Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
25 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 20 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,949 Year: 21,985/19,786 Month: 548/1,834 Week: 48/500 Day: 6/42 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard thread #2
Taz
Member (Idle past 1630 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 136 of 168 (365517)
11-22-2006 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Silent H
11-22-2006 7:24 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
holmes writes:

Second consent is a bs smokescreen to the topic.


Please explain more. Are you saying that there is no difference between 2 adults of legal age having sex and an adult and an underage having sex?

He appropriately brought in NAMBLA against a position that another poster took.

No, he didn't. The "other" poster was talking about 2 consenting adults giving each other consent to have sex. There was no reason for him to bring in nambla other than to argue against people's right to give consent.

That's called a good debate technique.

It's not a good debate technique. It's poisoning the well by introducing a subtopic that has nothing to do with the conversation. I don't know what he hopes to accomplish, but sex between an adult and a child is called statuary rape. There was no reason to bring it up when you're talking about 2 adults of legal age other than to imply that gay people haven't the same consenting rights as the rest of us.

Holmes, this isn't some kind of philosophical la-la land. I've read enough of your posts to know your position on the underage and sex. This has nothing to do with it.


Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

The thread about this map can be found here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2006 7:24 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1630 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 137 of 168 (365518)
11-22-2006 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Coragyps
11-22-2006 8:52 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Coragyps writes:

For the eleventh time......

The Supreme Court, as an agent of our government, broadened the definition of marriage to include unions between persons of differing skin colors only 39 years ago. My son would have been a felon had he married KK in 1966. She would have been a felon, too, at least in sixteen states.

Marriage hasn't always been just "between a man and a woman." In my lifetime, it's been more restricted than that, right here in the USA.

I think this short little post by Coragyps is too important to be ignored. One of my cousins married an asian girl. It amazed me to find out that some in her family as well as mine frowned on their relationship simply because they came from two different cultures, and we're in the 21st century.


Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

The thread about this map can be found here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Coragyps, posted 11-22-2006 8:52 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 5:23 AM Taz has responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 138 of 168 (365539)
11-23-2006 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 1:03 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
NJ writes:

I can't exactly identify the moment of attraction for members of the opposite sex. It was a slow progression. I was pretty young though.

It's no different for gay people.

NJ writes:

Having desire for members of the same sex is the same as having a sexual desire for members of the opposite sex.

You've backtracked here, so I assume you concede my point as far a attraction is concerned.

NJ writes:

It doesn't make them right though, just as being attracted to another man's wife may be viewed in natural terms doesn't make you having sex with her, right. Do you understand?

No. This analogy is utterly flawed because you've introduced a third party. How can adultery be equated with the behaviour of two consenting people? Furthermore, do you not think that a man in a long term relationship with another man would be upset if his partner played away?

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 1:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 139 of 168 (365540)
11-23-2006 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 9:09 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
NJ writes:

Alright then. For the sake of the argument, suppose they aren't married. Suppose a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship is disrupted when the boyfriend decides to cheat on his girlfriend with one of her friends. There is nothing illegal about that, but we might be all in agreement that its messed up to cheat on your significant other with one of her friends.

This makes no sense at all! What on earth does this have to do with homosexuality? How does homosexuality equate to adultery?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 9:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4158 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 140 of 168 (365545)
11-23-2006 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Taz
11-22-2006 9:28 PM


my side fumbles the ball
I think I'm going to cut NJ a break from here on out. While I wholly disagree with his position, and I would normally continue arguing with him, the number of people ganging up on him with fallacious arguments has gotten my goat.

I will address your last post to me as well as this post supporting coragyps's argument.

Are you saying that there is no difference between 2 adults of legal age having sex and an adult and an underage having sex?

I didn't say anything of the kind. Neither did NJ. There are a myriad of differences one can look at to define anybody haing sex in some way from someone else... and from there to create a legal definition based on those definitions.

Appealing to current legal definitions is NOT appropriate for making an argument, particularly when the whole point is that laws need to be changed for the specific group in question (gays).

