|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Harm in Homosexuality? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Crash and Zac. You can both watch how you're expressing yourselves. A bit more of that and you can learn to talk to each other in Boot camp.
I think in this exchange, Zac, you come off a bit worse but Crash hasn't been doing a very good job either. Besides, IMHO, you have both gotten to such extreme positions that you are both wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Have you heard what is going on in California. Yes, I have. Gay people are asserting their equal rights, and resisting the agenda of the religious right. Do you think that you could have addressed my points, maybe, instead of simply repeating your argument? Oh, wait. You called me names. I guess that's new.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm sorry, but what about my position did you find "extreme"? What did you object to about the way I "expressed myself"? I'll need examples, please, before I can rectify this behavior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zachariah Inactive Member |
asserting there rights
What about the kids rights? Do they get any? Or do you and the gay rights movement get to choose for them? "In Brookline, Mass. a transexxual was invited to a FIRST GRADE CLASS to give details of his sex change operation." "In Ashland Mass, children were assigned to play gays in school skits and were to say "it's natural to be attracted to the same sex" and girls held hands to portray a lesbian couple without prenotifying the parents." "At Silver Lakes High School in Mass. the 9th grade text teaches: "Testing your ability to function sexually and give pleasure to another person may be less threatening in early teens with people of your own sex." -http://www.exodusmandate.org/..._word_about_our_children.htm Yeah, froggy that doesn't sound like assertion of rights it sounds like forcing them to watch and read what the gays choose. They are brain washing the youth to go along with their lifestyle of "anything goes". No wonder you are so cool with it. Hell, you don't believe in God so what do you care. I can't believe we are fighting for people like you. -Z This message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-23-2004 02:16 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote:quote: No, it shows that your analogy is meaningless. You see, people have a sexual orientation. It doesn't matter what we call it. We are dealing with something much more fundamental.
quote: Irrelevant. Whether or not the society is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist, the fundamental issue is "food." Food is universal and applies to all living being regardless of their religious affiliation.
quote: Incorrect. That is exactly what we're talking about: There is a fundamental urge to pair-bond in humans. Whether we call it "marriage" or something else, we are referring to something basic.
quote:quote: What, pray tell, is different about the relationship between people that is dependent upon the sex of the participants? You're saying that gay people don't love each other the way straight people do.
quote: Incorrect. I've mentioned Boswell's book before. Same-sex marriage is quite old. The Catholic Church even has a rite for it.
quote:quote: Um, please explain to me how your arguing for "a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights" as something that is "possible" is not arguing for "separate but equal." Since we know that there is no way to ever have "a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights," how is that ever "possible"?
quote: The only way to do that is to treat them identically...which requires calling them the same thing. Whether that term is "marriage" or "civil union" is immaterial. However, the term needs to be identical or there will be legal discrepancies between the two.
quote: Right. Have you read the work? Have you read the text of the rite? To call it something other than "marriage" is to fall into the same semantic argument.
quote: Excuse me? A ritual of marriage between same-sex couples performed by the most traditional religion in the world is somehow not a "traditionally defined" marriage?
quote: Nice try, but I was not the one saying that finding a religious rite was justification. That was you. You were the one saying that there was no religious recognition of same-sex couples until recently and that that was justification to say that recognizing same-sex couples today is some sort of change to the "traditional" idea. Therefore, this example of a Catholic ritual recognizing same-sex couples that originated in pre-modern times and lasted for hundreds of years refutes your claim. That this is also justification for other things is irrelevant because I am not saying that your claim of "need to find a religious precedent" is correct. I am simply saying that since you find it to be a justification, then you have no claim to say that same-sex marriage is "modern." Burden of proof, holmes. You know better than that.
quote:quote: (*chuckle*) And just what, specifically, did I say about polygamists? Where did I ever say that polygamists shouldn't demonstrate? You seem to be confusing my statement that the justification for same-sex marriage is not applicable to polygamy since same-sex marriage does not change anything in the administration of marriage whereas polygamy necessarily does. The very first thing is simply to define "what on earth is 'polygamy'"? Do you mean hub-and-spoke or do you mean maximally interconnected?
quote: No, I don't recall saying that at all. Are you sure it was me? I have never said anything about polygamy and breaking the law.
quote: To paraphrase Inigo: I do not think I said what you think I said. There is no need to revise my stance since I never took any other.
quote:quote: (*sigh*) We're back to the insane, incarcerated, or in dire straits argument again. Can we stop trying to portray the outliers as if they were typical? Suppose there were a man my sister is married to such that no other state would ever dream of claiming that they're not married. Now, replace my sister with me. What possible justification could there possibly be to say that we wouldn't be married? It isn't because of age differences or familial relationships or mental status or anything else. All we've done is switch the sex of the participants. If we leave this to the states, we will never achieve parity.
quote: And since that will never happen, state-by-state declarations of "civil unions" are worthless.
