Gay marriages [Archive] - toonzone forums

Steve Jester

07-31-2003, 07:11 PM

Good thing I checked before posting a new thread.

Anyway this just in from my ISP's (Road Runner) homepage:

http://www.rr.com/v5/1/my/news/story/0,2050,9000_465864,00.html

Bush Wants Only Man-And-Woman Marriges
By: Scott Lindlaw, AP

President Bush is awaiting the outcomes of two state court cases that could legalize gay marriages as he considers steps to strengthen the federal definition of marriage as a man-woman union. Meanwhile, the top Senate Democrat said Thursday that existing law already limits legal recognition to heterosexual couples.
"No changes necessary, in my view. You've got it in law today," said Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.
In 1996, President Clinton signed the congressionally enacted Defense of Marriage Act, Daschle noted, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allowed states to ignore same-sex unions licensed elsewhere.
Reading from the federal code, Daschle told a news conference, "The word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
"You can't get any clearer than that," Daschle said, adding that he supports the current law.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House was monitoring a pair of state court cases on the issue.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is weighing whether to legalize same-sex unions, and could rule any day, and a Superior Court judge in New Jersey is considering a similar case.
"We are looking at what may be needed in the context of the court cases that are pending now," McClellan told reporters Thursday. But he declined to say whether Bush favors a constitutional amendment that the House is considering that would simply ban gay marriage.
Bush said at a news conference Wednesday: "I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other."
McClellan would not elaborate on what "codify" means, or why the Defense of Marriage Act's language may be insufficient for Bush.
The White House words coincided with a new Vatican campaign urging Roman Catholics and non-Catholics to unite in campaigning against gay marriages and gay adoptions. Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to oppose laws granting legal rights to gay couples, and non-Catholics should follow their lead, said the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Bush's remarks were a nod to conservatives who were angered earlier this month after he distanced himself from the House proposal for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., wants the Constitution amended to read, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." Her proposal was referred on June 25 to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.
Musgrave wants "to let the people decide, not unelected judges who are virtually unaccountable to voters," she said Thursday on NBC's "Today."

Bush and Co. are very lucky I'm not going to be 18 this year. Being a bisexual this makes my blood boil. I believe that if I want to persue a marrige with a guy it should be reconized by the government just like het marriages. There is a thing called equal rights and gays and bisexuals should be allowed to have the right to marriage.

Animation Otaku

07-31-2003, 07:14 PM

Okay, the little respect I had for Bush just went down the drain.

RockItShipper

07-31-2003, 07:54 PM

I think it's the 14th Amendment in the Constitution that was applied in a ruling that a building lacking wheelchair access was unconstitutional. Equal access under the law, to pursue happiness. Can't do it when marriage is a heterosexist institution...

The Landstander

07-31-2003, 08:02 PM

...what are the supporters of this trying to accomplish here? I mean, if Dave and Frank want to get married, why should I care? Why should ANYONE care? What does the US stand to gain by outlawing gay marraiges (well, besides "morality" :rolleyes: )?

Shnay

07-31-2003, 08:03 PM

Gays deserve to be stuck in loveless, soul-draining marraiges, just like everybody else. :D

I kid, I kid. Seriously, though, I think it's a shame that so many are so oppossed to a simple thing like marraige for everyone. And it's obviously no just the right that opposes gay marraige, as Daschle demonstrates; many seem to hold this point of view.

I think there are a couple of things that complicate the issue for many. Let's look at the institution of marraige. It's basically three things: a government registration of a couple, a religious union to some, and a symbolic event to nearly everyone.

From a government standpoint, some don't want to change anything because they're afraid of tampering with the current laws that have always "worked so well" (provided you're not gay, of course). From a religious standpoint, many believe that homosexuality is an abomination against God, and must not be recognized in marraige, so there's really no leeway there. And, from a symbolic standpoint, some just don't understand how anything other than a man-woman relationship can be considered marraige (or even a "relationship," for that matter).

I'm not surprised in the least about the President or the Pope taking their particular stance. And, hey, they're entitled to their opinions (although, one could argue that it stops being an opinion when it limits human rights, but that's another discussion). I was a little surprised by Daschle's comments, but I guess I shouldn't be. Politicians rarely want to go against the grain. You wouldn't want to offend your potential voters...

Realistically, I think if anything is going to change, it's going to happen state by state. I don't think there's any way a national law is going to be made in the next 15 years or so. Until then....well, I hear Hawaii is nice. :shrug: :(

Chris Wood

07-31-2003, 08:16 PM

How would one decide which partner goes to the bridal shower and which one goes to the bachelor party(ugh)?

Tienshin

07-31-2003, 08:22 PM

Same sex marriage in America…across the board for every state, to some extent for any state?

Not going to happen.

All politicians are bound to their constituencies, and if the people who elected them have a majority opinion that same sex marriage is wrong, then so will the politician. But to be more succinct, many politicians are Bible belt types who flaunt god and his name as a moral weight that says to their voters "you can believe in me, I am just like you!" As long as the bible says, and the church endorses that same sex marriage is a sin, then American law will not make it legal. The people don’t want it. And here in the States...legislation is enacted by the tyranny of the majority...that is if you are in the 30% that disagrees, you are SOL. So in fact Bush hasn’t hurt himself at all. He probably went up in the eyes of many people.

wonderfly

07-31-2003, 09:17 PM

I'm waiting for some of the much more conservative commentators we have hear at Toonzone to speak up on this issue. ;)

I'm against the idea of Gay Marriages.

I'm for the idea of Gay couples being given more rights under the law, such as tax status for gay couples, and the ability for gay couples to adopt kids, (it's better than foster care, which is what Rosie O'donnell was fighting for down in Florida, where she lives).

The problem with "Gay Marriages" is that it's a radical redefinition of the word "marriage". A majority of Americans still believe marriage to mean the following:

"marriage" noun
a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this"

"Marriage" has meant throughout history "between man and woman". If gay couples want a special ceremony commerating that they will remain faithful to one another and live together, that's fine. Just don't call it marriage. Call it a Civil Union, or something similar.

If you legalize "gay" marriages, why not legalize "Polygomist" marriages, or other sexual relationships which are a minority. Heck, what if a person into Beastiality wants a marriage between him and his dog? :p

And if Bush supports outlawing Gay marriages, it probably only means he is in favor of marriage being defined only in it's traditional aspect: "Between Man and Woman". Do not take this to mean "Bush wants all Gay's locked up in prison camps and gassed". Man, some guys read too much into things...

Space Kitty

07-31-2003, 09:29 PM

I agree. Gay marriage is wrong. Man and woman should be together as God intended us.

Steve Jester

07-31-2003, 09:32 PM

But if gay couples are gainning mre acceptance around the world, shouldn't they be granted the same right to enjoy the cermony of marriage?

And, going as far back as the Decleration of Independence, all people in this country have been granted the infailable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If I had a gay partner and we decided to get married, the government would be denying us this infailable right that it was based upon. That my friends is called hypocracy.

And a civil union isn't nessicarily reckonized under the national government either. It is reckonized in most states, but not nationally.

I think it's time to break away from tradition and allow gay couple to get married if they choose to.

Psycho Fox

07-31-2003, 09:34 PM

The problem with "Gay Marriages" is that it's a radical redefinition of the word "marriage". A majority of Americans still believe marriage to mean the following:

"marriage" noun
a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this"

"Marriage" has meant throughout history "between man and woman". If gay couples want a special ceremony commerating that they will remain faithful to one another and live together, that's fine. Just don't call it marriage. Call it a Civil Union, or something similar.

Then you would have to rewrites tons of laws to give this gay marriage (that isn't called gay marriage) its legallity meaning a gay couple has as much rights as a regular couple.

By just calling gay marriage, marriage gay, couples have all the rights automaticly.

Shnay

07-31-2003, 09:47 PM

"Marriage" has meant throughout history "between man and woman". If gay couples want a special ceremony commerating that they will remain faithful to one another and live together, that's fine. Just don't call it marriage. Call it a Civil Union, or something similar.

If you legalize "gay" marriages, why not legalize "Polygomist" marriages, or other sexual relationships which are a minority. Heck, what if a person into Beastiality wants a marriage between him and his dog? :p

People say that the whole institution of marraige would have to be totally redefined, but I don't really see it that way. It would just mean "a union between two people" instead of containing the qualifier "a union of two people of the opposite sex."

Also, people make the arguement of "if we allow gay marraige, what's next? Should we allow people to marry their cars if they want to?" I think that's a pretty big leap. The issue is not akin to beastiality and the like and shouldn't be treated as such. Again, it's not the major redefinition people make it out to be, it's just taking away a gender qualifier.

James

07-31-2003, 09:51 PM

I agree. Gay marriage is wrong. Man and woman should be together as God intended us.

Since God made all things, and man being one of them, I don't see it as a problem in a religious implication unless oneself wants it to be.

To me, the message I get out of the Bible, is to love thy neighbour. By which that must by definition mean all. Since thus, all are equal, all should get equal rights. So if any people want to get married, regardless of sexual orientation, race or what type of rubber ducky they prefer in the bath, that makes sense to me.

On a none religious level, love is a strong and powerful tie. If any too people, regardless of sex are so very fortunate to have found warmth and comfort in the arms of another and they wish to celebrate that love - I'm all for it. No quibbles. It's wonderful to have such a feeling, and that gift should be able to be expressed.

To me, it's not an issue of sexual orientation. It doesn't come into it. Love is love. Regardless of what sex you prefer. Love is the issue in marriage, not gender.

The Landstander

07-31-2003, 10:16 PM

I agree. Gay marriage is wrong. Man and woman should be together as God intended us. One thing to add: This (obviously) seems to be a decision based on religious beliefs, which I am against. Law shouldn't be based on belief.

Digu Volz

07-31-2003, 10:28 PM

What bothered me about Bush's statetment was the fact he said he wasn't willing to compromise his beliefs. I thought that was pretty ignorant and presumptuous, as if what is essentially an attempt at equality is overruled by his own personal thoughts on a matter that won't have a significant impact on the health or well-being of the United States. The world was practically built on sacrifice and compromise and he won't even make a little one. Bleh... Someone should remind him church and state aren't synonymous.

Space Kitty

07-31-2003, 10:49 PM

You can't really bring up the Declaration of Independence, since they still had slaves (meaning that everyone wasn't equal and had rights).

Digu Volz

07-31-2003, 11:07 PM

You can't really bring up the Declaration of Independence, since they still had slaves (meaning that everyone wasn't equal and had rights).

I'm not sure if you were talking to me or not, but if we have the chance to make things a bit more equal, with an absolutely minimal (practically insignificant) amount of damage to anybody, why should it not be taken ? What's the worse that can happen ? Are we going ot have riots or are marriages going to bombed ? Seriously, I don't think most people are that foolish.

Seven Marks

07-31-2003, 11:13 PM

Damn. THis is one issue I really don't know where I stand. Mainly cause I really don't care. Ain't my problem. But then, I'm a citizen, and this IS going to be an issue, and so then I do care.
Some people are gay. So be it. They're still people. Some gay people love each other like straight people love each other. When straight people love eachother they get married. Does that mean gay people who love eachother should get married? Hmm.... that's a tough question.

Consider this; marriage is a religious institution. Religion, for the most part, make homosexuals out to be sinners. So, being married under, say, the Catholic Church, should not be alowed.
But then marriage is also a legal institution, and being a homosexual is not illegal. So, in that respect, it should be alowed.
Solution, sign papers so that the government acknowledges you as a couple, have a ceremony and BAM! call it even.
Sure, the church won't acknowledge you as...you know....not evil, but then what does the church know about not being evil? Pff! Church!! I say SCRE the church, man. Worship God in your own way.

As for what I think about gay marriages, I don't know... I don't see the point. Except for the whole having-the-government-acknowledge-you thing. But personally, I see marriage as a more man-woman thing, just because of part about having kids. And even then I don't see the point. To tell you the truth the only reason I'll get married is if my girlfriend pretty much forces me to. But really, I don't care what other people do with their lives, especially when they're not bothering me. So if gay people wanna get married, power to 'em.
....And Bush is a jerk.

RZetlin

07-31-2003, 11:16 PM

What ever happen to seperation of church and state?

Given the conservative mood of the government I don't we will see gay marriages in America for a quite some time.

If gays want to get married go to Canada.

Space Kitty

07-31-2003, 11:22 PM

I didn't mean you, digu volz. Someone said it was hypocrisy now, but the Declaration and hypocrisy have been together since its creation.

Catlover

07-31-2003, 11:31 PM

I know I'm going to be hated & despised all over the boards for my opinion because it differs from the mainstream, but here goes...

Gay marriage goes against Chirstan beliefs, and therfore Chirstan gay Marriages should not be allowed. Shinto, Hindu, Budhist, or whatever else is okay...I guess.

What does the US stand to gain by outlawing gay marraiges (well, besides "morality" )?

Yup. We'll lose our morality if this is legealized.

Just a question: Why do Gays want a Chirstan Marriage? Aren't most gays Atheist?

James

08-01-2003, 12:03 AM

I know I'm going to be hated & despised all over the boards for my opinion because it differs from the mainstream, but here goes...
No one will hate you. Love to talk to you about it though.. :)

Gay marriage goes against Chirstan beliefs, and therfore Chirstan gay Marriages should not be allowed. Shinto, Hindu, Budhist, or whatever else is okay...I guess.

Goes against your Christian beliefs. Many Christians do not feel the teachings of Jesus actually promote such a belief. That a great deal of the writers of the gospels and other relevant letters/books were putting their own opinion in there (take the Gospels themselves, radically different interpretations of Jesus). I myself, although more a humanist than a Christian always saw Jesus main message being to love thy neighbour. That is to treat all as equal.

I'm not saying you are incorrect to say thats what you believe, but I dispute that your interpretation bares truth for ALL Christians.

Yup. We'll lose our morality if this is legealized.
Morality as to not treat people as equal? Surely that is more immoral than allowing people who love each other to be bonded under the relgion they are devoted to? Equality has to be the stronger morality.

Just a question: Why do Gays want a Chirstan Marriage? Aren't most gays Atheist?
Erm, no! I don't know where you got that assumption. Christianity is a spiritual belief. Perhaps I'm speaking out of turn here, but I've always got the impression that sexual orientation has not stoped homosexuals from being devout Christians.

Animation Otaku

08-01-2003, 12:09 AM

I agree. Gay marriage is wrong. Man and woman should be together as God intended us.

Bull! This is just plain old crap. I'm not gay but I'm also not christian. In fact, I hate christianity with a passion, so if this government is going to base it's opinion on religion(hell, why not, we already worship god during on our currency), then I want no part of this country.

The Landstander

08-01-2003, 12:28 AM

Gay marriage goes against Chirstan beliefs, and therfore Chirstan gay Marriages should not be allowed. Shinto, Hindu, Budhist, or whatever else is okay...I guess.

Yup. We'll lose our morality if this is legealized. That is YOUR belief. Personally, I'm an atheist, I differ from your beliefs. Neither of us are right or wrong (well, one of is, but we won't know until we're dead :p ). On a further note, I don't think morality should play a role in government (when I say that, I mean in matters where no one is affected except the immoral person, I.E. drugs, sodomy, sexual preference, etc.), but that's another topic.

What I'm saying is Christian beliefs have NO place in government. That's the idea of seperation of church and state, which stays a very true and smart idea to this day.

Once again, not to be rude, but if Mike and Rob want to get married, how does this affect you?

Discloner

08-01-2003, 12:39 AM

I think the same thing as Landstander.

I don't find myself being religious, at all. Frankly I find the rules and teachings of church and christianity both prove to contradict themselves at so many times. However I greatly respect any of you out there having faith in a religion, because faith is always something good to have.

Frankly the way I see it, Church and state are two things for a reason. I have several gay friends, and frankly I have never understood what people's problem with gay's was. Religion says it's a sin. Religion says its a choice. I don't see how being happy and living your life is a sin. I also don't see how Homosexuality could be a choice...tons of Teens and adults commit suicide each year, if homosexuality was a choice...why would they choose death over it?

I don't think Homosexuality is immoral, AT ALL. And I only hope that one day people of diffrent sexual preffrences will be able to share in the benifits and recognition that Heterosexual couples can get. Not to mention be able to live they're lives knowing they're connected more then just living in the same house.

You hear these stories all the time about how Gay person A was beaten up, and I never have understood why. Being straight myself...how does someone being gay affect me? What reason do I have for hating them because they like the same sex? None. Absolutely none...

I dunno...I guess I just don't understand all the resentment to the gay community. :shrug:

Lucky Bob

08-01-2003, 12:54 AM

Okay, first off, I'm a little tired of the Christianity bashing 'round here. There are other religions who call homosexuality a sin. Are we going to try to discredit them, as well?

As to the topic at hand, I am not for "gay" marriages. First off, if it is really just an "alternative lifestyle", why are they trying to be the same? Second, our country's social atmosphere and morality has long been based on the importance of the traditional family. Third, like Wonderfly said, what's to stop the "bad" sexual orientations from picking up on this? We've already had one weirdo take videos of kids at nudist camps and defend his action, so the day is coming...

There are others, but my point is that there are legitimate arguments besides religious ones against homosexual marriages. So, stop bashing Christianity, already!

Discloner

08-01-2003, 12:58 AM

Sublime420

08-01-2003, 01:11 AM

There are others, but my point is that there are legitimate arguments besides religious ones against homosexual marriages. So, stop bashing Christianity, already!

Would you name some legitimate arguments besides religious ones against homosexual marriages.

As for christianity not being the only one against gay marraiges, that's probably true, but I don't hear you naming any others. Also Christianity is by far the most powerful, and one of the most close minded, in this part of the world. So, that is why it is the one being discussed most.

It seems like that would be kinda obviouse though...

Lucky Bob

08-01-2003, 01:32 AM

Would you name some legitimate arguments besides religious ones against homosexual marriages.

Just did. Read post again.

As for christianity not being the only one against gay marraiges, that's probably true, but I don't hear you naming any others. Also Christianity is by far the most powerful, and one of the most close minded, in this part of the world. So, that is why it is the one being discussed most.

It seems like that would be kinda obviouse though...

I'll give you another big one. Islam. In the Muslim faith, homosexuality is a sin. However, I don't hear anyone say that the Muslims are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us, nor do I hear anyone say that they hate Islam, as the case has been for Christianity on this thread. So, all I'm saying is, let's not turn this into a huge religion-bashing thread. There are some good secular reasons against homosexual marriages, as well.

Discloner

08-01-2003, 01:38 AM

I'll give you another big one. Islam. In the Muslim faith, homosexuality is a sin. However, I don't hear anyone say that the Muslims are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us, nor do I hear anyone say that they hate Islam, as the case has been for Christianity on this thread. So, all I'm saying is, let's not turn this into a huge religion-bashing thread. There are some good secular reasons against homosexual marriages, as well.

I believe the only person in this thread who said they hated Christianity was Animation Otaku. However I agree with you that we shouldn't turn this thread into a declaration against religion, and probubly gear it more back on topic.

I think the reason most people are bringing up Christianity is because Christianity is the Hot topic involving Gay Marrages, such as the Vatican condeming it...again...and such, which brings the religion into the lime light on the Gay Marrage Issue.

Seven Marks

08-01-2003, 01:39 AM

Okay, first off, I'm a little tired of the Christianity bashing 'round here. There are other religions who call homosexuality a sin. Are we going to try to discredit them, as well?
.....Sure!
Besides the reason we all bash Christianity, is because most of the posters here, or at least it seems that way, might have at some point felt alienated by the Christians being that they were once Christian or whatever. Also, muslims hate gays. YEah. And they also bomb us. Thats true too. But they don't go on global campaigns and involve themselves in international politics for the sole purpose of preventing gay marriages. I'm sure there are a lot of muslims bitterly against it. But...well, we already have a good reason to bomb Afghanistan, anyway.

Chris Wood

08-01-2003, 01:55 AM

.. But...well, we already have a good reason to bomb Afghanistan, anyway.

Such as....?

Seven Marks

08-01-2003, 01:59 AM

Such as....?
Where have you been for the past two years? Such as aiding and abbedding to the deaths of five thousand American Citizens. Remember the world trade center? Yeah, that was Afghanisan.
And just to keep this post on topic...
Yeah! GAY MARRIAGE!! WHOOOOH!!!

The Landstander

08-01-2003, 02:02 AM

*sigh* I think the cycle of "back and forth between a couple of posters and long posts I don't feel like reading" is about to start, so I'll just say this.

Bob, you're overreacting. You speak as though gay marraiges will be the downfall of Western Civilization (especially with your "second reason"). It won't be. I think the nation will survive if Tom and Hank are allowed to marry each other.

People who happen to be gay can be fine, upstanding citizens. Can they be lowlife scumbags? Yea, of course. They're HUMAN BEINGS. You can't classify all gay people, and I believe that denying the right of two gay people to form a special bond through marraige BY LAW is a really bad thing.

And no one is bashing Christianity. It's just that Bush's decision is obviously rooted in Christian belief, and seems like a moral/religious decision in politics. I believe that personal morals and ethics, and ESPECIALLY religion, should stay out of politics.

Eh, this was a weak structured post. I think I said everything I wanted to, though.

EinBebop

08-01-2003, 02:02 AM

Discloner

08-01-2003, 02:07 AM

Noone has brought family into this yet. To reduce the concept of marriage as merely an expression of love makes it irrelevant.

I think few here would debate that every child should have a mother and a father. If marriage is naught but a romatic expression, where does providing children a stable environment come in? How do children learn to create stable families of their own if mom and dad don't adhere to any form of family structure?

If family doesn't matter, marriage is nothing but a silly tradition- something to be destroyed as soon as it becomes inconvenient. And as the value of marriage declines, so does the stability of the family.

I go away for a couple of days, and miss all kinds of fun stuff. :D

From the experience of one of my friends, two moms and a child or two dads and a child can make just as good as a family as a man and a women do. Heck, Marrige legally bonds two people, and without such a bond this no marrige laws for gays could actually prevent them from being good parents by allowing the split between the two individuals to be easy.

....however Gay adoption is another issue....but that's not the topic of the thread.

Condiment King

08-01-2003, 02:12 AM

Okay. By personal faith, I'm against gay marriages. BUT faith, religion, and everything else should not be a factor in the government's decision.

Christianity is all about free will. If you didn't have free will, we would all worship God without any choice. BUT God gave us free will to choose him or not. As do we have for whatever else we may do.

Same goes for homosexuality, IMO. Its a choice. Whether it is a wrong choice or a right one is different from person to person. I believe what I believe but I cannot take away someone's free will, nor should I.

Frankly, it is only a matter of time before this is made legal in the United States. If religion, Christianity or otherwise, was a factor in government laws, which it only is to an extent, then abortion just plain wouldn't be around. Something I'm also against. And just recently, the Ten Commandments were taken out of the courthouse and they have been out of the school for one to two decades. The church and state seperation continues to be cemented, and whether I like it or not, these are all choices. If my beliefs never reach someone just because they happen not to see a Ten Commandments board because there isn't one in there, well, that's my fault and other Christians for not making an effort to set up Christian clubs and other things outside of school and making people feel welcome and getting it out there.

And just for anyone who doesn't know, scripture about homosexuality can be found in Romans 1:18-27 and 1 Cornithians 6:9-10. Both were written by Paul, but just to say that the Bible would contain an editoral of an opinion is against what I believe. I feel that Paul was 'divinely inspired' when he wrote these words, so it wasn't just his opinion on things.

So, in conclusion, I'm against gay marriages, yet it is a choice, just like there are other choices that may or may not be against the Christian faith.

Animation Otaku

08-01-2003, 03:30 AM

I believe the only person in this thread who said they hated Christianity was Animation Otaku. However I agree with you that we shouldn't turn this thread into a declaration against religion, and probubly gear it more back on topic.

Yes, let's get back on topic. I believe I'm the only Christianity hater here, and I don't exactly feel comfortable discussing why I hate it.

Bud 'n Lou

08-01-2003, 04:46 AM

As to the topic at hand, I am not for "gay" marriages. First off, if it is really just an "alternative lifestyle", why are they trying to be the same?
Most of the people who use the term "alternative lifestyle" are not gay, unless they're mocking the phrase. It is not a word most gay people use to define themselves. It is a phrase many feel belittles and alienates homosexuals. So if it is a phrase that has been foisted upon them, it can hardly be held against them.
Second, our country's social atmosphere and morality has long been based on the importance of the traditional family.
So? I don't even get the point of this agruement at all. Change/being different is bad? All people should have the same set of moral values? The country will implode as a result of gay marriage, because it doesn't conform to the ideals of 1950's America?
Third, like Wonderfly said, what's to stop the "bad" sexual orientations from picking up on this? We've already had one weirdo take videos of kids at nudist camps and defend his action, so the day is coming...
Well, like you said, they're the "bad" sexual orientations. They will not be taken seriously. So what if they TRY to justify their behavior? The legal system allows them to try to defend themselves in a court. That doesn't mean some judge and jury somewhere are going to scratch their chins and say, "You know, you're starting to make some sense, son."
Abortions are legal. I don't see any freaky fringe groups campaigning for the legal rights to smother their 3 year old toddlers because they've decided they no longer want a child. I also don't see the country falling into ruin as a result of this "affront to the traditional American family."
There will be no slippery slope effect. I don't understand why people keep thinking that giving gays the same rights as heterosexuals will somehow open the doors for pedophiles and pig humpers to gain the same rights. All you have to do is couch the marriage laws in terms that make it clear that it is meant to only be between two consenting adult humans. Bush suggested a law be made to create a specific definition for marriage that would exclude all others, so why not this definition? Because as much as some people try to deny it and mask it with their truly weak agruements, it is really all about religion.
Noone has brought family into this yet. To reduce the concept of marriage as merely an expression of love makes it irrelevant.
Who "reduced" it to that? And who says marriage is irrelevant and "reduced" by considering it a "mere" expression of love?
I think few here would debate that every child should have a mother and a father. If marriage is naught but a romatic expression, where does providing children a stable environment come in? How do children learn to create stable families of their own if mom and dad don't adhere to any form of family structure?

If family doesn't matter, marriage is nothing but a silly tradition- something to be destroyed as soon as it becomes inconvenient. And as the value of marriage declines, so does the stability of the family.
Consider me one of the few. Having a mother and a father is not necessary. Single parents, gay parents, grandparents, and other family members can all provide stable environments for children. I don't understand why you seem to consider all homes without a mother and father "unstructured." Children can develop healthily in any number of home environments.
Also, it is insulting to insist that a marriage is somehow less significant if they don't plan to start a family. Some couples are incapable of having children. Some just don't want children. Their marriages can still be perfectly healthy and meaningful.

Romanesque

08-01-2003, 05:13 AM

Potentially radical and / or blasphemous suggestion ahead, for some...

Perhaps marriage, as a legal institution, should just be abolished and replaced by either the civil union or some other equivalent of a "social union between two people, recognized under law". Let any two people who so desire be able to seek it, and if they want to be recognized as married under their particular religion, leave that aspect to that particular religion. Let that be that.

A gay couple could then obtain their "civil union" without a problem (hopefully), and if they can find a church that wants to grant them marriage in addition to that, good for them.

Marriage law is a strange thing, anyway. You can be married in some states, yet your marriage may not necessarily be recognized in other states. Want a romantic wedding in Hawaii? Good luck when you return home and find out that you still have to get a seperate marriage license in your home state. Why are ordained ministers and priests given the right to perform wedding ceremonies? What makes them qualified to perform a state function? Why aren't marriages left entirely to the likes of judges?

Of course, such a seperation as I'm suggesting wouldn't likely go over too well with many people, so I doubt most would ever consider it...

And a civil union isn't nessicarily reckonized under the national government either. It is reckonized in most states, but not nationally.

As I currently understand things, marriages are granted at the state level, rather than the federal level, so if if civil unions are recognized in most states, shouldn't that be sufficient? If not, then the first thing to do is to get civil unions recognized at the proper level. Abolishing and replacing marriage with the civil union or something similar could help.

What I'm saying is Christian beliefs have NO place in government. That's the idea of seperation of church and state, which stays a very true and smart idea to this day.

Before I continue, the "Christian beliefs have NO place in government" assertion is a dangerous idea, which I could easily see being carried too far, were it put into practice. Such a broad statement openly invites religious discrimination. To be fair, one should say that religious beliefs have no place in government, which is a stretch. People of any faith are going to do what's right by their faith, and to expect otherwise is nonsense.

If, however, you're just speaking about keeping it seperate from legislation, and protecting church and state from each other, then I'll agree, by all means. That's something everyone should learn from history in general...

Which leads me back to the idea of abandoning marriage as a legal institution altogether. As it exists in this country and many others, the basic concept of marriage is tightly knit with religion, and yet, there's a need for a similar legal institution for reasons involving children, income, taxation, personal property, etc. There's your violation of the "seperation of church and state".

