|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Maybe you should consider the fact that your posts are long and difficult to understand before you start accusing me of strawmen. Here's a hint - if your post is longer than one entire computer screen top-to-bottom then we're not going to read all of it. And I do mean none of us. I always read all of everyones posts especially if I am activly involved in a conversation with them. In particular I always read holmes' posts no matter how long because he tends to have some of the most well constructed arguments in the entire forum. Seriously, how do you justify your responses if you can't claim to have read the whole post you are responding to? This is the exact same problem holmes and I were having with Faith in the other thread. She refused to acknowledge the entire content of our posts and therefore was reduced to a completely transparent ignorant position. I also enjoy many of your posts. You also often have posts of very high quality. I just can't believe you would say something like the quoted above. How you do expect your fellow forum members to take you seriously after saying something like that? No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: Even if homosexuality was the biggest sin in the world, discrimination is sin. Christ said that he without sin may cast the first stone. This message has been edited by Chris Porteus, 08-20-2005 12:58 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Well I sure am blushing. Thanks Jazz and let me return the compliment. I also read your posts as they have very well put together arguments. And they have the added benefit of being more concise.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Is the purposeful act of displaying an adult's genitals to a child such an act? I don't know. As a child I saw both my parents' genitals and I don't feel that constituted molestation. The question would be if he was suggesting the "display" simply for the pleasure, or purpose of display. He was clearly not suggesting that at all. It seems he was suggesting what you yourself describe as not being molestation. This may be a bit semantical, but he was describing exposure to and not display of.
He doesn't, apparently, even consider that it would be possible for a dad to want to display his penis for sexual gratification, despite the fact that he's normally so hyper-sensitive to sexual "deviancy". That means nothing. It suggests nothing, besides his not equating simple nudity within the home with sex. As you yourself have now admitted this happens, it is not sex, and you were not harmed.
Apparently we agree that there's a context where the display of a penis to a child is a sexual act of molestation. Dobson doesn't seem to think so, or else he would have mentioned it. Or actually not mentioned it - he wouldn't have said anything about the showers at all. Actually we do not agree on this at all. There is a context where a display may be sexual, and it may be abusive/offensive, however mere display never rises to the level of molestation. In any case, just because some people in life take advantage of a situation, does not mean that all references of that situation must come with caveats, nor the situation shunned and never spoken of. Again this is where you are running a slippery slope. You first move from correlation to causation, and from that to overcaution such that life is viewed as nothing but potential hazards. Such logic would eventually turn on gays.
Maybe you should consider the fact that your posts are long and difficult to understand before you start accusing me of strawmen. Here's a hint - if your post is longer than one entire computer screen top-to-bottom then we're not going to read all of it. And I do mean none of us. If they are difficult to understand then you simply should not respond. That is not only the courteous thing to do it is the honest thing to do. Brad's posts are almost always beyond me. I simply don't reply, unless I know what he is talking about. Length is not necessarily a determining factor of anything, particularly your equation. Some posters often have posts longer than that and even get POTMs. Apparently someone is reading them. In any case this claim here is completely fallacious. Your strawman was built after much shorter posts of mine where the pertinent points were made. My comments about family being important, as well as Dobson's own position, were not just in a lengthy posts. FYI, as soon as you feel the need to speak on behalf of others, that is generally the sign that you have lost. In this case no one has sided with your position, so why you are claiming allies I have no clue. This was one of Rrhain's major mistakes, move your game higher.
Oh, and point me to the "no harm in child sex" thread you were talking about. I will bump it for you. However I wonder at this point why I should. It is very long, and I admit in that thread that my OP is lengthy. And it has significant numbers of links to supporting material, which itself is lengthy and perhaps difficult. Now other people did read it and liked it, but if you say you can't handle such things, then what is the point? This message has been edited by holmes, 08-20-2005 04:42 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Oh, and point me to the "no harm in child sex" thread you were talking about. Here is the link, though I also bumped it for your convenience. I will mention once again that it is very long and filled with links to lengthy and complex material. Unfortunately that is the nature of actual science and historical accuracy. If you cannot handle that, then perhaps it is not for you. I am already a bit less hopeful given that you strawmanned me again by saying "no harm in child sex". There are indeed cases where sex with children can very well cause physical and psychological harm, just as that would also be true for adults. ANY human activity has the potential for harm and abuse. The point was that there is no evidence to support that children are inherently harmed by any and all sexual activity. It might be wise to stop "gathering evidence" against my position until you have read and understood the OP. Some may be undercut by the research in my OP. And in any case, if you are gathering evidence against a strawman, so much the worse. Read carefully, including the research, to find out if the research was valid and the study's conclusions warranted. Only if not, then carefully look for counterevidence, and construct a counterargument. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The point was that there is no evidence to support that children are inherently harmed by any and all sexual activity. I don't recall that being my position. After all, it's possible to engage in vaguely sexual acts - like purposefully displaying your genitals to a child in the shower - that probably aren't all that traumatic to a child.
