Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on June 06, 2014, 08:33:16 AM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/05/texas-gop-conversion-therapy_n_5454875.html
http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2014/06/first-draft-of-state-gop-2014-platform-has-revamped-planks-on-immigration-homosexuality/
The party sez: We are for small government, but think there should be a law preventing any restrictions on reparative therapy to enable people to escape from the homosexual lifestyle. Hmmm.
-
Gun folks look at me funny when I mention that Republicans are just as anti-freedom as Democrats. Just because they're committed to harassing a different sector of freedom doesn't make 'em any less anti-freedom.
-
We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin.
I see no issue with this statement. Do we need to grant special privileges to those who have same sex proclivities?
we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
So this is wrong because of why? Because some folks don't like religion and need the government to officially give them the legal tools to harass religious institutions and religious people?
We recognize the legitimacy and value of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment to patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.
While I'm not sure about the value of reparitive therapy some folks, even a tiny minority of gay folks want to keep that option available. Using government coercion to limit folks from having access is wrong why? The italicized portion unnecessary supports the therapy IMHO. Simply acknowledging it and protecting it from the leftist moralizers use of the government bludgeon would have been sufficient.
-
Are they endorsing use of rape, murder, arson, and rape so long as it's due to faith, conviction or traditional values?
Someone give Hedley Lamarr a call. =D
-
Are they endorsing use of rape, murder, arson, and rape so long as it's due to faith, conviction or traditional values?
Someone give Hedley Lamarr a call.
Christ Himself stampeded cattle on multiple occasions, once even indoors. Maybe that will be the new straight protest method at gay pride parades.
-
Are they endorsing use of rape, murder, arson, and rape so long as it's due to faith, conviction or traditional values?
Someone give Hedley Lamarr a call. =D
Sure, assault, murder, and destruction of private property are exactly the same as not approving the homosexual lifestyle.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/05/texas-gop-conversion-therapy_n_5454875.html
http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2014/06/first-draft-of-state-gop-2014-platform-has-revamped-planks-on-immigration-homosexuality/
The party sez: We are for small government, but think there should be a law preventing any restrictions on reparative therapy to enable people to escape from the homosexual lifestyle. Hmmm.
Gun folks look at me funny when I mention that Republicans are just as anti-freedom as Democrats. Just because they're committed to harassing a different sector of freedom doesn't make 'em any less anti-freedom.
Yeah, y'all are a bit confused. Restricting reparative therapy is the gov't intrusion. Were the GOP to insist (via force of law) on reparative therapy for the light in the loafers crowd, you would have a point. As it is, you have a soup sandwich, not an argument.
Outlawing such therapy makes as much sense as outlawing Alcoholics Anonymous or drug treatment programs(1).
Addiction Homosexuality is a complex but treatable disease that affects brain function and behavior.
No single treatment is appropriate for everyone.
Treatment needs to be readily available.
Effective treatment attends to multiple needs of the individual, not just his or her drug abuse homosexuality.
Remaining in treatment for an adequate period of time is critical.
Counseling—individual and/or group—and other behavioral therapies are the most commonly used forms of drug abuse reparative treatment.
Medications are an important element of treatment for many patients, especially when combined with counseling and other behavioral therapies.
An individual's treatment and services plan must be assessed continually and modified as necessary to ensure that it meets his or her changing needs.
Many drug–addicted homosexual individuals also have other mental disorders.
Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective.
Drug use Homosexuality during treatment must be monitored continuously, as lapses during treatment do occur.
Treatment programs should assess patients for the presence of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B and C, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases as well as provide targeted risk–reduction counseling to help patients modify or change behaviors that place them at risk of contracting or spreading infectious diseases.
OTOH, addiction and homosexuality both cause damage to the individual and those around them. And gov't regularly imposes drug/alcohol treatment in both criminal cases and in cases where they see the person as a danger to themselves and others (involuntary commitment to a mental health/addiction facility and such).
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html
Deaths: An estimated 15,529 people with an AIDS diagnosis died in 2010...
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes...
Is it reasonable for gov't to mandate alcohol treatment for alcoholics that hurt others, from a practical/pragmatic perspective? If "YES," are you willing to extend such to other activities with similar or greater externalities?
(1) Obviously Betty Ford was a human monster.
-
Oooh! In before the lock after someone suggests government-imposed therapy for gays! For the children and families, you know.
-
Rev and MillCreek,
Do you believe that it should in fact be illegal for a homosexual to seek reparative therapy, or for reparative therapy to be offered? Ignoring, for the moment the likelihood of success of such therapy and the likely very small number of people who would be interested in it. I'm not seeing how opposing government interference in consensual therapy is Republican statism.
I'm not arguing that Republicans as a whole are paragons of freedom and supporters of liberty, but I think you guys might be reading into the platform a bit more than was actually said.
-
^^^Working in healthcare as I do, I am not a major fan of using the law to impose the political flavor of the day on what should be shared decision-making on healthcare issues between provider and patient. Unless a very compelling clinical argument, based on the reputable medical consensus, can be made that a particular health intervention is so dangerous or lacking in clinical benefit that it should be outlawed. So from that standpoint, I do not advocate for laws to ban things like reparative therapy or the ability of providers to ask about firearms in the home, to pick examples designed to equally irritate all sides of the political spectrum.
Having not done any research, I do not know if reparative therapy is considered a valid therapeutic approach or quackery. If a particular therapist and patient believe it may be helpful, is not dangerous to the patient and worth a try, I say go for it. The healthcare system, through professional discipline, already has a mechanism to deal with things that are considered quackery, and I generally do not believe more laws are needed in this area.
-
^^^Working in healthcare as I do, I am not a major fan of using the law to impose the political flavor of the day on what should be shared decision-making on healthcare issues between provider and patient. Unless a very compelling clinical argument, based on the reputable medical consensus, can be made that a particular health intervention is so dangerous or lacking in clinical benefit that it should be outlawed. So from that standpoint, I do not advocate for laws to ban things like reparative therapy or the ability of providers to ask about firearms in the home, to equally irritate all sides of the political spectrum.
Having not done any research, I do not know if reparative therapy is considered a valid therapeutic approach or quackery. If a particular therapist and patient believe it may be helpful and worth a try, I say go for it. The healthcare system, through professional discipline, already has a mechanism to deal with things that are considered quackery, and I generally do not believe more laws are needed in this area.
Seems fair to me, but that being the case I'm not seeing where the actions their platform calls for are in opposition to your own views on the matter. Nor is it hypocritically supportive of Big Government as you seem to imply in your original post.
-
Gun folks look at me funny when I mention that Republicans are just as anti-freedom as Democrats. Just because they're committed to harassing a different sector of freedom doesn't make 'em any less anti-freedom.
I agree with that statement. This story is in no way an example of that.
"Those damn Republicans want to keep the government from restricting certain medical procedures? What statists!!!" ???
-
I agree with that statement. This story is in no way an example of that.
"Those damn Republicans want to keep the government from restricting certain medical procedures? What statists!!!" ???
This. In spades.
Some of y'all are exhibiting some pretty terrible logic
-
This. In spades.
Some of y'all are exhibiting some pretty terrible logic
A surprising number of folks lose any ability to reason coherently when the subject involves sex in general and homosexuality specifically.
-
A surprising number of folks lose any ability to reason coherently when the subject involves sex in general and homosexuality specifically.
Exactly. From the San Antonio newspaper link above:
Delegates have stripped language from the party’s plank on homosexuality that says: “we affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God.”
Clearly these people were not reasoning coherently when this language was inserted into the party platform.
-
This. In spades.
Some of y'all are exhibiting some pretty terrible logic
Yes, and why do some seem amused by the notion of prayer, or other means of helping folk to overcome the temptation toward sexual sin? In your bleak world is there no hope, or what would you advise?
-
Rev and MillCreek,
Do you believe that it should in fact be illegal for a homosexual to seek reparative therapy, or for reparative therapy to be offered? Ignoring, for the moment the likelihood of success of such therapy and the likely very small number of people who would be interested in it. I'm not seeing how opposing government interference in consensual therapy is Republican statism.
I'm not arguing that Republicans as a whole are paragons of freedom and supporters of liberty, but I think you guys might be reading into the platform a bit more than was actually said.
I was talking about the one rather ambiguous line in the middle.
Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. We recognize the legitimacy and value of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment to patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.
It's either badly phrased, which I hope is the case, or suggestive of supporting criminal activity of anyone that opposes homosexuality. I do apologize is the Blazing Saddles reference/joke was not adequately obvious as satire.
I would be upset if folks decided that politicians wanted to outlaw a type of therapy that folks willingly wanted to partake. I'd argue there are some substantial ethical concerns if the folks were being involuntarily treated, however. That's not covered either, which is smart on the GOP's part. That'd be my first question. In light of this platform, what is the official Texas GOP position on involuntary psychological treatment of homosexuals?
This isn't an idle concern.
It has been the goal of more than a few people to eradicate hell camps within the CONUS. They are often facilities run by quacks, sadists or charlatans for "troubled teens". It's not unknown for there to be fatalities involved as the 'counselors' are often untrained or poorly trained. Alternatively some people with questionable mental status gravitate to the work as it allows an extremely high level of authoritarian control, with little to no oversight, over youths and teenagers. Unsurprisingly, there's a good number of physical or sexual assaults. And fatalities.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20843_6-shocking-realities-secret-troubled-teen-industry.html
http://helpatanycost.com/
http://prospect.org/article/why-jesus-not-regulator
While I'm hardly a hardcore LGBTwhatever activist, I have ethical qualms about religious hell camps designed to isolate and 'reprogram' minors without any form of oversight, regulation or professional standards. They have existed for children that were 'troubled' (misbehaving), made independent or 'incorrect' religious or moral choices, homosexual or drug use. You won't think that one would treat minors with meth addition, agnosticism or homosexuality with the same program, but there are facilities that do. In case you think I'm out of my goard, google Lester Roloff, Victory Christian Academy, New Beginnings, etc.
Sounds like someone with pull wants to restart the Texas network, which has been shut down or driven overseas.
Fun times. Strings could tell you in detail about the sexual abuse that happens at such facilities. Joccasse would tell you about the mental control and conditioning. I know others that could detail the financial networks and the less reputable side-line activities of such camps.
-
Oooh! In before the lock after someone suggests government-imposed therapy for gays! For the children and families, you know.
Well, if you support gov't-imposed therapy for alcoholics and addicts, why not for whose pathological behaviors produce similar or worse externalities?
Oddly enough, here is where I landed:
1. I do not support gov't-imposed therapy for homosexuals.
2. Homosexuality has similar or worse externalities than alcoholism.
3. If not for homosexuality, than not for alcoholism, either.
4. Same deal for those substances targeted by the WoSD.
OTOH, I would support public health information and messaging campaigns similar to those against the use of tobacco/alcohol/illicit drugs. Do we, as a nation, care so little for the health of homosexuals and those harmed by their actions that we would rank them below drunks and smokers?
-
Oddly enough, here is where I landed:
1. I do not support gov't-imposed therapy for homosexuals.
2. Homosexuality has similar or worse externalities than alcoholism.
3. If not for homosexuality, than not for alcoholism, either.
4. Same deal for those substances targeted by the WoSD.
I am quite confused by the bolded text.
-
Wow. For someone to say that homosexuality has similar or worse externalities than alcoholism. I don't know of many bicyclists killed by someone driving gay, to cite one example near and dear to my heart.
-
I was talking about the one rather ambiguous line in the middle.
It's either badly phrased, which I hope is the case, or suggestive of supporting criminal activity of anyone that opposes homosexuality.
Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Poorly worded, sure, but I took this as expressing opposition to the people who sue a baker who refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, or whatever. I didn't take it that they were trying to protect anti-gay lynchings.
I do apologize is the Blazing Saddles reference/joke was not adequately obvious as satire.
My response was directed at your first post which - while completely accurate as a general rule - did not seem to apply in this case.
I would be upset if folks decided that politicians wanted to outlaw a type of therapy that folks willingly wanted to partake. I'd argue there are some substantial ethical concerns if the folks were being involuntarily treated, however. That's not covered either, which is smart on the GOP's part. That'd be my first question. In light of this platform, what is the official Texas GOP position on involuntary psychological treatment of homosexuals?
Sure, involuntary "treatment" of homosexuality is a Bad Thing under most circumstances. That said, it is kind of a leap to go from "don't outlaw this" to "BECAUSE WE PLAN TO SHOVE IT DOWN YOUR THROAT!"
As to "hell camps", I don't doubt that there are some evil places doing evil things out there. Where such camps utilize, encourage or tolerate torture, sexual assault, murder, neglect and other criminal behavior they should of course be held responsible.
However, when it comes to parents trying to unGay their kids (or convict them of a particular faith, or get them off drugs, or teach them to be communist, or whatever), regardless of the efficacy of their strategies or my personal feelings about the end goal, so long as they don't resort to otherwise criminal behavior I'm not generally inclined to champion government intervention. If they cross that line, then that's another story.
-
If the argument that reparative therapy is wrong/harmful to children because it forces them to deny what they are, then why isn't "gender re-assignment" attacked also? If you are born with dangly bits and the DNA to match, surgically altering yourself to resemble a girl is denial as well.
If a child is confused about his sexuality, why does it always have to default to "not heterosexual"?
-
I am quite confused by the bolded text.
The damage and/or consequences not to self, but the damage caused to others when one indulges in pathological behavior.
Easiest measure is dead bodies, as those are pretty easy to count.
For those who drink, the easiest measure is alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths. For those who practice homosexuality, the easiest measure is AIDS-related deaths.
I linked and quoted some data upthread:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html
Deaths: An estimated 15,529 people with an AIDS diagnosis died in 2010...
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes...
These stats in no way capture the totality of the two pathologies, but they to give an idea as to both the size of the problem and the relative severity (alcohol abuse vs homosexuality).
Wow. For someone to say that homosexuality has similar or worse externalities than alcoholism.
Means they are not innumerate. The test of Life has a math component.
Besides, are deaths due to AIDS somehow less worth preventing than motor-vehicle (or bicyclist) deaths due to alcohol abuse? That is pretty harsh, even if you are not likely to be at risk your own self.
-
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
The CDC says there are approximately 88,000 alcohol-related deaths per year. Other than your HIV deaths statistic, which as I am sure you know is not limited only to gay people, what other gay death numbers do you have insofar as they compare to alcohol?
-
The party sez: We are for small government, but think there should be a law preventing any restrictions...
Ya know, the second amendment is a law meant to prevent restrictions. =)
-
Having not done any research, I do not know if reparative therapy is considered a valid therapeutic approach or quackery. If a particular therapist and patient believe it may be helpful, is not dangerous to the patient and worth a try, I say go for it. The healthcare system, through professional discipline, already has a mechanism to deal with things that are considered quackery, and I generally do not believe more laws are needed in this area.
It's quackery, and I think the plank is intended to force the healthcare system to ignore that quackery, sort of like forcing healthcare to cover acupuncture and homeopathy. RevDisk put it far better than I could, but the general results I found was that with 'reparative therapy' the chance of death* is higher than the chance you'll get a straight individual out of it. Given that being homosexual isn't a fatal disease, I'd be extremely hesitant to have anybody go through something more likely to kill them than to fix the 'problem'.
*Suicide, direct abuse, and there has even been cases of death due to dehydration. One 'therapist' really liked sweat lodges as his 'treatment'. To the point of locking people into saunas for multiple hour periods.
However, when it comes to parents trying to unGay their kids
No legitimate treatment has been developed to change somebody's sexual orientation. The 'best' that has been done is push people into repressing/hiding it, with the side effect of a massive increase in suicides.
If the argument that reparative therapy is wrong/harmful to children because it forces them to deny what they are, then why isn't "gender re-assignment" attacked also? If you are born with dangly bits and the DNA to match, surgically altering yourself to resemble a girl is denial as well.
Gay brains are different (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/22/ST2008062202006.html). The brains of transgender people (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html#.U5Kp5CggLCM) tend to be more similar to the sex they identify as than to the body they have.
Now it gets complicated. We're a LOT better with plastic surgery(make the outer match the inner) than we are at brain surgery(make the inner match the outer).
The damage and/or consequences not to self, but the damage caused to others when one indulges in pathological behavior.
I have a problem with considering homosexuality as 'pathological'. What harm does it do to the individual/others that isn't imposed by our own society?
For those who drink, the easiest measure is alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths. For those who practice homosexuality, the easiest measure is AIDS-related deaths.
...So the world loves lesbians? Besides, once the transmission vectors for AIDS became known infection rates dropped for gay people to the point that HIV infects far more heterosexual people today.
-
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.htm
lolz
-
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.htm
lolz
Linky no worky. But I did find this:
Transmission Category Cumulative Estimated Number of AIDS Diagnoses, Through 2010a
Adult and Adolescent Males Adult and Adolescent Females Total
Male-to-male sexual contact 555,032 NA 555,032
Injection drug use 187,938 89,800 277,738
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 80,902 NA 80,902
Heterosexual contactb 77,521 136,675 214,196
Otherc 11,975 6,427 18,402
aFrom the beginning of the epidemic through 2011.
bHeterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
cIncludes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.
On the face of it, it would appear that homosexual contact and/or injection drug use (illegal I'm presuming) puts one at the highest risk of AIDS, with over 75%-80% of all cases from those activities, One does have to wonder about the heterosexual transmissions. How many we the result of prior drug use/homosexual activity from the male partner.
-
speaking as an AA member in good and bad standing depending on where I'm outstanding :rofl:
I am kind of tired of the courts sending drunk drivers to my meetings ....
in Reno we have a few gay dudes and a few lesbians ( in the meetings ) too - man i would love to raise a ruckus by comparing addiction to homosexuality ....
they get special elevated status and the liberals hang on their every word as if minority status automatically qualifies you for sainthood [barf]
it was my understanding that straight sex is less dangerous than gay sex are we sure that study isn't flawed?
-
it was my understanding that straight sex is less dangerous than gay sex are we sure that study isn't flawed?
Gay male sex is the most dangerous because of torn membranes and such.
Then Heterosexual relations
Finally, lesbians have the lowest STD rate going.
-
We have a HIV clinic, in the sense that we provide the space and staff, and the local medical school provides the physicians to run it. From my casual conversations with the staff, and not any review of the patient rosters or any other research, I get the sense that in this area at least, most of the new HIV infections are coming from injectable drug use. Sexual transmission is still a factor, both gay and straight, but it does not seem to be the top of the list.
I also know that with the new drug regimens, AIDS is now essentially a chronic condition that can be managed, like diabetes, and patients now have pretty much a normal life expectancy. This causes the providers some grief in that many people at risk for HIV now have the sense that taking precautions (safe sex or safe injection practices) is now no longer necessary since AIDS does not kill you any more. I have also heard that one explanation for the uptick in STI in the older population is the erectile dysfunction drugs: Grandpa can now get it up and both he and Grandma are out having fun.
-
No legitimate treatment has been developed to change somebody's sexual orientation. The 'best' that has been done is push people into repressing/hiding it, with the side effect of a massive increase in suicides.
I never suggested it was a good idea or effective. That said, given the highly politicized nature of this debate on both sides, I also have to question the biases and legitimacy of studies surrounding sexual identity.
The subject bears some more study, but intuitively I have concerns about parenting decisions (even those I disagree with) being made by government.
-
The studies on the alleged physiological differences between straight and gay/other people don't appear to be conclusive.
Regardless if a person is born with certain predilections or if they are learned, they choose whether or not to engage in them.
It is hard to imagine how anyone could be aroused by certain acts (pedophilia, beastiality, being defecated on, masochism, etc), but it apparently comes naturally to some. Those that are criminal in nature may result in incarceration and society attempts to rehabilitate the offender from their deviant behavior. Others non-criminal acts may even be generally accepted by society (promiscuity, homosexuality), yet some people choose to restrain their natural instincts for various reasons, perhaps religious belief or not wishing to damage a relationship by cheating on a spouse, for example.
Some people seem to be born with a propensity for addictions, yet many successfully undergo treatment to modify their behavior (including sex addiction).
It seems that any kind of weird behavior/thought process/belief system is supposed to be accepted as "normal", EXCEPT those who want to change/repress their same sex attractions. I respect everyone's right to be what they want to, though I reserve my right to consider them a freak or sleazeball. Those who choose to undergo reparative therapy should be afforded the same respect, LGBT agenda be damned.
-
The studies on the alleged physiological differences between straight and gay/other people don't appear to be conclusive.
Regardless if a person is born with certain predilections or if they are learned, they choose whether or not to engage in them.
