Harm in Homosexuality?

The Dread Dormammu writes:

quote:

---

Pedophilic sex is NESSESARALY wrong because children are inevitably harmed by it.

---

Yes, but why?

quote:

---

Even a "consenting" child should not be allowed to have sex with an adult because of the gross harm that would be done to the child.

---

But notice what you did. You put "consenting" in sneer quotes because, quite rightly, children can't give consent. Their brains aren't fully formed, they have a difficult time grasping the concepts of right and wrong, they have a hard time thinking abstractly, and are incapable of truly being able to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.Now, if an adult male and an adult female are capable of having sex with each other and have it be consensual, why is it any different if we switch out the male with another female?But everybody, note the attempt to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. I have to ask: Why is it that people who seem to find something wrong with being gay always jump to pedophilia or bestiality? What is it about two people of the same sex that leads one to sex with children or sex with animals that two people of the opposite sex do not?It is a completely invalid analogy and shows something very disturbing about the person who tries to make the connection. No, the claim of "I'm only trying to make a point" doesn't fly. How on earth does one get to child molestation from homosexuality if you wouldn't go to child molestation from heterosexuality? Are you seriously saying that the only analogy you can think of to compare to gay people are child molesters?

quote:

---

Homosexual sex, on the other hand, can be either right or wrong (as can Heterosexual sex) depending on the potential harm/good that can come from it.

---

The challenge, then, is to come up with something "potentially harmful" that is unique to homosexuality as compared to heterosexuality.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

The Dread Dormammu responds to me:

quote:

---

I am NOT equating homosexuality with Pedophilia.

---

Yes, you are or you wouldn't have brought it up. Are you seriously saying that the only analogy you could possibly think of to describe the point you are trying to make is pedophilia? That there is something that links pedophilia and homosexuality? Why is it whenever we talk about heterosexuality, pedophilia never comes up? Why is it that whenever a discussion about homosexuality comes up, eventually somebody will mention pedophilia or bestiality? What on earth is it about two people of the same sex having sex that makes people think that pedophilia has some possible insight into the question?Please explain to me why you thought that pedophilia of all things was a good analogy for your idea when talking about homosexuality? Of all the possible things out there, what on earth brought you to pedophilia?

quote:

---

I am only saying that what makes pedophilia wrong and homosexuality NOT wrong has nothing to do with genetic predispositon.

---

But you're still comparing gay people to pedophiles. What on earth made you think that pedophilia would somehow be germane to a discussion about gays? Yeah, pedophilia is wrong, but so is beating someone on the head with a hammer and embezzlement and torturing small kittens and a whole host of other things that you never seem to find being mentioned when people talk about homosexuality. No, it's always pedophilia and bestiality (with "having sex with a car" bringing up the rear). What is it about people of the same sex having sex that makes somebody leap to pedophilia as if that has any possible relevance to the question of homosexuality?

quote:

---

Ok what can we see from this quote? Well first off we see that I think there is NOTHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALITY.

---

Then why did you compare it to pedophilia?You see, a person can claim that they don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality and then they go and bring up pedophilia as if there is some sort of rational reason to do so. It's like trying to have a discussion about how to play bridge and someone keeps talking about rolling the dice since, after all, they're both games. I'm sorry, but dice games have nothing to do with bridge and pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. There is absolutely no reason to ever bring it up. You never bring it up when talking about straight people, so what is it that makes it always come along when talking about gays?You couldn't think of any other example?

quote:

---

What I was saying in my post. Was that a genetic predispostion has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong to act on the urges of that predisposition.

---

Fine.What does pedophilia have to do with it? How on earth is that possibly germane to a discussion about homosexuality? Of all the possible "genetic predispositions" you could possibly use to try and clarify your point, pedophilia was the one that came to mind?

quote:

---

My argument was a REBUTTAL to the "standard equating homosexuality with pedophilia" NOT a reprisal.

---

But you were the one who brought it up. Why did you think that pedophilia had some sort of bearing on the subject?

quote:

---

The only way I equated homosexuality with pedophillia was by suggesting that they both had a genetic component.

