, you innately know that it's natural. I'm not sure how you could have feelings of "hatred" for something that was responsible for producing you, for example.
Many heteros just don't see homosexuality as natural. It is in and of itself repulsive. I can't really blame them for that thought
Would you be repulsed and disgusted by beastiality? (I'm assuming so.) Can you explain why? Whatever reason you come up with, it's basically the same reason why some heteros are repulsed by homosexuality, even if you don't agree with it. (No, I'm not equating the two.)
You misunderstand. I *am* repulsed when I see a hetero couple going at it. It's not something that turns me on in any way shape or form. However, that feeling does not translate to hatred, outward revulsion, and feelings of "I don't want to be around that!"
I think those feelings are immature.
As for beastiality, there is no place in nature that shows sex happening between completely different types of animals. I'm not quite brushed up on the animal kingdom classifications, so I'll use a layman's explanation.
You don't see a goat and a tiger. Or a crocodile and a bird. Or a whale and a shark. A cat and a rat?
However, you do see homosexuality in nature. That is why I believe beastiality is not natural, and homosexuality is.
OK, we agree on that! ;)
Stop it! :shock:
I can't take the strain! :P
As for beastiality, there is no place in nature that shows sex happening between completely different types of animals. I'm not quite brushed up on the animal kingdom classifications, so I'll use a layman's explanation.
You don't see a goat and a tiger. Or a crocodile and a bird. Or a whale and a shark. A cat and a rat?
However, you do see homosexuality in nature. That is why I believe beastiality is not natural, and homosexuality is.
Not that I really want to get into this (eg. again), but your assumtion on inter-species mating is fallicious as it does occur in other lifeforms that "lack" the conscious grasp of the situation as you hold. Obviously, as in homosexuality, it's done for reasons outside of procreation. End of this as this is true and I'm attempting to make no further conclusion; take it as you will.
Also, I wish I knew who did the study, but as an undergrad I once had a friend who utilized a study that showed homosexuality in lower (read: not developed, self-reflecting consciousnesses-they used mice) lifeforms was at a minimum to nonexistsnt untill they artificially changed the enivorment they inhabited by overpopulating them. He used the study to prove that homosexuality was inherient in animal instinct; needless to say he was severly routed and left the round-table discussion with his tale between his legs. But, alas, I don't have the time right now to prolong this....
Joe DeFuria
09-May-2003, 17:21
....However, they do not go out of their way to through that in my face, and in fact are quite respectful when I'm around with my partner. It's the ones who are some vehemently against homosexuality that they feel the need to go out of their way to voice their "icky" "ewwwwww" "nasty" attitudes whenever they see a gay person walking down the street, generally being unnecessarily disrespectful, that I have issues with. It's those people that I believe are not secure with their sexuality.
I still don't see how you can blanket those people that have overtly nasty attitudes toward homosexuals / homosexuality, as not being secure with their own sexuality.
Once can be disrespectful and rude, while still being secure with their own sexuality. You don't have to be insecure to be an asshole.
In almost every case, I've found that many of those people are indeed fighting their own sexuality and desires. Every case of the people I've known personally that is, and seeing profiled stories on television, and reading about them on the internet.
I think you are looking at it the wrong way.
In other words, I highly doubt that most people who are overtly rude are insecure. What I do believe, is that a good deal individuals who are insecure about their sexuality, have such overt / hostile peronalities.
In short:
Take a person who is insecure about their sexuality...they have a good chance at some time in their life of being overtly hostile to one side or the other. (Toward gays or strights).
Take a person who is overtly hostile to gays or striaghts, and you don't really know if they are insecure or not. They may have any number of reasons for being hostile.
After I wrote that and was on the way home, I realized that I should have clarified my statement. Many *immature* heterosexual men, and you find a lot of them in sports locker rooms, high schools, and other "I'm All Man" venues, engage in such puerile behavior.