It is hard to imagine how anyone could be aroused by certain acts (pedophilia, beastiality, being defecated on, masochism, etc), but it apparently comes naturally to some. Those that are criminal in nature may result in incarceration and society attempts to rehabilitate the offender from their deviant behavior. Others non-criminal acts may even be generally accepted by society (promiscuity, homosexuality), yet some people choose to restrain their natural instincts for various reasons, perhaps religious belief or not wishing to damage a relationship by cheating on a spouse, for example.
Some people seem to be born with a propensity for addictions, yet many successfully undergo treatment to modify their behavior (including sex addiction).
It seems that any kind of weird behavior/thought process/belief system is supposed to be accepted as "normal", EXCEPT those who want to change/repress their same sex attractions. I respect everyone's right to be what they want to, though I reserve my right to consider them a freak or sleazeball. Those who choose to undergo reparative therapy should be afforded the same respect, LGBT agenda be damned.
I can't help but agree.
I have a very addictive personality - I have managed to rid my self of some pretty awful addictions through prayer and hard work and honesty .
I think that most young folks currently are being done a disservice - and bet that they see this modern worship of gay and think its the easy way to be accepted and instead of questioning their instincts believe its easier to act on them ...
Cigarettes were an easy way for me to conform as a teen, quitting was incredibly difficult ....
A teen in SF or even a red state area like Reno can easily be fooled into thinking he/she is gay when really they just like being affectionate
An inebriated teen seeking affection may end up in bed with the same gender and believe that it was meant to be that way that they're wired different and they will have that quickly reinforced by liberals in school/media ....
In NYC I saw some kids that were just learning about life outside of home and saw how they decided they were gay - its like they were preyed upon by gays and turned - just like pimps will prey on young women and turn them into prostitutes ...
A 16 yr old I knew really wasn't gay - he was seduced by gays because they had food/place to live/drugs/alcohol/marijuana and this kid was basically living in the park after being kicked out of his home .... I bet he would have ended up straight if he had a normal childhood instead of having to fend for himself at 16 after not being taught any thing at home to prepare him for adult hood
-
I bet he would have ended up straight if he had a normal childhood instead of having to fend for himself at 16 after not being taught any thing at home to prepare him for adult hood
I happen to think people fall more along a spectrum than anything else. As such, you have the people who know they're gay from when they're 5ish, and there are those that, like you say, it's pretty much optional even as an adult. It's just that there are social pressures against being bisexual, ones even stronger than just 'being gay'.
As for the 16 year old, well, that's the same sort of thing that happens to a lot of 'gay' people who cover it up and deny it in order to appear normal to society.
-
Not to mention that in gunsmith's story, I wonder how often the older predatory people turn out to be heterosexual pedophiles.
-
^^^Working in healthcare as I do, I am not a major fan of using the law to impose the political flavor of the day on what should be shared decision-making on healthcare issues between provider and patient. Unless a very compelling clinical argument, based on the reputable medical consensus, can be made that a particular health intervention is so dangerous or lacking in clinical benefit that it should be outlawed. So from that standpoint, I do not advocate for laws to ban things like reparative therapy or the ability of providers to ask about firearms in the home, to pick examples designed to equally irritate all sides of the political spectrum.
Isn't that exactly what the new platform position is?
Having not done any research, I do not know if reparative therapy is considered a valid therapeutic approach or quackery.
Both. The answer depends on who you ask.
-
Not to mention that in gunsmith's story, I wonder how often the older predatory people turn out to be heterosexual pedophiles.
If they are older men preying on young boys, then by definition, they would be homosexual pedophiles. ;)
-
If they are older men preying on young boys, then by definition, they would be homosexual pedophiles. ;)
Not necessarily. These links explains some of the issues surrounding that very question.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/blog1.html
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
As with most of the research on this issue, done by both the left and the right, concerns over political bias come into play.
-
Finally, lesbians have the lowest STD rate going.
Really??!!
Thats hot! :cool:
-
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
The CDC says there are approximately 88,000 alcohol-related deaths per year. Other than your HIV deaths statistic, which as I am sure you know is not limited only to gay people, what other gay death numbers do you have insofar as they compare to alcohol?
Harm to self by one's actions is a definite concern. It is painful to watch friends/family destroying themselves by inches and unpleasant to see even strangers doing themselves in if one has any sympathy. But, practically, it is of much less moment relative to when those actions harm a third party. And as a public health problem, self-harm hardly justifies intrusive gov't measures such as involuntary treatment regimen.
Odd you only pick at the HIV-related death CDC statistic. For my own part, I see neither as definitive, but as broad indicators of absolute and relative severity. For example, how many of the alcohol-related vehicle deaths were ascribed to folk with BAC in the neighborhood of 0.08? We have seen in previous discussions that:
1. Such BAC impairment is similar to impairment caused by having children in the car, eating while driving, or having a conversation (with someone in the car or on a cell phone).
2. LEOs have difficulty properly detecting impairment at those BAC levels without the use of Breath/blood analysis (IOW, by mere observation).
It boils down to, "Are 10,000+/- deaths of others enough to justify involuntary treatment?" Does it much matter if the deaths are inflicted on non-drunks or those not yet infected with HIV?
scout26 linked to data showing the proportions of means of transmission.
It's quackery...
No legitimate treatment has been developed to change somebody's sexual orientation...
Besides, once the transmission vectors for AIDS became known infection rates dropped for gay people to the point that HIV infects far more heterosexual people today.
Legitimacy != efficacy. Legitimacy is a subjective judgement while efficacy can be measured objectively. Putin may not be the legitimate ruler of the Crimean Peninsula, but he is the effective ruler, determinations of legitimacy be damned.
Take a gander at the efficacy of drug/alcohol/tobacco treatment programs. Not inspiring. But drug/alc/tobacco cessation programs are "legitimate." Were I a betting man, I would bet that programs designed to cease homosexual behavior are about as effective. All are trying to do the same thing: alter complex human behavior that the subject finds pleasurable and continues to engage in despite the consequences. Those who try to cease drug/alcohol/tobacco abuse are fortunate in that contemporary society actively supports cessation, but those who try to cease homosexual behavior are engaging in "quackery."
Your last point is belied by the data. Heterosexual AIDS was always a minority and if one excludes IV-drug-using heterosexuals, the proportion gets even smaller.
We have a HIV clinic, in the sense that we provide the space and staff, and the local medical school provides the physicians to run it. From my casual conversations with the staff, and not any review of the patient rosters or any other research, I get the sense that in this area at least, most of the new HIV infections are coming from injectable drug use. Sexual transmission is still a factor, both gay and straight, but it does not seem to be the top of the list.
I also know that with the new drug regimens, AIDS is now essentially a chronic condition that can be managed, like diabetes, and patients now have pretty much a normal life expectancy. This causes the providers some grief in that many people at risk for HIV now have the sense that taking precautions (safe sex or safe injection practices) is now no longer necessary since AIDS does not kill you any more. I have also heard that one explanation for the uptick in STI in the older population is the erectile dysfunction drugs: Grandpa can now get it up and both he and Grandma are out having fun.
That bolded part is somewhat misleading.
WRT AIDS treatment you have some variability as to response:
1. Those who respond to the meds indefinitely and can tolerate the side effects. They live as you wrote.
2. Those who respond to the meds but can not tolerate the side effects. They die early.
3. Those for whom the meds are initially effective, but then are less effective. They die early.
4. Those who respond to the meds indefinitely and can tolerate the side effects...but either the meds or the HIV or some other mechanism slowly gives them dementia way out of proportion to the general population. They die early, because it is hard to stay employed and have good health insurance with dementia.
My wife sees a lot of #2-#4. And even for those in category #1, it is not all wine & roses. Some get what cancer patients around here call "chemo-brain" where the meds have deleterious effects on cognitive processes. Some cancer patients get over it if they survive the cancer, some don't. AIDS patients do not have the luxury of stopping treatment after what is killing them itself has been killed.
Not necessarily. These links explains some of the issues surrounding that very question.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/blog1.html
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
As with most of the research on this issue, done by both the left and the right, concerns over political bias come into play.
The desperation to re-define what can be measured into what they wish were so is strong with these links. If the hand-waving could be harnessed, I would expect T. Boone Pickens to lobby gov't to subsidize building electricity-generating windmills next to their offices.
Propensity of those who practice male homosexuality to also practice pedophilia, going by measurable actions, is roughly 8x-9x relative to those who practice heterosexuality. Ran the numbers in previous threads if you want numbers and possible variations on the input parameters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").[2] It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements.
"Bob is not a drunk driver, despite his predilection to drive after consuming substantial amounts of alcohol. Categorizing him by his actions is not legitimate because <insert hand-waving here>."
Also similar to the claim that there have been no truly marxist gov'ts, so marxist gov't can not be said to have failed and devolved into totalitarian murder-regimes.
-
Also, the question still stands:
Is it reasonable for gov't to mandate alcohol treatment for alcoholics that hurt others, from a practical/pragmatic perspective? If "YES," are you willing to extend such to other activities with similar or greater externalities?
-
The Texas GOP is not only focused on the gays. Other areas of concern include the election of Senators, evolution, implanting RFID chips into people and vaccination: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/5-craziest-planks-draft-texas-gop-platform-ban-morning-after-pill-ending-direct-election-sen
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1182339/temporary-platform-committee-report.pdf
I am certain you can cherry-pick similar wacky items out of any platform in any state, however. There is also much in the platform to admire.
-
The Texas GOP is not only focused on the gays. Other areas of concern include the election of Senators, evolution, implanting RFID chips into people and vaccination: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/5-craziest-planks-draft-texas-gop-platform-ban-morning-after-pill-ending-direct-election-sen
When they think that returning to the original method of choosing Senators is top-five crazy, that tells you an awful lot about that web site, and how accurate a source they may be.
At this point, any time a leftist describes something as crazy or extreme, I'm ready to vote for it, sight unseen.
-
Having fully read the website, I can state that I pretty much agree with everything they dislike.
And getting back to the thread title.
I know several people* that have accepted JC as their savior and turned their lives around. Could not those that wish to avoid or reform their lives use prayer to avoid those temptations?
Finally, have there not been high profile people (policritters, mainly) that have gone and sought treatment for "Sex Addicition"? If that treatment is viable and worthwhile for heterosexuals, then why would it not be for homosexuals?
Just pondering those questions here on a Sunday afternoon.
*Wheaton is known for the number of churches. In fact, there are more Churches per capita in Wheaton, then anywhere else (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheaton,_Illinois#Religious_institutions). Also, given that Wheaton College is the home of the Billy Graham center, that should tell you everything you need to know about the number of Christians, especially Evangelical Christians that live in this little 'burb.
-
I know several people* that have accepted JC as their savior and turned their lives around. Could not those that wish to avoid or reform their lives use prayer to avoid those temptations?
Finally, have there not been high profile people (policritters, mainly) that have gone and sought treatment for "Sex Addicition"? If that treatment is viable and worthwhile for heterosexuals, then why would it not be for homosexuals?
Just pondering those questions here on a Sunday afternoon.
On the subject, Rosaria Butterfield Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert (http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Thoughts-Unlikely-Convert-ebook/dp/B0097G05F8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402264040&sr=8-1&keywords=rosaria+butterfield). She was as entrenched in the gay world as it's possible to be. A tenured academic in "gender studies" (IIRC). And then became Christian and left it all. It was traumatic, and broke everything. "I lost everything but the dog."
Anyway, she's very articulate, well worth a read, and doesn't think much of "repairative therapy".
-
Behavior modification because it "hurts someone else".....Yeah, that could never have unintended consequences.....
-
Legitimacy != efficacy. Legitimacy is a subjective judgement while efficacy can be measured objectively. Putin may not be the legitimate ruler of the Crimean Peninsula, but he is the effective ruler, determinations of legitimacy be damned.
You make a good point here. Perhaps I choose the word poorly. On the other hand I don't think efficacy is the right one either. Said programs have thus far proven to be quite dangerous.
I know drug treatment programs have a horrible success rate, but you're a lot more likely to die if you keep abusing them. Outside of some quack programs, you're unlikely to die because of one. If you're so badly off that you need intense medical care to quit, the lesser intervention programs won't take you.
All are trying to do the same thing: alter complex human behavior that the subject finds pleasurable and continues to engage in despite the consequences.
It's my understanding that in most cases drug users in intervention programs no longer find taking the drugs pleasurable; they take them to avoid withdrawal. I think it's an important distinction. Of course, assuming that your habit isn't leading to disproportionate harm, my policy is to let you continue it as a matter of personal freedom. I don't recommend abusing drugs, certainly, but in the name of freedom I think it should be your right. That right runs out when it negatively impacts others, of course.
Those who try to cease drug/alcohol/tobacco abuse are fortunate in that contemporary society actively supports cessation, but those who try to cease homosexual behavior are engaging in "quackery."
The programs I've read about aren't trying to merely stop homosexual behavior. They actually try to turn you straight. Worse, they're ineffective at 'all of the above'. I call them 'quackery' because their success rate is lower(approximately 0%), than the suicide rate(various figures, mostly double-digits) as a result.
Your last point is belied by the data. Heterosexual AIDS was always a minority and if one excludes IV-drug-using heterosexuals, the proportion gets even smaller.
Had a thought - part of the problem with HIV transmission is that homosexual men tend towards a lot of partners. Wouldn't encouraging/enabling them to get married, with the implied fidelity, reduce the spread?
-
You make a good point here. Perhaps I choose the word poorly. On the other hand I don't think efficacy is the right one either. Said programs have thus far proven to be quite dangerous.
I know drug treatment programs have a horrible success rate, but you're a lot more likely to die if you keep abusing them. Outside of some quack programs, you're unlikely to die because of one. If you're so badly off that you need intense medical care to quit, the lesser intervention programs won't take you.
Lotsa folk use drugs/alcohol for decades before dying of the effects. And nowadays, a lot of folks who practice homosexuality also last decades after contracting AIDS with the help of AIDS treatments. Some very careful homosexual men do not contract AIDS at all. (Of course, the premise is destructive pathological behavior, not moderation.) Rather than the "one hit and you're an addict" propaganda I got in school, I suspect more of a continuum of drug users. Some super-destructive, others less so. From the outside, it all looks like more or less destructive/pathological behavior and difficult to say, "drug/alcohol use bad, homosexuality good."
It's my understanding that in most cases drug users in intervention programs no longer find taking the drugs pleasurable; they take them to avoid withdrawal. I think it's an important distinction. Of course, assuming that your habit isn't leading to disproportionate harm, my policy is to let you continue it as a matter of personal freedom. I don't recommend abusing drugs, certainly, but in the name of freedom I think it should be your right. That right runs out when it negatively impacts others, of course.
Maybe so. A lot of the drunks, addicts, and homosexuals I have known want their pleasure and &^%$-all for the consequences. They like it, they want it, and the rest of us can go to hell.
The programs I've read about aren't trying to merely stop homosexual behavior. They actually try to turn you straight. Worse, they're ineffective at 'all of the above'. I call them 'quackery' because their success rate is lower(approximately 0%), than the suicide rate(various figures, mostly double-digits) as a result.
I would suggest that the particular population from which they draw their candidates is already prone to suicide and other self-destructive behavior. Sort of like the "Another mass-murderer on anti-depressants or another mind-altering Rx!" What came first, the crazy or the Rx? In the days of easy Rx meds, someone serious warped is likely to have gotten some sort of diagnosis and drugs.
All the programs for which I have met counselors & such ran them more like divorce/marriage counseling than some sort of freakish camp. I am at a loss as to how these very mild and sympathetic folks could drive people to Suicideville if they were not already taking up residence there.
Had a thought - part of the problem with HIV transmission is that homosexual men tend towards a lot of partners. Wouldn't encouraging/enabling them to get married, with the implied fidelity, reduce the spread?
Yeah, not so much. Many plan for open marriages. The drive for gay marriage is more a drive for Fabulous Gay Weddings with enforced approval by all.
-
An interesting quote from the Butterfield book:
She said: “Rosaria, if people in my church really believed that gay people could be transformed by Christ, they wouldn’t talk about us or pray about us in the hateful way that they do.” Christian reader, is this what people say about you when they hear you talk and pray? Do your prayers rise no higher than your prejudice?
-
Had a thought - part of the problem with HIV transmission is that homosexual men tend towards a lot of partners. Wouldn't encouraging/enabling them to get married, with the implied fidelity, reduce the spread?
People will do what is important to them. Gay people who want to be in an exclusive relationship already are, and given the option to marry those are the ones who will take advantage of it. They certainly don't need a permission slip from the government in order to maintain a committed monogamous or monoandrous relationship if that is what they choose. If they don't want that, why would your encouragement to get married sway them?
-
Have the "marriage" rates of homosexuals ever broken out of the single digits in any state or country where it has been granted the governments blessing?
-
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1182339-temporary-platform-committee-report.html
Leaked copy of the draft. Some highly praise worthy, some meh and some "That's a really bad idea".
-
Some surprises, but I suspect mean other than what they say.
1-96 would protect say, Satanic statutes, which is very open minded of the Texas GOP. >:D
2-7 is the "We dislike gays" part. Still concerned that they're attempting to reopen known abusive and/or dangerous programs.
2-8 is kinda funny. Apparently, porno is not demeaning to grown men.
2-10 conflicts with the death penalty.
3-6 endorses evolution and opposes creationism in the classroom.
3-18 kinda shows how much folks really dislike common core. Basically, "lose all state funding if you so much as buy a CC textbook!"
3-24 makes me wonder if they'd be kosher with say a Koran or any of Anton LaVey's books in public schools.
4-28 went full retard.
5-58 is ... interesting. I did not know there was a movement to repeal Worker's Comp?
-
Rick Perry feels the same way as some of the folks on here do.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2655969/Rick-Perry-likens-homosexuality-alcoholism-asked-therapy-cure-gay-people-used-Texas-admits-doesnt-know-works.html
-
5-58 is ... interesting. I did not know there was a movement to repeal Worker's Comp?
Not sure of their specific issue, but there has been a lot of discussion of WC being dangerously close to a "burn it, bury the ashes, salt the earth and start over from scratch" situation. All the extensions available (without medical need) and the wide open job hunting requirements (go into an office building in a mankini, ask each tenant in obscene terms if they're hiring, and write it down as a month's worth of contacts) have made it a heavily abused form of not-particularly-need-based welfare.
-
^^^ From what I read in the risk management and insurance literature, a lot of businesses, due to high workers' comp costs, advocate for the reform of the system. In many states, especially for the injured low-skilled or low-educated worker, it has turned into a quasi-long term disability system. One of the ways to manage your WC costs is to get such workers on the Social Security disability system as soon as possible and get them off your books.
-
From what I read in the risk management and insurance literature, a lot of businesses, due to high workers' comp costs, advocate for the reform of the system. In many states, especially for the injured low-skilled or low-educated worker, it has turned into a quasi-long term disability system.
It's not even so much disability as "the management jobs I feel are worthy of me discriminate against people with obscene facial tattoos" in too many cases.
-
Not sure of their specific issue, but there has been a lot of discussion of WC being dangerously close to a "burn it, bury the ashes, salt the earth and start over from scratch" situation. All the extensions available (without medical need) and the wide open job hunting requirements (go into an office building in a mankini, ask each tenant in obscene terms if they're hiring, and write it down as a month's worth of contacts) have made it a heavily abused form of not-particularly-need-based welfare.
^^^ From what I read in the risk management and insurance literature, a lot of businesses, due to high workers' comp costs, advocate for the reform of the system. In many states, especially for the injured low-skilled or low-educated worker, it has turned into a quasi-long term disability system. One of the ways to manage your WC costs is to get such workers on the Social Security disability system as soon as possible and get them off your books.
From what, people faking injury? Or are we talking about people legitimately injured on the job that private employers want to dump on public taxpayers? Both, if so, what ratio are we talking?
-
From what, people faking injury?
IME, people exaggerating injury, and getting doctors to go along with them. People with no job skills getting a minor-to-moderate injury that should put them out of manual labor for 1-6 months, and milking it for years, (usually while working elsewhere for cash under the table) or developing all sorts of mysterious symptoms in office jobs that leave them unable to do any sort of work at all so they can milk the system for as long as it holds out.
-
^^^ I want to emphasize that I have never worked in the WC field from the legal or healthcare perspectives, and all I know about it is what I read in the professional literature. From my reading, there seem to be some states in which the WC system is seen as too generous to workers and too onerous to employers. Examples cited include employees who are awarded long-term time loss when the employer thinks they can come back to work, employers who unsuccessfully contest injury claims, and the overall rates employers pay for WC coverage.
I have seen advertisements for companies who will manage an employer's WC cases. One of those management techniques is to have the injured worker apply for SS disability, which gets them off the WC plan and employer cost and onto the Federal plan. I have not the faintest idea what the ratio of that is, however. I have read articles about how when a low-educated/low-skilled worker who does manual or semi-skilled labor is injured on the job, the chances of that worker returning to gainful employment can be pretty low, depending on where they are located and the overall economy.