---

Irrelevant. Lots of other things have genetic components. Why did you choose pedophilia? What on earth could possibly be gained by equating homosexuality and pedophilia?

quote:

---

Let me also say that I also suggsted that HETEROsexuality has a genetic componet, all sexuality has a genetic component.

---

But you didn't equate heterosexuality to pedophilia. You equated homosexuality with pedophilia. If this discussion had been about heterosexuality, you never would have brought pedophilia up. Nobody ever does. But for some reason, whenever people talk about gays, somehow child molester and animal abuse miraculously appear as if there is some connection between the two.

quote:

---

I don't think that homosexuality leads to pedophilia or beatstiality anymore than I think heterosexuality leads to those things.

---

Then why did you bring it up? If there is no connection between the two, what on earth was there to gain by trying to connect them?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you seriously saying that the only analogy you can think of to compare to gay people are child molesters?

---

​

I would not say that, seriously or otherwise.

---

Then why did you bring it up? If child molesters have no connection to gay people, what on earth was the point of bringing up pedophilia in a discussion about homosexuality?

quote:

---

I bring this up not to quibble, but becase I don't think our side has realy thought through what makes homosexuality endorseable.

---

It is not our responsibility to do so. It is obvious that it is acceptable on its face, equivalent to heterosexuality which is accepted as innocuous.The burden of proof lies upon those who claim that there is something wrong with being gay. It is not up to us to show there is no harm. it is up to them to show there is.

quote:

---

Homosexuaity does not cause harm and is therefore not wrong, Pedophilia can cause harm and is theerfore not endorseable.

---

But why bring up pedophilia at all? Homosexuality does not cause harm and is therefore not wrong, period. End of discussion. No need to try and compare it to anything else except heterosexuality. If we were trying to find reasons to justify heterosexuality, nobody would ever bring up pedophilia, so why on earth are you bringing it up when talking about homosexuality? What on earth is it about abusing children and animals that immediately leaps to mind whenever people talk about gay people? What sick, demented thought process makes people consider that there is any connection at all between the two?It is a complete non sequitur.

quote:

---

When homophobic movments ask us "Where do we draw the line?" I think the answer lies in harm.

---

Fine.It is up to them to show there is harm.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zachariah writes:

quote:

---

And why doesn't someone take the time here to enlighten me with why homosexuality is good for us.

---

Because it is obvious. It brings joy and happiness to the world. All you have to do is look at the gay people and see that they are, well, gay.Why on earth would anybody want to stop something so beautiful?

quote:

---

Why added health benefit does homosexuality give us.

---

Because we are social animals who do better as a society when the individuals within that society are happy.Homosexuality brings happiness and joy to society. Why would you want to stop it? Are you anti-social?

quote:

---

Anone have answer for me?

---

Of course. You don't like it, but of course.Then again, you're not looking at the problem correctly. That homosexuality is a good thing is the default assumption. It is your burden of proof to show why it isn't. If you cannot come up with a reason, then we are left with our default assumption that it is good.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zachariah responds to NosyNed:

quote:

---

If it is the only method of intercourse for prolonged time. I say, yes.

---

And your evidence of this is what, precisely? Please note, Paul Cameron is not a valid source. There is no such thing as "gay bowel syndrome."

quote:

---

So is anyone here willing to open there minds to the idea that homosexuality is harmfull to society?

---

Only if you manage to come up with evidence that it is. The default assumption is that it is highly beneficial to society. After all, it brings joy and happiness to society and society functions better when its members are happy.It is your burden of proof to show that homosexuality doesn't actually do that.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zachariah responds to me:

quote:

---

Did you take the time to read pink sasq post #59 about how 60% (I think it was) of the gays in the study were suicidal.

---

Yes, I know that.You apparently forgot to continue on reading where it showed that the problem was not being gay but rather the homophobic society around gay people.You seem to be saying that it is the fault of the person who was shot in the head for having a skull capable of being penetrated by bullets instead of the person pulling the trigger.

quote:

---

quote:

---

obvious

---

​

to whom?

---

As many of my professors in college would say, "It is obvious to all but the most casual observer." I would change that to read, "...all but the most obstinate observer."Go to your local gay pride festival. Do those people look unhappy to you? They're in a loving, supportive environment where people aren't condemning them for who they are. Are you seriously claiming that this is some example of self-hatred and depression?

quote:

---

Are you actually speaking for me and the rest of the world?