Less than 5 years ago homosexual sex was ILLEGAL. Thus at that time NJ could easily have argued "there is no difference between 2 adults of legal age and orientation having sex and an adult having sex with the inappropriate gender?"

Currently homosexual marriage is still NOT legal. We are wanting to change it. If we buy into the argument you just proposed then it comes back to hit us in the ass now. That is unless your entire argument consists of the arbitrary insistence we are always right and so get to decide when laws are to be taken as evidence for what should be the case.

No, he didn't. The "other" poster was talking about 2 consenting adults giving each other consent to have sex. There was no reason for him to bring in nambla other than to argue against people's right to give consent.

It really doesn't matter WHAT the other poster was talking about. It was the argument that he used which was in question. I could go further to point out how your (and his) position on the concept of "consent" is completely (and conveniently) arbitrary and could just as well be used by NJ AGAINST gays, but I don't need to in order to make my point on this...

It's not a good debate technique. It's poisoning the well by introducing a subtopic that has nothing to do with the conversation.

Its called a reductio ad absurdum. Its a valid technique and NJ employs it to good effect. It is not "poisoning the well" unless one assumes that one must be absolutely right and so in no need to answer his point regarding the argument.

I give NJ this credit, at the very least he allows some of his points to be questioned and he deals with them using some measure of logic. You and another poster appear to have no interest but to taunt and assume your own version of reality and morality can be used to judge all others in some objective fashion, such that logic is unnecessary.

Normally I wouldn't care, but you guys happen to be on my side of this argument and are really looking ignorant.

I've read enough of your posts to know your position on the underage and sex.

You may have read them, but at this point I doubt you have understood them. I mean what would this even mean regarding this current debate?

Let's assume you are ignorant enough of my position to believe I want no laws in place regarding sex with minors. I was pointing out the merit of NJ's argument against the other poster's. NJ clearly would want such laws in place, and on top of that does not like homosexual marriage (or sex), so my backing him wouldn't help my position (your strawman of it anyway) at all.

Further I did not in any way claim there were no ways around NJ's argument. The only thing which is NOT valid, is to simply appeal to current law. That is not argument it is merely a non sequitor.

I think this short little post by Coragyps is too important to be ignored. One of my cousins married an asian girl. It amazed me to find out that some in her family as well as mine frowned on their relationship simply because they came from two different cultures, and we're in the 21st century.

While I happen to agree with the Supreme Court decision which struck down anti-miscegenation laws, and would prefer more tolerance toward such relationships, Coragyps was errant in his statement about those laws.

The Supreme Court, as an agent of our government, broadened the definition of marriage to include unions between persons of differing skin colors only 39 years ago.

The Supreme Court did NOT broaden the definition of marriage. What had happened is that laws were brought into place to narrow the definition from what it was. The very makers and defenders of that legislation admitted in court that their definition was NOT the traditional social or legal definition of marriage. Their argument was that the traditional definition of marriage NEEDED to be changed for social reasons.

The SC rejected their changing of the traditional definition of marriage, especially as such marriages had already been enacted and so precedent. While surficially that decision appears to support gay marriage arguments, in reality it does not.

Gay marriage is a new concept and it is equally a change in the traditional definition. It raises the question (for some) of if a traditional social/legal definition can or should be changed, if other methods allow for equal legal protection?

Edited by holmes, : minor clean up


holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Taz, posted 11-22-2006 9:28 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Taz, posted 11-23-2006 5:33 PM Silent H has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4158 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 141 of 168 (365546)
11-23-2006 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 5:06 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
This may be my last post to you in this thread. You are in the position of getting nailed in many different threads, and so could probably use a break. Also, I find my "team" on this subject is resorting to some pretty piss poor argument skills, so my attention may be better placed elsewhere.

I am not interested in changing your mind about liking homosexuality, nor thinking that it won't make them (and I assume bi's like me) happy in the long run. While I think you are wrong regarding that latter portion, I can't argue about taste and that most likely will lead to your conclusions on happiness.

Here are remaining issues, perhaps to think about, rather than respond to...

If you were to include a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, then why not extend it to something else while were at it?