I know that when I worked in the multi-state healthcare system, they managed their own WC cases, and the number one method they used to control costs was as soon as the employee was medically able, to get them back into work doing something, even if it was sitting at a desk shuffling papers or counting sheets in Central Linen. You want to keep them engaged in the workforce so they don't get used to just sitting at home collecting a check.
Although it was not a WC case, I remember that when I crashed my bicycle back in 1997 and fractured my hip, I could not wait to get back to work. I was going crazy sitting at home. This was before the concept of remote access via computers and working from home. I kept pestering my orthopedist until he let me go back at seven weeks postop.
-
You guys are forgetting the sort of WC scam in which the injury/illness was not work-related.
On the other side of the spectrum, a lady I know had her jaw broken (and not by accident) by one of her in-home-healthcare clients. As far as I know, it is still not being treated as a WC case.
-
I've actually been through this: illness from chemical exposure at a company that refused to provided new facemask filters at often enough intervals (which I didn't know until later).
The policy of WC is apparently just to deny all claims and hope you go away. So I did ... sought other help and went to college to start over in life. Apparently, you're not really supposed to do that - just supposed to sit on your butt the rest of your life. ;/
After about 7 or 8 years of avoiding almost everything in the way of airborne contaminants, I actually started to get better. I sure as hell never wanted to be sick. =(
-
1-96 would protect say, Satanic statutes, which is very open minded of the Texas GOP. >:D
2-7 is the "We dislike gays" part. Still concerned that they're attempting to reopen known abusive and/or dangerous programs.
2-8 is kinda funny. Apparently, porno is not demeaning to grown men.
2-10 conflicts with the death penalty.
3-6 endorses evolution and opposes creationism in the classroom.
3-18 kinda shows how much folks really dislike common core. Basically, "lose all state funding if you so much as buy a CC textbook!"
3-24 makes me wonder if they'd be kosher with say a Koran or any of Anton LaVey's books in public schools.
4-28 went full retard.
5-58 is ... interesting. I did not know there was a movement to repeal Worker's Comp?
Took me ages to get to the document to know what you were talking about.
My summary of the positions, especially the ones you commented on, seems to be that they have a much different view of reality than I do.
I mean, take 4-28. There are plenty of studies that show that unmarried teen pregnancy rates are consistently worse in areas where they tech abstinence only sex ed. Spreading ignorance doesn't help anybody. 'faith based rehab' seems to me to point to Alcoholics Anonymous type organizations, and it's my understanding that the success rates for such programs tend to be lower than other treatment programs. There's no evidence that Porn is any more addicting than things like 'world of warcraft'. If it consumes your life it's bad, otherwise who cares? Clean needle programs prevent the spread of disease and such, actually saving huge reams of money in the long run.
I'm not very 'liberal'. What I am is a fiscal hawk that demands evidence. As such, I'm in support of 5-1(balanced budget, regular reviews, sunsets). We're in a deep enough fiscal hole that we can't afford to embark on religiously motivated campaigns, stand on principles that cost money while making people miserable, etc... Is it really a good principle if the result is us spending MORE money in order to spread misery?
I mean, I've heard about some recent housing programs - the idea is to get the homeless into housing. The trick? We don't demand anything from them beforehand. Shock, Horror, we don't demand that they be sober/dry first. We worry about that AFTER we get them off the street. What do we find? A formerly homeless person is a lot more willing to talk/deal with their addiction/drug problem when they have a steady roof over their head than when they're stuck with cardboard. I've seen the figures - homeless people cost the government(between city, state, and federal) something like $250k/year, EACH. Time to find a new way, I think?
However, I see plenty in there that would end up costing more money. It's a sad fact that killing easy access to birth control actually leads to MORE abortions and children in the system. I think we want to avoid that, right?
-
>Propensity of those who practice male homosexuality to also practice pedophilia, going by measurable actions, is roughly 8x-9x relative to those who practice heterosexuality.<
Bullscat. Pure, unadulterated bullscat.
Pedophiles tend to appear more heterosexual to the outside world than homosexual. Like rape, pedophilia is more about the power over their victim, than the sex. And young boys are FAR less likely to report being touched by a man than young girls
-
>Propensity of those who practice male homosexuality to also practice pedophilia, going by measurable actions, is roughly 8x-9x relative to those who practice heterosexuality.<
(1) Bullscat. Pure, unadulterated bullscat.
(2) Pedophiles tend to appear more heterosexual to the outside world than homosexual. (3) Like rape, pedophilia is more about the power over their victim, than the sex. (4)And young boys are FAR less likely to report being touched by a man than young girls
Sorry Strings, but your post is fit to burst with failure in every sentence. And your last sentence buttresses my point.
(1) Not bullscat, just numeracy WRT measurable actions. I've run the numbers before if you want to search for them. ~8-9X, depending on which year's FBI crime stats and proportion of the population is homosexual you use. Based on reported/convicted crime stats. IOW, folks' actions. Life has a math component, even if one is unable or unwilling to cypher.
(2) See, here is one of the most serious problems with your post. You count appearances and what people say as more authoritative than what people do. This is the thing: People lie. They also hide their preferences and actions from others for fear of being caught outside the herd. People are so willing to lie and fear being caught, they will lie on anonymous surveys. Marketing folk and economists have been driven nuts by this for years. For instance: "WTH can we not sell the brown cars? The surveys say brown is the Xth favorite color, we build cars in proportion to what folks say they like, yet we always end up with extra brown cars on the lot we have to discount to move," or some such. Then, some bright guy figured, "Why don't we stop the surveys and just record peoples real-life choices?" The preference that folk choose when they think no one is watching is what economists call revealed preference. When hypothetical Coach Macho D. Masculine, who married a cheerleader out of college, is caught buggering one of the boys on his team, his revealed preference is homosexual pedophilia.
(3) The banality is strong in this one. Does it matter if it is power or sexual desire? I don't think it matters much to the raped child. Besides, discounting sex as a drive is to discount one of the most powerful human drives. People like to get off. People generally seek to experience pleasure and avoid pain. Given that the majority of rapists are not that swift, discounting simple sexual pleasure and assuming a more complex motivation is unwise.
Also oozing of failure is the inability or unwillingness to categorize. Male/female, child/adult. These are not mutually exclusive categories. When an adult male has sex with a boy, it is homosexual pedophilia. When an adult male has sex with a girl, it is heterosexual pedophilia. You can work out the rest of the matrix I am sure.
Homosexuality is not some pure state of being set apart from all the other complex human behaviors. "It is not POSSIBLE for a homosexual to be a pedophile! Because: homosexual!" Yes, our society has degraded to the point where we have replaced the magic negro* with the hallowed homosexual and made made homosexual congress a secular sacrament. Those still able to reason do not have to go along with the damnfoolery.
(4) Thanks for the backup. In the ratio measurable [#homosexual pedophiles]/[#heterosexual pedophiles] given their respective population sizes (8/1 or so, recall), an assumption that boys are not reporting and thus fewer homosexual pedophiles are caught would make the ratio larger. Again, thanks for the support.
To sum up, your post relies on faith-based propositions and logical flights that, when examined, can not withstand the light of data or logic.
Really, what would you use as a metric other than chomos caught & convicted? It is about the strongest data to be found. What do you want to use? Surveys? Dartboards? Chicken entrails? Marxist-Feminist critique? Or would you prefer we not worry our little heads about it and make even the discussion of it forbidden for fear we might learn something and allow data and logic to have an effect on our actions & attitudes?
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro
The Magical Negro is a supporting stock character in American cinema who is portrayed as coming to the aid of a film's white protagonists.[1] These characters, who often possess special insight or mystical powers, have been a long tradition in American fiction.[2]
-
In regards to Firethorn's point above regarding the homeless, 60 minutes ran this segment tonight: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/housing-homeless-can-save-money/
Some interesting ideas.
-
Sorry Strings, but your post is fit to burst with failure in every sentence. And your last sentence buttresses my point.
(1) Not bullscat, just numeracy WRT measurable actions. I've run the numbers before if you want to search for them. ~8-9X, depending on which year's FBI crime stats and proportion of the population is homosexual you use. Based on reported/convicted crime stats. IOW, folks' actions. Life has a math component, even if one is unable or unwilling to cypher.
(2) See, here is one of the most serious problems with your post. You count appearances and what people say as more authoritative than what people do. This is the thing: People lie. They also hide their preferences and actions from others for fear of being caught outside the herd. People are so willing to lie and fear being caught, they will lie on anonymous surveys. Marketing folk and economists have been driven nuts by this for years. For instance: "WTH can we not sell the brown cars? The surveys say brown is the Xth favorite color, we build cars in proportion to what folks say they like, yet we always end up with extra brown cars on the lot we have to discount to move," or some such. Then, some bright guy figured, "Why don't we stop the surveys and just record peoples real-life choices?" The preference that folk choose when they think no one is watching is what economists call revealed preference. When hypothetical Coach Macho D. Masculine, who married a cheerleader out of college, is caught buggering one of the boys on his team, his revealed preference is homosexual pedophilia.
(3) The banality is strong in this one. Does it matter if it is power or sexual desire? I don't think it matters much to the raped child. Besides, discounting sex as a drive is to discount one of the most powerful human drives. People like to get off. People generally seek to experience pleasure and avoid pain. Given that the majority of rapists are not that swift, discounting simple sexual pleasure and assuming a more complex motivation is unwise.
Also oozing of failure is the inability or unwillingness to categorize. Male/female, child/adult. These are not mutually exclusive categories. When an adult male has sex with a boy, it is homosexual pedophilia. When an adult male has sex with a girl, it is heterosexual pedophilia. You can work out the rest of the matrix I am sure.
Homosexuality is not some pure state of being set apart from all the other complex human behaviors. "It is not POSSIBLE for a homosexual to be a pedophile! Because: homosexual!" Yes, our society has degraded to the point where we have replaced the magic negro* with the hallowed homosexual and made made homosexual congress a secular sacrament. Those still able to reason do not have to go along with the damnfoolery.
(4) Thanks for the backup. In the ratio measurable [#homosexual pedophiles]/[#heterosexual pedophiles] given their respective population sizes (8/1 or so, recall), an assumption that boys are not reporting and thus fewer homosexual pedophiles are caught would make the ratio larger. Again, thanks for the support.
To sum up, your post relies on faith-based propositions and logical flights that, when examined, can not withstand the light of data or logic.
Really, what would you use as a metric other than chomos caught & convicted? It is about the strongest data to be found. What do you want to use? Surveys? Dartboards? Chicken entrails? Marxist-Feminist critique? Or would you prefer we not worry our little heads about it and make even the discussion of it forbidden for fear we might learn something and allow data and logic to have an effect on our actions & attitudes?
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro
Its possible to heterosexual and a pedophile also.
-
Its possible to heterosexual and a pedophile also.
I agree, but the prevailing psychological theory says otherwise.
-
I agree, but the prevailing psychological theory says otherwise.
Hmmm, no.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).
-
Hmmm, no.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Read the whole article you posted.
The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
Thus, prevailing psychological theory separates the gender of the child from the sexual orientation of the abuser. In other words, the idea is that most times the abuser is neither homosexual nor as you claimed heterosexual.
-
Read the whole article you posted.Thus, prevailing psychological theory separates the gender of the child from the sexual orientation of the abuser. In other words, the idea is that most times the abuser is neither homosexual nor as you claimed heterosexual.
Many doesn't mean all.
-
I just typed up a long post, and decided to delete
As others have just shown, your "homos molest kids" is a fallacy. Don't think I need to say anymore
-
Many doesn't mean all.
And?
-
And?
Means some don't identify with attraction to adults, some are homosexual, some are heterosexual and some are other.
Doesn't mean all of them are in one group.
-
I'm not a professional shrink, but from what I've seen, kid touchers are in their own special basket. I'm excluding "16 and over" or "looks more or less like an adult", and referring to the more predatory pedophiles. Most critters with a fixation on having sex with children (pick an age well and inarguably below puberty norms) are generally not interested in their adult counterparts, except for tactical purposes (cover, enabling, etc).
Counting them as heterosexual or homosexual is only useful for propaganda to prove PR points in completely unrelated fields.
-
Counting them as heterosexual or homosexual is only useful for propaganda to prove PR points in completely unrelated fields.
Bingo. Targeting homosexuals on the premise that you'll also be targeting the worst pedophiles is about as accurate as targeting gun owners with the premise that you'll catch more murderers. IE not worth jack.
-
Bingo. Targeting homosexuals on the premise that you'll also be targeting the worst pedophiles is about as accurate as targeting gun owners with the premise that you'll catch more murderers. IE not worth jack.
but, but, but, my religion says otherwise. [popcorn]
-
but, but, but, my religion says otherwise. [popcorn]
Yeah, cause roo_ster's posts have been nothing but Bible verses. :lol: Sometimes, you guys just make it too easy.
-
Yeah, cause roo_ster's posts have been nothing but Bible verses. :lol: Sometimes, you guys just make it too easy.
I didn't mention the Bible and I didn't mention which religion.
-
Lumping homosexuals in with pedophiles is a good way of "othering" gays
Seem to recall the Jews having all sorts of heinous crimes and behaviors ascribed to them over the years, too
-
Lumping homosexuals in with pedophiles is a good way of "othering" gays
Seem to recall the Jews having all sorts of heinous crimes and behaviors ascribed to them over the years, too
Then we had the universal distrust of black males because they were all thought to be serial rapists.
-
:rofl:
-
But of course those who are religious and on the right are never painted with a broad brush. And conservative Christians and social cons are never ever treated as "the other" being dehumanized into some easily vilified stereotype ;/
-
But of course those who are religious and on the right are never painted with a broad brush. And conservative Christians and social cons are never ever treated as "the other" being dehumanized into some easily vilified stereotype ;/
Especially not Catholic priests.
-
Kind of on point in terms of the underage paraphilia, but I just reported a 20 year old man to our local Child Protective Services for impregnating a 14 year old girl. This is a mandatory report for healthcare providers in this state. We will see what CPS does.
-
The amount of time and good will our culture has wasted arguing on the subject of homosexuality is incredibly disproportionate in comparison to the small percentage of the population gay folks represent. The percentage of that small percentage that are even interested in this new category of so called "marriage" is even smaller yet. Last I checked, in euro countries who years ago institutionalized gay marriage, only single digit percentages of the total gay population exercise that option.
With so much energy and ill will devoted to the issue I've come to believe it is the dumbest battle of all in the so called culture wars.
When they decide to legislate that up is down and down is up I'm going to just shrug and say; whatever! This culture jumped the shark a ways back and I'm finishing up my days trying to insulate myself from the madness as much as possible.
Laissez-faire!
-
Lumping homosexuals in with pedophiles is a good way of "othering" gays
You might want to take a gander at the Spirit of Stonewall Declaration from 1994:
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NAMBLA/spirit.of.stonewall
A few choice parts:
Stonewall was the spontaneous action of
marginal people oppressed by the mainstream - of teenaged drag
queens, pederasts, transsexuals, hustlers, and others despised by
respectable straights and "discreet" homosexuals.
...
We focus on one of the most glaring departures
from those principles: the attempt to exclude the North American
Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), and possibly other groups,
from the Stonewall 25 March and from their place within
gay/lesbian space and discourse.
...
Just as unions, the civil rights
and peace movements were pressured to cleanse themselves of
suspected "communists," the lesbian/gay movement is now expected
to rid itself of social misfits, the vulnerable pederasts first
of all.
...
NAMBLA's record as a responsible gay organization is well known.
NAMBLA was spawned by the gay community and has been in every
major gay and lesbian march.
The suggestion that anti-gay bigots are attempting to lump gays and pedophiles into one category in order to smear them is false. A number of prominent gay activists consider same-sex pedophiles and pederasts to be part of their community. In recent years, the gay-rights movement has attempted to distance itself from NAMBLA and similar groups, but I suspect this is mainly a PR move.
Seem to recall the Jews having all sorts of heinous crimes and behaviors ascribed to them over the years, too
Right. Because objecting to pedophilia makes me a Nazi . . .
-
Such a bloody delicate group we suddenly have here
>But of course those who are religious and on the right are never painted with a broad brush. And conservative Christians and social cons are never ever treated as "the other" being dehumanized into some easily vilified stereotype<
I suggested that... where and how, again?
Angel Eyes: you quote from NAMBLA, and want us to accept that? Wow...
And I was by no means restricting my comment about Jews to JUST what the Nazis did... nor was I in any way lumping anyone in with any of the governments through history that have acted against the Jewish people
Ye gawds... y'all need to grow a damn skin or something
-
Its possible to heterosexual and a pedophile also.
I mentioned them several times in the post you quoted. Matter of fact, they make up the denominator in the ratio. Matter of fact #2, I mentioned that in absolute numbers, male hetero pedophiles outnumber male homo pedophiles, but that the ratio of homo/hetero pedophiles is ~8/1 if we also factor in population sizes.
I suspect you did not read what you quoted.
I just typed up a long post, and decided to delete
As others have just shown, your "homos molest kids" is a fallacy. Don't think I need to say anymore
If the Texas GOP insists they can "pray the gay away," it looks like some folk want to "hand wave the gay away" when convenient and faced with actual conviction data.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=38058.msg769730#msg769730
Again, what folk do trumps what they say.
And dead bodies are dead bodies.
-
Cool... you have conviction data. Congratulations
First problem: societal view of sexual assault, including that of minors. There IS still a very healthy "blame the victim" and "sweep it under the rug" tendency within our society. Because of that, any data arrived at via conviction data is, at best, suspect.
2) Your data says the majority of offenders are men. Yet the majority of victims are girls (IIRC, the victimization rate for children is 1:3 for girls, 1:5 for boys). By that, heterosexual men are more dangerous to our kids than homosexual
3) Another societal problem (to argue that men are the overwhelming majority offenders): there are still a LOT of people who view an adult woman having relations with an underage male as a lesser offense (if they even consider it an offense) than if you switched the ages
As for the connections between groups like NAMBLA and gay rights activists: the argument could easily be made that pedophile activists see a widening of gay rights as making for a better "playing field" for their own concerns (that's a guess, granted).
You've focused hard on "gay = pedophile". I know a LOT of gay people: I've met exactly 1 that I wouldn't trust a male child in my care with, and that was more because he lacked ANY morals than because of pedophilic tendencies. But I know a LOT of heterosexual men I wouldn't trust anywhere near any of the girls in the family.
Your assertions are a dramatic oversimplification of a VERY complex set of problems
-
If you want to see where certain members here are getting their arguments on this subject, do read this: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf
-
Ah, yes. The FRC. The fact that they have Boykin as their VP says volumes about their credibility. Dude did know his excrement, but he was also a bit "off", even by special operations standards. When he wasn't in charge, he was apparently alright. He started going off his rocker during the Clinton years and hit apex during the Bush II years. It's probably still classified, but he was probably the most responsible for Abu Ghraib. There's a reason why it is standing law to never allow intel types to be able to issue orders to MPs, because intel types will always screw up, use classification for cover and let Private Snuffy take the fall when it inevitably falls apart.
I tend to only flap my gums about stuff that's already leaked. That dude pulled some stuff that hasn't really leaked yet, but "highly shady" is the common denominator. Special operations tends do some necessary but shady stuff. That's understandable. This guy isn't sticking to that realm. Very dangerous and competent individual. Some folks here would absolutely love what he did and what he's currently working on. I'm less enthusiastic about his end goals, as well as his tactics in getting there. One of the few positives of Obama getting elected was killing this guy's career. If another neocon was elected, he'd be head of the NSA or DNI.
-
I have no idea about this gays/NAMBLA connection. First I heard of it. However, I have always wondered just how much the major national gay activists have in common with most gay people. I have heard some pretty extreme things from the activists types.
-
I have no idea about this gays/NAMBLA connection. First I heard of it. However, I have always wondered just how much the major national gay activists have in common with most gay people. I have heard some pretty extreme things from the activists types.
For the most part, gays feel the same way about NAMBLA as lawful gun owners feel about criminals that possess or operate firearms in the commission of a crime.
Personally, I don't include pedophiles in with heterosexual or homosexual populations for the same reason why I don't include say, gang members in with lawful gun owners. The Brady Bunch and such loves to include such folks with us, and relies on that for their stats/PR. It's technically correct, but intentionally misses the point.
-
For the most part, gays feel the same way about NAMBLA as lawful gun owners feel about criminals that possess or operate firearms in the commission of a crime.
Personally, I don't include pedophiles in with heterosexual or homosexual populations for the same reason why I don't include say, gang members in with lawful gun owners. The Brady Bunch and such loves to include such folks with us, and relies on that for their stats/PR. It's technically correct, but intentionally misses the point.