quote: Actually, many of them did. That's why the lawsuits that originally happened (Hawaii and Alaska) were filed where they were: There were no laws on the books that prohibited same-sex marriage. Hawaii was chosen not only because the definition of marriage did not state the sex of the participants, but also because the Hawaii Constitution has an Equal Rights clause that says rights cannot be denied on the basis of sex. That's why everyone knew that the HSC was going to rule that same-sex marriage had to be allowed under Hawaii law and why they had to pass a constitutional amendment in order to stop it. You literally do not know what you're talking about, holmes.
quote:quote: Wait a minute...you just said that opposite sex was not mentioned in the law books. Now you're saying that it was. Which is it? And let's be honest here, race was mentioned in the law books as a pre-req. That's the entire point behind Loving v. Virginia. It was ILLEGAL to be a mixed-race, married couple in Virginia. They got married in DC, if I recall correctly, and Virginia tried to impose penalties upon them because of it. It wasn't that they simply wouldn't give you a license but rather that it was a crime to do so.
quote:quote: Non sequitur.
quote:quote: No: Yes and yes. If everybody thinks that something is inherent to everyone, then nobody bothers to make a point of it. Take abortion. You will notice that nobody bothered to deal with it at the founding of this country because at the time, it was legal. So long as it happened before "quickening," there was no question of the criminality of it: There was none. That was part of the argument before the SCOTUS regarding Roe v. Wade. The claim was that since the Constitution doesn't mention anything about abortion, it can't possibly be a right, but that's because nobody thought it was important enough to mention. As the old cliche goes, the Constitution doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law preventing a man from sleeping on his left side." Well, of course you can. It isn't mentioned because it's obvious.
quote:quote: "Separate but equal." Since it will never be equal so long as it is called something different, why are you arguing for calling it something different. Please tell me that this argument is not about you saying that there should be only one term but that you don't care if it is "civil union" or "marriage." I agree...whether or not the legal term for a contract between two consenting adults is called "civil union" or "marriage" is irrelevant. The important thing is that the term used for a mixed-sex couple must necessarily be the same term used for a same-sex couple. Otherwise, it's "separate but equal" which we know from long experience means they are not equal.
quote: But if you're calling the mixed-sex contract "marriage" and the same-sex contract "civil union," then they are not the same thing and thus you don't have the rule of law on your side. The only way to make sure that a same-sex marriage is legally equivalent to a mixed-sex marriage is to call them both the same thing. Whether that same thing is "civil union" or "marriage" or "blunderbuss" is irrelevant. The important thing is that they are called the same thing because the law will treat different names differently.
quote:quote: Non sequitur.
quote: You assume they agreed on the general aim.
quote: Indeed. There is also a thing called "Uncle Tom." When you are faced with an all-or-nothing situation, it is disingenuous to point out that other things are shades of grey. Things are equal or they are not. There is no inbetween. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: Incorrect. At the time of Loving v. Virginia, 16 states, nearly one-third of the nation, had miscegenation laws on the books. It was only in November of 2000 that Alabama finally got rid of its miscegenation law. And 40% voted to keep the ban. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: Well no, you don't have the same rights. That's why they're different. If you don't have a motorcycle driving license, you are not allowed to drive a motorcycle on the streets. Motorcycles have different rules to follow than cars. For example, in California, motorcycles are allowed in the carpool lanes. For a car, you have to have the stated number of people in the car. There are stretches of freeway in California where if you are an 18-wheeler, you must drive in certain lanes. Too, you have to stop at the weigh stations when they're open. If the laws were the same for all the vehicles, then the license would be the same. In California, for example, there is a difference between the M1 and M2. M2 only lets you drive a moped or a motorized bicycle. M1 allows you to drive any two-wheeled motorcycle as well as any M2-class vehicle. Even the process of application is different between cars and motorcycles: For a motorcycle, if you are under 21, you must take a CHP training course (and if you pass, you don't need to take the DMV driving test.) If you are over 21, you can either take the CHP course or take the DMV test. For cars, everybody over 18 needs to take the DMV driving test. There's a reason the legalese says, "Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." Those mean different things.
quote: True. But this isn't about "opinion." This is about the legal status of a contract. If they aren't referred to by the same name, then they are legally distinct and therefore not equal. If they were equal, they would be called the same thing. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: That's because we live in the real world, not this fantasy hypothetical of yours. If you could guarantee that every legal proceeding everywhere across the entire country into perpetuity would always and forever say "marriage or civil union," then you might have a case. In the real world, however, such a distinction cannot be made. And in the actual practice of law, even this hypothetical isn't valid. The law is predicated upon words. If you are using different words to describe something, then you necessarily mean that there is a distinction between them. Otherwise, legally, you would call them the same thing. So even if we could guarantee that every time a person wrote a law they said, "marriage or civil union," and even if we could guarantee that every law that currently exists was rewritten to read, "marriage or civil union," legally the two would not be equal precisely because you aren't using the same term to refer to them. Eventually, there would be an actual claim that there is a legal distinction between the two that must be recognized.
quote: That isn't the way the law works. By using different terms, you are legally saying that there is a distinction and thus there necessarily exists something that applies only to one and not the other. Otherwise, you would use the same term for both. There's a reason why it's "do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." Those terms do not mean the same thing.
