US set to abstain from UN vote

[Natoma]

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]

Yet at the same time I couldn't enter a contract with my child's teachers that required them to be straight?

 

[Natoma]

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]

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.

 

[Dave H]

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...

 

[Natoma]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Stvn]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Stvn]

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]

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.

 

[Natoma]

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.

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.

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.

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?



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?

:?

You're an idiot. Pedophiles are a like like straights in that you can't really tell about them until they are sexually engaged.



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.

[EDIT]Massive edit due to damn spacing problems from notepad[/EDIT]

 

[Stvn]

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]

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.

 

[Tahir2]

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.

 

[Humus]

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".