Well we very well could. That's been going on with language since the beginning of language. But leave that aside. You did not address my point. My focus was on your word "mockery". Broadening a definition could be accused of diluting it, but I don't see how one claims that it makes it a mockery.

I guess one could make that argument that since marriage is inherently a religious institution, that the government is infringing upon the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. At the same time, marriage has synthesized into sort of a catch-all. I think the government stepped in for reasons of legal indemnity and identity.

Well I would disagree that marriage is inherently a religious institution, but if that is advanced as the case then it does violate the establishment clause (I see no way around it). Appealing to to the fact that marriage has been synthesized into a catch-all only helps gay marriage activists. It is in fact why I see no problem with it myself.

I think for a group that wants so badly to achieve parity with everyone else and wants to not be treated differently should probably take their own advice and stop segregating themselves or highlighting their sexuality.

I'm sorry but religious people do the exact same thing with their lives. Not all but many. Same for many gays, but not all. Its the ones that are vocal that stand out, and form an incorrect image about the many others who are not that way.

When I was living within religious communities I saw a wide variety of religious people. Now that I am outside such communities pretty much all I see are the sterotypical fundie crackpots that can't shut up about their being Xian. Xian coming before everything else.

When I was firmly outside the gay community I only saw the stereotypical flaming crackpots that can't shut up about their being gay. Gay coming before everything else. Now that I am living (relatively) within the gay community I see a wide variety of gay people.

My thought is that you simply view it from a distance and so are getting the wrong idea.

Then how do explain homosexuals inventing their own websites? Gay Realty? What the hell does sexual preference have to do with realty? Nobody made it that way. They did that all on their own.

To be brutally honest I loathe businesses which are focused on a single facet of life which has nothing to do with the business at hand. Websites I don't care about, but there certainly are a lot of different businesses like that.

I'm not sure why you would slam only gays with this. Many minorities have such entities, and Xians do as well. Heck, religious biz's are being given the right to discriminate in hiring practices (something gay and other minority orgs CANNOT do), and that with federal contracting money. If you can figure out why Xians do it, then you will understand why gays do it.

That's a rather massive redwood you'll have to pluck from your eye first.

In fact, I've done nothing that might be considered as proactive other than having conversations like I am now.

Look, from the way you talk I don't think you are overtly doing anything to anyone. You simply seem not to like it, and think its unhealthy/unhappy/unnatural, whatever. But that is not what the much of the world is like.

I pointed out that you did not show pictures of adversity. Schraf gave some very real pix and as I mentioned (not sure if you saw my post to her) one of those people were beaten a short distance from where I live, and have also been threatened, and a TS was murdered. I happen to live in an extremely gay friendly city, and this is what happens.

You need to get more proactive in fighting discrimination around you when you see it. The tone exists that sexual minorities must be viewed as ONLY their sexuality and punished for it. Until that changes, things will not be "normal".

I don't think there are too many people that can slip underneath the 'gaydar' as far as I'm concerned. Its usually pretty obvious.

Heheheh... then you simply have no idea what gay people are like, or who enjoys it from time to time. I can't stand the flaming gay variety. Self-stereotyping of all kinds annoys me anyway, but they are pretty grating in particular. But there are many straight looking, acting, you name it, gays out there. They don't make a big production out of it... they just do it.

And how would you know, unless they did make a big production of who they are, and then that would fall right back into your criticism.

Intriguingly you don't want to be seen as the stereotypical Xian homophobe, yet seem to be arguing you can judge what gays are like on their stereotype.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that countless cultures over the span of thousands of years don't accept it for legitimate reasons?

This is where you are factually errant. While one can make the case that homosexual marriage was unknown in the manner you suggest, homosexuality (or homosexual sexual activity) has been acceptable.

It is true that many cultures have not accepted it, but then that's true of a lot of other activities as well. It seems to me that more have accepted it when viewed over time and global scales. The rise of Abrahamic sexual codes and their greater enforcement does not suggest anything about human kind in general. And nations using such codes have spread their beliefs by military force such that many cultures now follow sexual proscriptions which weren't their "natural" proclivity.