The separation of pedophiles from homosexual populations is based on an even more tenuous argument than the connection of pedophilia and homosexuality.
Sexual boundaries aren't always that clear around the margins, homosexuality is on the margins.
Insisting on the separation isn't any wiser than insisting on the connection IMHO.
-
2) Your data says the majority of offenders are men. Yet the majority of victims are girls (IIRC, the victimization rate for children is 1:3 for girls, 1:5 for boys). By that, heterosexual men are more dangerous to our kids than homosexual
Need to filter that for age spread greater than, say, 5 years; otherwise you're still going to get a lot of 16 year old female "victims" who were quite active participants with their 19 year old boyfriends (upon reading the details of each sex offender registration in my zip code, that's about a third of the cases) skewing the numbers toward heterosexual molestation.
Of course, your own statement that "young boys are FAR less likely to report being touched by a man than young girls" also means that any stats will be even more unfairly skewed toward heterosexual molesters.
-
I know several people* that have accepted JC as their savior and turned their lives around. Could not those that wish to avoid or reform their lives use prayer to avoid those temptations?
If you've accepted Jimmy Carter as your savior, you might as well just go ahead and give in to all the temptations because it ain't going to get any worse.
-
The amount of time and good will our culture has wasted arguing on the subject of homosexuality is incredibly disproportionate in comparison to the small percentage of the population gay folks represent. The percentage of that small percentage that are even interested in this new category of so called "marriage" is even smaller yet. Last I checked, in euro countries who years ago institutionalized gay marriage, only single digit percentages of the total gay population exercise that option.
With so much energy and ill will devoted to the issue I've come to believe it is the dumbest battle of all in the so called culture wars.
When they decide to legislate that up is down and down is up I'm going to just shrug and say; whatever! This culture jumped the shark a ways back and I'm finishing up my days trying to insulate myself from the madness as much as possible.
Laissez-faire!
I actually agree with this. Capitulating to any or all lifestyle demands of a group that does not materially impact the freedom of others is probably the best strategy.
You take it away as a wedge issue and a bludgeon to be fought over from both sides, and you actually get less of said lifestyle in your face, in the media etc. If the religious right and social conservatives simply ignored the issue, it would not have nearly the prominence it does now.
My own personal feelings or politics aside, they completely screwed the pooch on this one, and should have all gone with an "Ignore it, they'll get theirs in hell..." strategy from the start.
-
If you've accepted Jimmy Carter as your savior, you might as well just go ahead and give in to all the temptations because it ain't going to get any worse.
But on the upside, you build houses for the poor and monitor elections!
-
I actually agree with this. Capitulating to any or all lifestyle demands of a group that does not materially impact the freedom of others is probably the best strategy.
You take it away as a wedge issue and a bludgeon to be fought over from both sides, and you actually get less of said lifestyle in your face, in the media etc. If the religious right and social conservatives simply ignored the issue, it would not have nearly the prominence it does now.
My own personal feelings or politics aside, they completely screwed the pooch on this one, and should have all gone with an "Ignore it, they'll get theirs in hell..." strategy from the start.
Hard to ignore it when you get fired for contributing to the wrong campaigns or sued out of business for declining to participate.
-
Hard to ignore it when you get fired for contributing to the wrong campaigns or sued out of business for declining to participate.
Maybe, or maybe none of that would have happened if it weren't on the radar of the insufferable SJW's. There'd have been no campaign for the 2-week Mozilla CEO to have donated to to be witch hunted over years later, and nobody would have decided to make a point trying to lawsuit-bait the Christian bakery.
I see the whole fight as kind of a reverse situation of the rifle OC'ers who are too dumb to stay on the sidewalk, instead go into Chipoltle and then create a cause for the anti's to get a "win". Risking battles in the "culture war" when it wasn't on the radar. A CCW'er is well armed in Chipoltle before nobody really knew or cared, or even paid attention, but now because of the OC rifle jackasses, Chipoltle is now posted against all carry. By the same vein, you're in line in Chipoltle and a gay couple is in front of you holding hands, (and you're just as nonplussed or not about it as you would be) and you have no idea if they're married or not, or, instead, by fighting it tooth and nail, now you've gotten them married and had it imposed on everyone by the courts.
Plus, as a believer in limited government, I feel BOTH sides have failed, because either way it goes, the people wind up losing in the long run. A government that's fought over as a prize to either ban gay marriage, or establish it by laws or votes or court cases, or worse, by fiat and "just because" type end-runs on constitutionality is now a government that's just that more eroded and further away from rule of law than it was before.
I'm just much more sanguine on the "whatever, have at it" strategy because I've seen it backfire much more personally here in Wisconsin. When WI added their marriage amendment referendum to the ballot, it got us another four years of the craptastic Jim Doyle as governor, which arguably cost the state four years of fiscal reform and tax cuts, and delayed CCW by four years. It passed, something like 60/40, all the old socially conservative WWII FDR Democrats, JFK Boomer Democrats, blue collar Union Democrats, and black Democrats all came out of the woodwork in droves to pull the lever for the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and then immediately voted a straight Democrat ticket right along with it.
Don't people know the gay marriage battle is lost, and it's just taking away resources from more important things like economic reforms, rolling back the scope and size of .gov, illegal immigration, decent foreign policy, and RKBA? Or do people actually worry they're going to die and see St. Peter, and get turned away because they didn't do more to oppose gay marriage politically? ???
-
No socon is bringing it up, they are merely reacting to others bringing it up. And they oppose it because they know the inevitable results if they don't, which are things like forcing people out of business if they don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings or recognize homosexual "spouses" for insurance purposes. ETA: or things like the Danes forcing churches to perform homosexual wedding ceremonies, or British "hate speech" laws, or "creating a hostile work environment" because the company owner attends a church that refuses to perform gay weddings. If anything, it's actually refreshing to see people who are so aware of the "unintended" consequences of a law.
And people will always fight more for cultural values and principals than arguably more "important" issues, because those things are both more concrete and real to them and because they can more easily see the direct impact on their lives. A law banning the NFL is in every definition less important than a law enabling a secret court to black bag "terrorists" or a President that says he has the right to kill Americans on US soil without due process. But the uproar over it would be enormous, whereas the others are happening now and no one really cares.
As for the battle being lost, by that account the battle is equally lost on illegal immigration, reducing the size and scope of fed.gov, fiscal conservatism etc. Are you going to stop fighting for them?
-
As for the battle being lost, by that account the battle is equally lost on illegal immigration, reducing the size and scope of fed.gov, fiscal conservatism etc. Are you going to stop fighting for them?
This.
Besides, there is a very high degree of historical myopia (or temporal chauvinism?) in declaring "the war is lost" on homosexual marriage. The current legal recognition of same-sex unions is, historically, an ugly little blip on the radar. A decade or two, in a span of millennia. In a hundred years, legal recognition of such may be as quaint and extinct as Betamax.
Also, not to speak for all so-cons everyone sane enough to remember that marriage is irreducibly heterosexual, but only the Christians, we (the latter) do not have a choice on whether to condemn evil. We can choose to do it in a more or less winsome fashion, and certainly there are times and places where it is less appropriate, but the Bible is pretty clear on our responsibility to spread the Gospel, denounce wickedness, etc.
-
>but the Bible is pretty clear on our responsibility to spread the Gospel, denounce wickedness, etc<
Wasn't there something in there about judging others?
-
Those wacky Presbyterians are at it again:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/19/presbyterians-allow-gay-marriage-ceremonies/10922053/
-
>but the Bible is pretty clear on our responsibility to spread the Gospel, denounce wickedness, etc<
Wasn't there something in there about judging others?
Right on cue...
Yes. Essentially, don't judge other people, unless you want to be judged by that same standard. It's another of the Christ's rebukes of hypocrisy. It is not, as commonly thought, a plea to ignore sin. Now go read the words of Jesus (not to mention his apostles), and tell me He wasn't doing some heavy-duty judging. Phrases like "wicked and perverse generation," "you brood of vipers," "twice as much a son of hell as you are," and "'Get outta this here temple 'fore I whip y'all" come to mind.
-
Those wacky Presbyterians are at it again:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/19/presbyterians-allow-gay-marriage-ceremonies/10922053/
Friends of mine attend a local Presbyterian church, which is separating (for lack of a better word) from Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) because they won't do the gay marriage thing. My understanding is they have to pay P.C. (U.S.A.) $80K to make the "divorce" official, which is taking a bite out of their budget.
-
Phrases like "wicked and perverse generation," "you brood of vipers," "twice as much a son of hell as you are," and "'Get outta this here temple 'fore I whip y'all" come to mind.
He was also God, a position that comes with certain privileges, no? He also said things like "your sins are forgiven", do I then have permission to forgive other's sins?
-
Raging against " the gayz" reminds me of the guy in the Bible whose prayer was thank you Lord I'm not like them and then he listed all his good works.
God is most likely not impressed.
There is enough sexual impurity and relationship failure in the current body of believers that maybe we should be a bit more humble and clean up our own mess first before condemning folks that don't even accept our world view.
We are not called to establish Christs Kingdom through the ballot box and government coercion. The death of "cultural Christianity" might be the healthiest thing that could happen to the church.
Oh and Zahc, throw your lot in with Christ and I can tell you this on good authority, your sins are forgiven.
-
Those wacky Presbyterians are at it again:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/19/presbyterians-allow-gay-marriage-ceremonies/10922053/
This does not surprise anyone familiar with them.
The PCUSA (and UPC before it, name change) has been shedding members since at least the 60s. That's continuously, every year. The last big batch, I forget what they call themselves, was a couple years ago, over ordination of practicing homosexuals.
There are a few diehards fighting the good fight, but enough of this and the apostates significantly outweigh them.
What's left at the end is a withered lefty pagan core.
Friends of mine attend a local Presbyterian church, which is separating (for lack of a better word) from Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) because they won't do the gay marriage thing. My understanding is they have to pay P.C. (U.S.A.) $80K to make the "divorce" official, which is taking a bite out of their budget.
That is a peculiarity of PCUSA church order. The property belongs to the denomination, not the local congregation.
Some presbyteries let them go with more grace than others.
-
This does not surprise anyone familiar with them.
The PCUSA (and UPC before it, name change) has been shedding members since at least the 60s. That's continuously, every year. The last big batch, I forget what they call themselves, was a couple years ago, over ordination of practicing homosexuals.
There are a few diehards fighting the good fight, but enough of this and the apostates significantly outweigh them.
What's left at the end is a withered lefty pagan core.
That is a peculiarity of PCUSA church order. The property belongs to the denomination, not the local congregation.
Some presbyteries let them go with more grace than others.
My Father in Law is a Presbyterian Minister, and the Stated Clerk of a Presbytery in MN. I suspect he would take umbrage to the pagan portion of that statement.
As an outside observer, the Presbyterian's do seem to be the most hippie of the Christian flavors though.
-
Hey Rev... should we be taking offense at the above uses of "pagan"?
I've lost track of what folks are supposed to be outraged about
-
As an outside observer, the Presbyterian's do seem to be the most hippie of the Christian flavors though.
Presbyterian and Methodist, though both have started taking 2 Thessalonians 3:6 a bit more seriously lately.
-
My Father in Law is a Presbyterian Minister, and the Stated Clerk of a Presbytery in MN. I suspect he would take umbrage to the pagan portion of that statement.
As an outside observer, the Presbyterian's do seem to be the most hippie of the Christian flavors though.
Was it the Presbyterians or the Methodists who's denominational leader was a lesbian who refused to be classified as a "theist"?
Call me crazy, but when someone who is theoretically leading a group of Christians won't even cop to believing in "a" god, then I have a hard time regarding them as a legitimate representation of a monotheistic religion.
-
^^^ I don't think it was the Methodists. We have no central leader but are instead have the General Conference as the governing body. There is a president of the council of bishops, but that position exists primarily to run the meetings and the council is under the General Conference. Only the General Conference speaks for the church.
-
Phrases like "wicked and perverse generation," "you brood of vipers," "twice as much a son of hell as you are," and "'Get outta this here temple 'fore I whip y'all" come to mind.
He was also God, a position that comes with certain privileges, no? He also said things like "your sins are forgiven", do I then have permission to forgive other's sins?
No, and your point is well taken. There are other passages in which believers are instructed to make judgments, but they were not top of mind. I'll try to remember to look them up later, and post them.
-
Governor Perry: sorry I got caught saying it and I sure hope this doesn't hurt my political chances. Or something like that.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/06/20/gov-perry-i-stepped-in-it-likening-homosexuality-to-alcoholism/
-
Lumping homosexuals in with pedophiles is a good way of "othering" gays
Seem to recall the Jews having all sorts of heinous crimes and behaviors ascribed to them over the years, too
You have a firm grasp of leftist talking points. And the quasi-antisemetic smear is a nice touch.
Cool... you have conviction data. Congratulations
First problem: societal view of sexual assault, including that of minors. There IS still a very healthy "blame the victim" and "sweep it under the rug" tendency within our society. Because of that, any data arrived at via conviction data is, at best, suspect.
2) Your data says the majority of offenders are men. Yet the majority of victims are girls (IIRC, the victimization rate for children is 1:3 for girls, 1:5 for boys). By that, heterosexual men are more dangerous to our kids than homosexual
3) Another societal problem (to argue that men are the overwhelming majority offenders): there are still a LOT of people who view an adult woman having relations with an underage male as a lesser offense (if they even consider it an offense) than if you switched the ages
As for the connections between groups like NAMBLA and gay rights activists: the argument could easily be made that pedophile activists see a widening of gay rights as making for a better "playing field" for their own concerns (that's a guess, granted).
You've focused hard on "gay = pedophile". I know a LOT of gay people: I've met exactly 1 that I wouldn't trust a male child in my care with, and that was more because he lacked ANY morals than because of pedophilic tendencies. But I know a LOT of heterosexual men I wouldn't trust anywhere near any of the girls in the family.
Your assertions are a dramatic oversimplification of a VERY complex set of problems
(1) Find a more solid data set. This particular data set has made it through several filters to the point of conviction: either the pedophile plead guilty or his peers determined him guilty. As you wrote in a previous post, your assumption of the lower likelihood of boys reporting abuse argues for the ratio to be even higher.
(2) Dude, math. Offense rates given proportion of the population. The calculation includes hetero and homo male proportions of the population.
For instance, "people killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes" was a little over 10,000 for 2010 (as I showed and linked previously http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html ). Total number of people killed in all crashes for 2010 was almost 33,000 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year ).
According to your logic, "sober people are more dangerous on the road than drunks" because they kill 2x the number on the road that drunks do.
This does not require any heavy math, just understanding the interplay between offense rates and proportion of the population. Yeah, not so much, given the proportion of drunks tot he total population relative to those driving sober.
You've focused hard on "gay = pedophile".
No, that is the straw man you have erected because of your failure to address the pertinent data and misunderstanding of the math, offense rates, and proportion of the population.
I will grant you victory over an argument I never made. May it bring you joy.
FTR, here is the I posed way back earlier in the thread:
OTOH, addiction and homosexuality both cause damage to the individual and those around them. And gov't regularly imposes drug/alcohol treatment in both criminal cases and in cases where they see the person as a danger to themselves and others (involuntary commitment to a mental health/addiction facility and such).
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html
Quote
Deaths: An estimated 15,529 people with an AIDS diagnosis died in 2010...
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
Quote
In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes...
Is it reasonable for gov't to mandate alcohol treatment for alcoholics that hurt others, from a practical/pragmatic perspective? If "YES," are you willing to extend such to other activities with similar or greater externalities?
No one (besides my own self) has yet addressed those two questions in bold font. Bueller?
And as for your objection to my claim of a 9x greater rate of conviction of homosexual pedophiles relative to heterosexual pedophiles, my arguments were such:
The rate of homosexual male sexual abuse of minors is roughly 9X that of heterosexual male sexual abuse of minors, when the proportion of homosexual and heterosexual men is taken into account.
Notice, I have not made the "gay = pedophile" argument.
=======
Thus far, your arguments include much hand-wavium, disqualification, anecdote, and accusations of bad faith. And on the notion that homosexuality is somehow some exalted state of being & behavior above all other modes of human behavior and thus ought not be subject to the the same analysis applied to other human behaviors. Because it is complex. (Somehow more complex than alcoholism, addiction, violent crime, mental illness, and many others it is perfectly legitimate to not only analyze, but make policy based on the analysis.)
Well, I didn't drink that batch of kool-aid. And whether or not we do analyze its effects, that doesn't erase the 15,000 who died from AIDS (most of them homosexual males) who might otherwise have lived. Or the tens of thousands of sexually abused children. Dead folks and savaged kiddos are notoriously poor at PR, though.
I am reminded of a similar argument made by an opponent of teacher evaluation. "This is too complex a problem to be comprehended by quantitative factors such as teacher competency exams, graduation rates, or changes in performance by students on standardized tests." And then, without batting an eye, "Subjective teacher evaluation is fraught with bias." No objective evaluation? No subjective evaluation? The point being, the apologist wanted no evaluation whatsoever of the problem. They've a got a good thing and just plain don't care who they damage as long as they get theirs.
-
On the subject of reparative therapy, it didn't seem to work with this guy: http://www.bilerico.com/2014/06/former_ex-gay_spokesman_john_paulk_slams_rick_perr.php
-
Oh and Zahc, throw your lot in with Christ and I can tell you this on good authority, your sins are forgiven.
^X1000
I'm pretty sure God love the sinner just as equally as the saint. I also remember reading many times in my religious studies classes as a youth that it isn't man's place to judge their fellow man if their actions are going to send them to spend an eternity in hell. You may not like or understand why a person would be gay, but it doesn't mean you should persecute them for their life choices. Feel free to peacefully pray for them publically or privately, but do not wish them ill will or exclude them from the same freedom you enjoy.
If the GOP and Religious Right spent as much energy on fiscal problems are they do on moral problems, a lot of the problems that truly affect us would either be solved or less of a problem.
-
^X1000
I'm pretty sure God love the sinner just as equally as the saint.
Sure whatever, that's not what I was asking (additional pedantic gripe:saints are also sinners).
It was implied that since Christ pronounced judgements in the Bible, that Christians are therefore authorized to do the same. I do not agree with this conclusion. God has power and authority to pronounce judgment. You don't. God has power and authority to forgive a person's sins. Jesus did say to people "your sins are forgiven" (one of the key refutations of the untenable theory that Jesus and his contemporaries did not consider him to be God, and that his Godness was tacked on beginning with the book of John...the Jesus's act of forgiving sins is equivalent to a statement that he is God). Jesus forgave (absolved) sin in the bible but you do not have the power and authority to do the same. If you think that you have the power to absolve sin then you are practicing something other than Christianity. That Jesus did it in the bible doesn't mean you get to do it, sorry.
BUTBUTBUT HOLY SPIRIT DER DER...yes, the Holy Ghost gives power. What power(s)? Not power to forgive sin or pronounce judgement. Why? We never see that from nonJesus persons in the bible. What powers then? The powers that we see exhibited by non-Jesus persons in the bible-healing the sick, casting out spirits, speaking in tongues, etc. I welcome bible scholars to correct me...did followers ever raise anyone from the dead? Interestingly, I do not believe Jesus ever spoke in tongues.
-
^X1000
I'm pretty sure God love the sinner just as equally as the saint. I also remember reading many times in my religious studies classes as a youth that it isn't man's place to judge their fellow man if their actions are going to send them to spend an eternity in hell. You may not like or understand why a person would be gay, but it doesn't mean you should persecute them for their life choices. Feel free to peacefully pray for them publically or privately, but do not wish them ill will or exclude them from the same freedom you enjoy.
If the GOP and Religious Right spent as much energy on fiscal problems are they do on moral problems, a lot of the problems that truly affect us would either be solved or less of a problem.
First of all, Christians are commanded to judge sin. The verse that sinners use who wish to excuse their own sin (judge not...) is referring to people. I do not and cannot condemn people. I do and can condemn sin. Adultery, homosexuality, thieving, etc... are sins. If calling your sin a sin makes you feel condemned, that's for you to address.
Secondly, the fiscal issues are a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is that we are no longer a moral and religious people and are now not for our Constitution. Despite the dreams of a libertarian utopia, people will not vote against immediate gain (even at the expense of themselves in the long run) without some form of restraint. Christian morality was that restraint for over a century. Absent that restraint, your "fiscal issues" cannot be resolved.
As such, abortion, debt, gay "marriage", divorce epidemic, etc... are just symptoms. You can continue to treat the symptoms but the disease is going to kill the patient unless the actual problem is resolved.