---

Yes. Just because you insist that 2 + 2 = 5, that doesn't mean you're right. Therefore, your judgement is cast aside by mine since mine is based upon reality.Do you seriously think you are capable of telling gay people how they really feel?

quote:

---

You are arrogant enough to actually believ that because you believe homosexuality is good that everyone else does?

---

Your opinion about whether or not gay people are happy does not count because you are not gay. Only the opinion of gay people count when it comes to determining if gay people are happy. And if you listen to gay people, they are happy and fulfilled in their relationships with other gay people. When they are in loving, supportive environments and do not have to deal with homophobia surrounding them, they are fully productive members of society. Things only become a problem when those who cannot handle people being happy start sticking their noses where they don't belong and attempt to destroy what god has created.Again, you seem to be saying that it is the fault of the person who was shot in the head for having a skull capable of being penetrated by a bullet rather than the fault of the person pulling the trigger.When you rain on someone's parade, how is their bad mood anything other than your fault?Think about it...how good of a parent can you be when you are constantly having to fight to retain custody of your children? How good of an employee can you be if you are constantly worried about being fired if your boss finds out? How good of a neighbor can you be when you are constantly worried about having your property vandalized or being evicted? How productive a member of society can you be when you are constantly under threat of being shot at simply for holding hands with someone you love while walking down the street?How on earth is it gay people's fault when you're the one with the psychotic obsession?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zachariah writes:

quote:

---

Okay, I believe that socially homosexuality, AMONG OTHERTHINGS (ie... broken heterosexual homes, abusive homes and others of the like) adds to problems we see today.

---

You can believe that all you want, but we are demanding evidence. Since we find that gay people who are in loving, supportive environments are more productive members of society and that when society has productive members, it does better, you're going to have to explain how it is homosexuality adds to the problems we see today and not homophobia.

quote:

---

I believe (and studies have shown) that families with a mother and a father spawn children with less emotional problems.

---

First, it's "fewer," not "less." Pet peeve.Second, the studies also show that families with two mothers or two fathers spawn children with fewer emotional problems. In fact, we find that children of gay parents are actually more socially prepared than children of straight parents...it's that social training on how to tolerate those who are different from you.

quote:

---

I know, then 2 fathers are better than one?

---

Yes.When the State of Hawaii was trying to ban gay marriage, the State's own witnesses regarding the status of children raised in households headed by gay parents couldn't find any evidence that they did worse off than children raised in households headed by straight parents.

quote:

---

You can look at the problems we have today.

---

Yep. And homophobia is among the root causes of them. It's amazing how much better everyone is when you stop obsessing about what other people are doing with their naughty bits.

quote:

---

There is no family values anymore.

---

So please explain to me how breaking up loving families is going to solve this problem. Are you seriously saying that a child would be better off in an orphanage or in a single-parent household than in a family with two loving parents simply because those parents happen to be of the same sex? How does it help "family values" by stopping people who love each other from getting married? From inheriting their loved one's property? From visiting them in the hospital? From taking their children away from them? From kicking them out of their house? From firing them from their job?If you are so gung-ho for families, why are you doing everything you can to tear them apart?

quote:

---

I think the bigger problem is the Bisexual hipness that is going on today.

---

"Bisexual hipness"? (*snort!*) That's rich. Show me a single person who enjoys making out with a person they find sexually repulsive.

quote:

---

Porn has become trendy and so has bisexuality.

---

Right...engaging in behaviour that will ostracize you from your peers, possibly get you kicked out of school and sent to a "gender identity dysphoria" clinic where they will attach electrodes to your genitals in order to "cure" you...that's really appealing.

quote:

---

When there are pro-gay groups giving talks at schools about how to fist each other with MY tax dollars like they did at Tufts University (888webtoday.com [Dr. James Dobson])then that is a harm to me.