I would turn it back on you to ask why it has been acceptable to many cultures over time? And since it has, why can't it be now in our own? Truly what business is it of anyone else's?

No, but homosexuals do. That's my point. Even many homosexuals have conceded that they do

Then this is a contradictory position for you. If you DO believe that homosexuality is a choice then you should support their pride marches (according to your argument).

As for me I do not believe that people have full control over their sexual orientation at all. That said, I think people can adjust them to some degree. People can certainly choose to start having sex with members of their own gender. It can't be a sudden dive at the deep end of the pool, but given the right environment I think it can happen.

I also think people can train themselves away from their basic orientation, thus narrowing or switching their sexuality rather than broadening it.

However in any case I believe there will be limits. Despite being a practicing bi, I usually caveat that term. No matter what I might want and how often I am exposed to such encounters I have absolutely no control over facial types and bodies (and cocks) that I will or will not like. In my case I am so particular about faces (men's or women's) that I know I could not be fully happy in a gay relationship. Men's faces simply do not attract me in the same sexual way that women's do... or if so, only in extremely rare instances.

I do not see why it is impossible for a man to feel the same thing toward female faces or bodies and so never feel quite fulfilled in a relationship with a woman.

That's another thing I find disturbing about the whole thing. Its a political platform

This is another contradiction. First you said they are only meat fests, and now you admit they are political platforms.

If your position is that gay parades are political left demonstrations with a heavy dose of sexual openness/celebration, and people will use that as an excuse to party, then I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with you.

The problem is when you pigeonhole them as merely meatfests where the only thing they are showing interest in is sex.

Uhhhhhh.... What? I've read this over three times and I'm still not understanding what you are saying clearly...

I suggested that gays embracing the stereotype of absolute gayness do not go around killing other people. That would be in contrast to a religious zealot who in embracing that stereotype, would indeed end up killing people.

Your response was to list some serial killers that were gay. That seems errant as their killing had nothing to do with their gayness, or trying to play up the stereotype of being gay. In fact they tended to hate themselves for being gay and targeted gays.

When zealots play the stereotype, they embrace being a martyr who takes down enemies of God. I didn't make the world so don't blame me that one stereotype involves killing and one does not.


holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 5:06 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 1:44 PM Silent H has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5874
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 142 of 168 (365586)
11-23-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by crashfrog
11-22-2006 8:09 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Not any more than a rapist could. Having sex with a child isn't a lifestyle; it's rape. Children can't consent to intercourse.

But some would argue that homosexuality is just wrong. You are saying, and I agree, that pedophilia is illegal, therefore, its wrong. But homosexuality is illegal in quite a few nations. The issue then has to be viewed not only in a mechanistic view of the law, but the deeper message in moral terms.

NAMbLA makes the argument that they are just loving the children and feel that sexuality is just an expression of love. I think that's a crock, but hey, that's really the extent of the homosexual argument if you think about it.

You still haven't helped me understand what you mean when you say "agree with their lifestyle." Examples of people who want to rape children don't help me because that's not analogous to the desires of two consenting individuals to do something you don't like, that they don't expect you to like.

But why not? Children, technically can consent to having sex. The law steps in because it recognizes, and rightly so, that children simply don't have an understanding of the matter. You might be able to get a child to consenting to jumping of a bridge because they are typically more naive than seasoned adults. The law has to make a line of demarcation. For instance, is there a vast difference in the mental capacity of a 17 year old who is one day away from their 18th birthday, as opposed to an 18 year old who just turned 18? Obviously not, but there has to be some kind of demarcation for legal purposes.

Nobody's interested in your sexual orientation, which makes me wonder why you think you're being expected to become a homosexual yourself.

I don't think that.

And if that's not what you think you're being asked to do, why the focus on whether or not you "agree with their lifestyle"? What, exactly, would constitute "agreeing with their lifestyle"? Simply letting them be?

You don't agree with pedophilia, right? That doesn't mean you are expected to be a pedophilia because you don't agree with the lifestyle. I believe homosexuality is wrong for moral reasons in the same way you might object to pedophilia for moral reasons.