Here's where seperating "marriage" into its respective legal and religious components could theoretically solve a number of problems.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other religions do not condone homosexuality. So why should the state have the power to force them to accept gay marriages? If, for example, we were arguing for gay baptisms or gay bar mitzvahs, I'd say those against it would have every right to be upset. The government would be intruding on their rights. Since neither example has ties to the state, I doubt such a case would ever happen, but hopefully you can see the perspective that some are viewing this from.

Goes against your Christian beliefs. Many Christians do not feel the teachings of Jesus actually promote such a belief . . . I myself, although more a humanist than a Christian always saw Jesus main message being to love thy neighbour. That is to treat all as equal. I'm not saying you are incorrect to say thats what you believe, but I dispute that your interpretation bares truth for ALL Christians.

Christ never spoke anything about homosexuality, at least nothing of it was recorded, so that point is moot. The Christian reasons against homosexuality as a sin go back to the Old Testament.

I'm well aware that many Christians have "other interpretations", but in this case, those interpretations do not coincide with what's written. Some Christians may think what they may, but Christianity itself does not condone homosexuality.

That said, it's still no reason to go about denying gays the same rights as anyone else, nor is it reason for any other form of discrimination. If we're going to be that backwards, we might as well resume stoning people for having sex outside marriage. To paraphrase Christ, let those without sin cast the first stone. Save the judgement of sin for God.

Bull! This is just plain old crap. I'm not gay but I'm also not christian. In fact, I hate christianity with a passion, so if this government is going to base it's opinion on religion(hell, why not, we already worship god during on our currency), then I want no part of this country.

This, I have a problem with.

If someone were to say "I hate homosexuality with a passion," in this thread, I'm sure that person would be quickly jumped upon and torn to bits, as that statement would generally be assumed to mean "I hate homosexuals with a passion". I may be making an assumption myself, but your own statement can easily be read as "I hate Christians with a passion", especially given the tone. It's practically inviting flames. Just be aware of that.

--Romey

Steve Jester

08-01-2003, 06:04 AM

You can't really bring up the Declaration of Independence, since they still had slaves (meaning that everyone wasn't equal and had rights).

Yes but since then people like african americans and women have used this very document to justify thier road to equal rights. What is there to stop gays and just about anyone who considers themselves a human from using it?

Bud 'n Lou

08-01-2003, 06:31 AM

I'll co-sign that idea, Romey.

Steve Jester

08-01-2003, 07:05 AM

As I currently understand things, marriages are granted at the state level, rather than the federal level, so if if civil unions are recognized in most states, shouldn't that be sufficient? If not, then the first thing to do is to get civil unions recognized at the proper level. Abolishing and replacing marriage with the civil union or something similar could help.

But all marriages are reckonized by the fedral government. civil unions, to my knowldege, aren't.

Lucky Bob

08-01-2003, 07:52 AM

Most of the people who use the term "alternative lifestyle" are not gay, unless they're mocking the phrase. It is not a word most gay people use to define themselves. It is a phrase many feel belittles and alienates homosexuals. So if it is a phrase that has been foisted upon them, it can hardly be held against them.

I've always understood it to be the PC'd term. That's always the context I've heard it used in, anyway. There are many in England who protest that the term "homosexual" is offensive. So, it's hard to keep up with these things.

So? I don't even get the point of this agruement at all. Change/being different is bad? All people should have the same set of moral values? The country will implode as a result of gay marriage, because it doesn't conform to the ideals of 1950's America?

So, are you saying that all moral absolutes are bad?

Well, like you said, they're the "bad" sexual orientations. They will not be taken seriously. So what if they TRY to justify their behavior? The legal system allows them to try to defend themselves in a court. That doesn't mean some judge and jury somewhere are going to scratch their chins and say, "You know, you're starting to make some sense, son." Abortions are legal. I don't see any freaky fringe groups campaigning for the legal rights to smother their 3 year old toddlers because they've decided they no longer want a child. I also don't see the country falling into ruin as a result of this "affront to the traditional American family." There will be no slippery slope effect. I don't understand why people keep thinking that giving gays the same rights as heterosexuals will somehow open the doors for pedophiles and pig humpers to gain the same rights. All you have to do is couch the marriage laws in terms that make it clear that it is meant to only be between two consenting adult humans. Bush suggested a law be made to create a specific definition for marriage that would exclude all others, so why not this definition? Because as much as some people try to deny it and mask it with their truly weak agruements, it is really all about religion.

There have been some who justify child abuse and killings. And I've noticed that murder hasn't fallen since abortion has been legalized, either. If one lives in a society where human life has been devalued, such actions can be expected. Likewise, in a society where sex and marriage is devalued to "whatever turns you on", you can expect these fringe groups to become more active.

You say that the "slippery slope" argument is weak. I counter that the counterargument is weaker. While I'm pointing out instances where this agenda is already being pushed, your only counterargument is "Well, THAT'S not going to happen!" You're entitled to that opinion, but in reality, it's already happening. I'm sure nobody expected the homosexual community to push their agenda 50 years ago. But, they have. Perhaps 50-100 years from now, our society will be "enlightened" enough to realize that sex is okay, as long as whoever's participating is "having fun." With current trends, I don't see that as being too far-fetched.

Oh, and Landstander? The Constitution does not say that religion should have no part in government. It merely says that no religion be established as the state religion, nor should the free excersize thereof be prohibited by Congress. In no way does it say that government officials should not act of their religious beliefs.

Bud 'n Lou

08-01-2003, 09:12 AM

So, are you saying that all moral absolutes are bad?
No...
There have been some who justify child abuse and killings. And I've noticed that murder hasn't fallen since abortion has been legalized, either. If one lives in a society where human life has been devalued, such actions can be expected. Likewise, in a society where sex and marriage is devalued to "whatever turns you on", you can expect these fringe groups to become more active.
Notice that for all the attempts to justify murder and child abuse, they are still illegal.
Why should murder rates lower because abortion was legalized? Many would argue that the two things are totally unrelated, and only an extremely small percentage of murders involve babies anyway. And all would agree that I'm veering off topic, so I'll move on.
I don't think the concept of gay marriage devalues the institution of marriage in general, and I certainly don't think it's just about "whatever turns you on." If anything is being devalued here, it's gay relationships with comments like that.
Anyway, the fringe groups can be as active as they like, as long as they realize that no one will listen to them. The difference between homosexuality, and say, bestiality and pedophilia are that in a consensual homosexual relationship, no one is being hurt or victimized. Religious beliefs aside, wouldn't you agree with this statement? And I'm not asking you to cite examples of how pedophiles and animal rapists try to justify what they do to make it seem as if they're not victimizing anyone.
You say that the "slippery slope" argument is weak. I counter that the counterargument is weaker. While I'm pointing out instances where this agenda is already being pushed, your only counterargument is "Well, THAT'S not going to happen!" You're entitled to that opinion, but in reality, it's already happening. I'm sure nobody expected the homosexual community to push their agenda 50 years ago. But, they have. Perhaps 50-100 years from now, our society will be "enlightened" enough to realize that sex is okay, as long as whoever's participating is "having fun." With current trends, I don't see that as being too far-fetched.
K, first of all, you listed ONE instance of ONE man trying to justify his filming nude children. That's hardly a grass roots movement. Second, I said that the fringe groups would never gain the rights to participate in acts of bestiality and pedophilia (earlier in this post, I mentioned why they won't get anywhere). I didn't say they wouldn't try to justify their actions. But the way you're presenting your arguement, it seems like you'd prefer to silence them altogether. But this is America. They have the freedom to do that, like it or not, so we can't censor them. Third, it is also totally unrelated to the matter of gay marriage, in my opinion. Whether or not gay groups were lobbying for the right to marry, individuals and other groups would still try to justify their actions. Lastly, I don't think anyone is trying to say any and all sex acts are ok "as long they're having fun." And if they are, it's probably because they're operating under the assumption that it's already understood that they're talking about consensual adult sex.

BrendaBat

08-01-2003, 10:04 AM

I think that Bush needs to fix the economy and concentrate on wrapping up the War on Terror before he goes on his little religious crusades :rolleyes:

Origionally posted by Space Kitty
I agree. Gay marriage is wrong. Man and woman should be together as God intended us.

Church and state should be separate. Its not fair to deny a loving couple a marriage (or civil union; whatever name works) just because it clashes with Bush’s (or whoever’s) beliefs.
For example, I’m Jewish and I don’t eat pork because it’s not kosher. But that doesn’t mean I want the rights of pork eaters to be taken away. And I certainly won’t waste my time protesting my local supermarket because they sell “sinful food” :D

Origionally posted by EinBebop
I think few here would debate that every child should have a mother and a father. If marriage is naught but a romatic expression, where does providing children a stable environment come in? How do children learn to create stable families of their own if mom and dad don't adhere to any form of family structure?
Children of gay or “non-traditional” families aren’t automatically doomed to a screwed up adulthood. Nor are all children with a mother and father guaranteed a stable and happy life.
I know a lesbian couple that is raising a little girl, and the little girl is very happy. While I think it would be wonderful if all children could have a mother and a father, I know it doesn’t always work out so well in the real world. Besides, being raised by two women or two men is better than having no parents at all, isn’t it? And if a child needs a mom and a dad to grow up stable, then why not remove all children who are growing up in single parent or divorced families?

And I hear a lot of people whine about the “sanctity of marriage” being violated. Well, if it’s so sacred, then why are people selling it on reality television like some cheap knick-knack? I didn’t see any religious groups protesting “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire”.
Also, don’t forget us heterosexuals have a 50% divorce rate. I say let the gays get married. Maybe they can show us how to make it work!

Origionally posted by Lucky Bob
So, are you saying that all moral absolutes are bad?
Well, moral absolutes are good when they’re protecting a victim (i.e. laws against rape and murder). However, moral absolutes are bad when they take away the rights of law-abiding citizens who are not hurting anyone (like the pork example I used earlier).
Not long ago, people also opposed inter-racial marriage for religious reasons. Hopefully, laws agianst civil unions will go the same way as the laws against inter-racial marriage :)

*gets off soapbox*

supermonkey

08-01-2003, 10:17 AM

More than half of marriages end in divorce. Most people should skip it anyway IMO and save themselves the legal hassles of getting married then getting single and then trying to get your money back.

Psycho Fox

08-01-2003, 10:21 AM

But all marriages are reckonized by the fedral government. civil unions, to my knowldege, aren't.
Well the US could pass law the NO marriage is reconized by state only civil unions meaning marriage is only recognized church and you need city hall to be recognized as together by state.

Steve Jester

08-01-2003, 10:24 AM

Well the US could pass law the NO marriage is reconized by state only civil unions meaning marriage is only recognized church and you need city hall to be recognized as together by state.

Works for me. :anime:

RKillian

08-01-2003, 10:28 AM

Liberals are taking this country down a moral sewer, period. Regardless of what they say, their agenda is to turn "whatever feels good" into "right" regardless of the social costs. Is it any wonder the Unabomber lived in a secluded area of Montana?

I take issue with the poster who said he was against President Bush being uncompromising in his beliefs. Sorry, some of us have a backbone and conviction. The very same people would be jumping on his back for being wishy washy if he caved in. Say what you will about our President, but at least he'll stand up for what he thinks is right.

In response to the comment about legalized abortion vs murder rates, I think you need to put two and two together. The original poster was alluding to the fact that life has been devalued via abortion and, therefore, the taking of life through regular murder cannot possibly drop on the grounds of its wrongness. It makes no sense to say that killing a highschooler or stock broker is wrong when killing a child is apparently so acceptable.

I find it perplexing that the same people killing the innocent so vehemently protest against the death penalty awarded to serial killers and other violent criminals. Do they have a very short term memory, a short in their logic circuit, actual criminal or evil intent, what?

So, back on the topic of gay marriages I guess.

I wish homosexuals would leave me alone. I wish they'd stop screaming at the top of their lungs about how great gayness is and why they are more enlightened than me. Like Bill O'Reilly keeps saying, they're making themselves an increasingly visible target. The more I see them pushing their agenda by attacking Christians and others, the more I come to hate them what they're doing. (Further Edit: As printed several posts down, I should say that I hate what people do rather than hate them implicitly). I think what we're seeing right now, with conservatives in power, is the general public sending the following message: shut up. It's blunt but sums things up fairly well.

And it's the same tone your mother probably used on you when you asked, for the millionth time, if you were able to do something that you'd been told "no" on every time before. You know what I mean, the "do what you want" that screams guilt trip. You could probably get away with it but you know it's still hurting the other person.

I find it disgusting that when someone says "homosexuality is wrong", they get called closed minded. When someone says "homosexuality is right", they're suddenly _not_ closed minded? Seems to me like a black or white issue, and excluding either one should be closed minded or not. That's a major part of what infuriates me about liberals in general. They ultimately seek a double standard, even though it's different from the real or imagined double standard they're fighting against.

I don't recall at the moment who said it, but it was said that they perpetuate class warfare because they wouldn't have any purpose without it. When you think about it like that, it starts to make sense that maybe we shouldn't lean so darn hard on the conservatives.

Then, really, I just wonder why gay people want to get married. Seriously, I wonder why? The actual ceremony is extremely expensive, and I imagine they'd have a harder time arranging everything becuase John Q Public doesn't want it to happen. Then, they get taxed harder under what we call the marriage penalty tax. Finally, if (more of a case of when these days) something goes wrong, they suffer through divorce litgation. And let's not forget the adopted children caught in the middle, who get beat up every day at school for having queer parents. This is on top of the trauma of being adopted in the first place. People really underestimate the cruelty of children. So yeah, I guess it might hurt someone else, debunking the harmlessness arguement.

It comes down to the idea they want to be different and the same simultaneaously, and get angry when they can't have it both ways. Feminists are exactly the same in this respect. People (everyone, not excluding anyone here) just need to get a grip and understand that everything can't be their way and they can't force their beliefs on everyone.

Edit:
I do think homosexuality is wrong, in part because of my religion. However, I (and the vast majority) have not taken up a torch or pitchfork to crusade against it. We're just tired of hearing about it, and would settle for it just getting out of our faces. That's seriously all that many people are asking for, some peace and quiet for a change...

MrBananagrabber

08-01-2003, 10:59 AM

Then, really, I just wonder why gay people want to get married. Seriously, I wonder why? ...

It comes down to the idea they want to be different and the same simultaneaously, and get angry when they can't have it both ways.

I'm not gonna touch the abortion vs murder issue or anything like that. The reason gay people want to get married is because they love eachother. It's the same type of love between a man and woman, just with a person of the same gender. Gays are not sexual deviants who want screw everything of the same sex (granter, there are some gay people like that, surely, but there are also straight people who sleep around). There are benefits to getting married with insurance and other things to that extent, too. It's a way of making one's relationship official, more real, that's why people want it. Really, it'd be the same answer as "I wonder why straight people want to get married".

About the second part...are you saying that gays are angry because they want to be gay AND be married, and that they can't/shouldn't have both? I'm honestly not sure what you meant by it.

I don't think that gay people are going to destroy society by getting married. A serious loving relationship can nurture children. Broken homes can, single parents can, grandparents can, and so can gays. And I'm sure that children of gay parents would be picked on, but that's hardly a reason to say that they can't get married or adopt.

I've got to go, so I'm going to cut this short. What bothers me is that many people (not necessarily people on this board) have this idea that gay people just have sex and there's no love involved. I don't know how to stress that it is *not* true. Love is love. It's not like bestiality or pedophilia, it's a consensual relationship in which two people love eachother. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Psycho Fox

08-01-2003, 11:06 AM

BrendaBat

08-01-2003, 11:06 AM

Then, really, I just wonder why gay people want to get married. Seriously, I wonder why? The actual ceremony is extremely expensive, and I imagine they'd have a harder time arranging everything becuase John Q Public doesn't want it to happen. Then, they get taxed harder under what we call the marriage penalty tax. Finally, if (more of a case of when these days) something goes wrong, they suffer through divorce litgation.
JINKIES!! If marriage is so awful, why not just abolish it entirely!?
Seriously, if homosexuals want to ruin their lives by getting married, then thats their business. They should have the same chance to ruin their lives and throw away their freedom as heterosexuals do :D

And let's not forget the adopted children caught in the middle, who get beat up every day at school for having queer parents. This is on top of the trauma of being adopted in the first place. People really underestimate the cruelty of children. So yeah, I guess it might hurt someone else, debunking the harmlessness arguement.
Not all gay couples adopt. The lesbian couple I know used artificial insemination to have their daughter.
And about the children of "queers" getting beat up; that happens to everyone who is different in one way or another. I've faced discrimination for having braces and being a Jew. Does this mean that Jews shouldn't be allowed to have kids? And what about bi-racial children? They face discrimination, too. Does this mean we should make inter-racial marriage illegal again?

JohnCrichton

08-01-2003, 11:17 AM

Marriage is a holy union between two people who love each other. Government needs to leave people alone and let them be free and happy.

They make it seem like, if they let gay marriages be legal that we all have to give up heterosexual relationships.

There's not justice won in this, just insecurities and out dated prejudice beliefs forced upon people who love each other.

Bud 'n Lou

08-01-2003, 11:48 AM

I wish homosexuals would leave me alone. I wish they'd stop screaming at the top of their lungs about how great gayness is and why they are more enlightened than me. Like Bill O'Reilly keeps saying, they're making themselves an increasingly visible target. The more I see them pushing their agenda by attacking Christians and others, the more I come to hate them. I think what we're seeing right now, with conservatives in power, is the general public sending the following message: shut up. It's blunt but sums things up fairly well.
*screams at the top of his lungs* BLAHBLAHBLAH GAYPOWER! BLAHBLAHGETOVERITCAKES!
*ahem* Seriously though, why are you acting so put upon? Have you ever considered that most gay people have spent their whole lives hearing about how awful and disgusting they are? That is, when their existence is acknowledged AT ALL. I'm not trying to play the "my pain is worse than your pain" game, but for real. You need to get over it.
I find it disgusting that when someone says "homosexuality is wrong", they get called closed minded. When someone says "homosexuality is right", they're suddenly _not_ closed minded? Seems to me like a black or white issue, and excluding either one should be closed minded or not. That's a major part of what infuriates me about liberals in general. They ultimately seek a double standard, even though it's different from the real or imagined double standard they're fighting against.
Well, if a gay person encounters someone who tells them that they have a problem with them because of their sexuality, that pretty effectively closes off any potential conversation/friendship/whatever that might have developed. And I realize the reverse is also true (when a gay person announces they have a problem with religious people). While I think it's more likely that the gay person in the scenario has more reason to be wary of religious people than vice versa, it is still close-minded to write off an entire group of people.
Anyway, your comment about hating homosexuals will probably work against you if you go around claiming to be open-minded. I don't know if you are though, and I have encountered people who freely and proudly admit to being close-minded.
Then, really, I just wonder why gay people want to get married. Seriously, I wonder why? The actual ceremony is extremely expensive, and I imagine they'd have a harder time arranging everything becuase John Q Public doesn't want it to happen. Then, they get taxed harder under what we call the marriage penalty tax. Finally, if (more of a case of when these days) something goes wrong, they suffer through divorce litgation. And let's not forget the adopted children caught in the middle, who get beat up every day at school for having queer parents. This is on top of the trauma of being adopted in the first place. People really underestimate the cruelty of children. So yeah, I guess it might hurt someone else, debunking the harmlessness arguement.
It does no such thing. You make quite a few presumptions here. First of all, I would imagine gay people would want to marry for the same reasons straight people do. The wedding doesn't have to be expensive or difficult to arrange. But even if it were, the same can be said for heterosexual marriages. As for divorce and custody battles, again the same can be said for straight marriages. I agree with you that children are cruel. None of these things debunks the harmlessness arguement though. Those children who might get picked on for having gay parents are not responsible for getting picked on, and neither are the parents. The problem here is bullying. You wouldn't suggest we do away with religion because some religious groups are persecuted, or conservatives, because we all know how put upon they are, would you? No, because that would be punishing the victims.
It comes down to the idea they want to be different and the same simultaneaously, and get angry when they can't have it both ways.
I would have to disagree that gay people want to be different. Not all of them, anyway. But I suspect the ones that do act like outsiders do so because they are treated that way.
People (everyone, not excluding anyone here) just need to get a grip and understand that everything can't be their way and they can't force their beliefs on everyone.
I agree. In my opinion, anti-gay laws are forcing religious beliefs on the country, when they have no place to do so.
Edit:
I do think homosexuality is wrong, in part because of my religion. However, I (and the vast majority) have not taken up a torch or pitchfork to crusade against it. We're just tired of hearing about it, and would settle for it just getting out of our faces. That's seriously all that many people are asking for, some peace and quiet for a change...
It's BEEN out of your face until very recently. This IS the "change." Gays are certainly not going to go away now. Homosexuals are a part of society, whether you like it or not. Maybe you'll get a little more "peace and quiet" (you make it seem like we're noisy neighbors or something) after we get more of the same rights you have (and take for granted, judging by your diatribe about marriage).

RKillian

08-01-2003, 11:54 AM

I find it disgusting that when someone says "homosexuality is wrong", they get called closed minded. When someone says "homosexuality is right", they're suddenly _not_ closed minded? Seems to me like a black or white issue, and excluding either one should be closed minded or not. That's a major part of what infuriates me about liberals in general. They ultimately seek a double standard, even though it's different from the real or imagined double standard they're fighting against.

Well find scientific proof it is wrong.

Uh, are you replying to someone else?

Let me simply this, OK? Suppose there is a red car and a blue car.

Conservative: I like the blue car alot, but the red one isn't interesting.
Liberal: Closed minded! Clearly only the blue one is ugly!

They're both being exclusionary, yet everyone jumps to defend the 2nd guy. Why is the liberal's exclusionary and judgemental view supposed to right? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me, yet this is exactly what happens every day.

Edit: In retrospect, you dodged the issue entirely. I'll go one better and demand you find proof that homosexuality is right. We'll lower the shields and beam you aboard when you're ready with that proof.

They can do it through city hall if gay marriage (or what ever you want to call it) was legal across the US.

Marriage is the socially accepted union of a man and woman. Why can't gay people come up with something else instead of trying to fundamentally change what's already there? Consider this scenario. A man lives next door to a car dealership, where they have a certain car but only in green. Said man drives 3 states over to find the car in red. He comes home, parks it in his garage, and repaints it green. At this point, he is a fr***ing idiot.

I like the civil union idea presented earlier. If gays would just try to create a similar institution that suits them instead of warping one that doesn't, there wouldn't be any problems.

That is not the falt of the gays it is the falt of the parents that raise close minded kids.

I guess we should call murder an alternative lifestyle too, and then call people who don't want to be killed closed minded. Just like it's only the industry's fault that people willingly purchase and smoke cigarettes every day.

Gay parents know from the day they come out of the closet that many people don't accept what they're doing. And, thinking only of themselves and their wants, drag an innocent kid into their world. Then suddenly it's everyone else who was irresponsible or insensitive? Please. Three of those fingers point back in the opposite direction.

So why force church beliefs on everyone?

You mean like how you're forcing you pro liberal agenda on me? Call it what you will, but you're still forcing an unwanted load on someone else with no regard for their own beliefs or sensibilities.

Discloner

08-01-2003, 11:58 AM

Lots of people are arguing why Gays would want to get married.

Besides the obvious fact that two people love each other, marrage also brings lots of benifits from the goverment, as well as combining two people and they're assets into one.

Legal issues with money and stuff can become quite messy when two people who can't get married split up, marrage helps with this as well.

RKillian

08-01-2003, 12:04 PM

Taxation is worse under marriage though. Unless Bush actually got the marriage penalty tax struck down? I don't know what kind of benefits the government is supposed to be giving though? And yes, some of the legal issues, especially those in regard to splitting up, can be somewhat alleviated by marriage.

What it looks like to me is that a sizable percentage don't want gay marriages to happen, but it keeps getting pushed.

People sit and moan that Bush, with only half the votes, is in charge with their arguement being that only half the country wanted him. Even Clinton was elected by only 40% of the country. This is the exact same situation when you look at the numbers. Yet why hasn't this been brought up?

Jaguar

08-01-2003, 12:06 PM

I say let people do as they please. Whatever happened to the phrase "It's a free country"?

Drachentöter

08-01-2003, 12:10 PM

RKillian, I highly doubt a gay person has gone all "up in your face" and screamd "I'M GAY AND YOU HAVE TO RESPECT ME!"

As for why is the anti-homosexual marriage side closed-minded? Maybe because they are putting needless limitations on people? Okay, that's more of an argument for why they're wrong. The point is that it seems most conservative Chrstians/politicians are unwilling to accept homosexuals.

Back to Bush.

I feel that Bush really insulted homosexuals with his little morality trip. I balked when he said, "I recognize that we are all sinners." So, he's making it blatantly obvious that in his eyes homosexuality is a sin and that it's wrong. No amount of preaching on "taking out the log in our own eye" will justify that.

Marriage, to many, is the final step in declaring your love for a person. You are saying that you cannot envision living with anyone else and that you are ready to spend the rest of your days with that person. At this point, religion and law should not play such a big part.

The argument against homosexuals raising adopted children is a weak one. Certainly, they can't screw up kids anymore than straight parents do.

RKillian

08-01-2003, 12:13 PM

I say let people do as they please. Whatever happened to the phrase "It's a free country"?

Wow, somebody actually believes that? It'll be "1984" soon enough though :(

Seriously though, I'd like people who are different in some offensive way to just leave me alone. Other cultures reject Christian missionaries along similar grounds, so why can't I?

Bud 'n Lou

08-01-2003, 12:17 PM

Jaguar

08-01-2003, 12:18 PM

Seriously though, I'd like people who are different in some offensive way to just leave me alone. Other cultures reject Christian missionaries along similar grounds, so why can't I? Because people will always be different in many ways and there's nothing you can do to change it, so you just have to move on.

Or as my kindergarten teacher told me repeatedly: Just ignore it.

RKillian

08-01-2003, 12:25 PM

RKillian, I highly doubt a gay person has gone all "up in your face" and screamd "I'M GAY AND YOU HAVE TO RESPECT ME!"

Then you'd be wrong.

As for why is the anti-homosexual marriage side closed-minded? Maybe because they are putting needless limitations on people? Okay, that's more of an argument for why they're wrong. The point is that it seems most conservative Chrstians/politicians are unwilling to accept homosexuals.

Forcing us to accept homosexuality is just as much an act of force as other people making you hear that it's a sin. If I were to be technical, I could say that gays are not forced to _do_ anything, rather passively prevented _from_ doing it.

Marriage, to many, is the final step in declaring your love for a person. You are saying that you cannot envision living with anyone else and that you are ready to spend the rest of your days with that person. At this point, religion and law should not play such a big part.

Marriage is a _religious_ institution, and you say it has no part in it?

Our government, founded by decent and intelligent people who were, gasp, also Christians, just accomodates it for legal purposes.

I still say that they'd be better off creating a similar institution than screwing around with one that people obviously don't want to change and really shouldn't have to.

The argument against homosexuals raising adopted children is a weak one. Certainly, they can't screw up kids anymore than straight parents do.

Fair enough, but, considering people that think homosexuality itself is bad, it introduces another handicap. By that logic, a stupid/negligent heterosexual has one less strike than a stupid/negligent homosexual. I agree that stupidity, cruelty, poverty and negligence are far more serious threats to children than the sexuality of their parents. At the same time, I wouldn't want to heap yet another burden on the children. Like it or not, their parents have no control over how other children treat them.

Jaguar

08-01-2003, 12:29 PM

Fair enough, but, considering people that think homosexuality itself is bad, it introduces another handicap. By that logic, a stupid/negligent heterosexual has one less strike than a stupid/negligent homosexual. I agree that stupidity, cruelty, poverty and negligence are far more serious threats to children than the sexuality of their parents. At the same time, I wouldn't want to heap yet another burden on the children. Like it or not, their parents have no control over how other children treat them.
Well that probably wouldn't be the parent's main concern, that would be the child's. Besides, people who have nothing better to do but make fun of someone or their parents because of their sexuality are lower than low.

Psycho Fox

08-01-2003, 12:40 PM

In retrospect, you dodged the issue entirely. I'll go one better and demand you find proof that homosexuality is right. We'll lower the shields and beam you aboard when you're ready with that proof.
I don't but just becouse I don't have proof doesn't mean it is wrong since you don't have proof it is wrong.

Remeber we are innocent till proven guilty.

Marriage is the socially accepted union of a man and woman. Why can't gay people come up with something else instead of trying to fundamentally change what's already there?
Becouse the state recognizes marriage if the state didn't and required registering with the state for all couples to be recognized as together then gays probably wouldn't be pushing for gay marriage.