-
First of all, Christians are commanded to judge sin. The verse that sinners use who wish to excuse their own sin (judge not...) is referring to people. I do not and cannot condemn people. I do and can condemn sin. Adultery, homosexuality, thieving, etc... are sins. If calling your sin a sin makes you feel condemned, that's for you to address.
Secondly, the fiscal issues are a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is that we are no longer a moral and religious people and are now not for our Constitution. Despite the dreams of a libertarian utopia, people will not vote against immediate gain (even at the expense of themselves in the long run) without some form of restraint. Christian morality was that restraint for over a century. Absent that restraint, your "fiscal issues" cannot be resolved.
As such, abortion, debt, gay "marriage", divorce epidemic, etc... are just symptoms. You can continue to treat the symptoms but the disease is going to kill the patient unless the actual problem is resolved.
Whose morals and whose religion is the one that must be followed? Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Taoism, Hindu, Buddhism, Pagan, Satan, etc?
-
Sure whatever, that's not what I was asking (additional pedantic gripe:saints are also sinners).
It was implied that since Christ pronounced judgements in the Bible, that Christians are therefore authorized to do the same. I do not agree with this conclusion. God has power and authority to pronounce judgment. You don't. God has power and authority to forgive a person's sins. Jesus did say to people "your sins are forgiven" (one of the key refutations of the untenable theory that Jesus and his contemporaries did not consider him to be God, and that his Godness was tacked on beginning with the book of John...the Jesus's act of forgiving sins is equivalent to a statement that he is God). Jesus forgave (absolved) sin in the bible but you do not have the power and authority to do the same. If you think that you have the power to absolve sin then you are practicing something other than Christianity. That Jesus did it in the bible doesn't mean you get to do it, sorry.
BUTBUTBUT HOLY SPIRIT DER DER...yes, the Holy Ghost gives power. What power(s)? Not power to forgive sin or pronounce judgement. Why? We never see that from nonJesus persons in the bible. What powers then? The powers that we see exhibited by non-Jesus persons in the bible-healing the sick, casting out spirits, speaking in tongues, etc. I welcome bible scholars to correct me...did followers ever raise anyone from the dead? Interestingly, I do not believe Jesus ever spoke in tongues.
So are you in somewhat of an agreement with me? I'm a bit confused?
-
Whose morals and whose religion is the one that must be followed? Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Taoism, Hindu, Buddhism, Pagan, Satan, etc?
Most of the people citing this sort of thing believe that conservative or Evangelical Christianity is the only road to salvation, and the concept of 'secular morality' is an oxymoron.
-
Whose morals and whose religion is the one that must be followed? Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Taoism, Hindu, Buddhism, Pagan, Satan, etc?
Christian morality was that restraint for over a century. Absent that restraint, your "fiscal issues" cannot be resolved.
-
Quote from: makattak on Today at 11:01:23 AM
Christian morality was that restraint for over a century. Absent that restraint, your "fiscal issues" cannot be resolved.
Explain the brothels of the 19th century and early 20th, child labor, gambling, why was the Volstead act repealed, how did abortion become legal, why can business be open on Sunday, why were women allowed to vote, etc.
-
Most of the people citing this sort of thing believe that conservative or Evangelical Christianity is the only road to salvation, and the concept of 'secular morality' is an oxymoron.
"Secular morality" is not an oxymoron. There are some very moral athiests. Every person has the natural law written on their hearts. As such, even while denying its Author, they follow it.
Our founders recognized that even with the influence of Christianity, men with power had to be further constrained. They knew that without the dual constraints, our Republic would dissolve. They relied on Christian morals to constrain voters in who they elected and to constrain the elected into following the law.
Clearly it was not perfect, even before the widespread rejection of Christian morals, but I observe that it worked better than today when we are still drawing down the social capital of inherited Christian morals.
-
So are you in somewhat of an agreement with me? I'm a bit confused?
I was never in disagreement. You refuted an argument I never made. My first post addressed a specific idea-that Christians are authorized and capable of judging others because we observe Jesus judging in the bible. My latest post was further clarification of my original argument so your confusion is understandable.
-
The star witness on judgement day will be our own conscious.
Corroborating evidence provided by an omniscient God.
Now is the time to look for mercy, not then.
In the end there will be both perfect justice and perfect mercy.
We can choose our own destiny.
I need a lot of mercy so I've thrown my lot in with Christ.
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.
-
I was never in disagreement. You refuted an argument I never made. My first post addressed a specific idea-that Christians are authorized and capable of judging others because we observe Jesus judging in the bible. My latest post was further clarification of my original argument so your confusion is understandable.
Gotcha, I wasn't trying to refute you. Hence the confusion on my part.
I was just dumping my feelings towards folks who ravenously judge people which they are in disagreement with. Usually in the name of their own version/interpretation of a popular religion. Sometimes to the point of extreme prejudice that they start to consider the people they judge to be subhuman to themselves and want to deny them the freedoms they hold dear to themselves. Even go so far as use emotional subjective views to point out that these different people are even a poisonous menace to society and need to be controlled so the infestation is stopped.
-
Gotcha, I wasn't trying to refute you. Hence the confusion on my part.
I was just dumping my feelings towards folks who ravenously judge people which they are in disagreement with. Usually in the name of their own version/interpretation of a popular religion. Sometimes to the point of extreme prejudice that they start to consider the people they judge to be subhuman to themselves and want to deny them the freedoms they hold dear to themselves. Even go so far as use emotional subjective views to point out that these different people are even a poisonous menace to society and need to be controlled so the infestation is stopped.
On the other hand, judging those scary religious people, and painting them as a poisonous menace is apparently OK.
Your fear-mongering about certain religious folk has really become absurd.
-
First of all, Christians are commanded to judge sin.
And sinners. My apologies to zahc for not bringing more convincing evidence before. I will do that now. Most are gleaned from the following web site, which also contains more scripture references to the point, as well as a pretty good discussion of what Christians ought NOT do with regard to judgment.
http://www.christianciv.com/Judge_Others.htm
Firstly, there are Luke 17 and Matt 18, in which Christ tells us to rebuke our fellow Christians when they sin, and then if they will not repent, to excommunicate them. In Matt 7, he referred to this as helping a brother get the speck out his eye (after we get the plank out of ours). In Matt 10 and Luke 10, he sent people out (not just his twelve disciples, by the way) to spread the Gospel, and he told them to publicly rebuke those who would not receive them. So yes, while there are certain things Christ did that we probably shouldn't do, as individuals, judgment is not among them.
FWIW, when I said that Christians are commanded to "denounce wickedness," I wasn't speaking of judging particular people, but of Ephesians 5.11: “Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” That's really no different than what a lot of secular people and groups are doing when it comes to human trafficking, or food deserts, or whatever the cause du jour.
-
If the GOP and Religious Right spent as much energy on fiscal problems are they do on moral problems, a lot of the problems that truly affect us would either be solved or less of a problem.
I agree that "gay marriages" being without legal status is not a problem that "truly affects us." I wish the left would agree with us on that, and stop pushing.
-
I welcome bible scholars to correct me...did followers ever raise anyone from the dead? Interestingly, I do not believe Jesus ever spoke in tongues.
In whichever version I happened to find them in, online. Bold mine.
Matthew 10:7-8 (KJV)
And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
John 14:12 (ESV)
12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.
This page has some people that were raised from the dead (both Old and New Testament) at the request of prophets and apostles:
http://stronginfaith.org/article.php?page=114
-
Tip of the hat to makattak for making a lot of sense. But that is just his way.
-
http://www.christianciv.com/Judge_Others.htm
Hmmm. Theonomists and reconstructionists. And inevitably, postmillenial. I'm guessing they wouldn't be much approving of where I come down.
-
Interesting observation, but I don't think it's germane. I've never heard of the site before, and didn't read the whole page, but it does point out a lot of scriptures on the topic of judginess.
-
On the other hand, judging those scary religious people, and painting them as a poisonous menace is apparently OK.
Your fear-mongering about certain religious folk has really become absurd.
If certain religious folks quite preaching hate and maybe preach about love and forgiveness, then I would sing a different tune.
How much violence/hate is delivered due to religious beliefs?
-
If certain religious folks quite preaching hate and maybe preach about love and forgiveness, then I would sing a different tune.
How much violence/hate is delivered due to religious beliefs?
Thanks for proving my point. Surely, in the 21st century, this canard about religion being more hateful or violent than the alternative is so thoroughly debunked that we need not go through the motions again.
-
Wouldn't it be nice if both the believers and the unbelievers would shut their pie holes and just go about their lives?Quietly.
-
Thanks for proving my point.
How so?
-
Wouldn't it be nice if both the believers and the unbelievers would shut their pie holes and just go about their lives?Quietly.
I'm not a unbeliever, just a critic.
-
Interesting observation, but I don't think it's germane.
I think it might be.
These are, from what reading I have done (Rushdoony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousas_John_Rushdoony)'s Institutes of Biblical Law (http://www.amazon.com/Institutes-Biblical-Rousas-John-Rushdoony/dp/0875524109) is 15' away from me, though I haven't read it since maybe 1979 or so), one of the sets of folks that really do want to have a theocracy. These are (in the public mind) the scary folks, that want to "stone adulterers, kill all the queers yada yada". I'm sure it's more nuanced than that, but that's how the MSM sees them.
(The penetcostalist version of this actually worries me more.)
-
Thanks for proving my point. Surely, in the 21st century, this canard about religion being more hateful or violent than the alternative is so thoroughly debunked that we need not go through the motions again.
You're kidding right?
Christianity is having a quiet century or two, but religion is as deadly and hateful worldwide as ever.
-
These are, from what reading I have done (Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law is 15' away from me, though I haven't read it since maybe 1979 or so), one of the sets of folks that really do want to have a theocracy. These are (in the public mind) the scary folks, that want to "stone adulterers, kill all the queers yada yada".
You can see who longs for the Republic of Gilead and will gladly volunteer to staff the re-education camps for the gays. After all, someone has to be the Commandant. For the children and to reduce societal costs, you know.
-
You're kidding right?
Christianity is having a quiet century or two, but religion is as deadly and hateful worldwide as ever.
That wasn't my point. I was referring to the hatred and violence perpetrated in the name of secular movements, whether it be communism, gun control, or just garden-variety, "I hope your wife gets raped, and can't have an abortion" leftism. There's no longer any excuse for this nonsensical idea that religion is some well-spring of hatred and head-chopping.
In referencing the century, I wasn't peddling the mistaken idea that religion used to be mean, but is now warm and fuzzy. I don't believe in progress, in that sense.
-
I think it might be.
These are, from what reading I have done (Rushdoony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousas_John_Rushdoony)'s Institutes of Biblical Law (http://www.amazon.com/Institutes-Biblical-Rousas-John-Rushdoony/dp/0875524109) is 15' away from me, though I haven't read it since maybe 1979 or so), one of the sets of folks that really do want to have a theocracy. These are (in the public mind) the scary folks, that want to "stone adulterers, kill all the queers yada yada". I'm sure it's more nuanced than that, but that's how the MSM sees them.
(The penetcostalist version of this actually worries me more.)
Uh, are you disagreeing that the scriptures they reference indicate a commandment to make judgments?
-
How so?
Uh, by continuing to "go so far as use emotional subjective views to point out that these different people are even a poisonous menace to society."
-
Uh, by continuing to "go so far as use emotional subjective views to point out that these different people are even a poisonous menace to society."
Call it as I see it.
Homosexuality is the same as Alcoholism as a drain on society?
Public displays hatred:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzeldalily.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F11%2Fgay_marriage_opponents-1-731273-300x296.jpg&hash=23025487e71834261dca84c8b622242f715ccb3e)
(https://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/god-hates-fags.jpg)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FNmekb4k-ZeM%2Fhqdefault.jpg&hash=50b3b8b763febe3d40eec6eea5354d98dcfba7b3)
Even minor children get in on the fun.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minbcnews.com%2FuploadedImages%2Fweyi%2FNews%2FStories%2Fwestboro%2520photo.jpg%3Fw%3D440%26amp%3Bh%3D330%26amp%3Baspect%3Dnostretch&hash=85bf187c21490ac7e855c2976893824f542e8ad9)
-
BTW I don't condone hate speech from anyone, especially when a person or person's are singled out because they are different than the group spewing the hate and wanting to suppress their rights or make their rights less equal.
-
Oh great googly-moogly . . . .
The Westboro nutjobs? Really??
-
You can see who longs for the Republic of Gilead and will gladly volunteer to staff the re-education camps for the gays. After all, someone has to be the Commandant. For the children and to reduce societal costs, you know.
Yeah, I know. Here in the United States we have, like, three of them. Such a menace...
Call it as I see it.
Homosexuality is the same as Alcoholism as a drain on society?
Public displays hatred:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzeldalily.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F11%2Fgay_marriage_opponents-1-731273-300x296.jpg&hash=23025487e71834261dca84c8b622242f715ccb3e)
(https://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/god-hates-fags.jpg)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FNmekb4k-ZeM%2Fhqdefault.jpg&hash=50b3b8b763febe3d40eec6eea5354d98dcfba7b3)
Even minor children get in on the fun.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minbcnews.com%2FuploadedImages%2Fweyi%2FNews%2FStories%2Fwestboro%2520photo.jpg%3Fw%3D440%26amp%3Bh%3D330%26amp%3Baspect%3Dnostretch&hash=85bf187c21490ac7e855c2976893824f542e8ad9)
:rofl: Proves the point again!
-
Proves the point again!
How so, articulate yourself better? I really don't understand your point or are you just trying to irritate me.
-
Oh great googly-moogly . . . .
The Westboro nutjobs? Really??
Not all of them are Westboro but, at least the 2 largest Baptist churches have denounced the actions of the Westboro church.
-
:rofl: Proves the point again!
Also have you noticed that more a particular group is chastised openly by another group, the chastised group ends becomes a protected class due to persecution?
-
I was just watching the news, and there is something happening legally with the Sandusky case. This made me think about him: he is heterosexual, is he not? Married to a woman for decades and had several children, if I recall.
-
I was just watching the news, and there is something happening legally with the Sandusky case. This made me think about him: he is heterosexual, is he not? Married to a woman for decades and had several children, if I recall.
Old joke.
A mathematician and an accountant apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal"?
That's the answer here. What do you want the answer to be, and how do you get there. If you want to prove he's a heterosexual, you point out the wife and kids. If you want to prove he's a homosexual, you point out that he had sexual relations with males.
Tis why I put kid touchers in their own box. A person can be heterosexual or homosexual, in addition to being a pedo.
-
Tis why I put kid touchers in their own box.
This. Plenty of homosexuals aren't interested in the under-aged.
A pedo is a pedo.
Arguing that they are one way or the other just to denigrate a class of people is idiotic.
-
Tis why I put kid touchers in their own box.
Well then put all of them in there and let's bury the damn thing already!
-
Uh, are you disagreeing that the scriptures they reference indicate a commandment to make judgments?
I like to look at context.
(I note that he talks about the woman caught in adultery, without mentioning the textual issue.)
commandment to make judgments
"Don't you know that we are to judge angels?"
Now, or eschatological? In what context now?
The lecture series "In the land of Nod: The Reformed Understanding of the Two Kingdoms. How do we as Christians relate to the culture around us?" (http://christreformedinfo.org/mp3s-and-real-audio-of-academy/) might be helpful. Or infuriating.
-
This. (1)Plenty of homosexuals aren't interested in the under-aged.
(2) A pedo is a pedo.
Arguing that they are one way or the other (3)just to denigrate a class of people is idiotic.
(1) Indeed, this is not in dispute. What is of concern is the rate.
(2) Rhetorical tautology.
(3) Assumption of motive, again. The market for assumption of ill will and character assassination is locked down tight. Who says the right can't learn anything from the left?
How's about, "Examining the problem using the best data available without ideological blinders."
In one instance, human behavior X results in ~10k deaths and there are gov't-mandated behavior adjustment programs those who so behave must attend. In another instance, human behavior Y results in ~10k deaths and not only are there no mandatory behavior adjustment programs...but there is a call to outlaw those programs. Why is that? Should we have any such programs mandated by the gov't? What is the criteria? Are the victims of one sort of behavior more or less sympathetic than the victims of the other?
Our public debate has been so closed off and dumbed down recently that any instance of Noticing Things is suspect and analysis is looked on as witchcraft.
I was just watching the news, and there is something happening legally with the Sandusky case. This made me think about him: he is heterosexual, is he not? Married to a woman for decades and had several children, if I recall.
Revealed preference. When he thinks folks are watching he acts one way. When he thinks he is unobserved, he acts another way. Hawthorne Effect also provides insight (change in behavior when under observation/examination).
And I think the question, "Is he X?" with regard to complex human behavior is only pertinent as it relates to "Does he do X behavior?" Which approach makes the fewest assumptions is likely best. Ockham's Razor vs Ockham's Butterknife.
Another way of writing, "Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking."
(1)Tis why I put kid touchers in their own box. (2)A person can be heterosexual or homosexual, in addition to being a pedo.
(2) I don't think that is up for debate among reasonable folk. Different categories can be combined in a matrix for the most part.
(1) Understandable given the zeitgeist, but still just a way to avoid any analysis. Sort of how like Chicago PD re-defined "riot" so as not to have to address what occurs regularly when some of Chicago's public high schools let out. "No, Sir. No riots to report in 2013! And surely no need to examine where and why those not-riots occurred, especially given the political heat that would come down were we to analyze these not-riots that sit out here all...by...themselves and which I will now place in their own box."
-
You're kidding right?
Christianity is having a quiet century or two, but religion is as deadly and hateful worldwide as ever.
Numbers killed by violent religious extremists?
Numbers killed by atheist regimes, generally Communist?
Tell me again how those evil religious folks are so dangerous.
-
You can see who longs for the Republic of Gilead and will gladly volunteer to staff the re-education camps for the gays. After all, someone has to be the Commandant. For the children and to reduce societal costs, you know.
Not wanting gay marriage laws passed is indeed exactly the same as wanting to establish a theocracy and send gays to death camps.
Thanks for demonstrating how logical and reasonable you are in regards to your opposition.
-
I was just watching the news, and there is something happening legally with the Sandusky case. This made me think about him: he is heterosexual, is he not? Married to a woman for decades and had several children, if I recall.
I know several gay men who married, fathered children, and lived as straight for many years. Seems pretty clear to me that they were gay men trying to live as straight until they chose to come out. If that is true absent the stigma of sexual abuse and child predation, I'm not sure why it wouldn't hold as a general rule.
-
Not wanting gay marriage laws passed is indeed exactly the same as wanting to establish a theocracy and send gays to death camps.
Thanks for demonstrating how logical and reasonable you are in regards to your opposition.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
-- Senator Barry Goldwater
-
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
-- Senator Barry Goldwater
There's really a number of ways one could take that quote, given the context of this discussion.
-
I know several gay men who married, fathered children, and lived as straight for many years. Seems pretty clear to me that they were gay men trying to live as straight until they chose to come out.
Or bisexual and saw "coming out" as the way to have an affair and still play the victim.
-
On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it.
Various quotes at various times from Senator Barry Goldwater
-
Various quotes at various times from Senator Barry Goldwater
Barry Goldwater hands down is my most favorite politician in modern times. Too bad he has passed on and those who try to emulate him get pushed down by the same folks he warned us about.
-
^^^ As I grow older and smarter, Senator Goldwater is really growing on me.
-
Wow, that's some really venemous, othering hate speech there. :rofl:
-
^^^ As I grow older and smarter, Senator Goldwater is really growing on me.
IIRC Goldwater's grandson came out as gay and really changed his opinion on that subject.
-
Also, the irony of quoting a guy who opposed the Civil Rights Act in a thread about how people that oppose gay marriage are hateful bigots is truly lulz worthy.
Goldwater was one of the more prominent American politicians to openly show an interest in UFOs.
On March 28, 1975, Goldwater wrote to Shlomo Arnon: "The subject of UFOs has interested me for some long time. About ten or twelve years ago I made an effort to find out what was in the building at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base where the information has been stored that has been collected by the Air Force, and I was understandably denied this request. It is still classified above Top Secret."[83] Goldwater further wrote that there were rumors the evidence would be released, and that he was "just as anxious to see this material as you are, and I hope we will not have to wait much longer."[83]
The April 25, 1988, issue of The New Yorker carried an interview where Goldwater said he repeatedly asked his friend, Gen. Curtis LeMay, if there was any truth to the rumors that UFO evidence was stored in a secret room at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and if he (Goldwater) might have access to the room. According to Goldwater, an angry LeMay gave him "holy hell" and said, "Not only can't you get into it but don't you ever mention it to me again."[84]
In a 1988 interview on Larry King's radio show, Goldwater was asked if he thought the U.S. Government was withholding UFO evidence; he replied "Yes, I do." He added:
I certainly believe in aliens in space. They may not look like us, but I have very strong feelings that they have advanced beyond our mental capabilities... I think some highly secret government UFO investigations are going on that we don't know about – and probably never will unless the Air Force discloses them.[85]
-
Also, the irony of quoting a guy who opposed the Civil Rights Act in a thread about how people that oppose gay marriage are hateful bigots is truly lulz worthy.