OK, well many "immature" men, be they homosexual or heterosexual, just do stupid and aggressive things in general. Has nothing to do with how comfortable they are with the sexuality. If an "immature white man" makes racial comments toward a black man, does that mean the white man is not comfortable with his race?
I think straight men are easily capable of appreciating the attractiveness of other men, just as gay men are easily capable of appreciating the attractiveness of women.
Being a straight man, I'll just disagree there. We are going to split hairs here though: I can probably "identify" a generally attractive man vs. a ugly man (based on physical characteristics.). But I honestly don't "appreciate" a man's body for it's "beauty". I could not look at a man's body as a "work of art" for example. I am not a woman, so I of course cannot speak for how they "appreciate" a woman's body, but in the conversations that I've had on this subject with them, they can "appreciate" a woman's body in that way. Again, that doesn't mean they want to bag them either ;).
You can hear a woman say "Oh wow she is so beautiful!" and mean it as nothing more than an innocuous compliment. But if you hear a man say "Oh wow he is so gorgeous" people automatically turn their head and sneer, even if it was an innocent appreciation of physical beauty.
Agree and disagree. It's all in the language.
A man CAN talk about other men's physical make-up: "Man...he's RIPPED!" and it's again one of those innocuous compliments. But as my theory goes, straight men just don't "appreciate" the "physical beauty" of a man's body. So yes, describing a man's body as "gorgeous" or "beautiful" will get people to turn their heads.
There is certainly a double standard there in terms of what men are allowed to express while maintaining their heterosexual masculinity, if there is such a thing.
I agree with that, but that's because I believe it is a true double standard. Men and women are different, and homosexual men are different than heterosexual men. And with respect to appeciating a man's "physical beauty," homosexual men and heterosexual men are different.
Joe, like religious and racial bias/hatred, a lot of times people don't understand why they hate gays. They just do.
I know. That's what I said. And what I'm also trying to say, is that you shouldn't be surprised at this, any more than you should be surprised to not know "why" you are sexually attracted to males. You just are.
I consider that to be an easy out, rather than actually examining the true reasons behind the dislike and/or the revulsion.
It's certainly a valid question to ask "why" and to try and get at the reason, but don't expect everyone to be able to articulate it rationally.
Every "dislike" or feeling of revulsion has a cause somewhere.
Possibly, which is why I offered up the beastiality example. (More in a moment...)
You misunderstand. I *am* repulsed when I see a hetero couple going at it. It's not something that turns me on in any way shape or form. However, that feeling does not translate to hatred, outward revulsion, and feelings of "I don't want to be around that!"
You definition of "revulsion" is not the same as mine. The very definition of being genuinely repulsed, to me, is not wanting to be around it. Otherwise, you are not actually repulsed by it. Turned off? Maybe. Not the same as repulsed.
I think those feelings [of hatred, not wanting to be around it, etc] are immature.
I would agree that in some cases, you are going to be right. There are cases where folks act / feel that way out of their ignorance or immaturity. But I still don't see how yor why you can apply that blanket to everyone.
As for beastiality, there is no place in nature that shows sex happening between completely different types of animals. I'm not quite brushed up on the animal kingdom classifications, so I'll use a layman's explanation.
You don't see a goat and a tiger. Or a crocodile and a bird. Or a whale and a shark. A cat and a rat?
However, you do see homosexuality in nature. That is why I believe beastiality is not natural, and homosexuality is.
You didn't directly address my question.
My question as it relates to beastiality is this:
Why does beastiality genuinely repulse you? (And by genuinely repulse, I mean "outward revulsion" and "not wanting to be around it." (I am assuming that beastiality is repulsive to you.)
Even if you are not genuinely repulsed by beastiality, I think you can at least understand how some other people would be, right?
Now, you are saying the "issue" with beastiality is that it is not "natural", meaning that different species don't have sex in nature. (I disagree with that, and see Vince's post....but for the sake of argument, let's just say you are in fact correct.)