---

(*chuckle*)You believed Dobson? Let me tell you what really happened:GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) held a workshop entitled "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only Ages 14-21." And no, your tax dollars had nothing to do with it. It was sponsored entirely by private donations and registration fees. Neither the Massachusetts Department of Education nor the Governor’s Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth had anything to do with it. The reasoning for it was that since it is very dangerous for gay youth to ask questions in traditional sex education classes without revealing their sexual orientation, a private session for those youth who wanted information that would be relevant to gay youth would be beneficial. It would provide them a safe, accepting environment in which they could ask the questions they wanted answers to.The workshop started off with a discussion about dating and how this might be different for gay youth. As the attendees stated, it is hard for gay youth to go through the common experience of dating because to do so, you have to reveal that you're gay. You can't talk to your parents about it.They went into questions about physical activity and the common questions that youth have: Just what is "sex"? How do you know if you've had it? How do you know if you're a virgin? Given the heterosexual emphasis of most sex education courses, these are legitimate questions for gay youth since they will not have the penis-vagina standard to compare to. Note, this does not mean that the workshop said that oral sex wasn't sex. It is simply pointing out that while there is nothing that gay people do that straight people don't do, there are some things that straight people do that gay people don't.Later on, anonymous question were taken by the presenters. The questions were submitted on cards by the youth attending and were not instigated by the presenters in any way. Among the questions:

• Is oral sex better with tongue rings? P.S. I hope so.
• Cum? Calories? Spit versus swallow? Health concerns?
• What age do most GLB first have sex? Is it different from the age of straight kids?
• What is an anal ball?
• Should some kind of protection be used in lesbian sex?
• Women’s vaginal wall can expand to any dick size Can anal walls do the same?
• Are girls who primarily like guys and are only attracted to other girls sexually (not in the love-y) way considered bisexual?
• How is protection used in lesbian sex since it’s mostly oral, where does the protection go?
• My ex said she enjoys pain, what the hell is that about?
• What is fisting?
• Define fetish.
• What is lesbian sex anyway?
• How do I find out if someone is bi? Homo?
• What are the technicalities of transsexual and hermaphrodite sex?
• How long do you have to wait to get tested for HIV or any STD after the "act" is committed?
• A question on the ethics of oral sex: would it be considered rude not to swallow?
• Can you answer the fish question?
• Do lesbians rub their clits together? Is that even sex?
• How do GLB kids determine loss of virginity?

You will notice that among the very obvious questions that you would expect from gay youth about sex, some more "advanced" questions were asked. And this is where the fisting question came in.Note, the questions were rasied by the youth, not the presenters. Now the question is, how did the presenters respond? In response to the question about if it is rude not to swallow, the answer as proferred by the other youth was, "whether or not it's rude, it's good HIV prevention to not swallow."But the presenters followed the standard lines of sexual education that a person should not engage in sexual activity until he or she is ready for it and discussed ways to determine how you can tell if you are. They didn't talk about "abstinence" but rather "postponement." The idea, as someone at a school board meeting regarding sex education once said, "We don't teach our children about drug use because we don't want them using drugs. But we do eventually want our children to have sex." The idea is that it is a bad thing to make sex out to be something dirty or verboten. Instead, you point out that sex has some very serious consequences that can result, both physical and emotional, and that one should be extremely careful before engaging in it. There is no shame in putting it off until you're better able to handle it.So how did they handle the fisting question? By answering it honestly and accurately. First, they turned the question back on the students (remember the question about if it is rude to spit?) in order to find out what the youth thought fisting was. They then corrected the misconceptions and pointed out that while some people like it, most don't. There was no encouragement of the practice but simple, straightforward information about what it is and what it isn't.It seems, Zachariah, that you are under the unfortunate delusion that you know what happened at this workshop. Now that you know that you were lied to, how will your opinion change?For more information, see here: Context Matters: An investigation into the allegations contained in the article "Kids Get Graphic Instruction In Homosexual Sex State sponsored conference featured detailed sexual material"

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zachariah responds to me:

quote:

---

WHAT GOD HAS CREATED?

---

Of course. God made everything, right? God doesn't make mistakes, right? Therefore, god made gay people. God wants people to be happy. Therefore, god created joyful, happy couples in gay people.

quote:

---

Just because we have free will doesn't mean it is of GOD.