Goldwater changed his beliefs overtime, he became quite the independent thinker after his failed presidential election.
-
How so, articulate yourself better? I really don't understand your point or are you just trying to irritate me.
Sigh. Maybe I'll give it a try when I get home.
Does anyone else care to explain this to charb? Seems pretty obvious to me.
-
So Balog, what do space aliens think about the gay issue?
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/23/christian-radio-host-charged-sex-probe/11251795/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28USATODAY+-+News+Top+Stories%29
Uh oh. Underage boys and child pornography.
-
^^local^^to a few of us.
http://woodtv.com/2014/06/23/wcsg-general-manager-addresses-balyo-arrest/
More reading here.
Some of the comments in this ^ link seem almost verbatim to comments in this thread.You guys get around!
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/23/christian-radio-host-charged-sex-probe/11251795/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28USATODAY+-+News+Top+Stories%29
Uh oh. Underage boys and child pornography.
When it comes to being a child predator, is his professed religion of more or less relevance than his professed sexual orientation?
-
When it comes to being a child predator, is his professed religion of more or less relevance than his professed sexual orientation?
Zing!
-
I was just dumping my feelings towards folks who ravenously judge people which they are in disagreement with. Usually in the name of their own version/interpretation of a popular religion. Sometimes to the point of extreme prejudice that they start to consider the people they judge to be subhuman to themselves and want to deny them the freedoms they hold dear to themselves. Even go so far as use emotional subjective views to point out that these different people are even a poisonous menace to society and need to be controlled so the infestation is stopped.
OK, charby? The bolded part there? That describes your tone on social conservatives. With the ridiculous assertion (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=44628.msg913707#msg913707) that they are allegedly "preaching hate," and allegedly not preaching "love and forgiveness." Not to mention what you said right above that, about dehumanizing people and denying them freedoms. And, of course, the numerous posts in which you blame them for screwing up the Republican Party. That is all malarky and projection. The so-cons are your bogeymen, which you like to paint as a menace they simply are not. Exhibit D: doubling down with the attempt to tar us with the God Hates Fags brush.
-
OK, charby? The bolded part there? That describes your tone on social conservatives. With the ridiculous assertion (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=44628.msg913707#msg913707) that they are allegedly "preaching hate," and allegedly not preaching "love and forgiveness." Not to mention what you said right above that, about dehumanizing people and denying them freedoms. And, of course, the numerous posts in which you blame them for screwing up the Republican Party. That is all malarky and projection. The so-cons are your bogeymen, which you like to paint as a menace they simply are not. Exhibit D: doubling down with the attempt to tar us with the God Hates Fags brush.
Barry Goldwater seemed to have felt the same way I did. Honestly I think the So Cons have ruined the party, alienated some people with their extreme issues and will not direct focus at the real problems. Maybe the So Cons needs to police their own and tell the radical ones to stay home and quit getting involved with politics. I quit my local party because the radical So Cons got involved and we started to go from tax relief, business friendly, 2nd amendment stuff and balanced budget to only being focused on marriage is one man/one woman and gotta make abortion illegal again. I'm sorry those battles have been fought and the so cons lost, get over it.
I take you have never been to a county/district/state convention for the GOP? 4-5 hours of it is radical So Cons taking over the mike because the platform is not socially conservative enough.
-
Goldwater was one of the more prominent American politicians to openly show an interest in UFOs.
-
>Thanks for proving my point. Surely, in the 21st century, this canard about religion being more hateful or violent than the alternative is so thoroughly debunked that we need not go through the motions again.<
Depends on how you term "religious views". If you take it as "beliefs concerning Deity", then you would be correct. However, I would argue that a new definition might be called for: "beliefs that have no foundation in provable fact". Using that, "religion" can be said to be responsible for most of the death and destruction of the 20th century (and the hatred currently spewed by the SJW crowd)
> I'm sorry those battles have been fought and the so cons lost, get over it.<
I wouldn't use that phrasing. I WOULD suggest that those issues need to be back-burnered a bit, or even used as political bargaining chips
ie: "You want gay marriage? Cool... Full Faith and Credit. But in return, and CCW is accepted anywhere in the country". "You want to abolish the death penalty? Ok... give us restrictions on abortion". you know... actual compromise...
-
Barry Goldwater seemed to have felt the same way I did. Honestly I think the So Cons have ruined the party, alienated some people with their extreme issues and will not direct focus at the real problems. Maybe the So Cons needs to police their own and tell the radical ones to stay home and quit getting involved with politics. I quit my local party because the radical So Cons got involved and we started to go from tax relief, business friendly, 2nd amendment stuff and balanced budget to only being focused on marriage is one man/one woman and gotta make abortion illegal again. I'm sorry those battles have been fought and the so cons lost, get over it.
I take you have never been to a county/district/state convention for the GOP? 4-5 hours of it is radical So Cons taking over the mike because the platform is not socially conservative enough.
Well, good for St. Barry. I guess we should just all shut up about the million-some children being "legally" murdered each year. That's obviously not a real problem.
Look, what do you expect from a party that was founded on, and succeeded on, the social issue of slavery? Are you not aware that they were called Radical_Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican) at the time? So if you think that denouncing the slaughter of unborn children is extreme or radical, and you think the GOP should turn its back on another progressive crusade to restore the rights of a helpless people, then by all means distance yourself from the "Radical Republicans."
-
Well, good for St. Barry. I guess we should just all shut up about the million-some children being "legally" murdered each year. That's obviously not a real problem.
Look, what do you expect from a party that was founded on, and succeeded on, the social issue of slavery? Are you not aware that they were called Radical_Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican) at the time? So if you think that denouncing the slaughter of unborn children is extreme or radical, and you think the GOP should turn its back on another progressive crusade to restore the rights of a helpless people, then by all means distance yourself from the "Radical Republicans."
Do you really think abortion will ever be illegal in your lifetime or your children's lifetime?
More states are going to allow gay marriage in our lifetimes, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes legal in all 50 states before 2040.
-
So you're saying the Republican Party should be pro-slavery, if that comes back into vogue. :facepalm:
Do you really think abortion will ever be illegal in your lifetime or your children's lifetime?
More states are going to allow gay marriage in our lifetimes, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes legal in all 50 states before 2040.
Do you really think Mr. Goldwater would ever have thought same-sex unions would be legally considered marriages within fifty years? The smart money certainly was not betting on it, back in 1964.
Balog already dealt pretty handily with this stupid idea of the battle being lost.
As for the battle being lost, by that account the battle is equally lost on illegal immigration, reducing the size and scope of fed.gov, fiscal conservatism etc. Are you going to stop fighting for them?
Or in other words, it was not over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. We don't know what's going to happen. Foes of abortion are making great strides, and may win, yet. As I pointed out earlier, it's absurd to suggest that same-sex marriage, as a legal reality, is here to stay. It appeared almost overnight. It could disappear as easily.
-
On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
Oh, whine, whine, whine. You're a politician. People want you to represent their view. You don't like it? Get out.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
Uh, you don't like preachers telling you what to believe, or what to do? ??? What exactly do you think their job is?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.
:rofl: Oh teh noes! I'm a Senator, and people try to get me to vote their way! Oh nooooooooooo!
What a cry baby.
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
Yeah, 'cause Christians are so terrible at democracy. Who taught this guy world history?
When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
Yeah, OK, whatever.
The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it.[/i]
Meh. OK, sure.
I'm beginning to understand why they thought he was too unhinged to have his finger on the button.
-
Fistful, I think you are grasping at straws now.
-
Fistful, I think you are grasping at straws now.
nah he hit close to the mark.
you whined about subjectivity and made assumptions of bad faith when faced with objective arguments and then vented your spleen with nary a datum in a subjective dump of your own.
what might have made your argument interesting would have been surveys or some sort of data indicating the level of support in the gop socon community for the westboro baptist church. or something meaty other than images of a dead democrat civil rights lawyer and his family church tax dodge and lawsuit mill.
but i suspect the data is not supportive of your assertions and examining it is less satisfying than baseless accusations of hatey hate mchate with a side of barry goldwater.
-
what might have made your argument interesting would have been surveys or some sort of data indicating the level of support in the gop socon community for the westboro baptist church. or something meaty other than images of a dead democrat civil rights lawyer and his family church tax dodge and lawsuit mill.
I don't think that data exists, or if it does it is not available. That would be very damning of the SoCons from everyone else.
I used to be like many of you, dig in when my religion was criticized, get pissed and use God and the bible to defend my beliefs, then one day I realized that the critics are on to something. Hate does present itself in the name of God by people who call themselves Christians. Doesn't mean that I am not a Christian, also doesn't mean my eyes are wide shut either. I think getting a balanced budget, reducing debt, getting people back to work with a living wage and reducing entitlements for folks who can't mange for themselves with a little push is a lot more Christian than getting all huffy and puffy about people of the same sex marrying each other.
-
Fistful, I think you are grasping at straws now.
In what way?
But, yeah, a living wage is a great, Christian idea. If by Christian, you refer to old-world serfdom. More regressive politics. :facepalm:
For the record, I get not the least bit huffy about men marrying each other. Never have. I do get a bit huffy when good people are smeared as bigots for just minding their own business, sometimes literally, and sticking to marriage's actual definition. Sorry, I just don't think sane people should be told to stay in the closet, and I figure they should be defended from hateful people.
-
In what way?
Saying that GOP should go back to the party of slavery.
-
Hate and discrimination are bad, unless they are being directed at Christians who actually believe that the Bible is anything more than a collection of fairy tales we can learn some good lessons from.
Do you really think abortion will ever be illegal in your lifetime or your children's lifetime?
Two things.
1. If anyone had asked you in the 80's or 90's if gay marriage (or marijuana for that matter) would be getting legalized in a few years, do you really think many people would have believed it possible?
2. If one believes that life begins at conception, and that abortion is a genocidal slaughter orders of magnitude worse than the holocaust, should they really just stop opposing it? Just shrug, say "Well it seems unlikely we'll get everything we want any time soon, guess we better stop fighting."?
Saying that GOP should go back to the party of slavery.
That's CSD levels of obtuse. He was pointing out that the roots of the party was in radical socons striving for something that seemed unachievable.
-
He was pointing out that the roots of the party was in radical socons striving for something that seemed unachievable.
Well, sort of. The anti-slavery plank of the party was progressive (and not usually radical), just as it's anti-abortion plank is today. I'm not sure that deregulating same-sex marriage (instead of codifying it) can really be called progressive. That would imply that same-sex marriage actually leads somewhere; instead of being a biological, social, and intellectual dead end.
-
I'm not sure that deregulating same-sex marriage (instead of codifying it) can really be called progressive. That would imply that same-sex marriage actually leads somewhere; instead of being a biological, social, and intellectual dead end.
In charby's defense, same-sex marriage is hardly the most immoral, unjust or dangerous thing that government could or does do - even compared to what goes on already as business as usual. Sure, he wins no friends by expressing it as "You retarded socons are ruining it for everyone by being so concerned about stupid things that don't bother me!!!", but even so he is correct inasmuch as the subject of same sex marriage isn't particularly threatening compared to many other valid concerns.
-
So how many generations before the same sex marriage folks (lack of)breed themselves into an insignificant number?
Assuming that there are many now that want to marry but society has "made"them live in the closet.Or at least live a lifestyle other than what they "want".
-
So how many generations before the same sex marriage folks (lack of)breed themselves into an insignificant number?
Homosexuality has likely existed for as long as humanity has. Certainly for recorded history. I don't think that will change with or without marriage.
Assuming that there are many now that want to marry but society has "made"them live in the closet.Or at least live a lifestyle other than what they "want".
As I said earlier: nothing prevents a same sex couple from living in a committed and exclusive marriage-like relationship without legal recognition. Marriage simply confers certain legal obligations and benefits.
-
In charby's defense, same-sex marriage is hardly the most immoral, unjust or dangerous thing that government could or does do - even compared to what goes on already as business as usual. Sure, he wins no friends by expressing it as "You retarded socons are ruining it for everyone by being so concerned about stupid things that don't bother me!!!", but even so he is correct inasmuch as the subject of same sex marriage isn't particularly threatening compared to many other valid concerns.
Just speaking for myself, that's not among my main points of disagreement with charby. It has more to do with the mischaracterization of those he disagrees with, and mischaracterization of the issues involved. For example, the notion that same-sex marriage is not just inevitable, but here to stay.
Then there is the idea that abortion simply cannot be fought. Hence the comparison with slavery.
But to disagree with you and charb a wee bit, there is more danger to our government recognizing same-sex marriage than you might think. Obviously, the "homophobes" are already being herded into the closet. In some cases, governments are even enforcing this. Besides that, there is the effect of making up patently absurd things (like same-sex marriages), declaring them a human right, and working them into our government. That cannot be good.
-
Homosexuality has likely existed for as long as humanity has. Certainly for recorded history. I don't think that will change with or without marriage.
As I said earlier: nothing prevents a same sex couple from living in a committed and exclusive marriage-like relationship without legal recognition. Marriage simply confers certain legal obligations and benefits.
I should have explained better.
I believe that a certain percentage of the population,since their has been a population,has either identified as gay or maybe bi.I don't believe that the percentage has changed a whole lot over the natural course of history.I'm with you there.
The people I'm curious about are those that choose to be gay for whatever reason(trendy,needy,whiney,& the other four),those that might be bi,and those that may feel peer pressure to be gay.Some of these are in the actual gay group but I believe that lots are not.
So,if gay marriage becomes universally accepted,just how long before it becomes statistically irrelevant?I'm assuming that,once it's been off the radar for a few years,the strident gay rights folks will have a new cause and thru natural attrition(have you noticed just how many gays that want to marry-and are in the news-are old?like 50's-70's old)including age and "divorce" the numbers will whittle down.Then their will likely be the same percentage of gays,some of which will want to "marry".
I guess that I'm assuming that people are genetically predisposed to their sexual preference.Since they don't breed will their percentage decrease?
-
I should have explained better.
I believe that a certain percentage of the population,since their has been a population,has either identified as gay or maybe bi.I don't believe that the percentage has changed a whole lot over the natural course of history.I'm with you there.
The people I'm curious about are those that choose to be gay for whatever reason(trendy,needy,whiney,& the other four),those that might be bi,and those that may feel peer pressure to be gay.Some of these are in the actual gay group but I believe that lots are not.
So,if gay marriage becomes universally accepted,just how long before it becomes statistically irrelevant?I'm assuming that,once it's been off the radar for a few years,the strident gay rights folks will have a new cause and thru natural attrition(have you noticed just how many gays that want to marry-and are in the news-are old?like 50's-70's old)including age and "divorce" the numbers will whittle down.Then their will likely be the same percentage of gays,some of which will want to "marry".
I guess that I'm assuming that people are genetically predisposed to their sexual preference.Since they don't breed will their percentage decrease?
Answers to many of these questions will depend on what happens to the market for women. I don't think it has truly stabilized yet but when it does it will surely be less favorable than the pre-birth-control one.
-
It has more to do with the mischaracterization of those he disagrees with, and mischaracterization of the issues involved.
Okay.
But to disagree with you and charb a wee bit, there is more danger to our government recognizing same-sex marriage than you might think. Obviously, the "homophobes" are already being herded into the closet. In some cases, governments are even enforcing this.
I still maintain that compared to most governmental actions, legal recognition of same-sex marriage is positively tame. Are some people going to be shamed into concealing their beliefs on the subject? Sure, but that's not a legal issue, that's cultural pressure. Are some folks going to be in legal trouble for not making cupcakes for a gay wedding or something? Sure, and that's wrong, but it doesn't even break into the worst thousand government intrusions into our lives.
I should have explained better.
I believe that a certain percentage of the population,since their has been a population,has either identified as gay or maybe bi.I don't believe that the percentage has changed a whole lot over the natural course of history.I'm with you there.
The people I'm curious about are those that choose to be gay for whatever reason(trendy,needy,whiney,& the other four),those that might be bi,and those that may feel peer pressure to be gay.Some of these are in the actual gay group but I believe that lots are not.
So,if gay marriage becomes universally accepted,just how long before it becomes statistically irrelevant?I'm assuming that,once it's been off the radar for a few years,the strident gay rights folks will have a new cause and thru natural attrition(have you noticed just how many gays that want to marry-and are in the news-are old?like 50's-70's old)including age and "divorce" the numbers will whittle down.Then their will likely be the same percentage of gays,some of which will want to "marry".
I guess that I'm assuming that people are genetically predisposed to their sexual preference.Since they don't breed will their percentage decrease?
So you're asking if they win on the major gay issues, will many of the joiners move on to protecting the civil rights and cultural acceptance of furries or whatever is next? Yeah, probably.
-
I should have explained better.
I believe that a certain percentage of the population,since their has been a population,has either identified as gay or maybe bi.I don't believe that the percentage has changed a whole lot over the natural course of history.I'm with you there.
The people I'm curious about are those that choose to be gay for whatever reason(trendy,needy,whiney,& the other four),those that might be bi,and those that may feel peer pressure to be gay.Some of these are in the actual gay group but I believe that lots are not.
So,if gay marriage becomes universally accepted,just how long before it becomes statistically irrelevant?I'm assuming that,once it's been off the radar for a few years,the strident gay rights folks will have a new cause and thru natural attrition(have you noticed just how many gays that want to marry-and are in the news-are old?like 50's-70's old)including age and "divorce" the numbers will whittle down.Then their will likely be the same percentage of gays,some of which will want to "marry".
I guess that I'm assuming that people are genetically predisposed to their sexual preference.Since they don't breed will their percentage decrease?
Pure speculation on my part: If the bolded were the case,wouldn't it have happened already?
More speculation: Considering what I've seen and experienced of today's younger generation I expect polygamy to be legal within 50 years, perhaps less. The "youngsters nowadays" are, from what I've noticed, much more open about their sexuality and much more willing to cross traditional gender lines. I don't think it's my place to say whether it's a good or a bad thing.
Please keep in mind I'm not saying this is a universal truth, just impressions I've gleaned from my limited experience: I'm just musing out loud here . . .
-
>More speculation: Considering what I've seen and experienced of today's younger generation I expect polygamy to be legal within 50 years, perhaps less. The "youngsters nowadays" are, from what I've noticed, much more open about their sexuality and much more willing to cross traditional gender lines. I don't think it's my place to say whether it's a good or a bad thing. <
If you'll pardon the pun, I think this could go either way. We COULD see the next generation take power and wholesale legalize gay marriage and polygamy.
Alternatively, given some of the problems involved in a multi-partner relationship*, we could see this generation backlash against the concept
*think "normal relationship issues". Multiply exponentially for every "extra" partner involved
-
>More speculation: Considering what I've seen and experienced of today's younger generation I expect polygamy to be legal within 50 years, perhaps less. The "youngsters nowadays" are, from what I've noticed, much more open about their sexuality and much more willing to cross traditional gender lines. I don't think it's my place to say whether it's a good or a bad thing. <
If you'll pardon the pun, I think this could go either way. We COULD see the next generation take power and wholesale legalize gay marriage and polygamy.
Alternatively, given some of the problems involved in a multi-partner relationship*, we could see this generation backlash against the concept
*think "normal relationship issues". Multiply exponentially for every "extra" partner involved
Seems like many of the biblical male folks had concubines. So why not?? [popcorn]
-
Maybe I'm strange but when I first heard of "gay marriage"a few years back I remember thinking that polygamy,as legal and acceptable,would naturally follow.
I think it could work.I know there'd be problems.I'd support it.
One man with multiple wives yes.A wife with multiple husbands though?I dunno.
-
Seems like many of the biblical male folks had concubines. So why not?? [popcorn]
Well, they presumably also had slaves. Or were slaves. [popcorn]
-
Maybe I'm strange but when I first heard of "gay marriage"a few years back I remember thinking that polygamy,as legal and acceptable,would naturally follow.
I think it could work.I know there'd be problems.I'd support it.
One man with multiple wives yes.A wife with multiple husbands though?I dunno.
Ok, since people are continuing on in this, I'll respond to the joke from Charby:
Seems like many of the biblical male folks had concubines. So why not?? [popcorn]
They also had multiple wives in addition to concubines. I'll note for you, though, that there is no positive story associated with multiple wives and concubines:
Abraham and Hagar: We're still dealing with that sibling rivalry
Jacob and Rachel and Leah: Oh yeah, 10 of your kids deciding to off another of them because he's your favorite makes for great family relations
David: Have you seen how messed up that family was? His expected heir rapes his half-sister, gets murdered by his half-brother who then leads a rebellion against him.