quote: In other words, instead of fighting this battle and resolving it once, we have to fight it every single time a law is written in every single municipality, county, state, and national forum. So much for equal rights. If you have to keep fighting for them, then they aren't rights. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
If I understand what holmes is saying, one of the points he's trying to make is that to many, this is a good reason why. Yes, it looks like you have the crux. There are a few more complicated elements, for example regarding a worshippers logical inability to know or judge the actions of Gods, but the main point which stands against dread is the one you described. Thank you.
most Christians ignore this law, believing it was not meant to be eternal and God's reasons for it are no longer an issue. The ban on tattoos and sowing a field with mixed seed are similar examples. I think I've already addressed this point. It is totally appropriate to ask why there is a disparity in the enforcement of Mosaic Laws. It is just that that issue is not the focus of this thread... where we must assume for sake of argument the rule against homosexuality applies. Of course in a way this is a double edged sword. We may think this argument will make someone more openminded, but it may just make them realize there are more laws that they (and we) need to be following. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Why do you have a problem with this? Ho is providing understanding and knowledge tantamount to the denial of rights?
quote: And what is the problem with this? Is it wrong to tell kids the truth? Why on earth would or should the parents need to be notified, before or after?
quote: It sounds like responsible education teaching people about reality instead of some strange delusional version of what YOU and your fellow fanatics want the world to be.
quote: SO GO THE FUCK HOME. Youre fighting for oil, anyway, not any group or policy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 128 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
Oh dear. Again apologies. And now I bet I make things worse by attempting to justify myself again... but... I just can't help myself...
Honestly, I really don't think that paedophilia and gayness are connected any more than paedophilia and straightness; at least, that's what I THINK I think. Because its percieved as an aberant sexuality, paedosexuality is more interesting than plain old vanilla/strawberry homo/hetero. It's my fault for not starting up another thread to talk about it. Sorry.
Then why did you bring it up? 1) Can I pass the buck a little? It was Dread_D 2) I think the problem is that I always want to have the last word... so when someone else dusts off a favourite hobbyhorse of mine (i.e. all paedophiles should all be X, where x is usually something horrible involving pliers... which gets me angry even when I only see it implied) its very hard for me not to take the little critter for a spin. And of course, when I think that I've written the post to end all posts, it never is, so it goes on and on. I doubt that's placated you even slightly, but nonetheless I really do feel genuinely sorry for the slight. x
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: (*ahem*) You do understand the difference between a homosexual act and homosexuality, yes? By the logic you just provided, most everyone in prison is homosexual. You do understand that pedophilia is distinct from homosexuality and one cannot claim that a pedophile is homosexual simply by looking at the sex of the children who are molested, yes? Now, I can understand while the child can have psychological problems from same-sex molestation. Given the stigma attached to homosexuality and the feelings of having brought it upon oneself (both internally and externally claimed), I am not surprised that the victim of same-sex molestation may have some issues. But just because the molestation was carried out by someone of the same sex doesn't mean that the molester was gay. In fact, studies show that of non-family molestation, while girls are more likely to be the victims of "sexual abuse" overall, boys are more likely to be the victims of physical sexual abuse. That is, girls are victims of peepers and flashers while boys are more likely to be touched. This is not surprising given the way we treat boys and girls differently: We think nothing of sending our boys out alone with a non-family member while we hover like hawks over our girls. Boys are more likely to be touched because they are more accessible. And since pedophiles don't really see children as male or female, they don't view themselves as gay even when they are molesting children of the same sex. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Lizard Breath writes:
quote: Logically impossible. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Lizard Breath writes:
quote: Where does the Bible state that we are only supposed to procreate and that everyone is supposed to procreate? After all, if god meant for there to be a lot of people, then he would have created a lot of people. Instead, he created two and let the rest happen on its own. Where do you get off saying that this means that god meant only heterosexuality? Since god was content to let the procreation happen all on its own, why is it impossible for god to let the sexuality happen all on its own, too?
quote: Actually, we have a lot of say about that. Nutrition is key. You may have noticed that college students tend to be taller than the average person. That's because college students tend to have better nutritional histories than those who don't go to college (since good nutrition also boosts learning skills) and better nutrition means you are less likely to experience stunted growth. Remember: You're the one saying that unnatural = wrong. If you can come up with reasons why things that are unnatural aren't wrong, then you need to explain why homosexuality doesn't also fit this pattern (not to mention that you need to explain why homosexuality is unnatural). Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
General Nazort writes:
quote: Again, the US throws a loop in everything when you are trying to compare homosexuality and heterosexuality. It's pretty much the last place on earth where HIV is transmitted primarily by homosexual sex. Even Europe flipped over to primarily heterosexual vectors back in 1999. In other words, Africa is not atypical. It is the norm. It is the US that is the bizarre outlier. And, the US is following the rest of the world. Heterosexuals make up the only group of HIV infection vectors that are increasing. The only reason homosexual men make up the largest group of those with HIV in the US is because of the highly unusual state of HIV first coming into the US through the men-who-have-sex-with-men vector.
quote: Yes, please do. Infections among men who have sex with men are down. Infections among heterosexuals are up. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024