Gay parents know from the day they come out of the closet that many people don't accept what they're doing. And, thinking only of themselves and their wants, drag an innocent kid into their world. Then suddenly it's everyone else who was irresponsible or insensitive? Please. Three of those fingers point back in the opposite direction.
Jews know that many people don't accept what they are doing so should we remove their right to marry?

What about Socialist and Anarchist like me we know tons of people don't accept what we are doing. If I have a kid he/she can be picked on, "Your dad is a Socialist and aginst the republic" so should we not be allowed to marry too?

Just becouse people are jerks doesn't mean people should put their tail between their legs and go with the crowd.

You mean like how you're forcing you pro liberal agenda on me? Call it what you will, but you're still forcing an unwanted load on someone else with no regard for their own beliefs or sensibilities.
But what I'm spreading is democracy and freedom. We all were born equal and we will all die equal. Meaning even though I'm strait, a gay is my equal and a comrad.

RKillian

08-01-2003, 12:41 PM

You're right, I should rephrase that.

I hate _hearing_ about special interest groups all the time. Like Mother always said, you can like people but still hate what they do.

Otherwise, I don't know how it is where you all live, but people don't constantly bring up their sexual orientation around here. It's nobody else's business really and it doesn't have to interfere with everything under the sun. People just keep fairly quiet about it, no matter which side of the ideological fence they're on.

I respect people as fellow human beings and for who they are without question until they prove they don't accept that.

Believe it or not, there are alot of instances where epeople will say that their race/gender/sexuality defines them and then turn around and whine about being judged on that basis. It's stupid that it's acceptable one second and then not the next. You can't scream "Look at me, I'm so tall! Watch me bounce this rubber ball!" and then get angry when someone says you should try basketball.

RKillian

08-01-2003, 12:52 PM

Becouse the state recognizes marriage if the state didn't and required registering with the state for all couples to be recognized as together then gays probably wouldn't be pushing for gay marriage.

Which is pretty much along the lines of a civil union that's been suggested. They should be pressing for a secular solution rather than mucking with traditional marriage.

Jews know that many people don't accept what they are doing so should we remove their right to marry?

Now, see, I never understood anti-Semitism at all. Are there really people out there, besides the bomb-wearing Arabs, that hate Jews that much?

Edit:
This should not be read as a sleight against Arabs. Rather, a sleight against those that think a belt full of dynamite and a couple bystanders smeared against the wall make a fashion statement...

What about Socialist and Anarchist like me we know tons of people don't accept what we are doing. If I have a kid he/she can be picked on, "Your dad is a Socialist and aginst the republic" so should we not be allowed to marry too?

So tempting! :P

I don't think socialism is the right idea...the way it's been practiced. Star Trek, in my opinion, is how socialism would be in theory and I wouldn't be so averse to it then. The problem with socialism, and communism by extension, is that is has always brought people down rather than raise them up. Sure, you're all (except the dictators and such) equal....equally miserable, filthy and poor.

Just becouse people are jerks doesn't mean people should put their tail between their legs and go with the crowd.

I'm not saying that either by any means. I'm just saying that it's a reality, like it or not, and it would be nice if the children were thought of before making such a decision.

But what I'm spreading is democracy and freedom. We all were born equal and we will all die equal. Meaning even though I'm strait, a gay is my equal and a comrad.

You said you were an anarchist or socialist, so wouldn't that be different from democracy? :P

I have no problem with equal rights whatsoever. It's special rights that I have a problem with. Should I declare, today, I'm a German national and demand to have the US tax code rewritten to suit me as such? Do you see me suing the NBA for barring me on account that I'm not 6'10"?

Boy Wonder

08-01-2003, 01:01 PM

There is nothing wrong with gay marriages. The Supreme Court is right on this matter. No old fart should decide that.

Drachentöter

08-01-2003, 01:09 PM

Forcing us to accept homosexuality is just as much an act of force as other people making you hear that it's a sin. If I were to be technical, I could say that gays are not forced to _do_ anything, rather passively prevented _from_ doing it.

Okay, you don't have to accept it. Just turn the other way instead of inconvinencing these people when their wishes do not harm anyone.

Marriage is a _religious_ institution, and you say it has no part in it?

Our government, founded by decent and intelligent people who were, gasp, also Christians, just accomodates it for legal purposes.

I still say that they'd be better off creating a similar institution than screwing around with one that people obviously don't want to change and really shouldn't have to.

Straight non-Christians and atheists marry today, why should it be different for gays? In this day and age, everyone has a right to call their cermonies whatever they want. The government shouldn't consider couples married under their interpretations the only ones worthy of benefits.

Fair enough, but, considering people that think homosexuality itself is bad, it introduces another handicap. By that logic, a stupid/negligent heterosexual has one less strike than a stupid/negligent homosexual. I agree that stupidity, cruelty, poverty and negligence are far more serious threats to children than the sexuality of their parents. At the same time, I wouldn't want to heap yet another burden on the children. Like it or not, their parents have no control over how other children treat them.

No one has a right to call homosexuality "bad" or "evil." Being homosexual does not make one any worse of a parent. As for the burden on children, making gay marraige acceptable would lessen the stigma for these kids.

Psycho Fox

08-01-2003, 01:40 PM

Which is pretty much along the lines of a civil union that's been suggested. They should be pressing for a secular solution rather than mucking with traditional marriage.
Right for that to work the US would say from such and such a date on the church would have no power of declaring people together in the eyes of the state only the state has that power the church only has to power to declared people together within their church.

I don't think socialism is the right idea...the way it's been practiced. Star Trek, in my opinion, is how socialism would be in theory and I wouldn't be so averse to it then. The problem with socialism, and communism by extension, is that is has always brought people down rather than raise them up. Sure, you're all (except the dictators and such) equal....equally miserable, filthy and poor.

You said you were an anarchist or socialist, so wouldn't that be different from democracy? :P
I don't want to argue with you about socialism lets just say like there are misguided conservitives that embarrasses conservities, socialist have misguided socialist. The ideology of socialism is aginst any rulers of any kind (Socialist ruler is a really an oxymoron) and promotes pure democracy.

Space Kitty

08-01-2003, 01:46 PM

Well that probably wouldn't be the parent's main concern, that would be the child's. Besides, people who have nothing better to do but make fun of someone or their parents because of their sexuality are lower than low.

Of course the parents should be concerned, and it should be their main concern.

It is not wrong to point out homosexuals, as Jesus taught:

Matthew 5:29 "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell. "

Also, the kids don't have to be picked on at school if they go to that gay school in the other thread. Of course, that's where their parents are condemning them to go.

MrBananagrabber

08-01-2003, 02:03 PM

Of course the parents should be concerned, and it should be their main concern.

Of course, the parents should be concerned about their child's well being. But that doesn't mean that gays shouldn't adopt or have children because they might be bullied for it. Parents help their kids through things like this. Hopefully, people who are so low as to bully kids because of their parents would be punished and stop.

Also, the kids don't have to be picked on at school if they go to that gay school in the other thread. Of course, that's where their parents are condemning them to go.

On the whole issue of that 'gay school', I was always under the impression that it wouldn't stop straight kids from attending, but that it would welcome gay/lesbian/trans teens and help them.

I don't see how gay parents would be condemning their kids to going to a school for gays. I'm sure they would send them to an everyday public school. I don't undestand why the children of a gay couple would go to a school that helps gay students. It's not like the gay parents would force their kids to be gay or anything ridiculous like that.

Even though others have said this, I'd just like to also note that words like "***" really do carry a lot hatred in them. Just be careful if you feel like throwing it around =/

BrendaBat

08-01-2003, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Rkillian
I wish homosexuals would leave me alone. I wish they'd stop screaming at the top of their lungs about how great gayness is and why they are more enlightened than me. Like Bill O'Reilly keeps saying, they're making themselves an increasingly visible target. The more I see them pushing their agenda by attacking Christians and others, the more I come to hate them.
I’ve had Christian viewpoints shoved in my face my whole life! People are constantly telling me that I need to “save my soul and accept Jesus Christ or else burn in hell”. I’ve even had to deal with violent threats from a neo-nazi! What is the worst thing a homosexual ever did to you? Yell at you and ask you to accept him!? Oh, how terrible for you! :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Rkillian
Now, see, I never understood anti-Semitism at all. Are there really people out there, besides the bomb-wearing Arabs, that hate Jews that much?
Yes. Unfortunately there are a lot of them :( And, FYI, most of them are white, conservative Christians.
I don’t see how you cannot understand anti-Semitism yet you favor discriminating against homosexuals. According to the people who tried to “save” me, being Jewish is just as sinful as being gay.

Originally Posted by Rkillian
Gay parents know from the day they come out of the closet that many people don't accept what they're doing. And, thinking only of themselves and their wants, drag an innocent kid into their world. Then suddenly it's everyone else who was irresponsible or insensitive? Please. Three of those fingers point back in the opposite direction.
Let me get this straight. When I was attacked by a neo-nazi two years ago, it was my mother’s fault because she had a child despite knowing first hand that a lot of people don’t like Jews!? :mad:

Blaming the victims is just wrong! I should have the right to live and go to school in peace and so should the children of homosexual couples. Trying to prevent gays from getting civil unions and having kids isn’t going to solve the discrimination problem. If anything, it’ll make it worse because gay couples will be legally deemed “immoral deviants” who are undeserving of the things straight couples take for granted.

James

08-01-2003, 02:45 PM

Believe it or not, there are alot of instances where epeople will say that their race/gender/sexuality defines them and then turn around and whine about being judged on that basis. It's stupid that it's acceptable one second and then not the next. You can't scream "Look at me, I'm so tall! Watch me bounce this rubber ball!" and then get angry when someone says you should try basketball.

You're missing the point as to WHY people need to make an issue of their sexual orientation. It's because people refuse to acknowledge it on equal grounds and would rather not know about it or what 'they do'. The issue is that it has to be forced into peoples faces to be noticed. People like to slide things they don't like under the carpet and not deal with them. Gay rights is a BIG issue and needs awareness. If that means people have to bounce around making a big thing about their sexuality - at least it's getting the attention the issue requires.

It is not wrong to point out homosexuals, as Jesus taught:

Matthew 5:29 "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell. "

Strange how Matthew is the only gospel in which Jesus is an extremest who condemns pretty much anyone who doesn't think his way to hell or such like. None of the other gospels have Jesus painted in such way. Mark, Luke and even John depict Jesus as someone who stands for equal rights who'd rather you turned the other cheek and love your neightbour. Matthew is an extremist IMO, and I personally see a lot of his own opinions being drafted into his book.

I think Jesus stood for something entirely different to what Matthew thinks. Tolerance for all. Whether they be poor, ill or even Roman. Love thy Neighbour. It's in this rather unique perspective that Christianity was able to cross race and country. Because all were considered worthy of it's teaching - sexuality aside.

The Landstander

08-01-2003, 03:11 PM

Before I continue, the "Christian beliefs have NO place in government" assertion is a dangerous idea, which I could easily see being carried too far, were it put into practice. Such a broad statement openly invites religious discrimination. To be fair, one should say that religious beliefs have no place in government, which is a stretch. Okay, might've come off badly there, so I'll rephrase my statement:

"Ideas based purely on religious belief, regardless of the religion in question, have no place in politics."

BTW, your abolition of the term "marraige" actually sounds like a good idea to me.

And I'm not even gonna bother with RKillian. :rolleyes:

Space Kitty

08-01-2003, 03:19 PM

Gay rights is a BIG issue and needs awareness.

They already have human rights. Are they trying to say that they are not human and need different rights?

depict Jesus as someone who stands for equal rights who'd rather you turned the other cheek and love your neightbour.

Love thy Neighbour.

But he didn't say "Make love to thy neighbor" (whatever gender they be).

MrBananagrabber

08-01-2003, 03:24 PM

They already have human rights. Are they trying to say that they are not human and need different rights?

Of course not. The reason there are gay rights at all is because they are being denied the some of the same rights that other humans are.

But he didn't say "Make love to thy neighbor" (whatever gender they be).

...no comment -_-

Condiment King

08-01-2003, 04:04 PM

You're missing the point as to WHY people need to make an issue of their sexual orientation. It's because people refuse to acknowledge it on equal grounds and would rather not know about it or what 'they do'. The issue is that it has to be forced into peoples faces to be noticed. People like to slide things they don't like under the carpet and not deal with them. Gay rights is a BIG issue and needs awareness. If that means people have to bounce around making a big thing about their sexuality - at least it's getting the attention the issue requires.

Agreed.

Strange how Matthew is the only gospel in which Jesus is an extremest who condemns pretty much anyone who doesn't think his way to hell or such like. None of the other gospels have Jesus painted in such way. Mark, Luke and even John depict Jesus as someone who stands for equal rights who'd rather you turned the other cheek and love your neightbour. Matthew is an extremist IMO, and I personally see a lot of his own opinions being drafted into his book.

Disagree. In John, Jesus is a pretty big radical, as he was in all the books, they were just four different view points. After all, he did tell the Jews that 'Before Abraham was born, I am', and they picked up rocks to stone him.

I think Jesus stood for something entirely different to what Matthew thinks. Tolerance for all. Whether they be poor, ill or even Roman. Love thy Neighbour. It's in this rather unique perspective that Christianity was able to cross race and country. Because all were considered worthy of it's teaching - sexuality aside.

Yes, but we were all sinners, no matter what our sexual orientation is. Its not like some weren't. You ask forgiveness for those sins is the real part. Of course, Jesus loves everyone, and wants everyone to come to him. That's the beauty of Christianity. But loving and actually being saved are two different things. Jesus loves all, but not all are saved, because they just don't come to him.

Lucky Bob

08-01-2003, 04:16 PM

Strange how Matthew is the only gospel in which Jesus is an extremest who condemns pretty much anyone who doesn't think his way to hell or such like. None of the other gospels have Jesus painted in such way. Mark, Luke and even John depict Jesus as someone who stands for equal rights who'd rather you turned the other cheek and love your neightbour. Matthew is an extremist IMO, and I personally see a lot of his own opinions being drafted into his book.

I think Jesus stood for something entirely different to what Matthew thinks. Tolerance for all. Whether they be poor, ill or even Roman. Love thy Neighbour. It's in this rather unique perspective that Christianity was able to cross race and country. Because all were considered worthy of it's teaching - sexuality aside.
Okay, theology lesson. :D

To call Matthew an "extremist" is a very premature judgement. I'm assuming that you're going by what RKillian quoted. (Which was out of context, BTW, and didn't have much to do with this discussion.) If Matthew's whole purpose was to portray Jesus as a totalitarian dictator, why did he include these verses in the very same chapter RKillian referenced?

38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: Ex. 21.24 (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/02/21.html#24) · Lev. 24.20 (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/03/24.html#20) · Deut. 19.21 (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/05/19.html#21)
39 but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, Lev. 19.18 (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/03/19.html#18) and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Deut. 18.13 (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/05/18.html#13)

As for the verse RKillian referenced, that verse taken in context was a warning against sensual lust.

27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: Ex. 20.14 (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/02/20.html#14) · Deut. 5.18 (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/05/5.html#18)
28 but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mt. 18.9 (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/40/18.html#9) · Mk. 9.47 (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/41/9.html#47)
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mt. 18.8 (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/40/18.html#8) · Mk. 9.43 (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/41/9.html#43)

True, all of the Gospels portray Jesus in a different light, but that's okay. Jesus was all of those things. Matthew portrays Him as royalty. Mark portrays Him as a servant. Luke portrays him as human. John portrays him as the Son of God. Same Jesus, different aspects, all agree. And hey, the main message of each Gospel is not that Jesus promoted "tolerance". (He never told us to "tolerate" evil, just love the sinner.) Rather, the main message is that Jesus took the punishment for our sins, so we don't have to.

I, personally, don't hate homosexuals. I hate their lifestyle, but not the people themselves. My grandfather was a drunk, and I REALLY hated that lifestyle. But I didn't love my grandfather any less. All I'm saying is, that there are still lots of people who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. Myself included. And if we let the government promote homosexuality simply because it's "just about sex", then that leaves the door wide open for other pressure groups. I know that many say "it won't happen! It won't, won't, won't!" but it would be closed-minded to think otherwise. Like I've said, we've had one weirdo in recent news, and NAMBLA is still alive and well. Will the day come when we are "enlightened" enough to accept pedophiles? I fear so. After all, the chanting refrains of "We were born that way! Accept us! We aren't hurting anyone!" are not owned by any particular group...

Discloner

08-01-2003, 04:57 PM

Will the day come when we are "enlightened" enough to accept pedophiles? I fear so. After all, the chanting refrains of "We were born that way! Accept us! We aren't hurting anyone!" are not owned by any particular group...

I honestly don't see ANY connection with Homosexuals and Pedophiles.

Homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex, thats it. Pedophiles can be anyone who is attracted a man or a women and gets pleasure from sexual situations with children.

One has a two conentual relationship and the other doesn't.

BrendaBat

08-01-2003, 04:59 PM

I know that many say "it won't happen! It won't, won't, won't!" but it would be closed-minded to think otherwise. Like I've said, we've had one weirdo in recent news, and NAMBLA is still alive and well. Will the day come when we are "enlightened" enough to accept pedophiles? I fear so. After all, the chanting refrains of "We were born that way! Accept us! We aren't hurting anyone!" are not owned by any particular group...
But pedophiles do hurt people. Thats why they're different from the homosexuals who demand equal rights. NAMBLA may be alive and well, but so is the KKK. That doesn't mean we have to worry about lynching and "colored" facilities being made legal again.

Also, the kids don't have to be picked on at school if they go to that gay school in the other thread. Of course, that's where their parents are condemning them to go.
Straight couples are just as (if not more) likely to have gay kids as homosexual couples. Sexual orientation isn't something that can be taught its just...there

James

08-01-2003, 05:09 PM

Okay, theology lesson. :D

To call Matthew an "extremist" is a very premature judgement. I'm assuming that you're going by what RKillian quoted. (Which was out of context, BTW, and didn't have much to do with this discussion.) Actually no. I'm basing it on my time academically studying New Testament theology.

Matthew is the only gospel which has Jesus preaching damnation. Matthew's gospel is the most conservative of the four and mainly reflects the Jewish philosophy of the time.

True, all of the Gospels portray Jesus in a different light, but that's okay. Jesus was all of those things. Matthew portrays Him as royalty. Mark portrays Him as a servant. Luke portrays him as human. John portrays him as the Son of God. Same Jesus, different aspects, all agree.

All different perceptions of the same man. The books were written in varying time periods after the man's death. Unless you believe all was precisely the 'word of God', then no, they don't agree at all.
And hey, the main message of each Gospel is not that Jesus promoted "tolerance". (He never told us to "tolerate" evil, just love the sinner.)
To love the sinner? Hmm, so if you sin you are still to be loved. To love is by definition to tolerate. I think Jesus' message and what allowed Christianity to spread, was that it encompassed all. Be you a prostitute, a leper, Roman, Jew. Anyone. His message was tolerance.
Rather, the main message is that Jesus took the punishment for our sins, so we don't have to.

That's the external summary of Jesus' role. His teaching was not about absolution of our sins, the absolution came from his final sacrifice.
I, personally, don't hate homosexuals. I hate their lifestyle, but not the people themselves. My grandfather was a drunk, and I REALLY hated that lifestyle. But I didn't love my grandfather any less.

I'm not sure you can 'hate' their 'lifestyle' anymore than you can hate someones natural urge to fall in love or have children. Homosexuals don't have an encompassed 'lifestyle' aside from finding love in someone of the same gender.
Will the day come when we are "enlightened" enough to accept pedophiles? I fear so. After all, the chanting refrains of "We were born that way! Accept us! We aren't hurting anyone!" are not owned by any particular group...
Homosexuals hurt no one. Your logic would be acceptable if we were referring to the state accepting rapists or murderers. Homosexual rights fall in line with human rights. Concentual love.I do not subscribe to homosexuality and pedophilia as being a comparative example.

wonderfly

08-01-2003, 05:46 PM

Then you would have to rewrites tons of laws to give this gay marriage (that isn't called gay marriage) its legallity meaning a gay couple has as much rights as a regular couple.

By just calling gay marriage, marriage gay, couples have all the rights automaticly.

I don't think it would require much 'rewriting of laws' at all. They simply need to pass a new law which requires on a federal level for "civil unions" to be recognized. I'd probably say the same for straight couples that just choose to live together: federally legalized state unions could help stabilize relationships where couple don't get married, but live together.

The problem is we need to differentiate between "marriage" as defined by religion, and "marriage" as defined by the state. One's a philosophical/spritual term, the other is a legal term. True, in centuries past, the two were combined, but I think here in the 21st century, and in particular the U.S.A., we should be making the distinction.

Since the very word "marriage" was brought into existence by religion, if religious institutions do not want "gay marriage" then that's fine. I feel they have claim to the word "marriage" since they invinted the institution. But if gays (and heterosexuals who just want to live together, but get benifits like being able to adopt kids, file joint tax forms, etc) want reckognition, I believe they should be pursuing legislation that strenthens the term "civil union".

Upon thinking about this further, perhaps Bush was wrong in what he said, and in what type of legislation he's thinking about passing. If I were him, with his own strong religious beliefs, I'd work on passing legislation which defines the federal govt.'s position on marriage more clearly: let one be the province of religion, thus preventing what many Christians feel as the "tarnishing of the sanctity of marriage", and at the same time Bush could score points with gays by having a provision in the new law which strengthen's civil unions.

wonderfly

08-01-2003, 05:49 PM

Great discussion of religion, SJJ and Lucky Bob! Why should I go to Sunday school: I got you two around. ;)

The following posted by Shnay:

Also, people make the arguement of "if we allow gay marraige, what's next? Should we allow people to marry their cars if they want to?" I think that's a pretty big leap. The issue is not akin to beastiality and the like and shouldn't be treated as such. Again, it's not the major redefinition people make it out to be, it's just taking away a gender qualifier.

And though I was the first to bring up the "slippery slope" effect, I'll let Bob discuss that, since I'm no good at such a thing. The existence of NAAMBLA is enough to show there is some of that "corruption" of culture that conservatives fear.

Psycho Fox

08-01-2003, 05:58 PM

I don't think it would require much 'rewriting of laws' at all. They simply need to pass a new law which requires on a federal level for "civil unions" to be recognized. I'd probably say the same for straight couples that just choose to live together: federally legalized state unions could help stabilize relationships where couple don't get married, but live together.

For that the US has to not recognize marriage, of course it won't be retro active meaning you pick a date say Jan 1st 2004 people married before that date will automaticlly be classed as together after that getting married won't mean the state reconize you as together you need to register with the goverment for that and of course you don't need to be married for the goverment to class you as together.

Condiment King

08-01-2003, 06:52 PM

Matthew is the only gospel which has Jesus preaching damnation. Matthew's gospel is the most conservative of the four and mainly reflects the Jewish philosophy of the time.

Mainly because the book is geared towards the Jews. Whereas his writing style may prove otherwise, you have to remember he is a tax collector. Out of the four, he would be the most grateful of loving Jesus. Tax collectors were hated by everyone in that time.

All different perceptions of the same man. The books were written in varying time periods after the man's death. Unless you believe all was precisely the 'word of God', then no, they don't agree at all.

I don't understand. Alot of the events in the Gospels can be cross-referenced to be fact, like the birth of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke. No doubt each person had a different aspect to writing their Gospel, what with John completely skipping Jesus's birth and getting right to the issues at hand, whereas Luke elaborately writes his entire life from birth to death. This backs it up even more, IMO. If the books were mostly the same, whom would it benefit reading the same thing over again?

To love the sinner? Hmm, so if you sin you are still to be loved. To love is by definition to tolerate. I think Jesus' message and what allowed Christianity to spread, was that it encompassed all. Be you a prostitute, a leper, Roman, Jew. Anyone. His message was tolerance.

I disagree because when it comes right down to it, Jesus is not completely tolerant, because only by Jesus can you get to God, and if you did not recieve Jesus into your heart, then you cannot. Jesus loves all and wishes all to be saved, but it doesn't work out that way. Whether love and tolerance have ties, they are different. Jesus says to love one another no matter what. To 'do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you'. Tolerance is a tame word to the love he was talking about.

James

08-01-2003, 07:52 PM

Mainly because the book is geared towards the Jews. Whereas his writing style may prove otherwise, you have to remember he is a tax collector. Out of the four, he would be the most grateful of loving Jesus. Tax collectors were hated by everyone in that time.

Makes no difference. Aside from again highlighting the point that Matthew puts his own personal slant on the teaching of Jesus.

I don't understand. Alot of the events in the Gospels can be cross-referenced to be fact, like the birth of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke. No doubt each person had a different aspect to writing their Gospel, what with John completely skipping Jesus's birth and getting right to the issues at hand, whereas Luke elaborately writes his entire life from birth to death. This backs it up even more, IMO. If the books were mostly the same, whom would it benefit reading the same thing over again?

Mark is considered to be the original gospel. This was then used as reference by Matthew and Luke and embelished by their own sources and viewpoints. Matthew and Luke also worked from a seperate source to Mark named 'Q' which is considered to be the most accurate known source on the works of Jesus.

John was the youngest gospel written a time after the rest and was likely a combined collective of scribes. He - or they - bare little on the other three gospels.

Your point, IMO, backs up nothing. :) Except that Matthew embelished from source material from the book of Q and Mark. Since Luke does not mention any of the more extreme beliefs cited in Matthew and he too used the book of Q for reference as well as Mark (who again made none of these more damning remarks), it seems likely these were more personal beliefs of Matthew than factual ones. There are correlations in the teachings of Matthew and Luke. Those are likely to be those referenced from the book of Q.

I disagree because when it comes right down to it, Jesus is not completely tolerant, because only by Jesus can you get to God, and if you did not recieve Jesus into your heart, then you cannot. Jesus loves all and wishes all to be saved, but it doesn't work out that way. Whether love and tolerance have ties, they are different. Jesus says to love one another no matter what. To 'do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you'. Tolerance is a tame word to the love he was talking about.

Jesus promotes tolerance in an intolerant society. He doesn't change society, but the crux of his belief - and which differed from the Jewish - was that ALL were worthy in his eyes and through his eyes - God. Whether you were a prositute, a roman, a woman (gasp!) - it made no difference. That is how Christianity is spread.

Jewish Roman scribe named Joesphus, born AD37 - just after the death of Christ states that Jesus had followers of both Jewish and Greek. He too sees Jesus as a man who has no specific allegience to anything but the principles he preached.

As has been said, there was NO reference to homosexuality in the Gospel, only what people like to infer - to be quite frank - to re-inforce their own personal judgement.

Interestingly, there was a debate by some of America's modern historians onto historically were the most likely accurate preachings of Jesus Christ. The book of Q is believed to the source of these teachings - hence the top 5 are both Matthew and Luke.

They were:

1. "If anyone strikes the right cheek; turn the other also' (Matthew 5:39)
2. "If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well (Matthew 5:40)
3. "Blessed are you who are poor; for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:20)
4. "If anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.' (Matthew 5:41)
5. "Love Your Enemies." (Luke 6:27)

The debate can be read in full in the published 'The Jesus Debate' by Mark Allan Powell published by Lion.

moreysurf8

08-01-2003, 08:26 PM

I'd write out an entire post on my feelings on this issue, but it's easier to take Landstander's instead, since it says basically everything I wanted to say.
...what are the supporters of this trying to accomplish here? I mean, if Dave and Frank want to get married, why should I care? Why should ANYONE care? What does the US stand to gain by outlawing gay marraiges (well, besides "morality" :rolleyes: )?

check, check and....check

Condiment King

08-01-2003, 08:48 PM

Makes no difference. Aside from again highlighting the point that Matthew puts his own personal slant on the teaching of Jesus.

Eh, I agree and disagree. It does make a difference because he probably wanted to make a more agressive tone to his audience, but he didn't veer off on his own beliefs, IMO. He just took truth that applied to what he wanted to say. He didn't really embelish or make things out more to agree with him then they seemed, IMO.

Mark is considered to be the original gospel. This was then used as reference by Matthew and Luke and embelished by their own sources and viewpoints. Matthew and Luke also worked from a seperate source to Mark named 'Q' which is considered to be the most accurate known source on the works of Jesus.

John was the youngest gospel written a time after the rest and was likely a combined collective of scribes. He - or they - bare little on the other three gospels.

I believe that the book of 'Q' is still a theory if I'm not mistaken, but John seems to be in agreement with Matthew nevertheless. He may not stress it as much as Matthew, but it does come up. Verses like John 3:18-21, John 2:13-17 which is cross-referenced in Luke 19:45-46, John 8:58-59, and to an extent Luke 18:18-30.

I still disagree about the books' difference spirals not meaning anything. For instance, in your case, Matthew and Luke pull from the older Mark, yet they go in two different directions, and John seems to follow Matthew. Though its vaguer in Luke, since its much more of a narrative of a life than Matthew, there are still references there that's found in Matthew and John. All the books take a theme, and they all agree when it comes to the major theme which is really what counts.