Solomon: We've reached a whole 'nother level of disfunction here. (Seriously, 1000 women?)
It's not a good advertisement for polygamy.
-
Ok, since people are continuing on in this, I'll respond to the joke from Charby:
They also had multiple wives in addition to concubines. I'll note for you, though, that there is no positive story associated with multiple wives and concubines:
Abraham and Hagar: We're still dealing with that sibling rivalry
Jacob and Rachel and Leah: Oh yeah, 10 of your kids deciding to off another of them because he's your favorite makes for great family relations
David: Have you seen how messed up that family was? His expected heir rapes his half-sister, gets murdered by his half-brother who then leads a rebellion against him.
Solomon: We've reached a whole 'nother level of disfunction here. (Seriously, 1000 women?)
It's not a good advertisement for polygamy.
I'm glad you saw it as a joke. It is hard enough keeping sane living with one wife, I couldn't imagine 2 or more.
-
Well, they presumably also had slaves. Or were slaves. [popcorn]
I'm bigger, stronger and more well armed than you. Make me a Sammich!
-
So long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, I'm fine with polygamy
-
So long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, I'm fine with polygamy
As a living arrangement, or as a legally recognized entity? Seems like it'd be a hell of a way to scam benefits, healthcare coverage etc. I wonder how that'd work for tax purposes "The 15 people in this polyamorous marriage have 45 children, and all of us claim all of them as dependents."
-
The only problem,that I see,with polygamy would be in the legal definition.
Traditionally it'd be one man with more than one woman.(I'm o.k. with this one)
One woman with multiple men would be a new one.(My sexist male self doesn't like this but I acknowledge that if a man can have wives a woman can have husbands so,O.K.)
I see the problems when these unions/marriages/whatever they end up being called include something like MMMWW.Or some such.(egos,jealosy,hurt feelings,a straight woman sharing her husband with another man?That's Jerry Springer territory there.)
I dunno.Maybe marriages should be short term legal contracts(was that Heinlein or Niven?Or both?) with an option for extensions.
-
Pure speculation on my part: If the bolded were the case,wouldn't it have happened already?
More speculation: Considering what I've seen and experienced of today's younger generation I expect polygamy to be legal within 50 years, perhaps less. The "youngsters nowadays" are, from what I've noticed, much more open about their sexuality and much more willing to cross traditional gender lines. I don't think it's my place to say whether it's a good or a bad thing.
Please keep in mind I'm not saying this is a universal truth, just impressions I've gleaned from my limited experience: I'm just musing out loud here . . .
Maybe it will be a straight line, onwards and upwards into Big Gay Al's Fabulous Future. OTOH, maybe not.
Prosperity
Anti-normative behaviors are like obesity, heart disease, gout, and other diseases of affluence. They multiply in times of affluence and atrophy when times get tough. Folk don't have time for such when they don't know where their next meal is coming from or if they have to worry about random violence. And they are less likely to test the patience and tolerance of friends, family, and neighbors is such situations. Solitary people without a blood-tie community are less likely to survive. If our economic system takes a serious hit, such trends will slow or reverse. For example:
1. Peak of Roman Empire vs the tribulations of Rome's decay and the follow-on Germanic kingdoms.
2. 1920s vs 1930s America.
Fourth Great Awakening
Periods of hedonism and dissipation many times are followed by periods of re-dedication to an objective and eternal moral code. We have had three thus far in America. We may have another before America crumbles and is swept into the dust bin of history.
Islam
Although some muslims in some places practice homosexuality and pederasty with abandon, most of the more orthodox sort take a dim view of it. Pim Fortyun, the Dutch politician and homosexual pederast who called for closing the border to any more muslim immigrants because he feared more muslims would endanger his sexual activities (among other reasons). Given that when orthodox muslims took power they would put homosexuals and pederasts on trial and then kill them, he has a point. We see more & more muslim influence on european society and social policy. It remains to be seen if it will win out. the two alternatives are:
1. Islam triumphs
Or, alternately, the West commits suicide and Islam moves into the vacuum. Expect homosexuality in all its manifestations to be re-criminalized and those places where it has infiltrated social mores to be rooted out.
2. Ethno-Nationalist Resurgence.
We do see ethno-nationalism gaining strength to fight against the progressive project (which includes mass immigration and western decline). From UKIP in the UK to Golden Dawn in Greece, it is currently waxing in influence. If it triumphs or influences the other parties, this might attenuate muslim infiltration and influence. Not all of these have a socially conservative element, but some do, so continuation of the trend to more & more dissipation is indeterminate.
Polygamy
I'm bigger, stronger and more well armed than you. Make me a Sammich!
Well, they presumably also had slaves. Or were slaves. [popcorn]
Pretty much.
Polygamy is a stable arrangement only when men are almost completely dominant and women chattel or near-chattel. None of that-thar silly suffrage or equality (under the law or anywhere). Otherwise, too many egos and agendas and personalities like strings mentioned.
Were it to become more common and more normalized, the taxpayer would soon become a party to the relationship as the taxpayer would pay the clean-up bills and most the other costs. We see some of this in the underclass with males knocking up several women in series or parallel and each woman and child getting on welfare. We also see the welfare-usage in the polygamous Mormon offshoots.
-
Keep in mind that I HAVE seen such relationships work, and work well. Even once the family had kids (damn kids had more caregivers than you can imagine).
But it is a LOT of work for everyone involved
-
Abraham and Hagar: We're still dealing with that sibling rivalry
Which totally never happens in monogamous marriages
Jacob and Rachel and Leah: Oh yeah, 10 of your kids deciding to off another of them because he's your favorite makes for great family relations
I'm pretty sure European history is littered with such examples from the times when people had more kids.
David: Have you seen how messed up that family was? His expected heir rapes his half-sister, gets murdered by his half-brother who then leads a rebellion against him.
Again, seems par for the course for any royalty, monogamous or not
Except Solomon, I don't see how any of this dysfunction is specific to polygamy. Seems like it's a thing that can happen in any large family, especially in the upper echelons of power.
-
As a living arrangement, or as a legally recognized entity? Seems like it'd be a hell of a way to scam benefits, healthcare coverage etc. I wonder how that'd work for tax purposes "The 15 people in this polyamorous marriage have 45 children, and all of us claim all of them as dependents."
"Married filing jointly."
Problem is... what, exactly? X number of incomes (15, in this case), with Y exemptions (personal and child-based) spread over them... yeah, seems like a total non-issue to me. Sure, there would have to be rules about who gets to claim which child(ren) if such an arrangement did NOT file "Married filing jointly", but they have to do that now for 2 divorced parents who may or may not be married to other people (or even some who are still married to one another, hence "Married filing separately"). Taxes seem to me to be something not worth worrying about, in this case.
-
"Married filing jointly."
Problem is... what, exactly? X number of incomes (15, in this case), with Y exemptions (personal and child-based) spread over them... yeah, seems like a total non-issue to me. Sure, there would have to be rules about who gets to claim which child(ren) if such an arrangement did NOT file "Married filing jointly", but they have to do that now for 2 divorced parents who may or may not be married to other people (or even some who are still married to one another, hence "Married filing separately"). Taxes seem to me to be something not worth worrying about, in this case.
That may be do-able, but it is more likely to devolve into a welfare scam. I am just not into making it easier or more acceptable for more folks to hop in the wagon for the taxpayers to pull forward. Enough, already. We have quite enough pro-dysgenic policies, thanks.
-
That may be do-able, but it is more likely to devolve into a welfare scam. I am just not into making it easier or more acceptable for more folks to hop in the wagon for the taxpayers to pull forward. Enough, already. We have quite enough pro-dysgenic policies, thanks.
I'm pretty sure that our progressive tax code would actually make plural marriages unappealing from a tax perspective, and unless the tax code were heavily modified to favor them I don't think plural marriages are the likeliest concern when it comes to welfare scams. Certainly not more than regular marriages are now, or even unmarried couples who live together but remain unmarried so the mother can collect extra support.
-
It's interesting to me that the main concerns being expressed here regarding polygamy are emotional and tax related. While the concerns regarding gay marriage are moral and societal.
I'm not being snarky, I'm honestly just noticing.
-
It's interesting to me that the main concerns being expressed here regarding polygamy are emotional and tax related. While the concerns regarding gay marriage are moral and societal.
I'm not being snarky, I'm honestly just noticing.
I noticed that also.
-
It's interesting to me that the main concerns being expressed here regarding polygamy are emotional and tax related. While the concerns regarding gay marriage are moral and societal.
I'm not being snarky, I'm honestly just noticing.
I haven't made an argument against polygamy because I didn't think we had begun that argument. I merely pointed out that the record of polygamy was not an exemplary one in the Old Testament.
However, my argument against polygamy is the exact same argument that I have against homosexual marriage:
The state has an interest in promoting the (actual) institution of marriage because it creates a stable family structure that has shown to be the best environment for raising progeny. (Please let's not redebate the whole "BUT SOMETIMES CHILDREN OF DIVORCES/GAYPARENTS/DRUGADDICTS/FURRYLOVERS TURN OUT BETTER THAN WITH TWO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS!")
Homosexual unions do not provide that same structure. (At best, you can say the data is mixed. I think it's clearly shown the environment to be detrimental.) Polygamous unions suffer similarly.
It is, therefore, not in the interest of the state to promote those unions. We can argue on whether they ought to be actually outlawed (as homosexual unions are nowhere in the country and polygamous unions are everywhere in the country), but the state has no compelling interest to promote and recognize them.
But, instead, the judiciary has decided that it is a compelling interest of the state to both promote homosexual unions and to penalize any who think their unions are detrimental.
-
I haven't made an argument against polygamy because I didn't think we had begun that argument. I merely pointed out that the record of polygamy was not an exemplary one in the Old Testament.
However, my argument against polygamy is the exact same argument that I have against homosexual marriage:
The state has an interest in promoting the (actual) institution of marriage because it creates a stable family structure that has shown to be the best environment for raising progeny. (Please let's not redebate the whole "BUT SOMETIMES CHILDREN OF DIVORCES/GAYPARENTS/DRUGADDICTS/FURRYLOVERS TURN OUT BETTER THAN WITH TWO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS!")
Homosexual unions do not provide that same structure. (At best, you can say the data is mixed. I think it's clearly shown the environment to be detrimental.) Polygamous unions suffer similarly.
It is, therefore, not in the interest of the state to promote those unions. We can argue on whether they ought to be actually outlawed (as homosexual unions are nowhere in the country and polygamous unions are everywhere in the country), but the state has no compelling interest to promote and recognize them.
But, instead, the judiciary has decided that it is a compelling interest of the state to both promote homosexual unions and to penalize any who think their unions are detrimental.
Pretty much that ^^^.
Just because I argue one angle doesn't mean I have no other objections.
Me: "I don't like the BATFE's uniforms."
Other: "Then you are OK with the harassment of FFLs and prosecution of paperwork errors?"
Me: <Give Other the YGTBSM look>
-
The state has an interest in promoting the (actual) institution of marriage because it creates a stable family structure that has shown to be the best environment for raising progeny. (Please let's not redebate the whole "BUT SOMETIMES CHILDREN OF DIVORCES/GAYPARENTS/DRUGADDICTS/FURRYLOVERS TURN OUT BETTER THAN WITH TWO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS!")
I categorically deny the state has any legitimate interest in that. That is a function of society and culture to sort itself out as it sees fit.
And I think anyone who espouses that line of reasoning, yet at the same time says they support the free market over a planned economy, and wants limited government is blind to their own emotive reasoning, cognitive dissonance, and hypocrisy. Giving government power over "family structure" is just an invitation to disaster. And I think we all do agree it's a disaster, as witnessed by the state of family structure in the welfare state.
Further, those who fought gay marriage are reaping what you've sown, because now the .gov is largely on a course to declare gay marriage by fiat and through the courts, and as noted earlier in the thread, gays who might not have ever been interested in "marriage" will now pursue it as a prize, and as a way of opposing and angering you.
And there's parallels to our common love of RKBA as well, right or wrong, in the eyes of God, or "social practicality and the stability of children" the gays are more or less fighting for something, while those who oppose it are fighting for a negative. If you don't see the parallels there, then you're not looking willfully.
I've repeatedly stated that BOTH sides have failed in looking to the government, or trying to wrest control over it to either promote or ban gay marriage, so ultimately both sides have lost here, but for now, your side is "losing more".
-
Thank you, AJ, for stating that so much better than I ever could
>That may be do-able, but it is more likely to devolve into a welfare scam. I am just not into making it easier or more acceptable for more folks to hop in the wagon for the taxpayers to pull forward. Enough, already. We have quite enough pro-dysgenic policies, thanks. <
Kinda hard to make welfare scamming any easier than it is now. Nice simple welfare reform should happen regardless. Poly marriage isn't going to add anything to that
-
I haven't made an argument against polygamy because I didn't think we had begun that argument. I merely pointed out that the record of polygamy was not an exemplary one in the Old Testament.
However, my argument against polygamy is the exact same argument that I have against homosexual marriage:
The state has an interest in promoting the (actual) institution of marriage because it creates a stable family structure that has shown to be the best environment for raising progeny. (Please let's not redebate the whole "BUT SOMETIMES CHILDREN OF DIVORCES/GAYPARENTS/DRUGADDICTS/FURRYLOVERS TURN OUT BETTER THAN WITH TWO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS!")
Homosexual unions do not provide that same structure. (At best, you can say the data is mixed. I think it's clearly shown the environment to be detrimental.) Polygamous unions suffer similarly.
It is, therefore, not in the interest of the state to promote those unions. We can argue on whether they ought to be actually outlawed (as homosexual unions are nowhere in the country and polygamous unions are everywhere in the country), but the state has no compelling interest to promote and recognize them.
But, instead, the judiciary has decided that it is a compelling interest of the state to both promote homosexual unions and to penalize any who think their unions are detrimental.
Makes sense to me, and is certainly a consistent world-view. Would it be accurate to say that, for you, gay marriage creates a more emotional reaction than polygamy? Again, I'm not being snarky. I honestly want to know.
-
Not gonna speak for anyone here specifically, but I would say that most straight men will have more of a negative reaction to gay marriage than to polygamy (or lesbian marriage). One gives an "Ewwww" factor, the other doesn't
-
Makes sense to me, and is certainly a consistent world-view. Would it be accurate to say that, for you, gay marriage creates a more emotional reaction than polygamy? Again, I'm not being snarky. I honestly want to know.
I think the immediate threat of gay marriage provokes more of a reaction than polygamy because polygamy is a (slightly) more distant threat.
It's hard to get emotional over something that you know is going to happen, but it not immediately occurring. (See: Social Security bankruptcy.)
-
I categorically deny the state has any legitimate interest in that. That is a function of society and culture to sort itself out as it sees fit.
Yep. I would only add that when a parent's unstable family structure spills over into criminal neglect or abuse then it should become a state enforcement issue.
Further, those who fought gay marriage are reaping what you've sown, because now the .gov is largely on a course to declare gay marriage by fiat and through the courts, and as noted earlier in the thread, gays who might not have ever been interested in "marriage" will now pursue it as a prize, and as a way of opposing and angering you.
That doesn't really make sense. I don't think that most people who are against the idea of same-sex marriage are really worried if 2*X gay people get married instead of X. If the argument is that the government shouldn't be legitimizing what they feel is immoral activity, how would not fighting the issue and just letting it happen be better than fighting and ultimately losing in the courts?
Sure, there are other drawbacks to the opposition - i.e., distraction from other positive political goals as charby has noted, but I'm not understanding the "reaping what you've sown" assertion.
I've repeatedly stated that BOTH sides have failed in looking to the government, or trying to wrest control over it to either promote or ban gay marriage, so ultimately both sides have lost here, but for now, your side is "losing more".
Yep again.
-
The state has an interest in promoting the (actual) institution of marriage because it creates a stable family structure that has shown to be the best environment for raising progeny.
This I don't agree with, or at least not when stated in that fashion.
Societies, cultures, families, religions, have usually shown an interest in pairing up eligible men and women, and keeping them together - thus marriage. And it seems to make sense for government to recognize (which is not to say regulate or control*) those marriages, if for no other reason than figuring out which child belongs to who (whom? whoms?). Society, correct me if I'm wrong, has seldom found homosexual fidelity to be a pressing concern - thus an almost total (if not totally total) lack of same-sex "marriage" in history. And we're suddenly worried about it now, why? ??? "But fistful, teh geys have rug-rats, too!" Well, yeah, but any bunch of non-traditional couples can raise children together, gay, straight, or platonic. Funny how we single out the homosexuals for the urgent need for official recognition. [tinfoil]
When government recognizes "traditional marriages," it's recognizing something that's already there, and has always been there. When it recognizes non-traditional unions, whatever moral judgment anyone might have of them, there's just not much there for government to go on. Society is not in the habit of solemnizing the bond between an uncle and nephew that live together in a sex-less (thank goodness) household for thirty years, nor the union of two homosexual dudes raising a daughter of one of said dudes. So how is government to recognize something that isn't "a thing"?
But, instead, the judiciary has decided that it is a compelling interest of the state to both promote homosexual unions and to penalize any who think their unions are detrimental.
Well said. That first thing the govt. is doing is nonsensical (or at least, pointless**); the second thing is a patent violation of basic human rights. I guess not wanting my government to do nonsensical or pointless things makes me a hater.
*We could talk about how much regulation govt. should attempt of marriage, but I at least want them to recognize it when it happens.
**Unless the point, the purpose, is for the government to change our views on sexuality and gender for us.
-
I guess that I'm assuming that people are genetically predisposed to their sexual preference.Since they don't breed will their percentage decrease?
The issue is complicated, and not entirely genetic.
1. There's plenty of gays who still breed - artificial insemination for the lesbians. Heck, plenty of gays actually marry and have kids before coming out.
2. The chances of having a gay son increases with each son a woman has.
3. There's a theory out there that the 'gay gene', at least for guys, actually increases female fertility. If that outweighs the occasional gay son that doesn't breed(and per #1 many do)...
4. There's other theories that it could be affected by hormone levels during specific stages of pregnancy. Not EVERYTHING has to be genetic, you know. For that matter there are documented cases of identical twins where one's straight and the other's gay.
The state has an interest in promoting the (actual) institution of marriage because it creates a stable family structure that has shown to be the best environment for raising progeny.
But, instead, the judiciary has decided that it is a compelling interest of the state to both promote homosexual unions and to penalize any who think their unions are detrimental.
To use an argument I've seen elsewhere: Do you support genetic testing couples before allowing them to marry and forbidding them from doing so if there's an elevated chance of problems with any children? If marriage is purely about raising progeny, why do we allow people past menopause to marry, men with vasectomies, etc...? Do we dissolve marriages if a couple decides to not have any children?
The answer is, of course, that marriage is about a heck of a lot more than just raising kids. We are not so badly off that we need every couple possible procreating.
I'm going to end with a question: How are their unions detrimental? If you believe they are, how do you distinguish between the harm gays marrying causes and things like people eating red meat, being fat, and such?
-
If marriage is purely about raising progeny, why do we allow people past menopause to marry, men with vasectomies, etc...? Do we dissolve marriages if a couple decides to not have any children?
The answer is, of course, that marriage is about a heck of a lot more than just raising kids. We are not so badly off that we need every couple possible procreating.
Proviso: As I said just a bit ago, I don't agree with mak that government should promote marriage. I think it should recognize marriage.
Obviously, no one believes that marriage is only about raising children. But it is the only thing that explains why the whole world believes in it, and has always believed* it should be heterosexual. Religion and/or "homophobia" cannot explain it. Marriage has never been predicated on pre-existing children, or the likelihood of having children, merely the fact that they predictably occur between heterosexual pairings. We haven't seen fit to invalidate childless marriages in the past, even when child-bearing was considered a duty. There's no reason to start now.
*As noted, ad nauseam, there may have been a few, short-lived exceptions, if those were really considered equivalent to marriage.
-
To use an argument I've seen elsewhere: Do you support genetic testing couples before allowing them to marry and forbidding them from doing so if there's an elevated chance of problems with any children? If marriage is purely about raising progeny, why do we allow people past menopause to marry, men with vasectomies, etc...? Do we dissolve marriages if a couple decides to not have any children?
And, as I've answered this several times: no, I do not because those actions are an unacceptable breach of privacy.
Further, we allow everyone (except for polygamous marriages) to get married. We offer state benefits and recognition to the specific relationship that is actual marriage.
(Of course, I'm going to have to amend that now that the judiciary has long ago decided it wants to attack the actual definitions of marriage.)