---

You're assuming that people choose their sexual orientation. When and how did you choose yours? Did you try having sex with other men before deciding that it wasn't for you? What kind of man turns you on?Question: If god came down and told you that it was OK to be gay, would you be able to have a loving relationship with another man?

quote:

---

quote:

---

prof says.."it is obvious to all except the most casual observers"

---

​

Have you ever had a professor say that "looks can be decieving"

---

No, because my profs were teaching us how to be good observers. It was, after all, Harvey Mudd: The #1 college of science and engineering in the nation.In other words, of course looks can be deceiving but the only thing we have to go on is our observations so we had better be good at it.As I asked you directly: Go to your local gay pride festival and take a look at the people there. Are you seriously claiming that these people are self-hating and depressed? That when gay people are in a loving, supportive environment free of homophobia, they remain emotionally broken?

quote:

---

quote:

---

just because you insist 2+2=5

---

​

Where?

---

Where you said gay people are emotionally broken people: Message 69: As I pointed out to you, you overlooked the conclusion that the problem was not the sexual orientation of the people involved but rather the homophobia surrounding the people involved.You are claiming that it is the fault of a person who was shot in the head for having a skull that is capable of being penetrated by bullets rather than the one pulling the trigger.When you rain on someone else's parade, the bad mood is your fault, not theirs. They were trying to have a joyful, happy time and you came along and pissed all over it.Why are you so obsessed over the sex lives of people whom you don't know, will never meet, and will never be involved with?

quote:

---

Cry me a river... all this what kind of a society if you have to worry about loosing your job, being shot at, poked fun

---

Right...losing your job or being murdered is just getting "poked fun" at.

quote:

---

I got news for you little man. That shit happens to EVERYONE

---

When was the last time you heard of someone being murdered for being straight?I do not deny that straight people are murdered. But straight people don't have the additional worry of being murdered simply for being straight. Anybody can get mugged, but you don't find straight people being subjected to drive-by shootings simply because they are straight.

quote:

---

I have my own problems in life

---

When was the last time you were shot at for being straight?By your logic, blacks shouldn't have been worried in the South of the 1950s since, after all, lynchings could happen to anybody and white people have their own problems in life, too.

quote:

---

I expect them to do the same and not force feed it to us by mandates and new laws and programs funded by people that don't agree with them but have no choice on where there tax dollars go.

---

It sounds like you're more concerned about governmental involvement in the romantic lives of the citizenry. After all, if these people weren't gay, they'd be getting married to people of the opposite sex and you'd still be paying for it.If we have two men and two women, how is there any differential tax burden if they pair up boy-boy/girl-girl instead of boy-girl/boy-girl? The tax break is because there is a couple, so why do we care who makes up the couple?You keep claiming to be pro-family, so why are you doing everything you can to break up families?

quote:

---

Those are some of the problems brought on by homosexuality.

---

Incorrect. You would have the identical tax burden if the couple were heterosexual rather than homosexual. Your problem seems to be that you don't like the government giving tax breaks to couples. Why do you care who is in the couple?

quote:

---

I believe they do harm to the people that don't agree with that lifestyle.

---

You can believe it all you want but wishing doesn't make it so. As I said before, Just because you insist that 2 + 2 = 5, that doesn't mean you're right.The problem is not the gay people but rather your psychotic obsession with them. If you are upset by the existence of gay people, then you need to stop thinking about them. It isn't like they're making you do anything you don't want to do. Nobody is forcing you to have sex with another man. Nobody is forcing you to marry another man. Your life doesn't change one iota if we treat gay people the same way we treat straight people.Question: What in your life will change if it turns out that the couple next door is Ms. and Ms. Smith rather than Mr. and Ms.?

quote:

---

We are forced to except and we won't. That harms me. There is your examples.

---

No, that isn't an example. That's an unsubstantiated claim. You claim there is harm, but you haven't given any example of how that harm is realized. How are you forced to do anything you don't want to do? Are you being forced to have sex with another man against your will? Are you being forced to marry another man against your will?Be specific. What precise harm is being done to you by the existence of happy gay people?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zachariah writes:

quote:

---

I say the gay with a gun in his/her mouth should drop the gun and read the bible before they assume it says they will burn in hell for their sins.