Matthew can also stand up as being more damning considering it has the Sermon on the Mount, one of the more questionable preachings of Jesus, in which he rattled off MANY sayings that are not found in Mark, Luke, or John.

James

08-01-2003, 09:26 PM

Eh, I agree and disagree. It does make a difference because he probably wanted to make a more agressive tone to his audience, but he didn't veer off on his own beliefs, IMO. He just took truth that applied to what he wanted to say. He didn't really embelish or make things out more to agree with him then they seemed, IMO.Point is Matthew's more aggressive, arguably less liberal Jewish stance is not repeated in any of the other books. Furthermore his work is mainly based from two confirmed sources, one of which is simply an earlier writer - Mark. Q, is considered by most scholars as a definiate source, there is just we have no physical proof. People debunk it on that ground.

but John seems to be in agreement with Matthew nevertheless. He may not stress it as much as Matthew, but it does come up. Verses like John 3:18-21, John 2:13-17 which is cross-referenced in Luke 19:45-46, John 8:58-59, and to an extent Luke 18:18-30.

The book of John has the benefit of being written considerably later, however it does not follow Matthews more conservative outlook. Matthew is the only book in which to my knowledge Jesus offers any aggressive philosophical perspectives. That's not to say all of Matthew is like this, but there are key passages in which the more traditional Jewish beliefs are prevelant which are not in any of the three gospels.
I still disagree about the books' difference spirals not meaning anything. For instance, in your case, Matthew and Luke pull from the older Mark, yet they go in two different directions, and John seems to follow Matthew. Though its vaguer in Luke, since its much more of a narrative of a life than Matthew, there are still references there that's found in Matthew and John. All the books take a theme, and they all agree when it comes to the major theme which is really what counts.Matthew can also stand up as being more damning considering it has the Sermon on the Mount, one of the more questionable preachings of Jesus, in which he rattled off MANY sayings that are not found in Mark, Luke, or John.
I think you are straying off topic and into hypothetical arguments. We could argue pointlessly to what we specifically think came from where (and oral tradition is another element we haven't touched upon) until the cows come home. :)

My point was, and still is that Matthew is the only gospel which holds any support to the traditional Jewish teaching in which there was clearly a 'class' of people who would get into Heaven and the rest would go to hell. The other Gospels do not. Matthew is a later source which is based on at least two other sources. He's not the definitive source to which some people (not saying yourself) believe he is.

This is not to say he's not reliable in any way, as I said, scholars have found that the most likely historical accuracies come from Matthew and Luke (and are likely from Q). I'm not debunking any Gospel, I'm just saying historically, much of Jesus' more traditional teaching in Matthew is deemed to be from an unreliable source - most likely Matthew himself who himself was a devout follower of the Jewish faith (if memory serves). I just find that while most of the gospels preach tolerence, those who don't like the idea of homosexualty ignore this and head for very specific areas of Matthew (which don't even specifically mention homosexuality).

Lucky Bob

08-02-2003, 12:28 AM

My point was, and still is that Matthew is the only gospel which holds any support to the traditional Jewish teaching in which there was clearly a 'class' of people who would get into Heaven and the rest would go to hell. The other Gospels do not. Matthew is a later source which is based on at least two other sources. He's not the definitive source to which some people (not saying yourself) believe he is.
May I remind you that Matthew was one of Jesus's original disciples? I don't think he was just basing his book on two other sources.

And Matthew isn't the only one that teaches that those who reject Christ go to hell. For example, check out this passage from John:

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicode'mus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicode'mus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, Num. 21.9 (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/04/21.html#9) even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.This is not to say he's not reliable in any way, as I said, scholars have found that the most likely historical accuracies come from Matthew and Luke (and are likely from Q). I'm not debunking any Gospel, I'm just saying historically, much of Jesus' more traditional teaching in Matthew is deemed to be from an unreliable source - most likely Matthew himself who himself was a devout follower of the Jewish faith (if memory serves). I just find that while most of the gospels preach tolerence, those who don't like the idea of homosexualty ignore this and head for very specific areas of Matthew (which don't even specifically mention homosexuality).
Again, Matthew was one of Jesus's diciples, thus that would serve to make his Gospel even more reliable! Matthew was a disciple. Mark wasn't in the original twelve, although there's reference to him following them closely. Luke was a doctor who wrote his Gospel as a second-hand observation from interviews and historical evidence. John was one of Jesus's most trusted disciples who, along with Peter and James, witnessed some of the more special things involving Jesus's ministry. (Such as the Transfiguration.) Thus, it is only natural that they should provide views of different aspects of Jesus's life, but the main message is still preserved.

As for love being "tolerance", I don't agree with that at all. Did Jesus tolerate sin? No. That verse in John should be clear evidence of that. Elsewhere, Jesus threw out the people who were cheating the people in the Temple. Jesus died to provide forgiveness of sins, not to provide tolerance for them. True love tries to make one better, not give them a free ticket to be worse. Yes, it's an open invitation to everyone, but not an open invitation to sin. Rather, it's an open invitation for forgiveness of that sin.

I would like to challenge you to take some time this week to read all the Gospels. No college books, no "theological" commentary, just read the Gospels by themselves. Get them all in context, and tell me where they disagree on the main message.

Zach Logan

08-02-2003, 12:45 AM

You people must learn something

Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, and the other philosophical thinkers of the 16th century and the American and French Revolutions did not want to mix church and state. Our nation is founded on the basis that we shall have a government that is not intervened by one of the "TRIAD OF TYRANNY" (A Monarchy, a religious state, nor an elitist society as stated by John Stuart Mill), therefore this burkian administration is leading us in the wrong direction. People should be able to make their own choice, it is unconstitutional, unlockian, inhumane to have a government intervene with the private life of a man/woman. It is wrong for the government to restrict an individual to do anything. The government is made to do ONE thing.

PROTECT THE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Beyond this, the state is exceeding its rights, and should be overthrown.

Roger Smith

08-02-2003, 02:36 AM

i dont like homos
god made a woman and a man not
2 homos 2 lebians

The Landstander

08-02-2003, 02:40 AM

i dont like homos
god made a woman and a man not
2 homos 2 lebians...

...

...

Sad thing is, this seems to be the logic behind getting stuff like this passed.

Steve Jester

08-02-2003, 05:26 AM

...

...

...

Sad thing is, this seems to be the logic behind getting stuff like this passed.

That and one small refrence in the old testement (i think) saying that "Man shall not lay next to Man as he does with Woman" :(

James

08-02-2003, 09:35 AM

May I remind you that Matthew was one of Jesus's original disciples? I don't think he was just basing his book on two other sources.
Then it's you against every respected theologian and historian who has reported on the study of the gospels.
And Matthew isn't the only one that teaches that those who reject Christ go to hell. For example, check out this passage from John:
I don't mean to to sound a little off, but again like CK, you are getting pedantic and trying to debunk my point on homosexuality references in the Gospels by trying to prove I don't 'know my stuff'. I do know my stuff thank you. I do know that on the whole Matthew is a far more 'Jewish' scribe than the others. I do know also that John is likely to be a group of writers who will all have their own religious base. John has never been considered to be a wholey accurate source, but again, as I said we are veering off the point here. 'He''s not such a traditionalist in terms of Jewish faith as Matthew is. Matthew is certainly the book which seems less focused on a message, as if it's word is taken from a variety of sources. Sometimes Jesus will warn against making judgements on others and promoting tolerance and then the next will declaring hell as the next stop for those who don't fit certain criteria. IMO anyway.

Again, Matthew was one of Jesus's diciples, thus that would serve to make his Gospel even more reliable! Matthew was a disciple. Mark wasn't in the original twelve, although there's reference to him following them closely. Luke was a doctor who wrote his Gospel as a second-hand observation from interviews and historical evidence. John was one of Jesus's most trusted disciples who, along with Peter and James, witnessed some of the more special things involving Jesus's ministry. (Such as the Transfiguration.) Thus, it is only natural that they should provide views of different aspects of Jesus's life, but the main message is still preserved.
Erm, again John was NOT one of Jesus' disciples. His book was the last written way past the time of Jesus' death. As I have mentioned, most likely to have been a group effort however this point is still speculated on. He was not a disciple and neither was Matthew. Mark is the earliest source of the four. Luke wrote way after Mark did so was working from Mark's work, the evidence in Q and maybe some oral stories past down from the generations (which to be fair to all, were meant to be pretty accurate as Oral verse was the only way historical evidence could be recorded and as such was done so with care).

The Matthew and John you refer to are two entirely different people.
I would like to challenge you to take some time this week to read all the Gospels. No college books, no "theological" commentary, just read the Gospels by themselves. Get them all in context, and tell me where they disagree on the main message.I've done that mate. I read them for academic and historical purposes albeit a few years ago. :)
Maybe then you need to brush up on your historical facts. Matthew was NOT written by the disciple of that name. It was written well after Jesus' death. I believe Mark, the original gospel was written around 60AD, Matthew's was after that. It's accepted by all scholars that Matthew was not alive when Jesus was. Same goes for John which, if memory serves may have originally been written in Greek...

Drachentöter

08-02-2003, 10:47 AM

May I suggest starting a new thread that features the fascinating debate on the Bible and its meaning so this can get back on topic?

As for Roger's statement, Landstander's right. Resentment against gay marraige seems to stem from a simple religious base. Prejudice stemmed from religion is still prejudice.

Bud 'n Lou

08-02-2003, 11:19 AM

i dont like homos
god made a woman and a man not
2 homos 2 lebians
But Roger, the homos love you. And they find you very attractive.

James

08-02-2003, 12:06 PM

Resentment against gay marraige seems to stem from a simple religious base. Prejudice stemmed from religion is still prejudice.

I totally agree, hence I've made such an attempt to address the religious issue as I see it. I don't think that Christian text does hold anything against gay rights. What bothers me is that Christianity, by the very ethos it was born in, was to promote the word of God to ALL. That all were his sheep if they chose to accept him.

I just don't think Christianity should be used as evidence as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. I understand their are many in the church or various denominations that oppose it. It just bothers me the way it goes against the principles which made the religion so very strong.

If you don't like homosexuals, or are homophobic, then that's your own predjudice. Unless you adhere to the Old Testement teachings, I don't think there is safe haven in the New Testement for such a standpoint.

IMO of course. :)

The sooner we spread tolerance for all, the better life will be for all. I think as a Western culture we're doing a great job. But there is always room for improvement and those at the top have an example to set.

night

08-02-2003, 12:19 PM

Something make's me think that this law will be passed.

I thought y ou could do anything in america....if your white.

Lucky Bob

08-02-2003, 12:39 PM

Then it's you against every respected theologian and historian who has reported on the study of the gospels.
Not all of them. Just the ones you've studied.
I don't mean to to sound a little off, but again like CK, you are getting pedantic and trying to debunk my point on homosexuality references in the Gospels by trying to prove I don't 'know my stuff'. I do know my stuff thank you. I do know that on the whole Matthew is a far more 'Jewish' scribe than the others. I do know also that John is likely to be a group of writers who will all have their own religious base. John has never been considered to be a wholey accurate source, but again, as I said we are veering off the point here. 'He''s not such a traditionalist in terms of Jewish faith as Matthew is. Matthew is certainly the book which seems less focused on a message, as if it's word is taken from a variety of sources. Sometimes Jesus will warn against making judgements on others and promoting tolerance and then the next will declaring hell as the next stop for those who don't fit certain criteria. IMO anyway. Jesus did tell Christians to love sinners, but he never did tell them to accept sin. In the meantime, Jesus died so that sinners wouldn't have to take their punishment. If Matthew doesn't have a message, why did he record Jesus's death? Erm, again John was NOT one of Jesus' disciples. His book was the last written way past the time of Jesus' death.
Doesn't prove anything. Scholars estimate it around 85 A.D. It's entirely possible that John was alive around that time.
As I have mentioned, most likely to have been a group effort however this point is still speculated on. He was not a disciple and neither was Matthew. Mark is the earliest source of the four. Luke wrote way after Mark did so was working from Mark's work, the evidence in Q and maybe some oral stories past down from the generations (which to be fair to all, were meant to be pretty accurate as Oral verse was the only way historical evidence could be recorded and as such was done so with care). The Matthew and John you refer to are two entirely different people.
Kind of a closed-minded argument, there.Maybe then you need to brush up on your historical facts. Matthew was NOT written by the disciple of that name. It was written well after Jesus' death. I believe Mark, the original gospel was written around 60AD, Matthew's was after that.
Again, not impossible. One valid manuscript of Matthew's writings has in chapter 9 (when Matthew was called as a disciple,) that Jesus ate with publicans and sinners "at home". A cross-reference in Mark confirms that the house was Matthew's. Couple that with early church tradition, and that's a pretty strong case right there.
It's accepted by all scholars that Matthew was not alive when Jesus was.
Again, not all scholars. There are plenty more who would disagree.
Same goes for John which, if memory serves may have originally been written in Greek...
Then how come the last verses in the Gospel of John point to him as the author?

night

08-02-2003, 12:40 PM

Why should we care I thoguht god wanted us to be happy so then why arent we allowed to do thing's that make people happy?

Zach Logan

08-02-2003, 12:48 PM

Dont mix religion and government. It never works out, because things like this happen. This nation was meant to be a religiously free one, there was not supposed to be any religious influence in the government, and the government was never created to intervene in personal affairs. A government is supposed to protect our individual rights of freedom, life, and property...nothing more.

They cant tell us what to read
They cant tell us how to pray
They cant tell us how to eat
They cant tell us what to do
They cant tell us who we can have sex with
They cant tell us how to live our lives
They cant tell us what time we need to get up, what time we need to go to sleep, what we can say to our families when we come home from work, what we need to wear, if we need to go to church or synogogue, if we need to pray, if we need to believe in an almighty being, if we need to be athiest, if we can be gay, if we can be straight, if we can be a transvsetite, who we are, what we are, who we want to be, and who we will be.

They cannot determine who we are, and if they do, they are crossing the line.

Jade_GL

08-02-2003, 12:50 PM

My opinion is that if God really despizes homosexuality and homosexuals, let Him deal with it at the final judgment. It's not my place as a simple human to pass judgment on others lifestyles and the like. Of course, when it's illegal, that's a completely different reason for judgment, like I don't like murderer or a pedophile, etc. I find using religion as a sole judgment for certain lifestyles is entirely un-Christian, especially when you consider the entire New Testament is about loving one another, accepting others, and redemption.

MY opinion is that if a couple wants to be devoted to one another and wants it codified by law, why the heck not. And really, no religious arguments for my little "Why the heck not" statement. This is purely rhetorical in my mind, not to be debated with a 2000 year old text.

What I love is that most of the statements are taken from the Old Testament where they also tell you as a follower of God to wear certain clothing and only eaten certain foods killed and cared for in certain ways. I'm sure they're just as important, if we're mincing hairs here. :)

Anyway, I don't like the thought of using the term marriage since that's so steeped in tradition and seems to really bother religious types (though I consider myself religious and don't care really in the end) so why not call them unions or joinings and just let people be.

night

08-02-2003, 12:54 PM

It dosent matter what we do here god is the only one that can chose our fate.

Zach Logan

08-02-2003, 12:57 PM

It dosent matter what we do here god is the only one that can chose our fate.

Well we're all going to some type of hell. Each religion believes that you are all other religions will go to the lowest level of their afterlife or caste, therefore almost everyone on Earth is going to hell

I believe you should enjoy your time on Earth, and you will be rewarded or punished here, which is a generic Jewish consept.

James

08-02-2003, 01:03 PM

Not all of them. Just the ones you've studied.
Jesus did tell Christians to love sinners, but he never did tell them to accept sin. In the meantime, Jesus died so that sinners wouldn't have to take their punishment. If Matthew doesn't have a message, why did he record Jesus's death?

Matthew's recordings are from mixed sources. I think that's fairly evident. You will find that respected scholars all agree that Matthew, John and Luke were not alive or at least at a scholarly age when Jesus died. That is historically clear, and you'll be pushed to find many historical sources which suggest otherwise. It's so established it is actually taught in schools as part of Religious Education.

Doesn't prove anything. Scholars estimate it around 85 A.D. It's entirely possible that John was alive around that time.

Scholars are quite clear that John was not alive when Jesus died. John is said to be written way after the death of Christ.

Kind of a closed-minded argument, there.
Again, not impossible. One valid manuscript of Matthew's writings has in chapter 9 (when Matthew was called as a disciple,) that Jesus ate with publicans and sinners "at home". A cross-reference in Mark confirms that the house was Matthew's. Couple that with early church tradition, and that's a pretty strong case right there.

Close minded eh? :) Historical and threologians agree. It's close minded so far as any historical documentation is.

Matthew was written after Mark. That's been established. Way after. You can guess the intent of the authour as much as you like. Their may have been intent to be written as Matthew. It's very likely the author wasn't called Matthew at all.

Again, not all scholars. There are plenty more who would disagree.

Then how come the last verses in the Gospel of John point to him as the author?

Lol. You can kick and scream LB, but it is as establised as much as can be possible that John and Matthew were written long after. What their intents were died with the authour, but they are not the disciples! You will get people who will disagree - people like yourself who cling to the old fashioned belief - it certainly a cosier and more simplistic outlook, I understand that. You'll get those who will fight on the grounds of academic attention, but the most reknown scholars agree that none of the gospels were from the Disciples and most likely the most accurate source for information aside from oral stories, was the book named Q - which depicts Jesus as a man preaching tolerance rather than boundaries of sin.

On any established belief there will be those who will fight - for their own reasons. I don't think the argument that you can find someone who opposes this changes anything. There is someone who will oppose everything - this is an established historical and theological point - and one that is taught at the best universities and held by the best academics in both history and theology.

That has always been the message of Christianity. That is what made Jesus so different to all the other preaches of Judasim. All who embraced the Lord regardless of what was considered 'sinful' (yes, even prostitutes) were accepted into God's grace - that we were all God's children. That's the message, and one that has been distorted throughout history to support whatever fears have been prevelant in man's domain.

But as has been said, we are deviating way off topic. You don't agree? That's fine, but the is far more to support this conjecture than your own. You can't dispute this findings just through what was said in the text. You don't know the intent of the author so anything you find is purely hypothetical.

RZetlin

08-02-2003, 01:05 PM

Does it matter if we support gay marriages or not?

I believe that we are all going to Hell because of one sin we have committed in this life time.

James

08-02-2003, 01:09 PM

Does it matter if we support gay marriages or not?

I believe that we are all going to Hell because of one sin we have committed in this life time.

LOL - with optimism like that, remind me not to go to one of your parties! :D

SNS

08-02-2003, 01:12 PM

Why should we care I thoguht god wanted us to be happy so then why arent we allowed to do thing's that make people happy?

God wants you to be happy as long as what makes you happy isn't a sin (some people get pleasure out of killing, does that mean they should be able to do so because it makes them happy?)

batboy2001

08-02-2003, 01:19 PM

This is slightly off topic, but why must the bible be brought into every debate? People are always saying what the bible says, I say "so?". Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's the end all. Most of the time it's irrelevant. Like saying homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the bible, so what (just using homosexuality as a example)? People think that just because than can quote some bible verses (sometimes even out of context) everyone should be subject to that.

Not to open a can of worms, but there were some 80 books considered as gospels. Also, most christian dogma, including the deity of christ, was decided by a pagan ruler (Constantine).

Bud 'n Lou

08-02-2003, 02:01 PM

I think things are getting a tiny bit off topic, even though I find the religion thingie fascinating. So to pick up an earlier thread of conversation, a few pages back, I addressed Luckybob in a post, but he didn't reply. Obviously anyone else's comments would be welcome too. I'd particularly like to know any thoughts on this part, in reference to the arguement that legalized gay marriage will lead to legalized bestiality and pedophilia:
The difference between homosexuality, and say, bestiality and pedophilia are that in a consensual homosexual relationship, no one is being hurt or victimized. Religious beliefs aside, wouldn't you agree with this statement? And I'm not asking you to cite examples of how pedophiles and animal rapists try to justify what they do to make it seem as if they're not victimizing anyone.

Space Kitty

08-02-2003, 04:21 PM

When you talk about certain situations, I think that "victim" is often used because it is assumed that a female is being "victimized".

If a woman practices beastiality, she is not harming the beast. She deserves jail time and/or needs psychiatric help, but she is victimizing no one (or thing?). If a man is with an animal, most of the time they won't even be aware of the person.

If a woman or man truly falls in love with a child, and that child loves them back, there is no victimization. Especially if a woman is with a boy, there is no physical harm done to the boy. If you say that they are too young to decide if they are in love, that is subject to interpretation. Turning 18 does not magically make a person able to feel love "correctly". And if not 18, where do you draw the line? 16? 14? 12? I'm sure a prodigy could prove their case for love to an older person.

I don't agree with either practice, but those are some of the arguments that can be brought up to defend them. :eek:

Psycho Fox

08-02-2003, 04:58 PM

When you talk about certain situations, I think that "victim" is often used because it is assumed that a female is being "victimized".

If a woman practices beastiality, she is not harming the beast. She deserves jail time and/or needs psychiatric help, but she is victimizing no one (or thing?). If a man is with an animal, most of the time they won't even be aware of the person.
But in both cases the animal didn't give them permission thus it is rape.

If a woman or man truly falls in love with a child, and that child loves them back, there is no victimization. Especially if a woman is with a boy, there is no physical harm done to the boy. If you say that they are too young to decide if they are in love, that is subject to interpretation. Turning 18 does not magically make a person able to feel love "correctly". And if not 18, where do you draw the line? 16? 14? 12? I'm sure a prodigy could prove their case for love to an older person.
See then you have the point that it doesn't matter if the kid is in love or not they are not of legal age. Just like kids can drink beer and fight wars doesn't mean they should. Thus the line where they are legally an adult.

BrendaBat

08-02-2003, 05:34 PM

Origionally posted by Roger Smith
i dont like homos
god made a woman and a man not
2 homos 2 lebians

Wow. What a compelling arguement. My opinion is forever changed :rolleyes:

I find it amusing when someone defends their anti-gay standpoint by saying "IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE!!!!" and refuses to elaborate. It would be like me saying, "I hate Egyptians because they enslaved the Jews. And God sicked the plagues on them so they MUST be evil!" :p

A lot of people think that being a jew is just as big a sin as being gay (I hear it says so in the Bible). But Jews are still given the right to marry and whatnot. So why should the "sinful gays" be treated any different than the "sinful Jews"?

Zach Logan

08-02-2003, 05:54 PM

Wow. What a compelling arguement. My opinion is forever changed :rolleyes:

I find it amusing when someone defends their anti-gay standpoint by saying "IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE!!!!" and refuses to elaborate. It would be like me saying, "I hate Egyptians because they enslaved the Jews. And God sicked the plagues on them so they MUST be evil!" :p

A lot of people think that being a jew is just as big a sin as being gay (I hear it says so in the Bible). But Jews are still given the right to marry and whatnot. So why should the "sinful gays" be treated any different than the "sinful Jews"?

Once again this nation is a secular nation.

On that note Homosexuals should be able to do everything Hetrosexuals do. They are perfectly normal people like you or me and should not be subjected to any segregation or discrimination, this thread is almost an abomonation to what I thought this nation stood for.

Space Kitty

08-02-2003, 06:20 PM

Hey everybody, Brendabat is Jewish!

Know how I know?

She's told us in EVERYT SINGLE POST SHE'S MADE!

As a female (I assume) you should use that as your argument. We easily get "the treatment" as much as any minority (and we're the majority). It's too easy to play the race card.

But in both cases the animal didn't give them permission thus it is rape.

Animals NEVER give "permission". By that logic, the whole animal kingdom is perpetuated by rape.
If a woman offers herself to an animal, she is the one giving permission to the animal.

This topic has turned really gross, but these are the arguments that people will use :sweat:

Psycho Fox

08-02-2003, 06:43 PM

Animals NEVER give "permission". By that logic, the whole animal kingdom is perpetuated by rape.
Some do, look in nature books you'll see a good deal of animals have mating rituals like a male porcupine will give body laungage that he is intested in the female if the female pays attention the male will urinate on the female as a final check that the female is willing to mate. (Since it is a bad idea for a male porcupine to rape a female porcupine since she has quills like the male)

Still that is the animal world not human.

If a woman offers herself to an animal, she is the one giving permission to the animal.

Not really since the male may not want to mate but just following order from his master.

BrendaBat

08-02-2003, 06:53 PM

Hey everybody, Brendabat is Jewish!

Know how I know?

She's told us in EVERYT SINGLE POST SHE'S MADE!
Jeez! Calm down, babe :rolleyes:

I used my experieces with anti-semitism to make a point. Besides, a lot of people bring their religions into the discussion so its not just me. So there! :p

Zach Logan

08-02-2003, 06:57 PM

Jeez! Calm down, babe :rolleyes:

I used my experieces with anti-semitism to make a point. Besides, a lot of people bring their religions into the discussion so its not just me. So there! :p

Go Brenda! :D

Space Kitty

08-02-2003, 07:39 PM

Way to kiss butt, Zach! :D

Not really since the male may not want to mate but just following order from his master.

So then, if your dog humps your leg, that means that you are raping it?

Psycho Fox

08-02-2003, 07:52 PM

So then, if your dog humps your leg, that means that you are raping it?
No since you didn't order it to do anything and it is humping your leg out of its own free will

James

08-02-2003, 07:57 PM

So then, if your dog humps your leg, that means that you are raping it?Erm, you ask your dog to do that? :D What am odd argument you too are having.

I don't quite see the parallel between gay marriage and beastiality. However in humans, a boy/man can be aroused and not enjoy sex. In fact, I believe there are cases in which males have been abused in such a manner yet have suffered long term mental anguish. They harbour issues of self disgust for themselves and their bodies.

If this is the case, I'm not sure that just because an animal performs, it is giving consent. I don't know enough about animal behaviour to say for sure, but interfering with an animal to get it to 'do' things is not concentual - one is manipulating.

I think the point is, that homosexual behaviour is consentual between two adults. Pedophilia is the curruption of minors. Beastiality is the interference with animals. The latter two do not forms of adult consensus. To give lawful consent you are have to be of a certain age i which there can be beyond doubt you are in the legal and mental position to know what you are doing.

I understand Bud's frustration that homosexuality is so often debated along side either criminal or manipulative acts. Homosexuality holds the same perameters as hetrosexuality. It follows the same rules and invokes the same desires. If we look at comparing homosexuality to the above acts of manipulation and interference, shouldn't we also be looking at hetrosexuals as well?

Space Kitty

08-02-2003, 08:28 PM

That wasn't very nice to say, SJJ. You know I didn't mean it that way.

I am pointing out that to some people, homosexual relations are just as strange as pedophiles and beastiality.Maybe they are not right, but that is how they think and they will make strange arguments. I am just showing the arguments that they will try to make, just like it's always "you're too weak" or "you might get hurt" when referring to women (or even "Men are the head of the house, that's why they get paid more).

And it's not always "corruption" with kids. Have you ever heard of Lolita? I knew girls who manipulated guys much older than themselves. I found that disgusting too.

James

08-02-2003, 08:36 PM

That wasn't very nice to say, SJJ. You know I didn't mean it that way.
I know you didn't - hence the cheeky grin. Relax. :)
I am pointing out that to some people, homosexual relations are just as strange as pedophiles and beastiality.

That was my point. They are not. They have more in common with hetrosexual relationships than non consentual ones.

And it's not always "corruption" with kids. Have you ever heard of Lolita? I knew girls who manipulated guys much older than themselves. I found that disgusting too.

It is corruption if there is a social limit in place.

If a man breaks the law and becomes involved with a minor, no matter how he was seduced - he is at fault. He is an adult and should know better. If he genuinely didn't know the age of the minor and was tricked into thinking she/he was older, I think that is a different ball park - a different thread too :).

That's why we have laws, so we can protect minors. An adult should be mature enough to prevent himself getting into an illegal relationship.

Zach Logan

08-02-2003, 08:53 PM

Way to kiss butt, Zach! :D

So then, if your dog humps your leg, that means that you are raping it?

Are you Anti-Semetic?

Space Kitty

08-02-2003, 09:12 PM

Are you a misogynist?

Nice of you to throw around terms like that. I guess we can all play this game. :shrug:

btw, I must have missed the anti-semitism in a dog humping your leg. Can you explain? :confused:

Sublime420

08-02-2003, 11:56 PM

I believe this thread has gotten very skattered.
For that reason I'm closing this thread.
Wait, I don't have that power.

Well, none-the-less, the logic has sorta drained. Being replaced by whatever usually does replace logic.

How bout' startin a new one? Or just ending this one.