If you had been directly oppressed by those groups for decades? I'm sure you recognize the need to remain dispassionate, but I'm surprised that you believe you'd have no trouble doing so.

In my youth I thought it would be really cool to proactively seek racist groups and physically fight them. And so, I endeavored to find one such group. I thought I was doing a great service to the world by doing that. I no longer agree with that mindset. I realized that I was just like them, only at the opposite and extreme end of the spectrum. Yes, I'm still opposed to racism, but I think that kind of mindset just exacerbates the issue, not help it.

I don't know you that well but I'm pretty sure you're no Ghandi.

You're right, I am not a 115 pound east Indian man. :D


Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2006 8:09 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by RickJB, posted 11-23-2006 11:57 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 146 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 11-23-2006 12:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 2:20 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31764
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 143 of 168 (365589)
11-23-2006 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 9:09 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
The same question would apply. I cannot even fathom how you can equate a consensual act between two people that does not in any way violate the rights or even lives of anyone else with having sex with someone else's girlfriend.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 9:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 144 of 168 (365594)
11-23-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Hyroglyphx
11-23-2006 11:11 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
NJ writes:

NAMbLA makes the argument that they are just loving the children and feel that sexuality is just an expression of love. I think that's a crock, but hey, that's really the extent of the homosexual argument if you think about it.

So, as there are heterosexual paedophiles should heterosexual sex be outlawed? Of course not. Such an argument makes no sense, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Therefore all arguments on this subject should be limited to the dicussion of relationships between consenting adults.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 11:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6833
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 145 of 168 (365596)
11-23-2006 12:16 PM


People talking past each other.
Nemesis feels that homosexuality is wrong, and he has compared it to having sex with children. Taking him at his word, then, he feels that homosexuality is wrong for the same reasons that he feels that sex with children is wrong.

People are trying to counter this by pointing out that homosexuality concerns relationships between consenting adults while sex with children involves persons who are not capable of granting consent.

However, nemesis doesn't buy into this argument; in fact, I don't believe that he was unaware of this line of reasoning before he became involved in this discussion. So, the fact that homosexuality involves two consenting adults while child sex involves a minor who is, by assumption, unable to grant consent is, to nemesis, irrelevent. Clearly, to nemesis, if we take him at his word, finds that there is an essential similarity between homosexuality and child sex, and it is this common characteristic that makes them both wrong.

Why doesn't someone ask nemesis to give a detailed explanation why he feels that child sex is wrong? Perhaps that would illuminate the reasons he finds homosexuality wrong. Perhaps it will show inconsistencies with his approach (and thus provide ammunition for the pro-gay rights side); at the very least people would better understand his position and whence he is coming.

I don't think people use the word "whence" often enough.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 1:55 PM Chiroptera has responded
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 2:23 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 2627 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 146 of 168 (365598)
11-23-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Hyroglyphx
11-23-2006 11:11 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
chiroptera writes:

Why doesn't someone ask nemesis to give a detailed explanation why he feels that child sex is wrong? Perhaps that would illuminate the reasons he finds homosexuality wrong. Perhaps it will show inconsistencies with his approach (and thus provide ammunition for the pro-gay rights side); at the very least people would better understand his position and whence he is coming.

Tell us nj, why do you feel that child sex is wrong. Just explain you reasoning for this, stay on child sex do not equate it to anything else. Then, explain why you feel homosexual sex is wrong. Just explain the reasoning for this one, stay on homosexual sex again do not equate it to anything else. Finally show us how you equate one to the other.


Look to this day, For yesterday is already a dream. And tomorrow only a vision. But today We lived, makes every Yesterday a dream of Happiness and every tomorrow A vision of hope. Look well there to This day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 11:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5874
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 147 of 168 (365610)
11-23-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Silent H
11-23-2006 6:28 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
This may be my last post to you in this thread. You are in the position of getting nailed in many different threads, and so could probably use a break.

Heh... I'm used to it now. I'm a popular poster and usually have an avid following, probably because my expressed views are very unpopular. I guess I'm the guy they love to hate. Its probably time for me to bow out as well. Its beginning to degrade into something nonsensical and therefore, very unproductive. And as you said, I'm getting hammered everywhere.