So, if we had to find a reason (which you say exists for such negative feelings) for revulsion toward beastiality, you would say because it's not natural. Right? (Or tell us otherwise the reason why beastiality repulses you.)
So, not being "natural" is a valid reason to be genuinely repulsed?
Why else should people be repulsed by sec between two different species? They are just two different creatures.
Homosexuality is "unnatural" to many people, (myself included) because biologically speaking, homosexual relationships cannot by definition result in "natural" offspring. Technically, that is, offspring that results in the combination of DNA from two partners through natural intercourse. (And no, arguments about "infertile" couples do not apply, because such restrictions do not apply to the "definition" of heterosexuals.)
If not being "natural" is a valid reason to be repulsed by beastiality, the same reason can be applied to homosexuality.
All I'm saying is this:
Yes, some people act in overtly repulsive and disrespectful ways out of ignorance and/or immaturity.
Others act in an overtly repulsive and disrespectful way, because they are in fact genuinely replused by homosexuality. Many have their own "reason" for it. And whether or not you agree with that reason, you have to accept some of them as valid. You should accept the fact that no amount of "education" or "laws" will, for example, make homosexualty more "natural" to many people, including myself.
As for beastiality, there is no place in nature that shows sex happening between completely different types of animals. I'm not quite brushed up on the animal kingdom classifications, so I'll use a layman's explanation.
You don't see a goat and a tiger. Or a crocodile and a bird. Or a whale and a shark. A cat and a rat?
However, you do see homosexuality in nature. That is why I believe beastiality is not natural, and homosexuality is.
Not that I really want to get into this (eg. again), but your assumtion on inter-species mating is fallicious as it does occur in other lifeforms that "lack" the conscious grasp of the situation as you hold. Obviously, as in homosexuality, it's done for reasons outside of procreation. End of this as this is true and I'm attempting to make no further conclusion; take it as you will.
Where does this occur in nature? This would be news to me.
Also, I wish I knew who did the study, but as an undergrad I once had a friend who utilized a study that showed homosexuality in lower (read: not developed, self-reflecting consciousnesses-they used mice) lifeforms was at a minimum to nonexistsnt untill they artificially changed the enivorment they inhabited by overpopulating them. He used the study to prove that homosexuality was inherient in animal instinct; needless to say he was severly routed and left the round-table discussion with his tale between his legs. But, alas, I don't have the time right now to prolong this....
If you have any links to this study, I'd be interested, for obvious reasons, in reading it.
RussSchultz
12-May-2003, 15:44
Where does this occur in nature? This would be news to me.
My weiner dog (female) had a particular predeliction for one of my friends (male).
Very strange.
(Of course, dog leg 'humping' is attributed to dominance struggles and not sexual expression)
Joe,
We're never going to be able to come to a resolution with this debate because frankly you have a different definition of what "natural" is. I deem natural as what occurs in nature. I know what you're getting at when you state that inter-species sex does occur, but that is not necessarily the correct way of looking at this.
The reason I state that is because you do see different species who are genetically compatible, mating in the wild. Take for instance a Mule. Different species, i.e. a Horse and a Donkey, but they are in the same "family." I know that's not the correct terminology, but they are genetically compatible. Where there is genetic incompatibility, you do not see mating between two different types of animals. God I wish I could remember my AP Bio courses now, but I hope that you see what I'm getting at.
That's why I used those completely disparate types of animals to make my case earlier, because I know that there are instances where there is a genetic ability to create offspring when they are in the same "family."
Personally, I tend to not think about beastiality. It doesn't turn me on, and frankly it does sicken my stomach. But as I've said before, so does heterosexuality. But I'm not going to equate my feelings about beastiality to my feelings of heterosexuality because I don't consider the two comparable by any stretch of the imagination. Just as I don't consider homosexuality comparable to beastiality by any stretch of the imagination.