James

08-03-2003, 12:07 AM

Well hopefully it will get back on topic or die a slow death - I'm sure no one wants to drag out any insults/misunderstandings. That can be resolved off board. :)

Bud 'n Lou

08-03-2003, 01:59 AM

When you talk about certain situations, I think that "victim" is often used because it is assumed that a female is being "victimized".
That's not the case in this situation. I think when you say "female," you mean the one on the "recieving" end. Anyone can be victimized.
If a woman practices beastiality, she is not harming the beast. She deserves jail time and/or needs psychiatric help, but she is victimizing no one (or thing?). If a man is with an animal, most of the time they won't even be aware of the person.
Well, why does she need jailtime if she's not doing anything wrong? Just because she is not penetrating the animal (which she CAN do, but we won't get into that) does not mean it is not rape. Animals can't think and reason the same way humans can, so when a human takes advantage of an animal's lower mental capacity, it is abusive and cruel. Just because an animal responds sexually does not mean it is giving it's consent. Sometimes, women's bodies respond to the sexual contact in cases of rape. That doesn't mean they enjoy it or have given consent. And as PsychoFox pointed out, animals can give consent to one another with mating rituals, but they can also rape one another. Also, I doubt an animal will fail to notice that a penis has been inserted into it's body.
If a woman or man truly falls in love with a child, and that child loves them back, there is no victimization. Especially if a woman is with a boy, there is no physical harm done to the boy. If you say that they are too young to decide if they are in love, that is subject to interpretation. Turning 18 does not magically make a person able to feel love "correctly". And if not 18, where do you draw the line? 16? 14? 12? I'm sure a prodigy could prove their case for love to an older person.
That is considered victimization because children are not emotionally mature enough to make most any kind of major decision, which includes the capacity to consent to sex. You're right, turning 18 does not automatically make a person emotionally mature, but it is around the age that most healthy people become grown up enough to be able to make responsible decisions. So to answer your question, 18 is where the line is drawn (although the age of consent is lower in some states). There is obviously no absolutes for when a person will develop the maturity to make the decision to have sex, but laws have to exist to protect childern, so the fairest way to do that is to use the approximate age of mental maturity for most people as the minimum age.
I don't agree with either practice, but those are some of the arguments that can be brought up to defend them. :eek:
Well, that's why I asked in my earlier post to NOT list how pedophiles and animal rapists justify their actions, because their arguements are flimsy and a waste of time, and it also seems like a desperate attempt to dodge answering the question I actually asked (and that only bogs down the debate), which again was:
The difference between homosexuality, and say, bestiality and pedophilia are that in a consensual homosexual relationship, no one is being hurt or victimized. Religious beliefs aside, wouldn't you agree with this statement? And I'm not asking you to cite examples of how pedophiles and animal rapists try to justify what they do to make it seem as if they're not victimizing anyone.

And BrendaBat? You're my girl. :0)

zmanjz

08-03-2003, 03:40 AM

I can only speak from the position of a single never-married Heterosexual Male.

I do not like the Idea of Homosexual couple Adoptions. Why? I have no Idea.

I have no problem with Single Parent adoptions, and I have no problem with Single Homosexual Parent adoptions.

So... lesse here, is it possible for Homosexual couples to do a good job raising children? yes...

Hmmm, my position's starting to feel baseless....

Ok, Marriage? Well, I have 1 friend who married, only to have his wife cheat on him within a year (Divorce is underway), so I can't say that Heterosexual Marriages are great. (I have no personal experience in that regard)

It's a matter of love. I have never been sexually attracted to a man, but I have felt attracted to women. love? no. not true love. I've had "Passing Fancys" and I can say that Wedding rings on cute girls are a huge impediment to my own prospects...

But to the subject at hand, I can agree that it's weird, and something doesn't feel right, but in all honesty that's not a good basis for any decision in it's entirety. maybe as a part of the decision but not it's entirety.

The fact that I would find it weird doesn't really mean much, I think many of my friends parents are completely off their rockers and borderline lunatics...

So do I have any truly valid opposition to homosexual marriages? not really. the only problems I have are with Non-Consentual adultry and child abuse. And I don't believe that homosexuality in itself is a predictor of either of these.

so in the end, although it's as weird to me as Ketchup on Eggs and Vinegar on French Fries...(From a purely personal perspective of taste)

I have no opposition to Homosexual Marriages.

BrendaBat

08-03-2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Bud ‘n Lou
And BrendaBat? You're my girl. :0)
*blushes * Aw, shucks :anime:

The difference between homosexuality, and say, bestiality and pedophilia are that in a consensual homosexual relationship, no one is being hurt or victimized. Religious beliefs aside, wouldn't you agree with this statement? And I'm not asking you to cite examples of how pedophiles and animal rapists try to justify what they do to make it seem as if they're not victimizing anyone.
I think people have continually dodged this question/statement because it’s nearly impossible to dispute. So, rather than admit defeat, the anti-gay crowd just continues to compare homosexuals to pedophiles and animal rapists :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Space Kitty
And it's not always "corruption" with kids. Have you ever heard of Lolita? I knew girls who manipulated guys much older than themselves. I found that disgusting too.
In that case, as SJJ already said, the adult should know better. If the adult in question knows that the person is underage then, regardless of the circumstances, he should curb his hormones.

Originally posted by zmanjz
But to the subject at hand, I can agree that it's weird, and something doesn't feel right, but in all honesty that's not a good basis for any decision in it's entirety.
What you’re referring to is “the ick factor”. The ick factor is a term for the grossed out reactions that a lot of straight people have to gay relationships. Not to long ago, inter-racial couples faced the same problem. Now inter-racial relationships are so common that few people make a fuss about them anymore. Hopefully, people will eventually realize that homosexuals aren’t going to destroy society, and it’ll no longer be a big issue.

Barb Gordon

08-04-2003, 12:24 AM

I'm quite fine with homosexuals and don't see why they shouldn't be able to get married like everyone else. Then again I may be biased considering I've know a handful of gay people since I was little - heck, my hair dresser is gay! People are different, we all know that. Be it in skin color, height, weight, intelligence, sex, political viewpoint, etc. Being homosexual is just another difference some people have from others. When you get down to it, IMO, you have two people that love each other dearly. In marriage, shouldn't that be the only thing that matters? That you and the other person are devoted to each other, and in love? If so, then I don't see why we can't have same sex marriages. I mean, my goodness, there are so many straight people that get married for all the wrong reasons, get divorced, cheat on each other, hurt each other, etc. Why should they be able to do all those things and enjoy the luxury of being able to wed, and two people who love each other, but happen to be of the same sex, can't? Doesn't seem fair to me.

~Barb

panther3751

08-04-2003, 12:31 AM

When you get down to it, IMO, you have two people that love each other dearly. In marriage, shouldn't that be the only thing that matters?

This sums up the very, very long rant I was about to post. :sweat:

Space Kitty

08-04-2003, 12:57 AM

heck, my hair dresser is gay!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

http://img.fark.com/images/topics/obvious.gif

Chris Wood

08-04-2003, 01:17 AM

I am pointing out that to some people, homosexual relations are just as strange as pedophiles and beastiality..

Point taken. It's kind of like vegetarians. To most of us their disinterest in meat seems bizarre and incomprehensible, but they seem to feel it's normal.

Lucky Bob

08-04-2003, 06:28 AM

James

08-04-2003, 08:37 AM

Okay, here's my catch-all counterargument.

First off, not to go back to the endless debate about the Gospels' veracity with SJJ, but that was a prime example of the correllation between the way the arguments are handled by many leftists on these topics, the peace protestor debate, and so on. Whenever there is a group of people pointed out that believe something other than the mainstream liberal view, that group immediately ceases to exist, becomes a "fringe group" not to be taken seriously, or becomes a vocal minority in the liberal view. Two groups have suffered such a fate in this discussion. Conservative Bible scholars (who "no longer exist"), and pedophilic political pressure groups (who have become a "fringe group".) The same happened with the radical left peace protestors who were anti-Semitic and anti-American. They were simply ignored by mainstream liberals. But that didn't make them go away.

Good lord, it seems like we're always fighting all the time! :) So it comes down to the nasty 'liberals'?

Dear lord, liberals never dominate and control. Conservative factions normally do that. Those people who see the past as the way forward. That fear change. Examples can be seen in the topic we were discussing - the historical nature of the Bible.

Established religion has held such findings back for centuries. Samual Reimarus in the 18th Century was one of the first to question the Jesus of established religion. He didn't release his findings until he died - fearing reprisals for coming out against conservative religion. New ideas and new beliefs are something men have had to die for fighting for. Historical word on the bible may have come a lot sooner if these 'liberals' didn't have to fear for their lives.

The reason why your conservative element is a 'fringe group' is not because of it not confroming to a 'liberal' belief - many historians and theologians who believe this are extremely conservative. It's because these fringe groups do not accept the details of these foundings on no grounds other than they don't want to. I don't like bring this up more than you, but I don't like this 'liberal' undertone, as if it's the liberal people who dictate to the world.

Whether one does believe that the pedophiles have a legal chance, or they don't is a non-issue. The fact is, they are trying to achieve legality. And they are doing so the same way the homosexuals are trying to acheive uniform legal recognition, through the courts. And lest anyone should think that nobody will take them seriously, they have the backing of the ACLU. Yes, that ACLU.

Yes, well every issue has a radical fraction. Doesn't mean it's right does it?

Now, let's look at it from a moral relativist standpoint, which is neccesary given the current arguments. Why do we want homosexual acts to be uniformly legal, and why do we want homosexual marriages to be recognized? Because "you can't legislate morality". One person's moral code might not equal your own. Okay, so why do we not want consentual pedophilia? Because that would be "immoral." :D

No. The reason homosexuals want equal rights is that they've been denied them for so long - they are deserved and have been held back from receiving them by people who simply don't like them.

They do not hurt anyone. Their issues are about concentual love. Pedophiles hurt minors, so we have a very different moral ground here.

Or, as some might say, "pedophilia hurts the victim." Okay, by the same token, one could contend that all homosexuals rape and transmit AIDS to each other.
"But that's not true!"

Okay, so how does that argument differ from the people pushing for consentual pedophilia, from a moral relativist standpoint?

And so can you. Hetrosexual rape can transmit HIV and other lovely STDs. So hetrosexual's can hurt people too. So shall we remove their rights also? Also, remember hetrosexuals are big indulger in anal sex as well.
"It just does! We believe in consentual sex between adults only!"

Isn't that a bit like people who say that only men and women should engage in sexual activity? If so, isn't that just another way of "legislating morality?"

I'm not sure where you get this 'legalising morality' from. It seems to me as if it's a concern of legalising what you see as moral. I see homosexuals as being moral. Their love is concentual, they hurt no one. But it's not about what I consider moral, or what you do. It's what's fair.

So, the argument eventually comes back to haunt itself, since moral relativism is at the basis of it.
No. Your moral relativism is what we keep coming back to. It's not an issue of morality, as with race, as with sexual equality - it's about rights.

And furthermore, why are homosexuals pushing for marriage, anyway? Every day, I hear more about the "myths" of marriage, monogamy, and such "old-fashioned" ideas. In a recent interview with Angelina Jolie, I heard her say that she would never marry again, but she would find a lover. In other words, marriage isn't in fashion anymore. All the "cool" people don't marry. (Not for long, anyway.) And just look how THEY live! Today's idea is, "Get a boyfriend/girlfriend, and have fun. And while you're at it, get several! The only time you should even THINK about settling down is...say...40 or something."

Yes, but the lovely Angelina has the CHOICE to get married or not. You can't suggest that homosexuals shouldn't be bothered about getting married in the future cos it's not cool and then I can bet you will later on yourself. Not fair.

Homosexual marriage is about love. The same love you'd want to express to a girlfriend.

Imagine you lived in a society that was entirely homosexual. For your whole life you were told by these people - your friends, parents, family, passer bys on the street - that YOU were immoral. YOU were disgusting. That you had no right to say you loved another sex and that you certainly didn't have the right to claim so in the eyes of God. I wonder how you would feel? I'm sure you'd be thrilled with the argument that you don't really need marriage anyway because it's not really that cool as you watch them all head of down the aisle.

Fact is. They love each other. Many are Christian. If we ignore BOTH are moral grounding (your belief that homosexuality is a sin according to the Good Book and mine in which I think the Good Book tells us that all are accepted into God's flock), the fact that consenting adults can't express their love in the same way as other consenting adults is just wrong. Take away the moral issue and the solution is as clear as day.
If homosexuals are a part of the "changing times" in America, why push for such an old-fashioned idea?

So, there you have it.
Because it's their right to chose whether it's old fashioned or not. Not yours - or mine. Human rights.

Bud 'n Lou

08-04-2003, 09:43 AM

Okay, here's my catch-all counterargument.

First off, not to go back to the endless debate about the Gospels' veracity with SJJ, but that was a prime example of the correllation between the way the arguments are handled by many leftists on these topics, the peace protestor debate, and so on. Whenever there is a group of people pointed out that believe something other than the mainstream liberal view, that group immediately ceases to exist, becomes a "fringe group" not to be taken seriously, or becomes a vocal minority in the liberal view. Two groups have suffered such a fate in this discussion. Conservative Bible scholars (who "no longer exist"), and pedophilic political pressure groups (who have become a "fringe group".) The same happened with the radical left peace protestors who were anti-Semitic and anti-American. They were simply ignored by mainstream liberals. But that didn't make them go away.

Whether one does believe that the pedophiles have a legal chance, or they don't is a non-issue. The fact is, they are trying to achieve legality. And they are doing so the same way the homosexuals are trying to acheive uniform legal recognition, through the courts. And lest anyone should think that nobody will take them seriously, they have the backing of the ACLU. Yes, that ACLU.
The ACLU is defending NAMBLA's right of free speech to post what they want on their website, which they claim does not encourage rape and violence. They are not trying to defend NAMBLA members' acts of pedophilia. I have not looked at NAMBLA's website, so I don't know how accurate their claims are. Either way, it's not as if the ACLU is trying to legalize pedophilia, as you seem to be implying here. Not from what I've read, anyway (which, granted, hasn't been much, but all of this is fairly irrelevant anyway).
Also, as I pointed out earlier, groups like NAMBLA would try to have their activities legalized whether there was a gay rights movement or not. The two are operating independently of one another. I don't see how they're connected, or how one will lead to another. It seems you'd just rather silence these groups altogether, which of course would be nice, but they're exercising the same free speech rights the rest of us have. As much as I'd like to sometimes, we can't silence everyone just because we disagree with them.
Now, let's look at it from a moral relativist standpoint, which is neccesary given the current arguments. Why do we want homosexual acts to be uniformly legal, and why do we want homosexual marriages to be recognized? Because "you can't legislate morality". One person's moral code might not equal your own. Okay, so why do we not want consentual pedophilia? Because that would be "immoral." :D
There is no such thing as "consensual pedophilia." It is a contradiction. By it's very definition, it is a sex act that takes place between an adult, and someone not yet mature enough to give their consent, or deal with the consequences of such a decision. Some argue that children under 18 ARE mature enough to give their consent. But I responded to that arguement in an earlier post, and don't feel like typing it again. Besides, I can't imagine the people asking this question don't already know the answer anyway.
Or, as some might say, "pedophilia hurts the victim." Okay, by the same token, one could contend that all homosexuals rape and transmit AIDS to each other.
Ok, when I read this bit here, I felt sick to my stomach. I literally felt like vomitting. Are you really THAT desperate to justify your opinion that you would sink to saying such a thing? Because by that logic, someone could just as easily make a case that all Christians are murderers who firebomb gay bars and synagogues. Unless of course you want to hide behind the old, "Hey, I don't buy into this stuff, I'm just saying" crap. But if you really don't believe this, why would you try to use it to bolster your arguement? At worst, you actually DO think this way, and at best, you're just falling back on it because you've totally run out of gas and have no more reasonable arguements to offer.
If you really need PROOF that not all homosexuals are rapists and spread AIDS, I'll point out that I, a homosexual, do not have AIDS, and have never raped, nor been raped.
If we're going to operate under this brand of "logic," we might as well take away the freedom to practice religion, because according some people's religious beliefs, it is ok to drive airplanes into buildings.
"But that's not true!"

Okay, so how does that argument differ from the people pushing for consentual pedophilia, from a moral relativist standpoint?
Again, because "consentual pedophilia" is an oxymoron.
"It just does! We believe in consentual sex between adults only!"

Isn't that a bit like people who say that only men and women should engage in sexual activity? If so, isn't that just another way of "legislating morality?"

So, the argument eventually comes back to haunt itself, since moral relativism is at the basis of it.
I don't consider that legislating morality. It is leaving the law open for individuals to make their own moral decisions. Laws that restrict non-harmful consentual adult activity take any choice out of it, which forces everyone to live by the same moral code. People who have no desire to engage in those activities will not lose their freedom to abstain from them.
And furthermore, why are homosexuals pushing for marriage, anyway? Every day, I hear more about the "myths" of marriage, monogamy, and such "old-fashioned" ideas. In a recent interview with Angelina Jolie, I heard her say that she would never marry again, but she would find a lover. In other words, marriage isn't in fashion anymore. All the "cool" people don't marry. (Not for long, anyway.) And just look how THEY live! Today's idea is, "Get a boyfriend/girlfriend, and have fun. And while you're at it, get several! The only time you should even THINK about settling down is...say...40 or something."

If homosexuals are a part of the "changing times" in America, why push for such an old-fashioned idea?

So, there you have it.
I've exhausted my energy for now, so it's a good thing that this arguement is not strong enough to even warrant a response.

batboy2001

08-04-2003, 11:31 AM

Psilon

08-04-2003, 12:18 PM

And furthermore, why are homosexuals pushing for marriage, anyway? Every day, I hear more about the "myths" of marriage, monogamy, and such "old-fashioned" ideas. In a recent interview with Angelina Jolie, I heard her say that she would never marry again, but she would find a lover. In other words, marriage isn't in fashion anymore. All the "cool" people don't marry. (Not for long, anyway.) And just look how THEY live! Today's idea is, "Get a boyfriend/girlfriend, and have fun. And while you're at it, get several! The only time you should even THINK about settling down is...say...40 or something."

If homosexuals are a part of the "changing times" in America, why push for such an old-fashioned idea?

So, there you have it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA....
I needed a good laugh.

SNS

08-04-2003, 12:36 PM

If we believed everything the church said, the world would still be flat.

The Bible doesn't say anything about the Earth being flat.

and the planets would still revolve around the sun.

The planets do revolve around the sun. I'm thinking you meant the idea of the planets revolving around the Earth (which was thought up by the Greeks).

batboy2001

08-04-2003, 01:04 PM

The Bible doesn't say anything about the Earth being flat.

The planets do revolve around the sun. I'm thinking you meant the idea of the planets revolving around the Earth (which was thought up by the Greeks).

I was talking about the catholic church. The later was a typo, I meant to say the planets revolve around earth, I wrote it a little after I woke up.

My point was, in history it has been the church and religion who has been the dominating tyrant. Until (relatively) recently, all practical thinking, and well founded ideas were outlawed by the church and religious leaders. Subdued people are the easiest to extort and control, I suppose.

This is also the attitude I am talking about. The idea that people who agrue against religion don't know their stuff or are 'stupid'. I find that online, it is hard to communicate my ideas, and I make my share of typos. That does not mean I don't know what I am talking about.

Lucky Bob

08-04-2003, 02:32 PM

Good lord, it seems like we're always fighting all the time! :) So it comes down to the nasty 'liberals'?

Dear lord, liberals never dominate and control. Conservative factions normally do that.A few answers from some "experts":

http://archives.theconnection.org/archive/1999/12/images/stalin.gifhttp://velikanov.ru/SuperHuman/lenin.gif

"Da! The conservatives rule the world! They will punish anyone who stands in the way of their ideology! Join us! Power to the people!"

http://www.joric.com/Conspiracy/1B-Hitler.gif

"The conservatives are suppressing zee progress of zee superhuman, und zey are zee main reason ons country is in the strait it is in! Join my Socialist Party, und LET US HAF PEACE! (A Piece of Norway, piece of Sweden, piece of Belgium...)"

http://www.cpj.org/enemies/enemy_images/castro.jpg

"The only way to true democracy is to eliminate all conservatives, and steal every penny from the people. Now, excuse me. I've got some 'reeducation' to administer..."

http://drs.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=ted+turner/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.smu.edu/admission/images/pics/16842-Ted-Turner.jpg

"I don't know what this is all about, but no. You can't have your classic cartoons back. And yes, Castro is still one h*** of a guy!"

Of course, they might be a bit biased. ;)

P.S. Since when did I mention earlier that liberals "dominate and control?" I'm just saying that they are very selective in what they address in their arguments. The only person here that called another ideology a "controlling" one...is you! Those people who see the past as the way forward. That fear change. Examples can be seen in the topic we were discussing - the historical nature of the Bible. A classic argument I hear, is that we "don't live in Leave-It-To-Beaver World anymore." That brings up an obvious question, what was wrong with Leave it to Beaver? Beaver used to get in trouble for things like chewing gum in class. Today, in our more "progressed" society, we have to keep kids from killing each other, raping each other, or passing joints to each other. If that's progress, put me in a cave somewhere. All I see in the world is regression, and it's because we're trying to be progressive. Established religion has held such findings back for centuries. Samual Reimarus in the 18th Century was one of the first to question the Jesus of established religion. He didn't release his findings until he died - fearing reprisals for coming out against conservative religion. New ideas and new beliefs are something men have had to die for fighting for. Historical word on the bible may have come a lot sooner if these 'liberals' didn't have to fear for their lives. Either that, or they were just scared to debate it. I doubt that in the 18th Century, any "questions" were any more than just that. Questions. The reason why your conservative element is a 'fringe group' is not because of it not confroming to a 'liberal' belief - many historians and theologians who believe this are extremely conservative. It's because these fringe groups do not accept the details of these foundings on no grounds other than they don't want to. I don't like bring this up more than you, but I don't like this 'liberal' undertone, as if it's the liberal people who dictate to the world. They do. Through schools, the media, and whatnot. That might sound paranoid, but anyone who doesn't hold the liberal worldview would find it painfully obvious. Sadly, mainstream liberals have called themselves "tolerant" for so long that they feel that they are the only ones that are truly tolerant. The facts of life are, nobody is truly neutral. Everyone has ideas about what is wrong, and what is right. To try to disguise that is to go against human nature itself. Yes, well every issue has a radical fraction. Doesn't mean it's right does it? Without a solid basis and constant ground for morality, it is folly to label anything "right" and "wrong". Sadly, using your logic, these pedophiles have a right to be heard out and accepted as much as any other citizen. No. The reason homosexuals want equal rights is that they've been denied them for so long - they are deserved and have been held back from receiving them by people who simply don't like them. Rock Hudson and Jim Nabors must've REALLY been held back. Poor struggling people.

BTW, out of curiosity, since when is marriage a "right?" They do not hurt anyone. Their issues are about concentual love. Pedophiles hurt minors, so we have a very different moral ground here. Many would contend that they don't, and their "rights" are being repressed as well. Would you be willing to hear their arguments out with an open mind? And so can you. Hetrosexual rape can transmit HIV and other lovely STDs. So hetrosexual's can hurt people too. So shall we remove their rights also? Also, remember hetrosexuals are big indulger in anal sex as well. I'm simply trying to point out that if we're going to make generalizations, we might as well apply it back. If heteros and homos can't be generalized, why should you generalize pedophiles? I'm not sure where you get this 'legalising morality' from. It seems to me as if it's a concern of legalising what you see as moral. I see homosexuals as being moral. Their love is concentual, they hurt no one. But it's not about what I consider moral, or what you do. It's what's fair. I said, "legislating" morality. Big difference. If morality is ever declared illegal, I'll be the first to jump off the cliff. ;)

BTW, who decides what's "fair?" No. Your moral relativism is what we keep coming back to. It's not an issue of morality, as with race, as with sexual equality - it's about rights. So, if morality is a total non-issue, should pedophiles have all the same rights as the "good" sexual orientations?

Race and sexual orientation are not even remotely similar. Homosexuals can (and do) "go straight". Drunks can (and do) swear off alcohol. Obese people can (and do) lose weight. But you can't change your race. Unless you're Michael Jackson.

Yes, but the lovely Angelina has the CHOICE to get married or not. You can't suggest that homosexuals shouldn't be bothered about getting married in the future cos it's not cool and then I can bet you will later on yourself. Not fair. But isn't that standing in the way of what you call..."progress?" If progress is redefining right and wrong, then why should you let me cling to such an old-fashioned idea as marriage? Homosexual marriage is about love. The same love you'd want to express to a girlfriend. Not quite in the same way. ;) Imagine you lived in a society that was entirely homosexual. For your whole life you were told by these people - your friends, parents, family, passer bys on the street - that YOU were immoral. YOU were disgusting. That you had no right to say you loved another sex and that you certainly didn't have the right to claim so in the eyes of God. I wonder how you would feel? I'm sure you'd be thrilled with the argument that you don't really need marriage anyway because it's not really that cool as you watch them all head of down the aisle. Hmmmm...that's a new primary reason for me. "Altar Envy" :D

Since we're being so sympathetic, imagine how those poor pedophiles must feel. Again, we have to give them the same moral ground if we're going to make "progress". Fact is. They love each other. Many are Christian. If we ignore BOTH are moral grounding (your belief that homosexuality is a sin according to the Good Book and mine in which I think the Good Book tells us that all are accepted into God's flock), All are accepted into God's flock, but that doesn't make homosexuality any less a sin. It is possible to sin and still be a Christian, but you have to do a lot of answering later on. the fact that consenting adults can't express their love in the same way as other consenting adults is just wrong. Take away the moral issue and the solution is as clear as day. Can't take away the moral issue. Again, part of your moral beliefs is that only consenting adults should engage in sexual activity. You just stated it above. How dare you be so exclusive!Because it's their right to chose whether it's old fashioned or not. Not yours - or mine. Human rights.Nope. You've made very clear that "old-fashioned" (to you) ideas stand in the way of progress. Heaven forbid we should allow that!

I'll answer Bud 'n Lou's post later. I'm weary of flipping burgers, and I need to go engage in some politically correct fun. Maybe NHL 2002. :D

You can probably find your answers above, though.

The Landstander

08-04-2003, 03:20 PM

For the love of....would people stop equating homosexuals and pedophiles? Pedophiles take advantage of children, as Bud n' Lou explained. Homosexuals are two consenting people.

I haven't heard any arguments worth a second look against gay marraiges; not Bob's, not Cyber Chick's, none. And I would like to see a response to Bud n' Lou's comment.

Lucky Bob

08-04-2003, 03:52 PM

Urgh. America's Army wouldn't install. Hulk angry.
For the love of....would people stop equating homosexuals and pedophiles? Pedophiles take advantage of children, as Bud n' Lou explained. Homosexuals are two consenting people.

I haven't heard any arguments worth a second look against gay marraiges; not Bob's, not Cyber Chick's, none. And I would like to see a response to Bud n' Lou's comment.
First off, I haven't heard a good counterargument to my counterargument. Second, in the interest of "fairness" to "sexual orientations" that people "can't help", it's only "fair" to give pedophiles equal ground.

You want a reply to B&L? You got it.

The ACLU is defending NAMBLA's right of free speech to post what they want on their website, which they claim does not encourage rape and violence. They are not trying to defend NAMBLA members' acts of pedophilia. I have not looked at NAMBLA's website, so I don't know how accurate their claims are. Either way, it's not as if the ACLU is trying to legalize pedophilia, as you seem to be implying here. Not from what I've read, anyway (which, granted, hasn't been much, but all of this is fairly irrelevant anyway).

First, if you're gonna bash something, at least research it! Second, the very fact that they are backed by the ACLU is a good indication that legally, they have to have equal ground in debate. Third, you're proving my first point that whenever an opposing view is presented, libs tend to declare it "irrelevant" without even addressing the issue in-depth.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, groups like NAMBLA would try to have their activities legalized whether there was a gay rights movement or not. The two are operating independently of one another. I don't see how they're connected, or how one will lead to another. It seems you'd just rather silence these groups altogether, which of course would be nice, but they're exercising the same free speech rights the rest of us have. As much as I'd like to sometimes, we can't silence everyone just because we disagree with them.

But all this recent agenda-pushing by homosexuals doesn't hurt them, either. ;)

There is no such thing as "consensual pedophilia." It is a contradiction. By it's very definition, it is a sex act that takes place between an adult, and someone not yet mature enough to give their consent, or deal with the consequences of such a decision. Some argue that children under 18 ARE mature enough to give their consent. But I responded to that arguement in an earlier post, and don't feel like typing it again. Besides, I can't imagine the people asking this question don't already know the answer anyway.

If I'm not mistaken, quite a few states lower the age to under 18. And the current attitude of the public school system doesn't promote underage chastity.

And again, you're debating opinion. And just because you state an opinion, in debate, that does not automatically make it fact.