Also, I find my "team" on this subject is resorting to some pretty piss poor argument skills, so my attention may be better placed elsewhere.

Ah, don't worry. They're allowed to feel the way they do. Besides, I viewed as individual expression of their thoughts and feelings, not a team sport.

If you were to include a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, then why not extend it to something else while were at it?

My focus was on your word "mockery". Broadening a definition could be accused of diluting it, but I don't see how one claims that it makes it a mockery.

I don't see that many homosexuals view marriage as important to their personal affectation. I see them viewing as an important beachhead to win in the overall war against traditionalism. If homosexuals could have something akin to marriage, just not called, 'marriage,' then what difference does it make? Marriage is between a man and a woman. There are thousands of years of rich tradition at stake here. Call that a sentimental argument, but I think its something worth fighting for.

There seems to be something else that really irks homosexuals-- and that's taxes. Currently, gay couples need to file separately because, unless they're married, the state won't legally recognize them as a couple. The tax bracket, "Joint property owned by husband and wife," does not allow homosexual unions eligible for that tax benefit. So, if they were allowed to have the state recognize their civil union, they could go on living in the same way as heterosexuals in every way. They'd be legally recognized as a couple.

Now, what is the problem with that?

Well I would disagree that marriage is inherently a religious institution, but if that is advanced as the case then it does violate the establishment clause (I see no way around it). Appealing to to the fact that marriage has been synthesized into a catch-all only helps gay marriage activists. It is in fact why I see no problem with it myself.

Marriage has been around as long as man first drew breath, so its hard to truly distinguish whether or not its inherently religious. But from what we know of tradition, dating as far back as the fertile mesopotamian region, man and wife were given a ceremony by a holy man. Even in the United States, marriage was always instituted by a Rabbi, Priest, Pastor, Reverend, etc. Its only been in the last 60 years or so that Uncle Sam became a justice of the peace.

When I was living within religious communities I saw a wide variety of religious people. Now that I am outside such communities pretty much all I see are the sterotypical fundie crackpots that can't shut up about their being Xian. Xian coming before everything else.

Wouldn't you expect as much from something that comes from 'choice?' People aren't born Christian, they have to be born again. But homosexuals claim they were born that way from the get-go. If that's true, why is that placed on a pedestal as if it were some sort of achievement?

I'm not sure why you would slam only gays with this. Many minorities have such entities, and Xians do as well. Heck, religious biz's are being given the right to discriminate in hiring practices (something gay and other minority orgs CANNOT do), and that with federal contracting money. If you can figure out why Xians do it, then you will understand why gays do it.

You keep glancing over the obvious here. Religion is a choice. So, when you see the "Jesus fish" next to a buisness in the phone book, that company is telling you that its Christian owned and that it takes an ethical stance to its buisness practices. But "Gay Realty" makes as much sense, from their own point of view, as "Asian Realty." It doesn't make any sense. Now, if homosexuality really is a choice, then it makes perfect sense to me.

I pointed out that you did not show pictures of adversity. Schraf gave some very real pix and as I mentioned (not sure if you saw my post to her) one of those people were beaten a short distance from where I live, and have also been threatened, and a TS was murdered. I happen to live in an extremely gay friendly city, and this is what happens.

Because its irrelevant. You and I both know that most homosexuals have never been so much as looked upon with contempt, rather than beaten. If we really want to go that route, I could post the story about how a Marine was gang raped by 12 homosexuals in Italy, or that Matthew Shepard's death has been advertised in excess far more than Jess Dirkhising. I think it is completely irrelevant to gay pride parades. Therefore, I don't see any need to mention that some people have been attacked for their homosexuality.

You need to get more proactive in fighting discrimination around you when you see it. The tone exists that sexual minorities must be viewed as ONLY their sexuality and punished for it. Until that changes, things will not be "normal".

That's just it though, Holmes. They aren't punished for it. Most are applauded for it. The times are changing fast, and I doubt you could say that the homosexual cause is losing the battle.