But again, now we're getting to a matter of opinion, and this is quite frankly something that will probably not get resolved because we can both come up with scientific "proof" to support our positions. So be it.
Now, as to the feeling of people being repulsed and whatnot by homosexuality. In 1991, a survey done by the National Opinion Research Center found that 66% of white Americans opposed a close relative marrying a black man.
I recall a judgement in the 1940's or 1950's, later overturned during the Supreme Court case Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, in which Mildred Jeter, a white woman, was arrested in Virginia for marrying Richard Loving, a black man. The judge's statements in that case?
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
<snip>
We must protect the natural order of things.
So my statement to you is this. People have long been "repulsed" by such innocuous happenings as interracial marriages. It has been deemed unnatural by many. They could no more say why they felt repulsed by interracial relationships anymore than you can say why you feel that homosexual relationships repulse you.
And they used the same excuses as well. It's not natural for the races to mix. So my question to you is, what is the difference? There are still people today who feel "repulsed" by interracial marriages. There are still people today who feel that the removal of the anti-miscegenation laws was wrong. As you correctly stated, there are still people today who the laws have had no effect on, and will feel the way they feel no matter what the government states.
But I stand by the fact that it was the right thing to do, and it most certainly has helped attitudes in this country for the government to legislate that it is indeed natural for interracial relationships/marriages to occur.
I just look at the current scenario with the opposition to homosexual relationships and see a disturbing parallel to the occurrences of discrimination in the past. However disturbing that parallel is though, I see hope in the fact that those past injustices were eventually destroyed, as the current injustices will.
Joe DeFuria
12-May-2003, 16:22
Natoma,
We're never going to be able to come to a resolution with this debate because frankly you have a different definition of what "natural" is.
Agreed. The purpose of my post, is to tell you that we have different definitions, (and that likewise, OTHER) people will have different definitions of "natural"...different from yours, and different from mine. And that just because other's definition of "natural" isn't the same as yours, doesn't make them any less valid.
I deem natural as what occurs in nature. I know what you're getting at when you state that inter-species sex does occur, but that is not necessarily the correct way of looking at this.[
Who are you to tell me or anyone else what the "correct way" is to look at this? That's my point. I understand your defintion, I don't agree with it, but I'm not callining it "incrorrect" either.
Just as I don't consider homosexuality comparable to beastiality by any stretch of the imagination.
I know you don't. I DO see them as comparable on certain levels, based on what I see as "natural", and so do others.
But again, now we're getting to a matter of opinion, and this is quite frankly something that will probably not get resolved because we can both come up with scientific "proof" to support our positions. So be it.
Agreed.
The problem is, you don't seem comfortable with others having the Position of being repulsed by homosexuality. You seem to argue (correct me if I'm wrong), that anyone who is genuinely repulsed by homosexuality, isn't looking at it "the right way" (your way.)
People have long been "repulsed" by such innocuous happenings as interracial marriages. It has been deemed unnatural by many. They could no more say why they felt repulsed by interracial relationships anymore than you can say why you feel that homosexual relationships repulse you.
I told you whay they repulse me. To me, it's not natural.
And they used the same excuses as well. It's not natural for the races to mix. So my question to you is, what is the difference?
I already gave you my answer. In sum: to me, "natural" in terms of sexuality is that which can result in offspring. Different races can have a sexual relationship resulting in offspring. Clearly different than the homosexual difference.
But I stand by the fact that it was the right thing to do, and it most certainly has helped attitudes in this country for the government to legislate that it is indeed natural for interracial relationships/marriages to occur.
I agree it was the right thing to do as well, because interractial relationships are "natural", so I see no reason to artificially separate them from other hetero relationships.
Silent_One
12-May-2003, 16:29
Take for instance a Mule. Different species, i.e. a Horse and a Donkey, but they are in the same "family." I know that's not the correct terminology, but they are genetically compatible. Where there is genetic incompatibility, you do not see mating between two different types of animals.