I am already a bit less hopeful given that you strawmanned me again by saying "no harm in child sex". My apologies. Now that I've read (and posted to) the thread in question, I see that that's not what it's about at all. I used a bit of shorthand and in doing so misrepresented the point of your OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: That is inaccurate. A very slight majority of voters voted for Bush. By my math, that means that just under 33% of US adults voted for Bush. That is hardly a majority of adult US citizens, and you must remember that people who actually turn up and vote are not a random sample. Here's my info source from the US Census.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: WOW! Talk about a great spinmiester! The religious homophobes who constantly characterize homosexuality as a sin, shameful, disgusting, and criminal, and have aren't the ones using the issue as a political wedge, it's the liberals who want to extend secular equal rights to everyone regardless of what some people believe is their right to deny them solely because of their religious beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Tal.
We didn't have 100% turnout in the last presidential election, remember? Just under 33% of eligable voters voted for Bush. That's hardly a majority of Americans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Let me add that most racially pure white Americans don't want their kids to grow up and get married to a nigger, and so are in one respect fundemantally in agreement with Christian White Supremicists in that respect. They may be more tolerant of white men getting a little hot brown sugar for kicks, not think it is a sin, but if they could do something to help make sure their child marries someone of their own race by making interracial marrige illegal, most would do so, imo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Wow, isn't that amazing? The people you hang around with also think a lot like you do? Who would have thunk it? You think that because a small group of voluntary friends, family and aquaintances feel the same, therefore everyone else in the country feels just like you do? Let me also remind you that this only applies to those who feel comfortable telling you their views on this issue, many of which you cannot be certain of because there is certainly some intense social pressure to follow what everybody else says in your little world. Using your logic, the fact that something like 85% of voters in my town voted to allow gay marriage (and that's around 80,000 people voted in favor of it) allows me to believe that the rest of the country also shares this view! Damn, Tal, you are SUCH a typical small-minded American.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Amen to that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3924 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
randman writes: Let me add that most Americans don't want their kids to grow up and be gay, and so are in one respect fundemantally in agreement with Dobson in that respect. They may be more tolerant of homosexuality, not think it is a sin, but if they could do something to help insure their child's heterosexuality, most would do so, imo. Schraf writes: Let me add that most racially pure white Americans don't want their kids to grow up and get married to a nigger, and so are in one respect fundemantally in agreement with Christian White Supremicists in that respect. They may be more tolerant of white men getting a little hot brown sugar for kicks, not think it is a sin, but if they could do something to help make sure their child marries someone of their own race by making interracial marrige illegal, most would do so, imo. Let me add that most racially pure black Americans don't want their kids to grow up and get married to a white bread cracker, and so are in one respect fundemantally in agreement with Christian Black Bigots in that respect. They may be more tolerant of brothos gettin a little snowflake for kicks, not think it is a sin, but if they could do something to help make sure their child marries someone of their own race by making interracial marrige illegal, most would do so, imo. This is fun. All portions of our society deserve a voice, don’t you think?, lets keep ‘em coming. Asians?, Mexicans?, Atheists?, Gays and Lesbians This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 08-20-2005 05:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
It's interesting Shraf, and quite offensive to many African-Americans, that you equate the situation with homosexual Americans with the experience and plight of black Americans.
Black America was very much so (and still is in a far, far smaller manner) discriminated against in the worst possible ways, at least for America. The average homosexual earns more than the average heterosexual. The idea that America is discriminatory overall towards homosexuals is absurd. Now, I can agree that a few, small areas need to be addressed, namely things like visitation and life decision rights for "partners." It seems to me the civil union route satisfies those needs just fine. It also seems to me the issue has been seized upon to demonize traditional social conservatives that see homosxuality as a sin, and imo, that is deeply unAmerican and troubling because the whole effort to try to force people to adopt the exact same values is wrong, imo. The idea of America is that different factions could co-exist peacefully. The Left, imo, wants to remove that concept and demonize those that think homosexuality is a sin, and that's what's wrong. The implication is that if you think homosexuality is wrong, you cannot be tolerant of homosexuals, and that's totally wrong. Adultery and fornication are sins too, and preached as sinful just as much, but adulterers and fornicators are tolerated, but not by telling them it's OK. The push for gay marriage instead of just civil unions strikes me as a push to normalize homosexuality at the exclusion of conservative beliefs in the Bible, and moreover, more of a political campaign to demonize social conservatives. Imo, that's wrong. It's not analogous to civil rights for minorities because there is no codified and systematic discrimination, imo, against homosexuals, except in the ministry and even there, plenty of closet homosexuals seem to be proliferating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It also seems to me the issue has been seized upon to demonize traditional social conservatives that see homosxuality as a sin, and imo, that is deeply unAmerican and troubling because the whole effort to try to force people to adopt the exact same values is wrong, imo. The idea of America is that different factions could co-exist peacefully. That's crap and you should know it. Those who believe it's a sin are free to continue believing it's a sin. But whether or not it is sinful has nothing to do with the issue. No one has ever been able to show any way that a same-sex marriage can affect a bisexual marriage. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024