Heheheh... then you simply have no idea what gay people are like, or who enjoys it from time to time. I can't stand the flaming gay variety. Self-stereotyping of all kinds annoys me anyway, but they are pretty grating in particular. But there are many straight looking, acting, you name it, gays out there. They don't make a big production out of it... they just do it.

The hilarity of "flamers" is that its all a show-- an act. And yes, its grating. Equally grating, if not more, is the members of "godhatesfags." I've never more ignorance in my life. And of course, I get to be lumped into that leaven simply by default. Perhaps you feel the same way for being lumped in with the extremely flamboyant.

And how would you know, unless they did make a big production of who they are, and then that would fall right back into your criticism.

Roving eyes... Subtle gestures... There was one that totally caught me by surprise. I was at a bar a few years ago and I was playing pool with this older gentleman. He was cracking jokes and seemed to me like a widower that was just trying to get out and start to enjoy life again. Well, after about an hour or so, I had mention that I was getting hungry. He said he was too. So he offered to buy dinner. I thought, why not, he seemed a nice enough guy. Besides, he offered to let me drive his Porshe. (He was trying to grease the wheels). So, we get to a diner and I order. He said he was hungry not even 10 minutes ago, then decides that he's no longer hungry. After about 5 minutes of being in the restaurant, it became more and more apparent this guy was not the sweet old man he portrayed himself to be. Though he made me very uncomfortable with his bizarre questions, I ate and answered them. He then offered to take me to my truck which was parked only a few blocks away. That's when he made the move.

He puts his hand on my lap, and says, "I sure did have a good time tonight." LOL! I just nodded politely but I couldn't help being able to understand what a woman goes through many times in her life! I told him that I wasn't that way. So, he decided to up the ante and offer me money to take me back to his home so he could have his fun with his taut little sailor boy fantasy. Sorry pops, even if I was gay, it wouldn't be with you.

That was one instance where I had no idea.

Intriguingly you don't want to be seen as the stereotypical Xian homophobe, yet seem to be arguing you can judge what gays are like on their stereotype.

No, I'm just saying its usually pretty obvious who is homosexual and who isn't. I understand what you're saying though. You're saying, if they were gay but gave no indication they were, how would I really know. Your point is noted.

quote:
Doesn't it strike you as odd that countless cultures over the span of thousands of years don't accept it for legitimate reasons?

This is where you are factually errant. While one can make the case that homosexual marriage was unknown in the manner you suggest, homosexuality (or homosexual sexual activity) has been acceptable.

It was acceptable in Greece, Rome, and is acceptable in a few Middle Eastern countries. I know of no other civilization that has accepted homosexuality, especially way back then. You have to think, if it was so widely accepted in the past, why did it only get popular again in the last ten years or so?

I would turn it back on you to ask why it has been acceptable to many cultures over time? And since it has, why can't it be now in our own? Truly what business is it of anyone else's?

If you turn back time, you can make the connection between homosexuality and the fall of empires. I'm not saying that homosexuality is the root of the cause, however, what is the root, are liberal ideologues who can't live in their own tolerance. The acceptance of homosexuality in both Greece and Rome synthesized from pederasty. I could just turn the argument around on you that if pederasty was so prevalent and widely accepted, why can't it be again? These boys were better known as Catamites. They were essentially either boys stalked by men or they were sex slaves who had no choice in the matter. So, then, couldn't I make an even more condemning argument that not only did homosexuality begin in the empires under pederasty, as far as it being considered "cosmopolitan" is concerned, but also that it seems to have been the downfall as people are given over to their own salaciousness?

This is another contradiction. First you said they are only meat fests, and now you admit they are political platforms.

They're both. Why is that a contradiction?

If your position is that gay parades are political left demonstrations with a heavy dose of sexual openness/celebration, and people will use that as an excuse to party, then I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with you.

In a nutshell.

The problem is when you pigeonhole them as merely meatfests where the only thing they are showing interest in is sex.

Okay, its not only a meat market.

I suggested that gays embracing the stereotype of absolute gayness do not go around killing other people. That would be in contrast to a religious zealot who in embracing that stereotype, would indeed end up killing people.