Ah...Mules are sterile, a genetic dead end. So are tigons (sp?) a cross between tigers and lions.
Joe, you state that interracial marriages are, in your opinion, natural, and thus see no need to artificially separate them from other hetero relationships.
However, the lawmakers at the time of Jim Crow disagreed vehemently with you.
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
<snip>
We must protect the natural order of things.
Just as you believe that the "unnatural"-ness of interracial relationships was a misplaced opinion, I believe your stance for the "unnatural"-ness of homosexuality is misplaced.
But at this point we're going to be going around in circles, so I'm going to step down from this one.
Joe DeFuria
12-May-2003, 16:52
Joe, you state that interracial marriages are, in your opinion, natural, and thus see no need to artificially separate them from other hetero relationships.
However, the lawmakers at the time of Jim Crow disagreed vehemently with you.
Right they disagree with me, and I think they are wrong. What's your point, exactly?
Just as you believe that the "unnatural"-ness of interracial relationships was a misplaced opinion, I believe your stance for the "unnatural"-ness of homosexuality is misplaced.
We both believe that the "unnatural"-ness of interracial relationships is a misplaced opinion. Because by both of our "definitions" of "natural" are satisfied whether it's same or different races of humans.
But at this point we're going to be going around in circles, so I'm going to step down from this one.
The point I'm making that you're stepping around, is that you seem to believe that ANYONE who thinks homosexual relationships are unnatural, thinks so for a "wrong reason."
I already said that I certainly agree that there ARE people who are like that. That their definition of "natural" is something they can't explain, is inconsistent, and end up doing so like that "Judge" who more or less just made up an interpretation of God's Will to justifiy his belief.
That doesn't mean everyone's interpretation of "natural" is wrong.
Right they disagree with me, and I think they are wrong. What's your point, exactly?
The point I'm making that you're stepping around, is that you seem to believe that ANYONE who thinks homosexual relationships are unnatural, thinks so for a "wrong reason."
I haven't been stepping around it. I'm saying that just as you believe that those who oppose interracial coupling are wrong, I believe that those who oppose homosexual coupling are wrong.
And one of the very similar arguments used in both cases is that people feel that they are "unnatural."
Joe DeFuria
12-May-2003, 17:20
I haven't been stepping around it. I'm saying that just as you believe that those who oppose interracial coupling are wrong, I believe that those who oppose homosexual coupling are wrong.
Let me clarify.
1) I do think that those who oppose interracial coupling are wrong.
2) I do not believe interracial coupling is unnatural, nor have I seen any reasonable argument to back that basis.
3) I can imagine that some people think interracial coupling is wrong, based on some premise that I can see as valid, though I disagree with it.
4) Therefore, I would not make a blanket statement about all people who disagree with interracial couplings, as those who are ignorant, immature, or inconsistent.
It appears to me that you (correct me if I'm wrong:)
1) You do think those who oppose homosexuality are wrong.
2) You do not believe that homosexual coupling is unnatural. Nor have you seen a reasonable argument, in your opinion, to back that.
3) You can't imagine that some people think that homosexuality is wrong, and at the same time have a valid premise for that belief.
4) You feel comfortable making a blanket statement that all people who disagree with homosexual couplings, are ignorant, immature, or inconsistent with their view.
1) Correct.
2) Correct.
3) No I can imagine it. I live through that kind of bias every day. Heh. They can even have what they deem is a valid premise. But I don't consider it to be valid, which goes back to point #2 you stated.
I consider those opinions to be as squalid as the anti-interracial coupling opinions.
4) Correct. However, it should be stated that I don't think people who disagree with homosexual couplings are ignorant *and* immature *and* inconsistent in their opinions, all at the same time. But at least one of those is most certainly applicable to those who have those opinions.
I would make that same statement about people who disagree with interracial couplings as well.