Ok, when I read this bit here, I felt sick to my stomach. I literally felt like vomitting. Are you really THAT desperate to justify your opinion that you would sink to saying such a thing? Because by that logic, someone could just as easily make a case that all Christians are murderers who firebomb gay bars and synagogues. Unless of course you want to hide behind the old, "Hey, I don't buy into this stuff, I'm just saying" crap. But if you really don't believe this, why would you try to use it to bolster your arguement? At worst, you actually DO think this way, and at best, you're just falling back on it because you've totally run out of gas and have no more reasonable arguements to offer.

I'm putting the shoe on the other foot. You seem to enjoy generalizing the actions of pedophiles. Yet, to do it to homosexuals is "running out of gas". (Again, the Liberal Argument Syndrome.)

If you really need PROOF that not all homosexuals are rapists and spread AIDS, I'll point out that I, a homosexual, do not have AIDS, and have never raped, nor been raped. If we're going to operate under this brand of "logic," we might as well take away the freedom to practice religion, because according some people's religious beliefs, it is ok to drive airplanes into buildings.

I'm not saying we should. I'm just saying that, using your logic, you are guilty of the same thing you decry.

Again, because "consentual pedophilia" is an oxymoron.

Again, opinion. Some people have quite different opinions. In the realm of debate, that won't feed the bulldog.

I don't consider that legislating morality. It is leaving the law open for individuals to make their own moral decisions. Laws that restrict non-harmful consentual adult activity take any choice out of it, which forces everyone to live by the same moral code. People who have no desire to engage in those activities will not lose their freedom to abstain from them.

So, by the same token, if you don't engage in pedophilia, why should you care if it's practiced? And why should adults be the only ones allowed. Is that not discrimination? Is that not forcing your ideology on someone else?

Again, I don't believe this stuff, I'm just turning the logic back around.

Psycho Fox

08-04-2003, 04:14 PM

! A classic argument I hear, is that we "don't live in Leave-It-To-Beaver World anymore." That brings up an obvious question, what was wrong with Leave it to Beaver? Beaver used to get in trouble for things like chewing gum in class. Today, in our more "progressed" society, we have to keep kids from killing each other, raping each other, or passing joints to each other. If that's progress, put me in a cave somewhere. All I see in the world is regression, and it's because we're trying to be progressive.
Leave it to Beaver never was. The whole 50's was a fake reality. During the days of Leave it to Beaver anyone the even questioned the system was oppressed in the land of free. The masses turned a blind eye to all the injustices as it would distroy their fairy tale reality.

Even today the people wanting to tear down walls becouse it offends their eyes are missunderstood by those that sees those walls their protector.

BTW, out of curiosity, since when is marriage a "right?"Many would contend that they don't, and their "rights" are being repressed as well. Would you be willing to hear their arguments out with an open mind?I'm simply trying to point out that if we're going to make generalizations, we might as well apply it back. If heteros and homos can't be generalized, why should you generalize pedophiles?I said, "legislating" morality. Big difference. If morality is ever declared illegal, I'll be the first to jump off the cliff. ;)
I agree but getting the US to not reconize marriage would piss off more people.

But isn't that standing in the way of what you call..."progress?" If progress is redefining right and wrong, then why should you let me cling to such an old-fashioned idea as marriage?Not quite in the same way. ;)Hmmmm...that's a new primary reason for me. "Altar Envy" :D
I don't see why the state cares what the church does and that includes marriage but either the state has to abandon ALL ties with the church or you change the church.

Since we're being so sympathetic, imagine how those poor pedophiles must feel. Again, we have to give them the same moral ground if we're going to make "progress". All are accepted into God's flock, but that doesn't make homosexuality any less a sin. It is possible to sin and still be a Christian, but you have to do a lot of answering later on.Can't take away the moral issue. Again, part of your moral beliefs is that only consenting adults should engage in sexual activity. You just stated it above. How dare you be so exclusive!Nope. You've made very clear that "old-fashioned" (to you) ideas stand in the way of progress. Heaven forbid we should allow that!Age restriction has nothing to do with religion it is there to prevent adults taking advantage of those that are not mature enough to defend them selfs. Thus there is a victim in pedophiles but no victim in gay sex.

James

08-04-2003, 04:42 PM

A few answers from some "experts":

"Da! The conservatives rule the world! They will punish anyone who stands in the way of their ideology! Join us! Power to the people!"

"The conservatives are suppressing zee progress of zee superhuman, und zey are zee main reason ons country is in the strait it is in! Join my Socialist Party, und LET US HAF PEACE! (A Piece of Norway, piece of Sweden, piece of Belgium...)"

"The only way to true democracy is to eliminate all conservatives, and steal every penny from the people. Now, excuse me. I've got some 'reeducation' to administer..."

"I don't know what this is all about, but no. You can't have your classic cartoons back. And yes, Castro is still one h*** of a guy!"

Of course, they might be a bit biased.

Indeed - and none of them are liberal or tolerant. Don't mistake me for a far left-winger. Interesting you through Hitler in there who was very right wing in his philosophy.

P.S. Since when did I mention earlier that liberals "dominate and control?" I'm just saying that they are very selective in what they address in their arguments.
It was implied.
Whenever there is a group of people pointed out that believe something other than the mainstream liberal view, that group immediately ceases to exist, becomes a "fringe group" not to be taken seriously
If you were just talking about mainstream ideology suffocating fringe ideas, then I wouldn't have brought it up. But you compare it to a liberal mainstream and then make reference to the poor conservative bible scholars. Strange that you know proclaim in mock horror. Nice debating tactic. Seen it before my friend. ;)
The only person here that called another ideology a "controlling" one...is you! A classic argument I hear, is that we "don't live in Leave-It-To-Beaver World anymore." That brings up an obvious question, what was wrong with Leave it to Beaver?

It was a great period! It was a time in which opinions were controlled and racism was rife! If you were gay you didn't mention it cos you were the dirtiest thing imaginable and if you were a woman - well, you shouldn't be reading this because 50's style you should be in the kitchen making my dinner... ;)
The 50's were a period that repressed fearful new ideas and was commanded by one-tier values. If you fitted in than tier, then it was a great time. If you didn't, woe is you.
Beaver used to get in trouble for things like chewing gum in class. Today, in our more "progressed" society, we have to keep kids from killing each other, raping each other, or passing joints to each other. If that's progress, put me in a cave somewhere. All I see in the world is regression and it's because we're trying to be progressive.

As said those in the 50's about Rock N' Roll and attempts at racial equality. Every decade has a man like you who says it was better in the past and will continue to do so.
Well, presently women are treated pretty much equally, racial equality has come a long way from being told to sit at the back of the bus and shut up. We have stronger individual rights. If we are harassed, abused or neglected we have stronger methods of finding help. We are a more tolerant, understanding and caring culture. Just because rapes weren't reported in the 50s as much as now, doesn't mean they didn't happen.
You may have loved the idea of living in the 50s - but for most people the 50's offered repression and blanket values. We now have progression - we have freedom.
Sadly, mainstream liberals have called themselves "tolerant" for so long that they feel that they are the only ones that are truly tolerant.

Maybe if they promote tolerance they, erm, are tolerant. :) You're preach of intolerance by liberals is that they won't accept your viewpoint. Well I for one do, I just disagree with it. I would like to see homosexuals, women, and minority races all have the equal rights bestowed on the western white male. We still don't have it perfect. I want those who are not hurting anyone by their existence treated equally. That's practical tolerance. That’s what I stand for. So please, this 'he's not tolerant cos he don't agree with me' line doesn't hold up. It verges on insulting. :)
The facts of life are, nobody is truly neutral. Everyone has ideas about what is wrong, and what is right. To try to disguise that is to go against human nature itself.Without a solid basis and constant ground for morality, it is folly to label anything "right" and "wrong". Sadly, using your logic, these pedophiles have a right to be heard out and accepted as much as any other citizen.Rock Hudson and Jim Nabors must've REALLY been held back. Poor struggling people.

You're swimming in ideology rather than practical measures. It's very simple. People who are not harming anyone, should not have less rights than others simply because they are different. You are constantly bringing up paedophiles as a reference and people are constantly having to remind you that paedophilic are not consensual. They harm minors. Homosexuals do not harm anyone. They are denied the same rights as you and I regardless that they feel and live mirror lives to you and I. Homosexuals have more in common with hetrosexuals than paedophiles.
BTW, out of curiosity, since when is marriage a "right?"Many would contend that they don't, and their "rights" are being repressed as well. Would you be willing to hear their arguments out with an open mind? I’m simply trying to point out that if we're going to make generalizations, we might as well apply it back. If heteros and homos can't be generalized, why should you generalize paedophiles said, "legislating" morality. Big difference. If morality is ever declared illegal, I'll be the first to jump off the cliff.

It's the right you have has an American heterosexual. It's not a right for homosexual.
As for morality - again, it's your morality. It's subjective. You go on about morality being legislated.. It’s human rights we're looking at. Not morality. Morality - in your case - is subjective to your religious belief. That's not absolute morality.
If you have an argument to throw at me, please do. All is listened to objectively. I have no stake in this aside from compassionate grounds. I am open-minded. I have nothing to win or lose in homosexual rights to marriage. It just so happens your argument to me is extremely unconvincing.
BTW, who decides what's "fair?"So, if morality is a total non-issue, should paedophiles have all the same rights as the "good" sexual orientations?

We could go over this again, pedophillia is a criminal activity. It hurts minors. It KILLS minors. Homosexuality is not a criminal activity. NO comparison. Please, drop the paedophile card it's a moot subject here.

Race and sexual orientation are not even remotely similar. Homosexuals can (and do) "go straight". Drunks can (and do) swear off alcohol. Obese people can (and do) lose weight. But you can't change your race. Unless you're Michael Jackson.

Don't be silly of course it's the same. It's a right of life. People who are homosexual ARE homosexual. Homosexuals can go 'straight'. Heterosexuals can go 'gay'. White people can wear black make up. We can do things, that aren't necessarily quite who we are.
As a point, there was a huge increase in male sodomy when the colonial convicts were taken to Australia from Europe. Not because they were all gay, but because there was no women. They were still heterosexuals..

But isn't that standing in the way of what you call..."progress?" If progress is redefining right and wrong, then why should you let me cling to such an old-fashioned idea as marriage? Not quite in the same way. Hmmmm...that's a new primary reason for me. "Altar Envy"
Because people like marriage. You like marriage. I quite like the idea actually. Hey! Guess what? John over there might like the idea, but oh no, he can't get married because he's gay. No other reason. He's a good man. He's a Christian man. He's never hurt anyone. He's a strong pillar of the community, but he has less rights simply because he is gay. :p
This is a move forward. We are coming to a time where we all have a voice. In the past we've had the mob culture where if someone fell out of line with the majority, they were condemned. People are protected by law now, and slowly these elements of mob culture are being erased. Gay people don't have to feel like second class people just because they are told to. They have rights, and as with women and race before hand, they need to be given what they are owed - the right to live equally with their fellow man.

Since we're being so sympathetic, imagine how those poor paedophiles must feel. Again, we have to give them the same moral ground if we're going to make "progress". All are accepted into God's flock, but that doesn't make homosexuality any less a sin. It is possible to sin and still be a Christian, but you have to do a lot of answering later on.Can't take away the moral issue. Again, part of your moral beliefs is that only consenting adults should engage in sexual activity. You just stated it above. How dare you be so exclusive!Nope. You've made very clear that "old-fashioned" (to you) ideas stand in the way of progress. Heaven forbid we should allow that!

You keep trying to outwit me on an argument that only you present. I have no interest in a moral code. I don’t believe it’s an issue here. What were are looking at are rights based on simply human, social attributes. Where you stand and I stand are so different it’s futile.
You keep going back to paedophilia, which is a little annoying. Comparing the rights of a lawful man to those of someone who has not just broken the law but interfered with the development of a minor.

What we need to do is sit you in a front of a paedophile victim and let you see what it does to these people. See how the effects never go away - how it hampers their ability to love in the future. And these are the people who survive. Not those who commit suicide because they can't live with themselves. Not to mention those who were brutally molested and murdered. See how it destroys lives. Destroys mothers and fathers, then you belittle this by trying to compare the rights of paedophile to those of a homosexual. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but how much more bluntly can I explain how poor your comparison is?

And this odd intellectual argument on how intolerant I am to offer moral standards on one subject and not on another. As I said, I unlike you don’t offer moral standards. I offer solutions based on real situations.
I have the right to ascertain and deliver social solutions. You do too. We all do. I've studied the topics, I've spoken to people and I've learned on my own two feet. Being black doesn't make you a lesser person. Being gay doesn't make you a lesser person. Being a woman makes you no less important than a man. Ergo, these classes should all have the same rights.

Paedophilia, regardless of why people do it, hurts kids. It kills kids. It destroys families. It crucifies parents. That cannot be justified.
I'm not saying I have moral rights over you. I'm saying the standpoint I offer is more justified socially and practically than what you have. Whatever you think about sin doesn't change the practical nature here. If God thinks I, or a homosexual or you are sinful, let him. That's HIS domain, not yours. Don't hide behind that and face the practical issues here. :) You are a bright man your argument doesn't do you justice.

Space Kitty

08-04-2003, 05:48 PM

We could go over this again, pedophillia is a criminal activity. It hurts minors. It KILLS minors. Homosexuality is not a criminal activity. NO comparison. Please, drop the paedophile card it's a moot subject here.

How about if we take a few steps back? People are still prosecuted as pedophiles if they get sexual pleasure from pictures or videos or naked children. They do not have to be doing anything sexually to the children, and the children in the videos and pictures are simply nude. The children have not been harmed in any way, shape or form, yet the people with the pictures or videos are still pedophiles.
If a man derives seual pleasure from a picture of a naked man, he is not necessarily homosexual. Why doesn't the label stick in that case?

Don't be silly of course it's the same. It's a right of life. People who are homosexual ARE homosexual. Homosexuals can go 'straight'. Heterosexuals can go 'gay'. White people can wear black make up. We can do things, that aren't necessarily quite who we are.

If you want to talk about moot subjects, then race is the most moot of all. You can't change your race or blood type, but you can change your sexual activity. In that way, homosexuals can "go straight". Like you said earlier, straight people often do "gay" activities.

As a point, there was a huge increase in male sodomy when the colonial convicts were taken to Australia from Europe. Not because they were all gay, but because there was no women. They were still heterosexuals..

I believe that would be buggery. It was punished by whipping or sometimes death. Besides, they were criminals. Are you comparing homosexuality to criminal activity?

batboy2001

08-04-2003, 06:01 PM

I am starting to see how internet debating is totally pointless...

The Landstander

08-04-2003, 06:04 PM

Psycho Fox

08-04-2003, 06:05 PM

James

08-04-2003, 06:15 PM

How about if we take a few steps back? People are still prosecuted as pedophiles if they get sexual pleasure from pictures or videos or naked children. They do not have to be doing anything sexually to the children, and the children in the videos and pictures are simply nude. The children have not been harmed in any way, shape or form, yet the people with the pictures or videos are still pedophiles.
If a man derives seual pleasure from a picture of a naked man, he is not necessarily homosexual. Why doesn't the label stick in that case?If anyone is sexually aroused and has interested in the same gender, they are at the very least showing homosexual tendancies. They are homosexual - they have interest in the same sex. If someone is sexually aroused by children they show elements of pedophilia.

I agree that there are varying levels of pedophilia as there are varying levels of hetrosexuality. As I outlined in my post, some hurt, some kill and yes, you are right some don't practise.

So having photos of children or videos are any better? Indirectly the none practising pedophile is supporting a market and creating an enviroment where someone is placing a child in an enviroment for sexually explicit material. So non practising pedophiles who indulge their interest in minors are also a cause for concern.

May I point out ALL cases are breaking the law. If a man is looking at an erotic picture of another man, as if a man looks at an erotic picture of a lady - it's simply pornography and as such isn't an immediate criminal activity.

Again I stress that the comparison you should be looking at is between heterosexuals and homosexuals - not pedophiles. I notice that this comparison doesn't come up much... I wonder why.If you want to talk about moot subjects, then race is the most moot of all. You can't change your race or blood type, but you can change your sexual activity. In that way, homosexuals can "go straight". Like you said earlier, straight people often do "gay" activities.
You can change your sexual activity, but you can't change your sexuality. Homosexuality is by definition in having sexual interest in men, not the practise of. Having sex with a man is performing an act of a homosexual nature - an act that is asscociated with homosexuals. So no you can't change you interest from one sex to another. Could you suddenly switch from being hetrosexual (which I am assuming you are from your posts) to being homosexual? Sure, you could physically do what was required, but does that mean you are attracted to that sex? I'm sorry if the idea repells you, my intent is to offer an example you can relate to.

People who have been repulsed by their sexual nature have often looked for ways to 'cure' it. One certain pop singer of the 50's allegedly went to hypnotherapy to 'cure' himself of such urges as he was a Christian who believed being gay was a sin. It's not something you can just 'switch'.

I believe that would be buggery. It was punished by whipping or sometimes death. Besides, they were criminals. Are you comparing homosexuality to criminal activity?
It is. That's what sodomy is. Nope - you've made that vague observation - not I. I'd prefer it if you'd try not to taint my arguements without justification. I never made that point, you did. You can take the credit for it. :)

My point is that there were no women, so the men performed acts of a homosexual nature but were in fact hetrosexual (interested in females).

EDIT: This is a fast moving thread, in the time it took for me to write 3 people have replied! Maybe I'm just slow. :) Oh and yes Landstander, as you can see here, you intrepreted my point correctly. :)

Space Kitty

08-04-2003, 06:29 PM

So having photos of children or videos are any better? Indirectly the none practising pedophile is supporting a market and creating an enviroment where someone is placing a child in an enviroment for sexually explicit material. So non practising pedophiles who indulge their interest in minors are also a cause for concern.

Like I said above, sometimes the pictures are not intended for sexual use.
Also, it may be for private use and not supporting a "market", nor is it harming the child (non-sexual pictures).

Sure, you could physically do what was required, but does that mean you are attracted to that sex?
People who have been repulsed by their sexual nature have often looked for ways to 'cure' it. One certain pop singer of the 50's allegedly went to hypnotherapy to 'cure' himself of such urges as he was a Christian who believed being gay was a sin. It's not something you can just 'switch'.

But you can do it easier than someone can change their race (Michael Jackson excluded).

My point is that there were no women, so the men performed acts of a homosexual nature but were in fact hetrosexual (interested in females).

They committed homosexual acts, so they should be labeled as homosexual. Just like pedophiles who behave like pedophiles should be labeled so.

Psilon

08-04-2003, 06:32 PM

Lucky Bob:
You are basically saying that an acceptance of homosexuals will lead to the acceptance of pedophiles, right?

The Landstander

08-04-2003, 06:42 PM

Like I said above, sometimes the pictures are not intended for sexual use.I believe it was implied the pictures we are talking about ARE intended for sexual use. I really don't know what you mean here. :confused: But you can do it easier than someone can change their race (Michael Jackson excluded). True (well, true to an extent), but some people don't WANT to. Someone people are perfectly gay being gay (no pun intended....actually, the pun was intended :brendon: ). Also, as SJJ mentioned, homosexuality is getting sexual pleasure from someone of the same gender. In that aspect, if you're a man who likes men, then you're homosexual, regardless of whether or not you put your homosexuality into practice. And it is my personal belief that you can't control homosexuality in this aspect.They committed homosexual acts, so they should be labeled as homosexual. Just like pedophiles who behave like pedophiles should be labeled so. Once again, all SJJ was saying was saying is that some straight people can "go gay". Oh and yes Landstander, as you can see here, you intrepreted my point correctly. Yay, I rule! :anime:

Space Kitty

08-04-2003, 06:52 PM

I believe it was implied the pictures we are talking about ARE intended for sexual use. I really don't know what you mean here. :confused:

I meant originally not intended for sexual use (artful, not on a child-porn site).

James

08-04-2003, 07:19 PM

Like I said above, sometimes the pictures are not intended for sexual use.
Also, it may be for private use and not supporting a "market", nor is it harming the child (non-sexual pictures).

You point seems to be disappearing. There are non pratcising hetrosexuals. Celebates. I don't see what your issue. It seems a little pedantic.

We're not trying to work out what makes a pedophile any more than what makes a homosexual. I'm a little tired of pedophilia popping up here as it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

If you are not harming people you have a right to live your life with equal citizenship as the next man. If you commit a crime, particuarly one that may hurt a fellow man - be it murder, rape, abuse then your rights are limited.

But you can do it easier than someone can change their race (Michael Jackson excluded).

I'm half tempted not to answer this until you explain where you are going with this, but I'll indulge you. :) No you can't change your sexuality. It's chemical, not enviromental - your skin is the same. You can hide both, but you can't change it. Hence my point about hypnotherapy.

They committed homosexual acts, so they should be labeled as homosexual. Just like pedophiles who behave like pedophiles should be labeled so.

You can label them homosexuals, but they are not, so your argument is flawed from the second pretext.

Homosexuality is the nature of being attracted to a man. Not the act of having sex with. These men were having sex with men to feed their need for sex of their orientation. They weren't attracted to the man, they just wanted the stimulation of sexual desire. It is considered a homosexual act - as it is an act commonly linked with homosexuals, but it doesn't mean they are homosexual.

Space Kitty

08-04-2003, 07:34 PM

You point seems to be disappearing. There are non pratcising hetrosexuals. Celebates. I don't see what your issue. It seems a little pedantic.

If someone takes a (nude) picture of a child for their art portfolio, it was not originally intended for sexual use. If a pedophile gets hold of that picture, and uses it for his/her private use, that person is not hurting the child, even though they are still practicing pedophilia.

If you are going to counter my argument, just do it. You do not need to ridicule my arguments to make yourself feel better (or maybe you do?).

If you are not harming people you have a right to live your life with equal citizenship as the next man. If you commit a crime, particuarly one that may hurt a fellow man - be it murder, rape, abuse then your rights are limited.

So you are saying that pedophiles who simply view nude/non-nude pictures of children for sexual gratification should be left alone?

You can label them homosexuals, but they are not, so your argument is flawed from the second pretext.

Homosexuality is the nature of being attracted to a man. Not the act of having sex with. These men were having sex with men to feed their need for sex of their orientation. They weren't attracted to the man, they just wanted the stimulation of sexual desire. It is considered a homosexual act - as it is an act commonly linked with homosexuals, but it doesn't mean they are homosexual.
But the act is exactly what defines them, in the view of society. If a man has trouble getting dates, but has sex with his male roommate, he's not gay because women just aren't "available"?

James

08-04-2003, 07:42 PM

If someone takes a (nude) picture of a child for their art portfolio, it was not originally intended for sexual use. If a pedophile gets hold of that picture, and uses it for his/her private use, that person is not hurting the child, even though they are still practicing pedophilia.

If you are going to counter my argument, just do it. You do not need to ridicule my arguments to make yourself feel better (or maybe you do?).

I have no interest in ridiculing you or your arguments - I was geniune when I said I don't see where this is going in regards to Gay Marriage. I don feel the comparisons to pedophiles are fair or relevant. I wasn't the only one confused.

So you are saying that pedophiles who simply view nude/non-nude pictures of children for sexual gratification should be left alone?
I'm saying that gay people should be allowed to marry. Notice how I'll not answer questions on pedophila? It bares no relation to the thread.

If this concerns you - you can PM me. I'll talk to you there. But I'm not littering this topic anymore with references to pedophiles. It has nothing to do with Gay Marriage.
But the act is exactly what defines them, in the view of society. If a man has trouble getting dates, but has sex with his male roommate, he's not gay because women just aren't "available"?
In your view clearly. Unless he was sexually attracted to that man he was not homosexual, he was using the room mate for sexual stimulation in the same way he would use a sex toy.

wonderfly

08-04-2003, 07:45 PM

Can I just field this question out here, since it's very connected to the discussion of "homosexuality in today's society"? (which is connected to the Gay marriage thing)

The question is: "What's your definition of Tolerance?"

The Landstander

08-04-2003, 08:03 PM

"What's your definition of Tolerance?" Hmm...not perfectly worded, but something like: Letting ideas and practices exist, even if you do not yourself agree with them (eh, you get my idea :shrug: ).

zmanjz's earlier post is a good example of what I mean.

Space Kitty

08-04-2003, 08:06 PM

I have no interest in ridiculing you or your arguments - I was geniune when I said I don't see where this is going in regards to Gay Marriage. I don feel the comparisons to pedophiles are fair or relevant. I wasn't the only one confused.
I'm saying that gay people should be allowed to marry. Notice how I'll not answer questions on pedophila? It bares no relation to the thread.

If this concerns you - you can PM me. I'll talk to you there. But I'm not littering this topic anymore with references to pedophiles. It has nothing to do with Gay Marriage.

Since it's been said already...
...you're proving my first point that whenever an opposing view is presented, libs tend to declare it "irrelevant" without even addressing the issue in-depth.

James

08-04-2003, 08:25 PM

Since it's been said already...

Considering I have gone over the point in far more depth over several pages AND have offered to talk to you about it off the board, I don't think that applies in the slightest. You've not attempted to explain what this has to do with Gay Marriage. I can only assume it's working up to a point about homosexuals, but I'm not sure where.

You know the rules here. I certainly do, we try and stay on topic. I'm not repeating myself over and over just for fun. If you give me a reason why this relates to Gay Marriage I'm happy to answer it, but so far all you seem to be doing is trying to get definition into what a pedophile is.

LastSonofKrypton

08-05-2003, 01:17 AM

Bush and Co. are very lucky I'm not going to be 18 this year. Being a bisexual this makes my blood boil. I believe that if I want to persue a marrige with a guy it should be reconized by the government just like het marriages. There is a thing called equal rights and gays and bisexuals should be allowed to have the right to marriage.

I agree completely that gays and bisexuals should be allowed to marry. Besides, why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer? :bosko:

Lucky Bob

08-05-2003, 06:44 AM

Argh! Had a good counterpost written, and I inadvertantly deleted it. Ah well, just makes it easier the second time around.

Indeed - and none of them are liberal or tolerant. Don't mistake me for a far left-winger. Interesting you through Hitler in there who was very right wing in his philosophy.

They were the very essence of liberalism. Big government, pushing for "peace" and "equality", advocating a New World Order, those are the symptoms.

Hitler was a conservative? LOL! Someday, I'm going to write a book on how Hitler was disowned after the fact by his own fellow ideologists. There's no way that a leader of a socialist party, advocator of big government, and staunch believer in Nietzcheian philosophy can be labeled a "conservative."

It was implied.

Given our recent PM debate, I wouldn't fall back on that.
If you were just talking about mainstream ideology suffocating fringe ideas, then I wouldn't have brought it up. But you compare it to a liberal mainstream and then make reference to the poor conservative bible scholars. Strange that you know proclaim in mock horror. Nice debating tactic. Seen it before my friend.

No, I'm just saying that libs are VERY selective in what they debate. When a point is brought up that they can't debate, that point automatically becomes "irrelevant", "a fringe-group opinon", or simply "doesn't exist". I've seen that before, my friend.

If you still believe that all scholars share your opinion, let me give you an excerpt from my study Bible in the introduction to Matthew.

"Two major critical views have been advanced in the twentieth century denying the priority of Matthew's gospel: (1) the priority of Mark as the basic source document of both Matthew and Luke; (2) the previous existence of a common source document 'Q,' from the German word for 'Source,' Quelle, to all the synoptics. Neither view has substantially proven its case. There is still very strong reason to hold to the priority of Matthew as the first gospel account of the life of Christ."

Since it's still officially in debate among scholars, it's not very fair in an argument to simply adopt one as "fact", thus dismissing the other side without further discussion.

It was a great period! It was a time in which opinions were controlled and racism was rife! If you were gay you didn't mention it cos you were the dirtiest thing imaginable and if you were a woman - well, you shouldn't be reading this because 50's style you should be in the kitchen making my dinner...

Controlled opinions? You mean of people who wanted to overthrow our government? Oh, I forgot, the Rosenbergs were just simple idealists. :rolleyes:

Racism was a bad thing. But governmental control doesn't address the root causes of racism, which are purely personal.

Suppression of women? Overrated. My grandmother lived in that period, and she worked most of her life! In fact, I see the reverse happening today. If a mother wants to stay at home, she is passed off as a "loser" by her peers. I have two sisters who will testify to that.

The 50's were a period that repressed fearful new ideas and was commanded by one-tier values. If you fitted in than tier, then it was a great time. If you didn't, woe is you.

Back then, it was generally accepted that certain values were beneficial to society. To have a society with no limits is just asking for trouble.
And again, all humans have a "tier". Yes, even liberals have a tier, in which they decide what is right, and what is wrong.

As said those in the 50's about Rock N' Roll and attempts at racial equality. Every decade has a man like you who says it was better in the past and will continue to do so.

And that says something about "progress."