Religious zealots embrace the stereotype of killing people? First of all, religion is so broad that you can't indict all of them. I would dare say that there are many Buddhist zealots who kill no one, while there are many Islamic zealots that kill lots of people.


Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 6:28 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 2:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4158 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 148 of 168 (365611)
11-23-2006 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Chiroptera
11-23-2006 12:16 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
Clearly, to nemesis, if we take him at his word, finds that there is an essential similarity between homosexuality and child sex, and it is this common characteristic that makes them both wrong.

Actually that's not necessarily so, though that is certainly one valid possibility. He could very well have two totally separate reasons for why each is wrong. Of course people can ask what are the criteria he uses but that does not get at his argument.

An argument was advanced for why something should be allowed. NJ used a reductio by showing that someone the poster might not want to allow freedom to do what they want appeals to the same argument.

The poster is then in the position to explain why that argument is supposed to hold for NJ, but not for the poster. It is really irrelevant why either hold the wrong to be that way, as it is about the nature of the appeal.

By simply appealing to the law to create a distinction, is to de facto create an argument that no laws can be questioned. As I pointed out above, less than 5 years ago... and currently in many nations... homosexuality was illegal. Would NJ have the ability to appeal to the criteria of that law? If not, then neither can posters against his position.

To get gay rights the argument was that the criteria of the law was not worthwhile and so they should be allowed their rights. NABMLA is most certainly making the same claim.

NJ has every right to question why those who like to shift criteria feel their criteria are above question, or definitive. If their's can be, so can his. A taste-test or popularity contest of criteria is insufficient to determine whose criteria is the proper legal definition.

As long as people argue that criteria are sufficiently established by their existence or popularity in a culture, NJ's position is supported regardless if his criteria. This is twice now that NJ is beating people using a reductio, and no one seems clear that's what's going on.


holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 12:16 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:31 PM Silent H has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 168 (365616)
11-23-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Hyroglyphx
11-23-2006 11:11 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
But some would argue that homosexuality is just wrong.

From what basis? If, in a free country, two adults can't consent to sexual activity with each other, what on Earth can they consent to?

You are saying, and I agree, that pedophilia is illegal, therefore, its wrong.

Apparently you didn't understand. Pedophilia is wrong because children can't and don't consent to sexual activity. Sexual activity against one's consent is rape.

But two adults can consent to sexual activity - even activities you may not wish to do. If they can't, what can they consent to?

I think that's a crock, but hey, that's really the extent of the homosexual argument if you think about it.

No, it isn't. Children can't consent to sex. Adults can. Can't they?

But why not? Children, technically can consent to having sex.

No, they cannot. Children cannot give consent. They can say the words, but they can't actually give consent. That's why it's rape to have sex with children.

You don't agree with pedophilia, right?

I don't know what that means. You still haven't explained it.

I think that the law justly prosecutes people who rape children. I think that the law unjustly persecutes two adults who have mutually consented to activities.

It's really hard to imagine how you could not see consent as the central issue here, but it seems like consent is always the last thing on a conservative's mind. Why is that?

I believe homosexuality is wrong for moral reasons in the same way you might object to pedophilia for moral reasons.

But two adults can consent. Thus, homosexuality is demonstratably not wrong in the same way pedophilia is. Consent is the key issue - not your personal preference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 11:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 168 (365617)
11-23-2006 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Chiroptera
11-23-2006 12:16 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
So, the fact that homosexuality involves two consenting adults while child sex involves a minor who is, by assumption, unable to grant consent is, to nemesis, irrelevent. Clearly, to nemesis, if we take him at his word, finds that there is an essential similarity between homosexuality and child sex, and it is this common characteristic that makes them both wrong.

Why doesn't someone ask nemesis to give a detailed explanation why he feels that child sex is wrong?

No. I'd prefer that he substantiate his position that consent is meaningless and irrelevant. Further, I'd ask him from what basis he would prosecute marital rape, since that's a sexual combination of which he approves and he finds consent meaningless and irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 12:16 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:33 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019