Joe DeFuria
12-May-2003, 17:38
4) Correct. However, it should be stated that I don't think people who disagree with homosexual couplings are ignorant *and* immature *and* inconsistent in their opinions, all at the same time.
Noted, and to be clear, I wasn't implying that. ;)
But at least one of those is most certainly applicable to those who have those opinions.
This is what I'm getting at.
So, which one of those (ignorant, inconsistent, or immature, etc.), applies to my opinion on homosexuality? (Which is, "homosexuality is wrong because it's not natural.")
I don't think it's ignorance...because I am aware of your point of view and understand it...just don't agree with it.
I don't think it's inconsistent...no one has pointed out a case where my definition of natural would incorrectly label a relationship as unnatural that I claim to be natural.
So am I just immature?
For the record, I don't think you are any of those. (Immature, ignorant, or inconsistent.) I just don't agree with your opinion / basis of how you define natural. (So ultimately, I just think yout opinion on homosexuality is wrong.)
Maybe there needs to be a fourth definition then.
"Just plain wrong."
:wink:
Joe DeFuria
12-May-2003, 17:49
Maybe there needs to be a fourth definition then.
"Just plain wrong."
:wink:
Actually, I can accept that as an opinion, which is precisely my point. :)
Over this past discussion, you appeard to label anyone who you think it "wrong" as being blanketed in ignorance / immaturity / or whatever. I am merely stressing that you can believe they are wrong, but that doesn't mean they should be automatically assumed to be and blanketed as ignorant.
Even the ones who make their opinions known via overt means that any of us would object to (violence, etc.). Overtness can just be a measure for how strongly they feel about their opinion...not how immature or ignorant it is.
Where there is genetic incompatibility, you do not see mating between two different types of animals. God I wish I could remember my AP Bio courses now, but I hope that you see what I'm getting at.
Natoma, never made it past that AP BIOS class, eh? Interspecies mating happens all the time, with no end result but that of the act itself. Where do you think the naturally occuring "Ligers/Tigons" come from? Do you think the Tiger and Lion consciously say, "Hey, there's a chance we'll produce a viable offspring dispite Haldane's Rule - lets get it on"?!? For every probable viable offspring, there is most likely hundreds of thousands of sexual incounterers that result in nothing. Hell, I've even seen this on the Discovery Channel.
Obviously due to Haldane's Rule and other Genetic barriers, there is either no genetic offspring or that offspring is infertile. Kind of reminds me of another act that you consider in some way "natural"... but, alas.... ignorance is bliss.
Point is Vince. "Tigons" and "Ligers" or whatever are both cats. You show me an instance where two animals that are not of the same type mate in the wild please.
Joe DeFuria
12-May-2003, 19:46
Point is Vince. "Tigons" and "Ligers" or whatever are both cats. You show me an instance where two animals that are not of the same type mate in the wild please.
Actually, you need to precisely define what the "same type of animal" means. Humans and horses are both mammals...aren't they the same "type?"
Being a different species is not enough to be said of a different "type"?
"Same Type" is a conveniently vague term. You need to be precise. Originally (back in the previous long-ago post on Beastiality,) I believe you said different "species" don't mate. Though IIRC in this thread (without going back to re-read), I believe you refrained this time from being that specific...and not by coincidence I imagine. ;)
Point is Vince. "Tigons" and "Ligers" or whatever are both cats. You show me an instance where two animals that are not of the same type mate in the wild please.
I feel fucking dirty... but to prove you wrong Natoma ;)
http://www.zoofur.com/elefnash1.jpg
BTW: That was 10seconds into Google... I'm sure this isn't a rare occurance if you'd research it deeper when you consider the sheer dynamics of a habitat.
PPS. There's more: (eg. Raccon on domestic dog, Monkey on something) but my gag-reflex is giving way just thinking bout this...