Well, presently women are treated pretty much equally, racial equality has come a long way from being told to sit at the back of the bus and shut up. We have stronger individual rights. If we are harassed, abused or neglected we have stronger methods of finding help. We are a more tolerant, understanding and caring culture. Just because rapes weren't reported in the 50s as much as now, doesn't mean they didn't happen.
You may have loved the idea of living in the 50s - but for most people the 50's offered repression and blanket values. We now have progression - we have freedom.

So, Big Government equals Big Freedom? Don't bet the ranch.

If we're so tolerant, understanding, and all that jazz, why do the stats say otherwise? Wanna go to downtown Chicago at midnight and find some tolerant people to hang with? For that matter, any metropolitan public school?

Maybe if they promote tolerance they, erm, are tolerant. You're preach of intolerance by liberals is that they won't accept your viewpoint. Well I for one do, I just disagree with it. I would like to see homosexuals, women, and minority races all have the equal rights bestowed on the western white male. We still don't have it perfect. I want those who are not hurting anyone by their existence treated equally. That's practical tolerance. That’s what I stand for. So please, this 'he's not tolerant cos he don't agree with me' line doesn't hold up. It verges on insulting.

And it is up to you to decide who's hurting people, and who isn't, right? Like I said, to say all pedophiles hurt kids is equivilant, on the grounds of "fairness", to saying that all homosexuals hurt each other. You haven't even addressed their arguments, you've simply repeated that they hurt people. So, by the very definition of the world, you are intolerant of their viewpoint because of what you believe about them. Not that that's a bad thing, but it just shows that nobody is truly tolerant of everything.

You're swimming in ideology rather than practical measures. It's very simple. People who are not harming anyone, should not have less rights than others simply because they are different. You are constantly bringing up paedophiles as a reference and people are constantly having to remind you that paedophilic are not consensual. They harm minors. Homosexuals do not harm anyone. They are denied the same rights as you and I regardless that they feel and live mirror lives to you and I. Homosexuals have more in common with hetrosexuals than paedophiles.

Like I said, though, if we're going to be truly "tolerant", we need to give them equal ground to make their case.

It's the right you have has an American heterosexual. It's not a right for homosexual.

So, the next obvious question is: Define "right".

As for morality - again, it's your morality. It's subjective. You go on about morality being legislated.. It’s human rights we're looking at. Not morality. Morality - in your case - is subjective to your religious belief. That's not absolute morality.

If this isn't about morality at all, then why are you "generalizing" pedophiles? Why say that all they do is hurt minors, without hearing the evidence?

If you have an argument to throw at me, please do. All is listened to objectively. I have no stake in this aside from compassionate grounds. I am open-minded. I have nothing to win or lose in homosexual rights to marriage. It just so happens your argument to me is extremely unconvincing.

Which again proves my point. For you to remain "unconvinced" means that you have a preconcieved idea about what is right going into this debate. Nobody is truly 100% objective. On the compassionate or the logical level.

We could go over this again, pedophillia is a criminal activity. It hurts minors. It KILLS minors. Homosexuality is not a criminal activity. NO comparison. Please, drop the paedophile card it's a moot subject here.

I won't, because I find that counterargument extremely unconvincing. ;)

So, if it's illegal, it's wrong, eh? So, was the State of Texas right in prohibiting homosexual acts? Did that make homosexual acts wrong? Did you support keeping the status quo?

And again, many homosexuals hurt people. Many homosexuals KILL people. Many homosexuals hurt minors. Does that make ALL of them wrong, in the realm of "tolerance?"

Don't be silly of course it's the same. It's a right of life. People who are homosexual ARE homosexual. Homosexuals can go 'straight'. Heterosexuals can go 'gay'. White people can wear black make up. We can do things, that aren't necessarily quite who we are.

This argument can't even be verified. Do you have firsthand knowledge of what goes on in the brain of one who has "gone straight?" The logic here is based on your preconceived notion that sexual orientation is unchangable, like race. However, looking at it "objectively", there is no reason to automatically assume so.

And how far does this argument go? Are you willing to say that alcoholics are born that way? Obese people? Pedophiles?

As a point, there was a huge increase in male sodomy when the colonial convicts were taken to Australia from Europe. Not because they were all gay, but because there was no women. They were still heterosexuals..

So, one instance in which some sick criminals decided to perform sodomy for want of females speaks for the action of everyone? To borrow from Bud 'n Lou, I hope your argument hasn't gone that low. ;)

Because people like marriage. You like marriage. I quite like the idea actually. Hey! Guess what? John over there might like the idea, but oh no, he can't get married because he's gay. No other reason. He's a good man. He's a Christian man. He's never hurt anyone. He's a strong pillar of the community, but he has less rights simply because he is gay.
This is a move forward. We are coming to a time where we all have a voice. In the past we've had the mob culture where if someone fell out of line with the majority, they were condemned. People are protected by law now, and slowly these elements of mob culture are being erased. Gay people don't have to feel like second class people just because they are told to. They have rights, and as with women and race before hand, they need to be given what they are owed - the right to live equally with their fellow man.

Jack here is all of those things, only he is a pedophile. But he claims he's doing nothing wrong. He claims he doesn't rape or abuse kids. He claims that he can't do anything about his sexual orientation. Should we deny him "basic human rights", such as marriage?
And again, history has shown how homosexuals can make it in the real world. Rock Hudson, Jim Nabors, Liberace, Rosie, you name it!

You keep trying to outwit me on an argument that only you present. I have no interest in a moral code. I don’t believe it’s an issue here. What were are looking at are rights based on simply human, social attributes. Where you stand and I stand are so different it’s futile.

Wrong. I'm simply turning the tables, showing how you discriminate against a particular sexual orientation based on
preconcieved ideas. Something that doesn't fit the liberal view of "tolerance"...except in this case. I find that very odd.

You keep going back to paedophilia, which is a little annoying. Comparing the rights of a lawful man to those of someone who has not just broken the law but interfered with the development of a minor.
What we need to do is sit you in a front of a paedophile victim and let you see what it does to these people. See how the effects never go away - how it hampers their ability to love in the future. And these are the people who survive. Not those who commit suicide because they can't live with themselves. Not to mention those who were brutally molested and murdered. See how it destroys lives. Destroys mothers and fathers, then you belittle this by trying to compare the rights of paedophile to those of a homosexual. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but how much more bluntly can I explain how poor your comparison is?

Pedophiles have their own groups of people who would say otherwise. They would just say "Oh, those are the rape victims. That's bad. We believe in consentual sex." Likewise, I could sit you down in front of victims of homosexual rape. You could go to most any jail for that.

Again, I'm not advocating pedophilia, I'm simply reapplying your basic logic to another case.

And this odd intellectual argument on how intolerant I am to offer moral standards on one subject and not on another. As I said, I unlike you don’t offer moral standards. I offer solutions based on real situations.

Ultimately based on what you think is right and wrong. Thus, morals.

I have the right to ascertain and deliver social solutions. You do too. We all do. I've studied the topics, I've spoken to people and I've learned on my own two feet. Being black doesn't make you a lesser person. Being gay doesn't make you a lesser person. Being a woman makes you no less important than a man. Ergo, these classes should all have the same rights.

Again, it's rather doubtful that homosexuals are "born into it", like with race or gender. But that is the descision you have come to. Thus, if this is the basis for your beliefs, it's based on preconcieved ideas. Like mine. Nobody here is more "tolerant" or "objective" than the other.

Paedophilia, regardless of why people do it, hurts kids. It kills kids. It destroys families. It crucifies parents. That cannot be justified.

Again, generalizations that only apply to people you don't like, apparently.

I'm not saying I have moral rights over you. I'm saying the standpoint I offer is more justified socially and practically than what you have. Whatever you think about sin doesn't change the practical nature here. If God thinks I, or a homosexual or you are sinful, let him. That's HIS domain, not yours. Don't hide behind that and face the practical issues here. You are a bright man your argument doesn't do you justice.

That's rather exclusive, I must say. I believe that to avoid headaches, and to provide a tried-and-true atmosphere for raising kids, and a host of other reasons, we have a social and practical interest in keeping marriage traditional.

Lucky Bob:
You are basically saying that an acceptance of homosexuals will lead to the acceptance of pedophiles, right?

Eventually, yes. I mean, that's the next logical step, right? The over-sexualizing of society, especially in the "under-18" sector, is astounding. Simply the logic behind the homosexual rights movement paves the way. "If it doesn't hurt anybody, who cares?" Associations like NAMBLA (which is also a homosexual organization, BTW. I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned,) argue the same thing. It won't happen overnight, but given current trends, it could concievably happen in 50 years or so. When society is "enlightened" enough to accept these people into society.

Bud 'n Lou

08-05-2003, 08:37 AM

First, if you're gonna bash something, at least research it!

Rwor! This kitty has claws![/Kathy Griffin]

Second, the very fact that they are backed by the ACLU is a good indication that legally, they have to have equal ground in debate.

Yes. A debate about their rights to free speech, not about legalizing pedophilia. You would deny them the right to defend themselves like anyone else?

Third, you're proving my first point that whenever an opposing view is presented, libs tend to declare it "irrelevant" without even addressing the issue in-depth.

Are you kidding? That’s what half my post was about. My argument was that there will be no legalized pedophilia because acts of pedophilia victimize children, while homosexual acts do not. To counter this point, you want proof that pedophilia is in fact harmful, which is what we’ve been debating. Also, is the rampant “lib” bashing necessary? Not only is it rude and annoying, but it has no relevance to the debate.

But all this recent agenda-pushing by homosexuals doesn't hurt them, either.

So the gay rights movement is bad because it doesn’t hinder pedophilic organizations’ efforts? Wow, if that’s the notion you’re operating under, then we have a LOT of other stuff that needs condemning also.

If I'm not mistaken, quite a few states lower the age to under 18. And the current attitude of the public school system doesn't promote underage chastity.

Yes, some of the states do. I think I actually pointed that out as well in this thread, and I addressed that issue then. And I wouldn’t say that public schools aren’t “promoting underage chastity.” They list it among the options. If they mention other options (such as protected sex), they are only being realistic. Young people are going to have sex either way. And if they are, it’s best that they are armed with the information necessary to protect themselves.

And again, you're debating opinion. And just because you state an opinion, in debate, that does not automatically make it fact.

Oh, we’re trading debating tips now? Well, here’s one for you. Take your own advice. You told me earlier to research something before I bash it. Well, for all my admitted ignorance about the ACLU/NAMBLA case, my information seemed to be accurate enough. Here’s a link to the ACLU’s statement about the case on their website: http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86
Meanwhile, you seemed to be implying that the ACLU was assisting NAMBLA in furthering their agenda to legalize their pedophilic activities. And you didn’t do much to correct me when I made this same point in my last post. I have no reason to believe that the ACLU is for some reason lying about their goals. So either you were putting a spin on it to make your argument seem more valid and got caught, or you got your information from a biased source. In either case, it probably would have served you well to take your own advice about doing research. It’s possible that I just misinterpreted what you were trying to say with your ACLU/NAMBLA argument, but I find that unlikely. After all, what’s the harm in just defending your rights to free speech?
Also, if you’re going to tell me to keep my opinions out of a debate, again, you ought to be taking your own advice. If I’m guilty of it, so are you. And what is the offensive "opinion" I offered? That pedophilia victimizes children? Whoa there! I’ve gone too far! Even just making a judgment based solely on legal terms, children under the age of consent are not considered mature enough to make certain decision. I went into more detail about this in my last post, but I really don’t feel like repeating myself. Call that an opinion if you like, but I would assume that it would be considered at least somewhat more substantial than that, given that it is backed up by law.
And while we’re giving each other tips on how to debate, I’ll offer you another. Don’t make up the rules of a debate in the middle of it, just because you’ve been painted into a corner. Opinions don’t factor into debates? Please. Opinions are the basis of debate. Without them, there would be nothing TO debate, because we’d all think the same, drawing from the same set of “facts.” How easy would it be for anyone to just dismiss the opposing side’s entire argument because, “well, that’s only your opinion”? It reeks of desperation.

I'm putting the shoe on the other foot. You seem to enjoy generalizing the actions of pedophiles. Yet, to do it to homosexuals is "running out of gas". (Again, the Liberal Argument Syndrome.)

I never said all pedophiles harm children. Some of them do not act on their attraction. But we can’t punish them just for thinking about it.
On the other hand, in your argument, you said that ALL homosexuals have AIDS and rape one another, which can easily be proven false.
And as much as you’re defending pedophiles, of course you know that they DO in fact harm children. You’ve also yet to tell me how adult consensual homosexual relationships are harmful without using lame arguments that you also don’t even believe. In fact, your arguments rely solely on hypothetical situations that might result from legalizing gay marriage that, in order to be convinced by them, would require one to be a total moron that has no common sense, an alarmist personality, and an unearthly ability to suspend their disbelief. Even you yourself admit you don’t think they are logical. I see through those arguments. You see through those arguments (which is a blow to your credibility, since you’re the one arguing them). And you know, I don’t think either of us is really that special. If we can see through it, so can the rest of the world. The only possible thing that would prevent someone from seeing it is a religious bias or just a major dislike of homosexuals. When your argument has been reduced to defending pedophilia and disputing the definitions of “adult,” “consent,” and “harm,” just because you don’t like homosexuality, that to me is a 50 foot, neon sign saying that you are out of gas.

I'm not saying we should. I'm just saying that, using your logic, you are guilty of the same thing you decry.

Not even close. My logic involves common sense and has evidentiary support. Pedophiles DO harm children. It’s sort of pointless to cite studies as evidence, because you will always find others that contradict the results, but many of them do find that most survivors of pedophilia would say the experience has effected them psychologically, emotionally, developmentally and physically. The logic (or lack thereof) that you’re trying to pawn off as mine is baseless and severely flawed. My opinon that pedophilia victimizes children is not supported by concrete proof, but things like these can never be fully proven or disproven. But at least this opinion is backed by reputable studies. The assertion that all homosexuals are rapists with AIDS can be easily disproved.
Now, if you really want to talk about flawed logic, if we all lived by the xenophobic mentality you have presented, we might as well never leave our homes, out of fear of all the horrible things that might have a possible, remote chance of happening. And if fringe groups are such a viable threat, and creating laws based only on religious beliefs is ok, because we DO need to set the bar somewhere, here’s a scenario. What if the Muslims in this country began to gain political power, and one day we found that the majority of our country’s leaders practiced Islam, and then they began to legislate their religious beliefs in place of the existing ones based on Christian ideals. I mean, we can’t legislate religious beliefs, but we DO have to set a bar somewhere, and draw the line somewhere else. So why not use Islam as the luck-of-the-draw moral barometer for the foundation for our laws? If that were the case, would you still feel it was such a shrug-your-shoulders, “oh well, that’s just the way things are” situation?

So, by the same token, if you don't engage in pedophilia, why should you care if it's practiced? And why should adults be the only ones allowed. Is that not discrimination? Is that not forcing your ideology on someone else?

Again, I don't believe this stuff, I'm just turning the logic back around.

Actually, that’s NOT by the same token. At all. I’m not the one here that’s contending that pedophilia is an adult consensual act, you are. And if you need me to explain to you again why only adults are allowed to engage in consensual adult activities, I don’t know what to tell you. You and Space Kitty do a great job of defending pedophiles. Who needs the ACLU?
Anyway, since you don’t actually believe any of non-religious arguments against homosexual relationships that you offered, how about offering ones you do? Because I’ve noticed that you have yet to do that.

Drachentöter

08-05-2003, 10:12 AM

I realize some may consider this off-topic, but since it's been addressed...

The argument seems to be that if we accept homosexuality, it opens the door for acts such as pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, and incest to be legalized. The idea is that these groups would be "inspired" and lobby for the same rights. And, they may have a point to some degree...

But it wouldn't be the homosexuals' fault. It would rest squarely on the shoulders of all the people in a nation. Although at times I feel the world is going insane, I have faith in certain values that we are instilling into future generations.

If you believe pedophilia could be legalized, you are saying that you think that society in the future will have completely disregarded the right to protect a child's innocence. That's very pessimistic.

Homosexuality is nowhere near as damaging as pedophilia. You may call it sexually deviant, but it's not criminal, as no party involved is being harmed. By now, society is beginning to recognize that. It's a step in the right direction.

But to say that future generations will consider the act of adults seducing children lawful is horrible. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it seems as if you're giving up hope on society. Instead of trying to bar homosexuals from their rights, you should be putting your energy in barring that act from being considered.

And that's hopefully all I'll have to say in that matter.

Lucky Bob

08-05-2003, 10:12 AM

Rwor! This kitty has claws![/Kathy Griffin]

Yes. A debate about their rights to free speech, not about legalizing pedophilia. You would deny them the right to defend themselves like anyone else?

Nope. Y'all have already done that by labeling all pedophiles as "harmful", and making their opinion "irrelavant."

Are you kidding? That’s what half my post was about. My argument was that there will be no legalized pedophilia because acts of pedophilia victimize children, while homosexual acts do not. To counter this point, you want proof that pedophilia is in fact harmful, which is what we’ve been debating. Also, is the rampant “lib” bashing necessary? Not only is it rude and annoying, but it has no relevance to the debate.

I call a spade a spade. If I see it, and notice it, I'll point it out. And from what I've seen, whenever the logic is turned on a lib, there's always an exception. I've noticed this in past debates, and I'm just trying to point this out.

So the gay rights movement is bad because it doesn’t hinder pedophilic organizations’ efforts? Wow, if that’s the notion you’re operating under, then we have a LOT of other stuff that needs condemning also.

Nope. I'm just pointing out that the logic used for the argument for homosexual rights can be just as easily distorted for the "bad guys".

Yes, some of the states do. I think I actually pointed that out as well in this thread, and I addressed that issue then. And I wouldn’t say that public schools aren’t “promoting underage chastity.” They list it among the options. If they mention other options (such as protected sex), they are only being realistic. Young people are going to have sex either way. And if they are, it’s best that they are armed with the information necessary to protect themselves.

LOL! So, to start out with, underage sex is a bad thing. And now, they're going to do it anyway?! Excuse me, but this one hasn't, and won't until marriage. Here's a revolutionary thought: Do you suppose that by telling kids that they're going to have sex either way, they might interpret that as either a justification or a mandate?

Oh, we’re trading debating tips now? Well, here’s one for you. Take your own advice. You told me earlier to research something before I bash it. Well, for all my admitted ignorance about the ACLU/NAMBLA case, my information seemed to be accurate enough. Here’s a link to the ACLU’s statement about the case on their website: http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86
Meanwhile, you seemed to be implying that the ACLU was assisting NAMBLA in furthering their agenda to legalize their pedophilic activities.
And you didn’t do much to correct me when I made this same point in my last post. I have no reason to believe that the ACLU is for some reason lying about their goals. So either you were putting a spin on it to make your argument seem more valid and got caught, or you got your information from a biased source. In either case, it probably would have served you well to take your own advice about doing research. It’s possible that I just misinterpreted what you were trying to say with your ACLU/NAMBLA argument, but I find that unlikely. After all, what’s the harm in just defending your rights to free speech?

They are supporting NAMBLA, by trying to keep their propaganda legal. (I call it assisting a crime, but that's just me.)

It's not just arguments. NAMBLA also coaches people on how to perform these acts, and how to defend themselves if they are caught. That would be about as bad as me posting how to hack TZ on ZCLSN. No matter how they try to distance themselves, the ACLU is supporting the actions of NAMBLA by supporting the right of them to tell people how to break the law.

Also, if you’re going to tell me to keep my opinions out of a debate, again, you ought to be taking your own advice. If I’m guilty of it, so are you. And what is the offensive "opinion" I offered? That pedophilia victimizes children? Whoa there! I’ve gone too far! Even just making a judgment based solely on legal terms, children under the age of consent are not considered mature enough to make certain decision. I went into more detail about this in my last post, but I really don’t feel like repeating myself. Call that an opinion if you like, but I would assume that it would be considered at least somewhat more substantial than that, given that it is backed up by law.

I'm just pointing out some inconsistancies in your logic. If you want to debate on the side of objectivity and tolerance, that includes everyone. Even NAMBLA. To be truly objective, you have to consider that NAMBLA might have a point.

And while we’re giving each other tips on how to debate, I’ll offer you another. Don’t make up the rules of a debate in the middle of it, just because you’ve been painted into a corner. Opinions don’t factor into debates? Please. Opinions are the basis of debate. Without them, there would be nothing TO debate, because we’d all think the same, drawing from the same set of “facts.” How easy would it be for anyone to just dismiss the opposing side’s entire argument because, “well, that’s only your opinion”? It reeks of desperation.

Funny, I've been told that this whole debate. :D

I have no problem with opinions in debate. However, when they are presented as fact, that's a no-no. In another debate, I called someone "wrong" on the basis of opinion. I was called down by one of the mods, and I changed my tone. Therefore, from then on, I've purposed that opinion should be limited to the realm of opinion, and fact to the realm of fact. I try to make a distinction between the two.

I never said all pedophiles harm children. Some of them do not act on their attraction. But we can’t punish them just for thinking about it.

But pedophilic acts do? Are we seperating the act from the people who do it now? I thought that was impossible. Besides, are you saying that it's okay for certain sexual orientations never to act on their urges? Isn't that a violation of human rights?

On the other hand, in your argument, you said that ALL homosexuals have AIDS and rape one another, which can easily be proven false.

I didn't say that. I said that saying that pedophiles hurt kids is the same kind of generalization in Fairnessville. Would you deny them the chance to defend themselves against that kind of claim?

Again, I'm just turning the tables. Address the hypothetical, but don't make it sound like I said what I didn't say.

And as much as you’re defending pedophiles, of course you know that they DO in fact harm children. You’ve also yet to tell me how adult consensual homosexual relationships are harmful without using lame arguments that you also don’t even believe. In fact, your arguments rely solely on hypothetical situations that might result from legalizing gay marriage that, in order to be convinced by them, would require one to be a total moron that has no common sense, an alarmist personality, and an unearthly ability to suspend their disbelief.

Not really. The same was said about legalized homosexuality...say...50 years ago. Nobody believed it could be done back then. However, with our ever-changing morals (which some call progress,) it's never an impossibility.

Even you yourself admit you don’t think they are logical. I see through those arguments. You see through those arguments (which is a blow to your credibility, since you’re the one arguing them).

And do you want to know why? Because I'm using the arguments I've heard for homosexual rights to defend pedophilia. Of course I think it's ridiculous, since I don't believe those arguments in the first place. It's something called "illustrating absurdity by being absurd." In other words, turning the tables. In doing so, I'm trying to demonstrate my hypothesis that the homosexual community only believes their arguments when it advances what they want to do. Also, I hope to show that those same arguments don't have a patent. They can be picked up by virtually anyone.

And you know, I don’t think either of us is really that special. If we can see through it, so can the rest of the world. The only possible thing that would prevent someone from seeing it is a religious bias or just a major dislike of homosexuals. When your argument has been reduced to defending pedophilia and disputing the definitions of “adult,” “consent,” and “harm,” just because you don’t like homosexuality, that to me is a 50 foot, neon sign saying that you are out of gas.

The L.A.S., in action yet again. But repeated pronouncements that an argument is dead don't neccesarily make it so.

Not even close. My logic involves common sense and has evidentiary support. Pedophiles DO harm children. It’s sort of pointless to cite studies as evidence, because you will always find others that contradict the results, but many of them do find that most survivors of pedophilia would say the experience has effected them psychologically, emotionally, developmentally and physically. The logic (or lack thereof) that you’re trying to pawn off as mine is baseless and severely flawed. My opinon that pedophilia victimizes children is not supported by concrete proof, but things like these can never be fully proven or disproven.

In other words, logically, all of these arguments on both sides boil down to opinion, rather than a consistent, logical reasoning. That's the point I'm trying to get across.

But at least this opinion is backed by reputable studies. The assertion that all homosexuals are rapists with AIDS can be easily disproved.

And as you said above, the same can be said about pedophiles. The assertion that ALL pedophilic acts hurt children can be disproven. The majority? Yes. All? No. So, on that basis alone, throwing all morality out the window, pedophilia has the same argumentative standing as homosexuality.

Now, if you really want to talk about flawed logic, if we all lived by the xenophobic mentality you have presented, we might as well never leave our homes, out of fear of all the horrible things that might have a possible, remote chance of happening. And if fringe groups are such a viable threat, and creating laws based only on religious beliefs is ok, because we DO need to set the bar somewhere, here’s a scenario. What if the Muslims in this country began to gain political power, and one day we found that the majority of our country’s leaders practiced Islam, and then they began to legislate their religious beliefs in place of the existing ones based on Christian ideals. I mean, we can’t legislate religious beliefs, but we DO have to set a bar somewhere, and draw the line somewhere else. So why not use Islam as the luck-of-the-draw moral barometer for the foundation for our laws? If that were the case, would you still feel it was such a shrug-your-shoulders, “oh well, that’s just the way things are” situation?

It would really be the fault of the people that put them there in the first place. People elect leaders. The actions of the leaders in office reflect what the public will allow. Thus, rather than worry about that happening, we need to let our voice be known. If we don't want it, we need to say so! I, for one, do.

Actually, that’s NOT by the same token. At all. I’m not the one here that’s contending that pedophilia is an adult consensual act, you are. And if you need me to explain to you again why only adults are allowed to engage in consensual adult activities, I don’t know what to tell you. You and Space Kitty do a great job of defending pedophiles. Who needs the ACLU?

Hey, don't blame me. I'm just a friendly parrot. Although, I must say, it ain't no party for me, either. Having to use these arguments. But if they aren't good enough in all cases, how can they be good in this case?

Anyway, since you don’t actually believe any of non-religious arguments against homosexual relationships that you offered, how about offering ones you do? Because I’ve noticed that you have yet to do that.

So, you've been misreading my posts, eh? I haven't been using these arguments to debate homosexual acts. I've been using them to see how they stand up to defending the "bad" acts. The case against using this logic in defending homosexual acts is proven in how it isn't accepted by the very people that use it, when it is applied to other acts.

Any rate, I mentioned some reasons briefly in my last post. Check them out.

Psilon

08-05-2003, 11:08 AM

Eventually, yes. I mean, that's the next logical step, right? The over-sexualizing of society, especially in the "under-18" sector, is astounding. Simply the logic behind the homosexual rights movement paves the way. "If it doesn't hurt anybody, who cares?" Associations like NAMBLA (which is also a homosexual organization, BTW. I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned,) argue the same thing. It won't happen overnight, but given current trends, it could concievably happen in 50 years or so. When society is "enlightened" enough to accept these people into society.

(1) What you arguing is a logical fallacy.
(2) Homosexuality has been legalized, this did not lead to the legalization of pedophilia.

The arguement fails on all fronts and is purely speculative.

Though if you want to discuss pedophilia, the over-sexualization of our culture, and the age of consent. Please do, and open another thread.

James

08-05-2003, 11:59 AM

Lucky Bob

08-05-2003, 01:06 PM

I totally agree with Psion. After all this attacks on the ideology presented here FOR gay marriage - give us some idea WHY gay marriage shouldn't be accepted LB. It's easy to rubbish others POVS.

That is very true. Funny, I always thought it was hard. But, seems like Psilon had the right idea the whole time:

(1) What you arguing is a logical fallacy.

And to think I spent all that work building a huge case, when I could have just spoken, and it would have been so! :eek:

:D

Anyway, back to the request...

First off, I would like to reaffirm that as far as I'm concerned, the argument for homosexual "rights" such as marriage are based on opinion alone. This whole set-up these past few posts has been an experiment to see if everyone would stick by their original arguments when the going got tough. Arguments like "Sexual orientation cannot be helped!", "Rights should not be denied based on one's sexual acts!", "Government should keep out of the bedroom!" Only, it seems that these arguments, though broad in nature, include a relatively exclusive group. I expected the arguments to remain constant in all cases. Had they done that, I might have seen a logical pattern in the argument. This did not happen. I can only speak for myself, but as far as I've seen, this whole argument is based on opinion alone. And I, for one, have found this a really educational experience. Thanks for the mental workout, guys!

Now, since I have heard the opinions on homosexual marriage, here are my opinions against it.

1st: Homosexuals already can get "married". Columnist Michael Ackley:

The buzz keeps getting louder about homosexual marriage, and it occurs to me this estate – or something like it – already is available to "gays" and lesbians. Just go to a lawyer and have a contract drawn up, declaring the parties' commitment to each other and specifying their rights and responsibilities – like community property and responsibility for debts. Participants may call this agreement anything they want, and have it sealed by any kind of ceremony they want, with or without clergy.

Seems to me this is an ideal solution for a segment of the population that always says it wants government to stay out of its private affairs.

2nd: The traditional family is a tried-and-true backbone for our social values. Homosexual "marriage" is still something of a social experiment. Call me a stick-in-the-mud, but if it ain't broke...