---

I've got a better idea.The gay with a gun in his/her mouth needs to kick the homophobic asshole in the balls, take that gun, and shove it down the homophobic prick's throat so that he can see what it's like.You seem to be saying that a person who was shot in the head is at fault for having a skull capable of being penetrated by a bullet rather than the person pulling the trigger.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zachariah responds to me:

quote:

---

Were you there?

---

Were you?

quote:

---

Why do you attempt to demean those of us who are not in agreement with normalizing homosexuality as homophobes?

---

Because those who think that there is something wrong with being gay are deficient, mentally unstable individuals who can be helped if only they would give up their psychotic behaviour and stop obsessing over the sex lives of people they don't know, will never meet, and will never experience if they don't want to.

quote:

---

Isn't that petty.

---

Since when is promoting families and advocating love and happiness "petty"? You said that you were for families and yet you sit here and tell us that the formation of loving families is a bad thing.

quote:

---

You are above that I would think.

---

Indeed. That's why I am doing everything I can to make you feel ashamed of yourself. You are doing a terrible, evil thing. You are destroying families. You have an unhealthy obsession. You need to stop panicking over things that have no effect upon you. Your happiness in this world is at stake. The sooner you stop getting worked up over what other people you'll never meet are doing with their naughty bits, the sooner you'll be able to live a more life-affirming, loving, joyful life.At the smallest level, you'll stop wasting your time here debating something that doesn't affect you. You say you have problems of your own. Imagine how much time you could invest in finding a solution to those problems if you were to stop wasting time here having apoplexy over the existence of happy gay people.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jazzlover_PR responds to me:

quote:

---

God forbids homosexuality because that kind of conduct goes against the natural use of our body as stated specifically in Romans 1 - 26,27.

---

Then I hope you are mute because the "natural use" of your vocal cords is to cough, not speak.And I hope you never use your penis for sex since the "natural use" of the penis is for urination.

quote:

---

Our shit hole has one single purpose, to take a crap.

---

Then the next time you're suffering from food poisoning and are so nauseous that you are incapable of ingesting anything orally since you will just throw it up immediately, I hope you remind your doctor that your "shit hole has one single purpse, to take a crap" and thus you will refuse that rectal administraton of Compazine. Never mind that you might die if you don't calm your stomach down...your ass is an exit, not an entry.And I'm serious about your penis being only for urination. That's the tip of your urethra there, buddy. It is a perversion of its natural use to have an organ of bodily excretion used for sexual purposes.

quote:

---

I apologize for my language but its the simplest way of saying it and everybody understands it.

---

Obviously not or anal sex wouldn't be so popular.

quote:

---

I guess AIDS are harmfull enough. But then again thats just me.

---

Well, since you're heterosexual, yes. AIDS is a heterosexual disease, after all. Three-quarters of all cases of AIDS were transmitted via heterosexual sex.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

That is a pretty solid analogy.

---

No, it isn't. Whether we call the food "Kosher" or "non-Kosher" is irrelevant as the argument is over whether or not we call it "food."And, in the end, you are arguing for "separate but equal." As we all know, this is unconstitutional and inherently unpractical. If two things are supposed to be equivalent, then we cannot trust every governmental agency to remember to include "civil union" every time they mention "marriage" and vice versa.It's simple logic: If two things are identical, why are you using different terms to refer to them? The only reason is because there is something different between them, which means they will be treated differently.

quote:

---

We are down to debates over the use of a name, and to be honest those who feel it carries a previous connotation (which allowing another group to share would seem odd) have a point.

---

No, they don't. People do not get to hold fundamental rights hostage simply because they want to play semantic games.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Tusko responds to me:

quote:

---

I could be wrong, but I don't think that the D D is equating homosexuality and paedosexuality (mmm... why doesn't that word exist?) in the way you feared.

---

But the point is that there is no reason to look at pedophilia in the first place. We're comparing homosexuality to heterosexuality. Where on earth does pedophilia enter into it? Why does changing the sex of the participants make anybody think of children? Why is it that whenever people discuss the morality of homosexuality, pedophilia inevitably comes up? What is it about two women having sex that makes people think about sex with children?You would never think of pedophilia when discussing heterosexuality in general, so why does it always come up when discussing homosexuality? Especially in a discussion comparing it to heterosexuality?

quote:

---

In the '50s, most people probably viewed them with similar disgust.