The reason I refrained is because of the fact that my remembrance of what a "species" is defined as was not correct. I honestly don't remember the term. I don't remember if it is phylum or family or genus. But there is a specific point where types of animals diverge to where reproduction is impossible because of genetic differences.
RussSchultz
12-May-2003, 20:03
Also, haven't you watched southpark? Apparently all it takes is a little Al Greene (or was it Barry White) to get pig and an elephant to make sweet sweet love. ;)
Though honestly, elephant on rhino, or racoon on dog, etc doesn't get my gag reflex going (its actually kinda funny like), though put a person in there somewhere and I instantly get the skeevies.
But there is a specific point where types of animals diverge to where reproduction is impossible because of genetic differences.
Nobody was talking about tangible reproduction feasability as a governing dynamic for it's superfluous in this debate because homosexuals can't reproduce and thus Joe's parallel is strenghtened. These animals don't care about reproduction, instead their sexual relationships are based on... other raison d'etres.
Hell, if anything, I would have expected you to be the first here to seperate the act of "sex" from "reproduction".
Also, haven't you watched southpark? Apparently all it takes is a little Al Greene (or was it Barry White) to get pig and an elephant to make sweet sweet love.
Whoa... How quickly one forgets! I haven't watched that in... too long :)
PS. The other pictures were just wrong Russ, thats why I posted the Elephant as it is pretty damn funny. If you want to see for yourself, there in the same place as that picture I posted is found.
But there is a specific point where types of animals diverge to where reproduction is impossible because of genetic differences.
Nobody was talking about tangible reproduction feasability as a governing dynamic for it's superfluous in this debate because homosexuals can't reproduce and thus Joe's parallel is strenghtened. These animals don't care about reproduction, instead their sexual relationships are based on... other raison d'etres.
Hell, if anything, I would have expected you to be the first here to seperate the act of "sex" from "reproduction".
Actually I stated that I didn't think beastiality was natural because you don't see animals mating in the wild who are genetically incompatible. I wonder what the rates of this type of mating are in the wild. I have seen very few, if any, instances, scientifically verifiable or otherwise, of these types of sexual encounters occurring in a repeating, reproducible manner.
A random occurrence of an elephant humping a rhino does not necessarily equate to something like this happening all the time, whereas you do see heterosexual and homosexual couplings in nature and in human beings all the time. For instance, male geese have been known to couple and mate for life.
I mean, how often do you see a dog humping someone's leg, or a tree, or a hydrant. Is that necessarily indicative of that dog when it's in heat? That's what I'm saying.
you don't see animals mating in the wild who are genetically incompatible but male/male is incompatible and I had an old friend back in school who's grandmother would have to constantly watch their (male) dogs because one of them often managed to get the other in a corner and rape him.... then she'd go out and hit the offenders nuts with the hard edge of a tennis racket :lol:
edit:
oh yes, and I do not have a problem with interspecies sex including humans if both are aware of what is happening and consent to it. so far, the only other species that this could possibly pertain to would be marine life such as dolphins and whales but still we haven't developed a method of communication with them advanced enough to discern whether they are capable of understanding and consenting to such activities. The other possibility would by extraterrestrials.
oh, and to address one of the first posts where the fear of being looked at in the shower by a gay guy was expressed- are most guys attracted to lesbians? not hollywood lesbians, but REAL lesbians. No, most men are not even attracted to many femme lesbians (once they get to know them). So what makes you think that me, a femme lesbian, is going to want to stick my finger up a straight girl? Gays are generally NOT attracted to straight people so why the hell do you care? Straight girls are usually not afraid to be semi-nude in front of a guy man because they know that the man is not interested. Most gay guys that "play the guy" are not at all attracted to masculine gay guys so why is it that you think youre so irresistable that they would be drooling over you? and the ones that "play the girl" are not so much of a "threat" because its not like they're going to want to poke you in the bum. Homophobia is the result of idiocy, not reason.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.