3rd: The reasons provided so far don't just redefine marriage, they rewrite it! Since when was a marriage only beneficial to the married parties themselves? Marriage is about family. It's not about what two people like, it's about the good of the collective family, no matter how large or small. And ultimately, it's about the kids, as well. I know, some marriages don't produce any kids for one reason or another, but why else would we be concerned about divorce, illegitimacy, single parenthood, and such? It's not just about adults, tax breaks, or even romantic love. It's about family.

4th: To that end, I firmly believe that the ideal environment for kids to grow up in involves a loving father and mother. The masculine and feminine influences on a child as he is growing up are vital. I've known kids from broken homes, foster kids, and adopted kids. They'll agree, a traditional family is vital. Kids tend to feel a bit cheated without one. And I could not imagine growing up without having my dad teach me how to be a man, and my mom teaching me what to look for in a woman. The values I learned from both are invaluable. But bringing a kid into a homosexual relationship is like having a double single parenthood. Where's the missing factor to the equation? Ask any kid who had a single parent, and you'll find out.

5th: Legalizing homosexual marriage will do nothing to stop the percieved "homophobia" in America. That's like repainting the face to hide the mole. The underlying problem is still there. In fact, such recent agenda-pushing has encouraged a general rise in anti-homosexual opinion, according to recent polls.

6th: For all those who believe in direct democracy, I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned the fact that homosexuals are a vastly minority group. For that reason, they've been going through the courts, since legislation hasn't worked. That, to me, is a scary thing. You can have anything legalized through misuse of the court system.

7th: This one sounds old hat by now, but there's still not a monopoly on the homosexual rights argument. I guarantee that some crazed group is going to pick it up and twist it to fit their agenda. I know that sounds paranoid, but people scoffed at the idea that suing tobacco companies would lead to food companies being presented with lawsuits. In the world of judicial activism, anything can happen.

Those are my points, you are welcome to tear them apart, heed them, or ignore them completely. I've said all I want to say on this issue, and I must say that I have really enjoyed this intellectual sparring. ;)

Psycho Fox

08-05-2003, 01:41 PM

1st: Homosexuals already can get "married". Columnist Michael Ackley:
Still a double standard everyone has to be able to go the same route to be together in the eye of law. So either the US doesn't reconize any marriage as legal proof that 2 people are together or the US lets gays get married.

2nd: The traditional family is a tried-and-true backbone for our social values. Homosexual "marriage" is still something of a social experiment. Call me a stick-in-the-mud, but if it ain't broke...

3rd: The reasons provided so far don't just redefine marriage, they rewrite it! Since when was a marriage only beneficial to the married parties themselves? Marriage is about family. It's not about what two people like, it's about the good of the collective family, no matter how large or small. And ultimately, it's about the kids, as well. I know, some marriages don't produce any kids for one reason or another, but why else would we be concerned about divorce, illegitimacy, single parenthood, and such? It's not just about adults, tax breaks, or even romantic love. It's about family.
So what about community family? Your saying if a gay family living in a community (of a mixture of sexes and sexual prefernces) that is willing to share responsablity to raise the kid that it is still wrong?

Personally I think the problem is not the traditional family it is lack of community. Were parents don't have to be scared to put faith neighbours.

6th: For all those who believe in direct democracy, I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned the fact that homosexuals are a vastly minority group. For that reason, they've been going through the courts, since legislation hasn't worked. That, to me, is a scary thing. You can have anything legalized through misuse of the court system.
I can tell you never read Anachist writings.

The idea is EVERYONE is master of their own destiny yet they are also responsible for it thus can do ANYTHING without democracy unless their actions effects someones elses then it is up to democracy.

Thus homosexuals getting married don't effect anyone elses destiny thus no democratic action is needed.

James

08-05-2003, 02:03 PM

And to think I spent all that work building a huge case, when I could have just spoken, and it would have been so! :eek:

No you spent all that time diverting any true arguement on Gay Marriage by targeting irrelevances. Notice none of your next points have really been debated? The true issues at stake? If they are so relevant why didn't they come up previously? Because it was easy to pick and deflect that face a proper debate. What you speak of here is about Gay Marriages, the details of Pedophila is not. (and I have a reply for your previous post - there is a bug in TZ which prevents it from going up at present).

1st: Homosexuals already can get "married". Columnist Michael Ackley:

But they can't do it as you or I could. That's hardly fair. So your first point is there is no arguement because they can already - so why not make it simpler?
2nd: The traditional family is a tried-and-true backbone for our social values. Homosexual "marriage" is still something of a social experiment. Call me a stick-in-the-mud, but if it ain't broke...

Yep. If it ain't broke.. why give women rights? In fact, lets not bother giving rights to anyone unless they are white and male. The white males are happy so if it ain't broke....

3rd: The reasons provided so far don't just redefine marriage, they rewrite it! Since when was a marriage only beneficial to the married parties themselves? Marriage is about family. It's not about what two people like, it's about the good of the collective family, no matter how large or small. And ultimately, it's about the kids, as well. I know, some marriages don't produce any kids for one reason or another, but why else would we be concerned about divorce, illegitimacy, single parenthood, and such? It's not just about adults, tax breaks, or even romantic love. It's about family.

So what if a heterosexual can't have kids? Should they be married? Marriage is about a love between two people. It's nothing to do with family - that's an offshoot of marriage no matter how you look at it. Family exists in and out of marriage. There is nothing in the constitution of marriage which says it's mandatory to have kids.

And if the couple want kids? - why can't they adopt.
4th: To that end, I firmly believe that the ideal environment for kids to grow up in involves a loving father and mother. The masculine and feminine influences on a child as he is growing up are vital. I've known kids from broken homes, foster kids, and adopted kids. They'll agree, a traditional family is vital. Kids tend to feel a bit cheated without one. And I could not imagine growing up without having my dad teach me how to be a man, and my mom teaching me what to look for in a woman. The values I learned from both are invaluable. But bringing a kid into a homosexual relationship is like having a double single parenthood. Where's the missing factor to the equation? Ask any kid who had a single parent, and you'll find out.

Shame, as I mention this in the post I wanted to put up. I knew this would be a big part of your arguement.

Interestingly if you studied a a homosexual unit, you'll see that a lot of time the roles breakdown into mother figure and father figure - it seems it's not always about gender - roles occur naturally. You'll find many adopted kids in a homosexual relationship have found the unit very warm.

Again, however you are jumping the gun. We are talking about marriage, not family. You are confusing the two as the same. The conversation you are having is about gay couples adopting kids. In any case, as you have said, most single kids would have prefered a family. Love is love.

5th: Legalizing homosexual marriage will do nothing to stop the percieved "homophobia" in America. That's like repainting the face to hide the mole. The underlying problem is still there. In fact, such recent agenda-pushing has encouraged a general rise in anti-homosexual opinion, according to recent polls.

It's a step towards it. People fear what they don't know. Homosexuals are people. They're are good people and nasty people. They are fun, they are boring. They are screwed up, they are level headed. They are people. The more exposure people get to people the less scary they are. Look at race. There was a time when a black man was as an equal, a scary thought to many people. Many thought racism wouldn't die. It hasn't, but people except people of different skin far more readily now than when they did prior to the push for equality.
Look at TV. Look at a popular programme - Will And Grace. A show like that would have never aired even 15 years ago to such success, because people are finding the gay man less threatening. This comes with exposure. This issue needs to be seen. Gay people should be proud to be seen with a lover, to be married to a lover. This is how acceptance occurs, by the introduction of a new concept into ordinary life.
No one thought the African American could ever intergrate equally into society. He still hasn't totally, but he's far closer than he was in 1950 - that golden age.

6th: For all those who believe in direct democracy, I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned the fact that homosexuals are a vastly minority group. For that reason, they've been going through the courts, since legislation hasn't worked. That, to me, is a scary thing. You can have anything legalized through misuse of the court system.
Because people ignore them. I bet you would if given the chance. You don't hate them, you just don't seem to want to know about them. They have to get their voice heard. Again look at racial rights and womens rights. Unorthodox methods to get legislation had to be used there because people used the same arguments you have against them.

7th: This one sounds old hat by now, but there's still not a monopoly on the homosexual rights argument. I guarantee that some crazed group is going to pick it up and twist it to fit their agenda. I know that sounds paranoid, but people scoffed at the idea that suing tobacco companies would lead to food companies being presented with lawsuits. In the world of judicial activism, anything can happen.

So what? It's still a fundemental RIGHT for a lawful person to be able to ask for the same priviledges as another - regardless of who else may benefit.Those are my points, you are welcome to tear them apart, heed them, or ignore them completely. I've said all I want to say on this issue, and I must say that I have really enjoyed this intellectual sparring. ;)
Considering I've spent the last three pages answering your questions - no matter how trivial or off topic, I think you could grant us a reply here. I'd be very disappointed if you are one of those people who when not on the attack, posts their points and runs off. That seems a little childish. I hope I've misjudged you on this.

Blue

08-05-2003, 03:25 PM

Oh well if the law passes people are mad if it dosent people are mad ither way everyone loses.

Brainatra

08-05-2003, 03:32 PM

Lots of responses here... but to throw my two cents in:

1. No problem with gay marriage here... would be nice to know my significant other could get into a hospital to *see* me if something bad befell myself (among the 47,000 other perks that heterosexual couples like Homer and Marge Simpson get just by going to Shotgun Pete's Drive-Through Wedding Chapel out in Vegas or somesuch)...

2. "Sancticty of Marriage"? I'll ask my divorced parents (recalling the sky-high divorce rate) and Bill "Infidelity With Someone Who Looks Like a Second-Rate Rosie O'Donnell Impersonator" Clinton (among all the *other* heterosexual married couples who've committed adultery) on that one...

3. Since this is a civic/secular issue (regarding the legal rights married couples get, part of the reason for the drive to allow gay marriage in the first place), this doesn't regard the religious aspects at all----which any change in marriage laws wouldn't affect anyway: the first amendment would still give the right for churches to do/say/think however they want on marriage; no church would have to recognize or perform such marriages if they didn't want to. Since I'm an atheist, I could care less what the Pope/Pat Robertson/whoever thinks, admittedly, but still...

3. I'd rather see federal-level equal rights protection (including "sexual orientation" in current civil rights laws regarding race, religion, etc.) for gays/lesbians before moving on to the issue of marriage, myself.

For me, I'd probably settle for just duplicating the house key and handing it to the new hubby. Of course, there's always just driving a few hundred miles up to Canada... :-)

I do have friends who've gone to Vermont for a "civil union" ceremony...and then hit Ben 'n Jerry's afterward. :-)

-B.

Chris Wood

08-05-2003, 03:54 PM

I do have friends who've gone to Vermont for a "civil union" ceremony...and then hit Ben 'n Jerry's afterward. :-)

-B.

So what are you trying to imply about Ben and Jerry? Just because they make lots of fruity deserts...

Lucky Bob

08-05-2003, 04:09 PM

Considering I've spent the last three pages answering your questions - no matter how trivial or off topic, I think you could grant us a reply here. I'd be very disappointed if you are one of those people who when not on the attack, posts their points and runs off. That seems a little childish. I hope I've misjudged you on this.

You haven't. The point is, this whole issue comes down to simply opinion. There's really no consistant logical argument that I've seen. When it is applied to another case, it no longer is valid. That was the whole point of the pedophile debate. You have stated your opinions, I have stated mine. And really, I don't feel any need to apolgize for what I believe. You can take it or leave it.

That, and, even for a geek, this argument still owes me 3 days of my life back! :D So, I shall now bow out. Call it childish, but I simply don't find any reason to keep this rather heated discussion going. I'd defend my points, but again, they are opinion, and I'm never going to convince you since you hold different ones. Thus, my case is made, and that's all I came for.

Space Kitty

08-05-2003, 04:16 PM

Look at TV. Look at a popular programme - Will And Grace. A show like that would have never aired even 15 years ago to such success, because people are finding the gay man less threatening.

Will & Grace is to homosexuals what Amos 'n Andy was to black people. If by "acceptance", you mean that people find their antics humorous, and they can be the butt of a joke, I agree.

Condiment King

08-05-2003, 06:24 PM

Will & Grace is to homosexuals what Amos 'n Andy was to black people. If by "acceptance", you mean that people find their antics humorous, and they can be the butt of a joke, I agree.

Wrong. He's talking about actually being able to be AIRED on television. (Example: Three's Company, a sitcom with two girls and a guy living together aired in the 80's and was met with tons of hate mail daily, but still was a hit)

Heck, here's another, All in the Family aired in the 70's with a freakin' disclaimer. The show debated hot topics in the government and a world of other mediums, with a seriousness and hilarity at the same time.

Nowadays, a Three's Company clone wouldn't get a second thought. Yet, if a Will & Grace clone aired in the 80's, I bet you 10 bucks, it'd be immediately cancelled.

James

08-05-2003, 06:53 PM

You haven't. The point is, this whole issue comes down to simply opinion. There's really no consistant logical argument that I've seen. When it is applied to another case, it no longer is valid. That was the whole point of the pedophile debate. You have stated your opinions, I have stated mine. And really, I don't feel any need to apolgize for what I believe. You can take it or leave it.

My point is the pedophile debate is nothing similar at all - from the outset. And then you ask me to address specfic issues regarding pedophilia. They are not the same Bob - ask most people here and they'll agree. I know you don't see it, but this isn't a moral judgement. It's an issue of human rights - which entails equal rights for all humans whose actions do not harm another. A pedophile - regardless of motivation or sympathy in effect will harm a minor. That's how it stands. That's how it is. Go blue in the face that morally it leads to legalising pedophilia, but history has shown that giving lawful people equal rights (women/race/slaves) has not brought about such changes to illegal acts which harm people. This is the difference here. Western society - whether like it or not - does not tolerate any act which harms another. Active Pedophilia harms minors. Letting homosexuals marry will no more bring the walls down that any other movement in the past for equals right.

I don't agree it's subjective as you've offered no valid points whatsoever to go against the fact that homosexuals have the same rights as hetrosexuals. You arguments have fluctuated from condoning the fact in some essense they can marry already (so therefore whats the issue?) to saying they can't marry because it's a sin (which as I've said there is little proof that Jesus even said such a thing) to saying that they can't marry for family issues (which is an adoption concern not a marriage one) to even adopting reasons on pedophilia you don't even believe in. You fluctuate from one reason to the next! The only concrete reasons you offered I've answered fully with no decent reply. You like to attack peoples opens but don't like to defend your own.

That, and, even for a geek, this argument still owes me 3 days of my life back! :D So, I shall now bow out. Call it childish, but I simply don't find any reason to keep this rather heated discussion going. I'd defend my points, but again, they are opinion, and I'm never going to convince you since you hold different ones. Thus, my case is made, and that's all I came for.

Your case I've barely seen and after three days - your actual case (the post you made before this) seems to me to be amazingly weak. I don't mean that disrespectfully. I've just spent three days patiently explaining my standpoint. I finally see your opinions - which I've answered in full - and they are not as strong as I hoped. You won't even answer the points made against them on the grounds you've wasted three days.

Sorry, but it feels I've wasted three days answering ALL your queries. You've had to do little explaining, just asking. Now when you finally display your opinion, you bolt. I have no intention into trying to rile you into replying, I've just been very disappointed in the methods you seem to employ.

Your case made? Only in the sense of a defender not having to answer to the prosecutor. I've done my time answering to you. Cases are only made once cross examined. I see none of that. Bow out if you will. It is up to you to do so. I'm not entirely surprised you have I'm sorry to add. I've had these arguments before - as you may have guessed.. :p

James

08-05-2003, 06:55 PM

Will & Grace is to homosexuals what Amos 'n Andy was to black people. If by "acceptance", you mean that people find their antics humorous, and they can be the butt of a joke, I agree.

Will And Grace has a very strong gay following. It doesn't make 'fun' of homosexuals. It shows to very strong and likeable homosexual characters. This is a good role model. Hopefully we'll progess to having some serious shows with gay leads. We move at baby steps however. No one said we are a tolerant society - as proven in this thread - but we are on the way.

Exposure and likeable characters make Will & Grace a firm role for the gay community. The fact it's accepted by heterosexuals at all in any way is a move forward.

Space Kitty

08-05-2003, 07:30 PM

You can look at it any way you like, but that show is mostly about bufoonery. The real drama and seriousness only comes from the hetero cast.

BTW, Thanks for clearing things up and announcing your "victory" in just about every post. Simply proclaiming something does not make it true. If that's the case, I declare that all of my arguments and tjose like them have all the merits, and those opposed are ridiculous and not worth acknowledging.

Wrong. He's talking about actually being able to be AIRED on television. (Example: Three's Company, a sitcom with two girls and a guy living together aired in the 80's and was met with tons of hate mail daily, but still was a hit)

And Amos and Andy was met with little hate mail. Your point?

Heck, here's another, All in the Family aired in the 70's with a freakin' disclaimer. The show debated hot topics in the government and a world of other mediums, with a seriousness and hilarity at the same time.

Apples and oranges. All in the Family was a basic sitcom, albeit with racy issues, whereas the whole premise of W&G is gay.

I think it's time to bow out of this too. If bringing up sitcoms is what people are reaching for, then it's over. I win!

James

08-05-2003, 07:49 PM

You can look at it any way you like, but that show is mostly about bufoonery. The real drama and seriousness only comes from the hetero cast.

Not at all. It's not a serious issue. If you meet someone on a date - you have fun before you get serious. I think this show introduces homosexuals as fun characters - people who are none threatening who are happy with who they am. That's very important in establishing understanding between gay and straight communities. We let another show move to the seriousness. Again it's all baby steps. No one expects people to suddenly adapt to a philosophy they aren't comfortable with.. change comes slowly. All about baby steps. Anything worthwhile takes time. It's a good start.

BTW, Thanks for clearing things up and announcing your "victory" in just about every post.

I never proclaimed victory. I said for all LB's deconstructive analysis of people like myself and Bob had said (3 pages worth) he made very little attempt to allow his argument bare scrutiny. I don't think there was anything that which couldn't be immediately counter.

Again, like LB, you have a tendancy to make a claim (that I cried victory - I never did) and then mock it as if I did say such a thing. I didn't. I was very disappointed that he decided to back out straight after offering his POV. I wasn't basking in 'victory' I was disappointed with his lack of defence.

Simply proclaiming something does not make it true. If that's the case, I declare that all of my arguments and tjose like them have all the merits, and those opposed are ridiculous and not worth acknowledging.
I think it's time to bow out of this too. If bringing up sitcoms is what people are reaching for, then it's over. I win!
It was a small example of a far larger issue. If that's what you attach importance to, then yes. 'you win'. Not quite what you think you're winning though... :)

SNS

08-05-2003, 08:35 PM

Why do you keep saying "it hurts minors"? He gave you a case where it wouldn't hurt a minor & you ignored it completely.

James

08-05-2003, 09:23 PM

Why do you keep saying "it hurts minors"? He gave you a case where it wouldn't hurt a minor & you ignored it completely.

On the contrary, my point was to address the fact there are numerous cases where it DOES hurt minors. The fact that it practising pedophila hurts minors is enough.

You've been too vague for me to address any specific point I've 'ignored'. I am a post missing until a beta 5 bug in the forum can be resolved. That would be the only reason it would seem I've 'ignored' an issue. A complaint unfairly leveled at me IMO as I've answered and addressed every question to the best of my ability.

Again, you leap to a point which has no relevance to gay marriage no more than any other crime has. Explain how it has more relevance than any other crime. It is a crime to commit pedophilia. Homosexuality is not a crime. That is a big divide and any fear of equality of homosexuals leading to extra rights to pedophiles is unfounded. I assume that's your point as you've not actually explained your personal concern.

SNS

08-05-2003, 09:34 PM

The one where he talks about a Pedophile getting their hands on a picture not meant for Pedophila (meaning the kid wasn't forced to do anything).

James

08-05-2003, 11:02 PM

The one where he talks about a Pedophile getting their hands on a picture not meant for Pedophila (meaning the kid wasn't forced to do anything).

What do I think? In what context? What do I morally think? What do I practically think? You mean do I think we should slam done all the doors wailing cries of thought police?

As the law stands I believe that unless a pedophile acts on his urges in a way that affects a minor adversely (pictures taken for pornography - intent to become intimate with a minor) the law upholds the pedophiles human rights. So in fact, it's moot once more.

I've noticed those who are against gay marriage are very prone to hypothetical questions rather than practical ones. I mean it as no offense, but few of the questions I've been asked have been grounded in what really is going on.

Crimes of pedophiles are dealt with under the law. They have no practical bearing on gay marriage. I repeat it for all who are just slightly deaf. :D No practical bearing. ;) Homosexualty does not and should not have criminal status (in places where it does) as it harms no one. It's an act of consenus. Just like hetrosexuality. Therefore, they should be given the same rights as hetrosexuals.

For those who fear the future and look to the past - look into historical documents and you'll see the same arguments levelled at me for slavery/race/gender equality. None of them have destroyed the world - they made it people better for lawful citizens.

I have said it before but these are the key areas which make this argument relevant and they get ignored for questions on Will And Grace and the legitmacy of pedophilia! :p It's enough to drive a man mad! :) So apologies for my tongue in cheek, it just all bewilders me!

Lucky Bob

08-06-2003, 12:04 AM

Your case made? Only in the sense of a defender not having to answer to the prosecutor. I've done my time answering to you. Cases are only made once cross examined. I see none of that. Bow out if you will. It is up to you to do so. I'm not entirely surprised you have I'm sorry to add. I've had these arguments before - as you may have guessed.. :p

Wrong. In every thread on this discussion, nobody I've seen has had the guts to examine the logic behind the homosexual rights movement. In other words, you've never been truly "cross-examined." You want to accuse me of having fluctuating reasons? Okay, fine. I thought it would be painfully obvious, but it looks like I'll have to spell it out. Here's the arguments I listed earlier, along with the contradictions I've learned from y'all.

"Sexual orientation cannot be helped!", unless they are deemed unlawful, harmful, or perverse by us.

"Rights should not be denied based on one's sexual acts!", unless they are deemed unlawful, harmful, or perverse by us.

"Government should keep out of the bedroom!", but not too far, seeing as how unlawful, harmful, or perverse actions may occur.

So, basically, what you are saying is that you have no problem deciding which sexual orientations are wrong, based on your own criteria, and you have no problem doing to them what you wouldn't want done to the homosexual community. From the standpoint of "fairness", you are guilty of the exact same thing you accuse "homophobics" of! You're making judgments that are not soley based on objectivity, but on personal preference and values! Is that wrong? No. But it is wrong to make it sound like your position is based on total "fairness". Sometimes, fairness falls short, and this is one of those times.

Thus, seeing as how we are in the same boat in the realm of "fairness", it all boils down to personal opinion, which really can't be effectivly debated. I didn't set out to prove your opinions wrong, I simply wanted to expose them for what they were. Opinions. Everyone can judge from that what they wish. But now, both sides are given equal treatment, since they operate on equal grounds. I think it's important to let the people decide from there.

As for "declaring victory", I've had people tell me all through this thread that my arguments were "irrelevant", "old-fashioned", "out of gas", and "a logical fallacy". It's the old L.A.S. in place again. If you don't agree, just discredit it without any in-depth look. But when I finish what I set out to do, I'm somehow a bad guy. Love a double standard. ;)

Anyhoo, again, that's all I have to say. I hate to keep repeating myself, but my point apparently hasn't sunk in yet. This whole debate isn't based on a uniform standard for human rights, fairness, and objectivity. It is based on personal opinion for what should, and should not be allowed, based on personal criterion by each individual.

Oh, sorry, there is one more thing. The title of this thread should be "Gay Marriages". Not "Marriges". That's been bugging me for a while.

James

08-06-2003, 09:22 AM

Wrong. In every thread on this discussion, nobody I've seen has had the guts to examine the logic behind the homosexual rights movement. In other words, you've never been truly "cross-examined." You want to accuse me of having fluctuating reasons? Okay, fine. I thought it would be painfully obvious, but it looks like I'll have to spell it out. Here's the arguments I listed earlier, along with the contradictions I've learned from y'all.
You need to offer an argument - not imply one. Your building blocks were there, but nothing was ever woven together - aside from your seven points which I answered to no come back."Sexual orientation cannot be helped!", unless they are deemed unlawful, harmful, or perverse by us.
Never said that. You've been desperate for me to say so. Sexual orientation cannot be helped. Pedophilia - which can be founded in hetrosexuality or homosexuality is a preference not an orientation. Can it be helped? I don't know. But that is why it differs. A pedophile is either a homosexual, bi-sexual or hetrosexual. This is whats known as a base sexual orientation. They are sexually aroused by children - that is not a sexual orientation - it's a sexual drive. From here IMO is where your argument collapses slightly.

"Rights should not be denied based on one's sexual acts!", unless they are deemed unlawful, harmful, or perverse by us.
Yep. If your sexual acts harm no one - and are consensual, then they you should have a right to enjoy your sexuality in piece.
"Government should keep out of the bedroom!", but not too far, seeing as how unlawful, harmful, or perverse actions may occur.
I don't think the government has rights to decide what is improper in the bedroom unless it's potential harmful to another. That's where the law comes in.So, basically, what you are saying is that you have no problem deciding which sexual orientations are wrong, based on your own criteria, and you have no problem doing to them what you wouldn't want done to the homosexual community. From the standpoint of "fairness", you are guilty of the exact same thing you accuse "homophobics" of! You're making judgments that are not soley based on objectivity, but on personal preference and values! Is that wrong? No. But it is wrong to make it sound like your position is based on total "fairness". Sometimes, fairness falls short, and this is one of those times.
This has been answered above. So no. I have no issue with people who are aroused by whatever. But with interest in children it's a responsibilty of the man to keep his urge under control. I think that's fair. As you can see, my argument isn't based on personal feelings towards a group (pedophilia is a disgusting crime in my opinion - but as you can see, that doesn't affect my reasoned outcome).

Again, the whole point falls short - and again you seem to be more interested in proving my social and political values are weak rather than dealing with the issue of Gay Marriage. Does everything have to revolve around politics and social standpoint with you? I can understand it in threads about political arguments (which you handle very well) but this isn't really about liberal vs rightwing. I'm not here to prove that because you are right wing it means your argument is void, I'm just pointing out weakness in your argument that you may like to assess. Must be the liberal in me coming out there..Thus, seeing as how we are in the same boat in the realm of "fairness", it all boils down to personal opinion, which really can't be effectivly debated. I didn't set out to prove your opinions wrong, I simply wanted to expose them for what they were. Opinions. Everyone can judge from that what they wish. But now, both sides are given equal treatment, since they operate on equal grounds. I think it's important to let the people decide from there.
I won't comment on this as I think I made my point above.As for "declaring victory", I've had people tell me all through this thread that my arguments were "irrelevant", "old-fashioned", "out of gas", and "a logical fallacy". It's the old L.A.S. in place again. If you don't agree, just discredit it without any in-depth look. But when I finish what I set out to do, I'm somehow a bad guy. Love a double standard. ;)
Funny. No one has ever 'declared victory'. You and Space Kitty have made a false assumption based on no facts whatsoever and then mock me for it. As for comments on your threads. As I explained patiently, your view is old fashioned (in reference to the biblical points) - now being old fashioned doesn't make it invalid, but it is an older view. You do have logical gaps in your argument you've yet to address. In the end you can't take quote from a variety of issues and say they are all focused on 'discrediting you' - especially since your views have come up about 4 times in the last four pages and the last 4 pages have been myself defending my position.

As for saying you are a 'bad guy' again - I never said that - Again you brandish yourself and declare I implied that.

What I said, was that I was disappointed that after grilling me repetatively, when it comes to actually explaining your standpoint you make your points and run.

You seem to like to deconstruct other peoples but when it comes to people breaking down your own you seem to get angry or disappear. That's not a 'victory' for me - on the contrary - it seems I've wasted my time trying to answer all your questions if you weren't to do the same in return.Anyhoo, again, that's all I have to say. I hate to keep repeating myself, but my point apparently hasn't sunk in yet. This whole debate isn't based on a uniform standard for human rights, fairness, and objectivity. It is based on personal opinion for what should, and should not be allowed, based on personal criterion by each individual.
If you write an essay, you'll get a low mark if you leave it just to personal opinion. You have to seperate that out with objective and logical evidence to back it up. This is what the issue is here. We know what you think about homosexuals. You know what I personally think. The point of a debate is, if we are to voice such righteous opinions either way, to back it up with realistic reasons and evidence to why we think in such a way.
So no, it's not just about personal opinion - like any good debate. There are many 'good' forums out there you can got to if you want 'personal opinion'. Be warned, you may have to tolerate 'KoRn sux' and BriTne Rulz' rather a lot.. ;)Oh, sorry, there is one more thing. The title of this thread should be "Gay Marriages". Not "Marriges". That's been bugging me for a while.I couldn't agree more. :)