---

Irrelevant. Lots of things are generally considered disgusting, but that doesn't mean they have any connection. You would never bring up pedophilia when discussing heterosexuality, so what on earth makes someone think of sex with children when the topic is homosexuality?And the answer, of course, is that people seem to think that gay people are child molesters.

quote:

---

That's why bestiality and necrophilia

---

Stop right there! What on earth does sex with animals or sex with the dead have to do with sex with people of the same sex? You would never bring these up when discussing heterosexuality, so why on earth are you even thinking about them when discussing homosexuality?

quote:

---

I personally see incest as the next archaic taboo that should be tackled.

---

Gads, is there nothing you seem to think is connected to homosexuality? You'd never bring this up when discussing heterosexuality, so why do you bring it up when discussing homosexuality?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

Clearly keeping marriage with its original meaning and creating a new union with a different name defends the tradition without actually hindering anyone.

---

Incorrect. It hinders everyone who is being treated differently because some people are offended over the use of a word.You're arguing "separate but equal," holmes, and you know better than that.We are arguing reality, not theory, holmes.

quote:

---

It hurts because pretty much worldwide, in just about every religious tradition, there is no such thing as gay marriage.

---

So if I can show you Christian same-sex marriage, can we drop this specious argument? Same Sex Marriage in Premodern Europe by John Boswell.It even includes the Catholic marriage rites for same-sex marriage.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

It appears that you are saying because of such incidents you must now antagonize those that might support what you are willing to accept in order to beat those against gay rights?

---

Not quite. What it means is that those who claim to be supportive of gay rights really aren't supportive at all.

quote:

---

I don't think that is the right solution.

---

It's the only way to find out who truly is committed to equality and who is just a homophobe pretending to be supportive.

quote:

---

It is quite clear that gay marriage initiatives created to protest the opposition ended up polarizing citizens and riled many up to take a stance against more gay initiatives.

---

No, it isn't clear at all. Take a look at the actual voting results and compare them to what the opinion was beforehand.

quote:

---

Perhaps gay activists should be reaching out to the majority and undercut the radical right by working to get civil unions that are appropriate into law.

---

Thank you, massa! I'll be yo slave if yo be a nice massa and only whup me whuns a week!Holmes, state-sponsored "civil unions" provide no federal benefits and are not transferable from state to state. They are practically worthless.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to Lam:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't think so, not if we are talking about individual states.

---

​

I thought we were going to talk about reality. 11 states do not a nation make.

---

Um, holmes? You're not seriously saying that the only states that have anti-marriage laws are just those 11 that voted this year, are you?Out of the 50 states, 43 have laws that prohibit same-sex marriage explicitly and one, Wisconsin, doesn't have a law but a recent Supreme Court ruling and its attorney general say that same-sex marriage is invalid. That does make a nation. Only Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont don't have laws prohibiting same-sex marriage...though I'm giving Vermont the benefit of the doubt since they do have "civil unions," but they are not equivalent to marriage. Note, New Jersey has anti-marriage legislation pending.

quote:

---

That San Francisco effort, and then the threat of additional efforts across the nation, while appluaded by people that are gay marriage positive, and people like me that like civil disobedience, was actually counterproductive. That scared a lot of people that didn't need scaring. And it worked right into the hands of conservative agendas.

---

Bullshit. Most of the states had the laws already on the books. Those that did it did so in the great Hawaii panic back in the 90s. Remember the Defense of Marriage Act that Congress passed?

quote:

---

I think one of the largest bits of groupthink is that gay activists are missing the real point that marriage has a history and a connotation that really is important to some people.

---

Right. Marriage was between people of the same race. But that didn't stop the government from standing up for equal rights. You are using the same argument, holmes. If it isn't valid when it comes to race, why is it valid when it comes to sex?

quote:

---

Don't you get it that instead of being practical and realistic, this is being pursued with an all or nothing with us or against us mentality?

---

Because we're living in the real world, holmes, where it is all or nothing. If you don't get equality, then the only thing you have is lip service.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!