If you want to argue that the state ought only to offer extra benefits to stable, male and female parent present households, I will not object. I do, however, think that the costs of offering those same benefits to couples incapable of having children are small compared to the invasion of privacy to do the things you suggest.
I'm going to end with a question: How are their unions detrimental? If you believe they are, how do you distinguish between the harm gays marrying causes and things like people eating red meat, being fat, and such?
Very simple, because people eating red meat, being fat, etc... are of no danger to anyone but themselves. (See roo_ster's posts on those statistics). But, of course, that's really just a side issue.
The true issue is the same issue with gun registration. There are honest gun control advocates supporters who truly only want to protect people and only want a registry with no thoughts towards confiscation. We know that that is not the end goal. The end goal is the state having the power and ability to confiscate guns they don't like.
Yes, it's a slippery slope argument, but it's one with a clear history in other nations.
It is the same issue here. Gay "marriage" isn't about accruing the benefits that actual marriage has from the government. It is about a means to force social acceptance on those hateful! Christians. It is about using the power of the state against those who believe homosexuality is a sin.
Further, to answer AJDual:
I categorically deny the state has any legitimate interest in that. That is a function of society and culture to sort itself out as it sees fit.
And I think anyone who espouses that line of reasoning, yet at the same time says they support the free market over a planned economy, and wants limited government is blind to their own emotive reasoning, cognitive dissonance, and hypocrisy. Giving government power over "family structure" is just an invitation to disaster. And I think we all do agree it's a disaster, as witnessed by the state of family structure in the welfare state.
Further, those who fought gay marriage are reaping what you've sown, because now the .gov is largely on a course to declare gay marriage by fiat and through the courts, and as noted earlier in the thread, gays who might not have ever been interested in "marriage" will now pursue it as a prize, and as a way of opposing and angering you.
You may deny that. But to claim we are "reaping what we've sown" is wrong. If the government were never involved in marriage (which, I will note, it did fine until it decided it wanted to meddle by making destroying a marriage easier), the homosexual lobby would be using some other weapon against Christians.
Because that is the issue: forcing social acceptance of deviant behavior and using the power of the state against all who would call it deviant. Gay "marriage" is not the issue and it will not stop here.
-
>Gay "marriage" isn't about accruing the benefits that actual marriage has from the government. It is about a means to force social acceptance on those hateful! Christians.<
Ummm... no.
The gay marriage movement started because long-term gay couples were getting screwed legally with regards to partner rights: visitation at hospitals, inheritance, things like that. Yes, they could spend a load of money to make all the same arrangements via the courts, but even then they aren't as strong a protection as "marriage"
And honestly, statements like the above make it very hard for me to take Christians seriously: you're claiming victim status because a group you don't approve of wants the same rights as everyone else. Did you learn that from the far left?
-
>Gay "marriage" isn't about accruing the benefits that actual marriage has from the government. It is about a means to force social acceptance on those hateful! Christians.<
Ummm... no.
The gay marriage movement started because long-term gay couples were getting screwed legally with regards to partner rights: visitation at hospitals, inheritance, things like that. Yes, they could spend a load of money to make all the same arrangements via the courts, but even then they aren't as strong a protection as "marriage"
And honestly, statements like the above make it very hard for me to take Christians seriously: you're claiming victim status because a group you don't approve of wants the same rights as everyone else. Did you learn that from the far left?
A will and durable power of attorney etc costs a boatload of money now? Only thing a marriage gives that can't be easily and cheaply duplicated is forcing insurance co's to recognize the relationships.
Also, as you yourself have pointed out, if this was truly about equality before the law then they'd have called it a civil union and avoided the worst of the controversy. Here in Seattle civil unions that were exactly the same as a marriage but not called that were passed into law. But that wasn't enough, because equality before the law is a pretext to get the folks who wouldn't necessarily be comfortable with social engineering at gun point to go along with it.
Also, actual question. Why only sexual relationships? Why not platonic partner contracts that convey the same rights as marriage? Why are we ok with discriminating against the asexual?
-
>Gay "marriage" isn't about accruing the benefits that actual marriage has from the government. It is about a means to force social acceptance on those hateful! Christians.<
Ummm... no.
The gay marriage movement started because long-term gay couples were getting screwed legally with regards to partner rights: visitation at hospitals, inheritance, things like that. Yes, they could spend a load of money to make all the same arrangements via the courts, but even then they aren't as strong a protection as "marriage"
And honestly, statements like the above make it very hard for me to take Christians seriously: you're claiming victim status because a group you don't approve of wants the same rights as everyone else. Did you learn that from the far left?
I'm not claiming victim status, any more than gun owners are when we point out that registration leads to confiscation.
I'm laying out what the strategy will be (and has already happened in other countries.)
I am not yet persecuted. That is, however, the goal of this movement.
And, just like with gun control, most of those supporting it don't know what the ultimate goal of the advocates is. (Additionally, the seeds for it are already to be found in the Supreme Court decision striking down DOMA, where Kennedy claimed that the only possible explanation for opposing gay marriage is animus and hate. He planted that there precisely to bring us to where we are today and to lead us to the next logical step of punishing those who discriminate on the basis of "animus and hate.")
-
>Gay "marriage" isn't about accruing the benefits that actual marriage has from the government. It is about a means to force social acceptance on those hateful! Christians.<
Ummm... no.
The gay marriage movement started because long-term gay couples were getting screwed legally with regards to partner rights: visitation at hospitals, inheritance, things like that. Yes, they could spend a load of money to make all the same arrangements via the courts, but even then they aren't as strong a protection as "marriage"
And honestly, statements like the above make it very hard for me to take Christians seriously: you're claiming victim status because a group you don't approve of wants the same rights as everyone else. Did you learn that from the far left?
Come again?
My wife and I have wills and powers of attorney in place even though we're straight and married. All couples should, straight or not, married or not. I don't see any marginal cost for being gay.
And loads of money? You're kidding, right? This stuff is trivial. You can find fill-in-the-bank forms on the web for free.
Regardless, I find it impossible to believe that the real issue is stuff like medical decision rights and property inheritance. If this was the true goal, then I would expect to see gay activists pursuing it directly. They're not. And I would expect them to make common cause with straight non-married couples sharing the same goals. They're not. And I would expect they'd be satisfied now that they've achieved those goals. They're not.
It doesn't add up, this can't be what the issue is all about.
-
And, as I've answered this several times: no, I do not because those actions are an unacceptable breach of privacy.
And intruding into their bedroom fun time isn't?
Very simple, because people eating red meat, being fat, etc... are of no danger to anyone but themselves. (See roo_ster's posts on those statistics). But, of course, that's really just a side issue.
Still raises the question about how two dudes or ladies shacking up with each other is a danger to others.
It is the same issue here. Gay "marriage" isn't about accruing the benefits that actual marriage has from the government. It is about a means to force social acceptance on those hateful! Christians. It is about using the power of the state against those who believe homosexuality is a sin.
Do you know why this is? See Strings' answer. The gays wouldn't care about 'hateful Christians' if said people hadn't stuck their noses into their business. Things like banning them from the military, hospital visitation rights(where said hospitals tended to ignore the durable PoAs the partner presented), inheritance, etc...
You may deny that. But to claim we are "reaping what we've sown" is wrong. If the government were never involved in marriage (which, I will note, it did fine until it decided it wanted to meddle by making destroying a marriage easier), the homosexual lobby would be using some other weapon against Christians.
If it's a weapon to be used against Christians, how does it harm them? Heck, if a pair of gay Buddhists want to get married under their own religion, why does the Christian coalition need to stick their noses into it, why is it a threat to YOUR religion?
Because that is the issue: forcing social acceptance of deviant behavior and using the power of the state against all who would call it deviant. Gay "marriage" is not the issue and it will not stop here.
Okay, what's your definition of 'deviant' behavior? What do you think the real issue is? Why do you think gays have such a hard on for harming Christianity?
Honestly enough, it sounds like 'We have to restrict the rights of gays because they only want the right to marry to harm us!', 'Why do they want to harm us?', 'Because we won't let them marry and enjoy equal protection under the law!'
A will and durable power of attorney etc costs a boatload of money now? Only thing a marriage gives that can't be easily and cheaply duplicated is forcing insurance co's to recognize the relationships.
Given that a marriage license is like $35? I remember reading somewhere that it'd cost something like $10k to set up contracts that do 'nearly' everything that a marriage license does.
Also, as you yourself have pointed out, if this was truly about equality before the law then they'd have called it a civil union and avoided the worst of the controversy. Here in Seattle civil unions that were exactly the same as a marriage but not called that were passed into law. But that wasn't enough, because equality before the law is a pretext to get the folks who wouldn't necessarily be comfortable with social engineering at gun point to go along with it.
'Separate but equal' turning out to not be so equal? You also have federal law to worry about.
Also, actual question. Why only sexual relationships? Why not platonic partner contracts that convey the same rights as marriage? Why are we ok with discriminating against the asexual?
Actually, this has happened a number of times up in Canada and such. Couple of old dudes get 'gay married' because they've outlived any family they care about/that cares for them, and are now each other's best friends and it simplifies a lot of tax issues.
-
The success, so far, of same-sex "marriage" has more to do with straight people wanting to feel like Freedom Riders, than anything homosexuals may actually want.
-
Firethorn: not going to try to parse that wall of derp there, so I'll trust you can figure out what part of the argument I'm responding to.
I can download the forms for will/POA etc for free, and I don't believe there is any filing fees for them in many states. It might actually work out that getting equivalent to marriage legal protections is cheaper than getting married in many places. So your "I seem to recall reading" is either a blatant lie or premised on the idea of hiring a $500/hour lawyer to set things up for you. Regardless, there are always differences in fees and requirements across various municipalities. Is [State A] violating my rights if their marriage license costs $50 instead of the $35 of [State B]? Is "a slight difference in paperwork costs for different types of relationships" really such a horrific tragedy that you're willing to sacrifice freedom of religion and conscience to it?
Nice attempt to equate opposition to SSM with racism, always reassuring to know you're still taking your talking points directly from the DNC. Unfortunately, it's a load of rubbish. Any two people of opposite sex and legal age who are not related can enter a marriage agreement and be treated equally under the law. Pointing out that this does not include people of opposite sex is true, but irrelevant. Marriage is not being expanded so that everyone is being treated equally, it is being redefined so as to include types of relationships not previously included. An adult child can't get "married" to one of his/her parents in order to stay on their insurance. ZOMG DISCRIMINATION GET OUT OF PEOPLE'S BEDROOMS YOU HATEY HATEMONGER!!!!
As an aside, are the requirements that bar close blood relatives from marrying discriminatory? Shall we strike those down, for fairness and all? What types of relationships shall we recognize and extend the benefits of marriage to, and (no matter where you set the bar) why are the relationships outside of those bounds being discriminated against?
For many people, the position that homosexuality is morally wrong is an intrinsic part of their religious documents. The clear trend and purpose of this type of legislation is societal engineering such that this is regarded as aberrant and abhorrent (much like modern neo-nazis), forcing those who do hold such views to participate (your church won't host a gay wedding, or your pastor won't perform one? Get ready to lose a discrimination lawsuit), and using the legal system to punish those who admit to still holding those religious views (Won't make a cake for my gay wedding? Lawsuit, and now you're out of business and bankrupt. Admit to being opposed to redefining marriage? Now you're fired because disagreeing is hate speech that creates a hostile work environment cough cough Brendan Eich cough cough. Have a contract with the fed.gov? Better not support any cause opposed to gay marriage, now you're ineligible.).
Most folks who support SSM don't necessarily want those things, they're just "useful" to the folks who do. Just like a lot of the panicky soccer moms who just want their kid to be safe and support firearms registration or the War on Drugs. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and people who aren't willing to consider the unintended consequences of their votes.
-
So your "I seem to recall reading" is either a blatant lie or premised on the idea of hiring a $500/hour lawyer to set things up for you. Regardless, there are always differences in fees and requirements across various municipalities. Is [State A] violating my rights if their marriage license costs $50 instead of the $35 of [State B]? Is "a slight difference in paperwork costs for different types of relationships" really such a horrific tragedy that you're willing to sacrifice freedom of religion and conscience to it?
I said it that way because I read about it years ago and thus don't have a citation handy for it. I also can't find it right now via various google searches. The problem is that in cases like hospital visitation there are facilities with a history of stonewalling non-relatives, paperwork or not, unless they were rendered 'a relative' by marriage. Now, I know this opens the hospital up for lawsuits, but which would you rather have - visiting your dying loved one, or a lawsuit for being denied said visitation?
Ergo, $500/hour lawyer or not, in some ways the marriage certificate was more powerful than the contracts. Easier certainly, you just need to haul 1 sheet of paper, not dozens. The problem with filling out the free forms is that they're more likely to be challenged than ones drawn up or at least reviewed by a competent lawyer.
As for 'talking points from the DNC', that's outright unfair, as I have nothing to do with them. I've come to my own beliefs by myself, thank you very much. Get onto some different topics and I'm right with you guys.
As for everybody being treated 'equally', I'm going to go right back to racism. Because I see your argument as the same whether you say 'opposite sex' or 'different race'. Equal protection, right? But is it equal protection when Susie can marry John but not Wanda, but John can marry Wanda?
Close relatives marrying - a sticky widget indeed, especially if the 'couple' is an obviously non-reproductive one so you can't argue 'health of the children!'.
I understand that many people think that homosexuality is wrong based on their religious documents. I'll respond that our interpretation of them alters over time. Most Catholics use birth control at some point in their lives despite mandates of their church. The Bible has been used to both condone and condemn slavery. The Koran to variously sentence rapists to death or to stone the woman who was raped.
I'm not arguing that churches be forced to conduct gay marriages. But you should already know that there are various sects of various major religions that are perfectly willing to recognize the marriages, and THAT turns opposing gay marriage into a religious fight. One could say supporting it as well, but how many gays want to get married for the mostly non-religious 'married' part, to include benefits and tax advantages compared with people who oppose it for non-religious purposes?
For the record I support SSM but also support the ability of religions and small businesses* to not support it.
Oh, and my commander is not only gay, but gay married. His spouse enjoys an increasing number of benefits that an opposite sex spouse has traditionally received for decades, but he fulfills the same 'duties'**, so doesn't he deserve the same benefits?
*I handle large corporations different than small family owned businesses with the viewpoint that you can avoid the latter, but the former is much more difficult.
**Key spouse membership, various functions, political stuff.
-
The problem is that in cases like hospital visitation there are facilities with a history of stonewalling non-relatives, paperwork or not, unless they were rendered 'a relative' by marriage. Now, I know this opens the hospital up for lawsuits, but which would you rather have - visiting your dying loved one, or a lawsuit for being denied said visitation?
So, maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake here. Help me out.
If the problem is that certain hospitals refuse to accept your basic legal docs without a lawsuit, wouldn't the obvious solution be to correct the hospitals' bad behavior? Censure the hospitals. Class-action 'em. Pass a law with some teeth enforcing the patient's legal docs. Sic the Justice Dept on them. Do whatever, but this seems like a pretty easy problem to solve.
But re-engineering society's fundamental social structures for the sake of hospital visitation rights? That seems like a solution only Rube Goldberg would love.
-
*sigh*
>Also, as you yourself have pointed out, if this was truly about equality before the law then they'd have called it a civil union and avoided the worst of the controversy. Here in Seattle civil unions that were exactly the same as a marriage but not called that were passed into law. But that wasn't enough, because equality before the law is a pretext to get the folks who wouldn't necessarily be comfortable with social engineering at gun point to go along with it.<
Do try to read all the words. "The gay marriage movement started...". Key word there that you're ignoring: "started".
Yes, it has moved on to try and "claim" the title of marriage. And honestly, I'm not invested/involved enough to tell tell anyone why they've made that move. Personally, completely remove the term "marriage" from the legal lexicon: make 'em all "civil unions", defined as "a cohabitation agreement between any two or more consenting adults, which confers certain legal rights..."
Certainly, it seems that every person I've talked to who's against it will bring scripture into the argument. As soon as you can find it in the original Norse runes where I am told that homosexuality is wrong, you'll have a leg to stand on. Until that point, what your holy book says about the subject means bupkis to me (and to many others, as well).
>Also, actual question. Why only sexual relationships? Why not platonic partner contracts that convey the same rights as marriage? Why are we ok with discriminating against the asexual?<
I would be perfectly fine with that. What I said above says nothing about sexual relations
-
A church can no more be forced to perform a gay wedding than a Jewish or a Buddhist one. The only example of this actually happening is Denmark, which is a monarchy with a state church and the parliament legally being a legislative organ for the church. In other words, it's also completely irrelevant to US, because the legal and political system there is about as removed from ours as possible.
-
A church can no more be forced to perform a gay wedding than a Jewish or a Buddhist one.
I wish this were true, but sadly, this is naive. Look at some of the terrible decisions being made by the courts, at all levels. Look at the idiotic laws being passed by our legislatures.
Am I saying it will happen? No, I don't know that for sure. It is, however, likely.
-
The talk of equal protection for same-sex couples is question-begging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
-
I wish this were true, but sadly, this is naive. Look at some of the terrible decisions being made by the courts, at all levels. Look at the idiotic laws being passed by our legislatures.
Am I saying it will happen? No, I don't know that for sure. It is, however, likely.
I disagree. It's highly unlikely.
Churches are not even forced to marry hetero couples they don't want to. My fair weather Catholic friends are constantly wondering if the church will may them. Right now I know a couple that goes to church every weekend, and the church won't may them because she's been divorced. .Gov isn't now, and won't in the future force Churches to act outside their faith. To pretend otherwise is, I feel, paranoid.
Businesses, on the other hand, are a different creature. If sexual orientation gets added to the Civil Rights list (with Race, Sex, Creed, and Religion) then it's likely that businesses that cater to the public will be prevented from discriminating on that basis.
THAT I think is likely to happen soon irregardless of the outcome of the marriage debate.
-
dugmush, this has already happened to businesses.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/
.Gov isn't now, and won't in the future force Churches[\I] to act outside their faith. To pretend otherwise is, I feel, paranoid.
Rubbish. Government has come close enough to it, that only the ill-informed would talk of paranoia. Catholic adoption agencies were required (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/catholic-charities-gay-adoption/) to assign children to LGBTEIEIO parents, and if I remember correctly, they had to get out of the business, in order to avoid being actually forced to "act outside their faith." Catholic institutions were also going to be forced to provide contraception in employee health plans, though I'm not sure where that stands, right now. We've also heard about the IRS demanding the text of prayers (http://my.umbc.edu/discussions/8133) made by non-profit groups.
So, definite? No. Likely? Yes.
-
the first line of the Huffpo article you linked on adoption: (bolding mine)
The legal battle between Catholic Charities and the state of Illinois over the organization's state-funded adoption and foster care contracts,
You take the King's Shilling........
The contraception thing is similarly not clear cut. Catholic contractors were looking at being forced to provide their service in compliance with federal law. and I also haven't heard where that stands.
Neither issue is remotely the same as being forced to carry out a religious ceremony. Catholic churches aren't being forced to carry out Bar Mitzvah's either.
-
All churches and various religious institutions are creatures of the state, corporations. They will all eventually be reigned in and made to conform. Religious liberty be damned.
Gods Kingdom is not going to come to pass nor be be promoted by any legislation (or lack thereof) IMHO. I completely reject the notion that God calls believers to be cultural warriors by way of the legislative process.
Believers and unbelievers alike should vote for men and women who cherish life, promote liberty (defined as individual freedom from government interference) and protect private property.
-
All churches and various religious institutions are creatures of the state, corporations. They will all eventually be reigned in and made to conform. Religious liberty be damned.
Yep. Tax exemption will be the fall of well organized religion in this country.
-
Yep. Tax exemption will be the fall of well organized religion in this country.
As originally envisaged, it was a tool to keep gov't out of religious institutions. "Power to tax is the power to destroy" and all that.
Subsequent "innovations" in constitutional thought and gov'tal practice have demonstrated that there is no set of laws that will restrain the progressive death cult from seeking to impose its will on all.
-
Yep. Tax exemption will be the fall of well organized religion in this country.
Uh, OK. You think we should be taxing churches? Or other non-profits?
-
>Gay "marriage" isn't about accruing the benefits that actual marriage has from the government. It is about a means to force social acceptance on those hateful! Christians.<
Ummm... no.
Actually, mak's quoted statement pretty well reflects what a local gay marriage activist said to the media after their recent court victory. They said that the ruling was a good start, but the real goal is to change the way people think.
-
They said that the ruling was a good start, but the real goal is to change the way people think.
They are, not necessarily in the way they wish. A lot of people who previously had a live and let live attitude are increasingly seeing the activists as enemies.
-
>Subsequent "innovations" in constitutional thought and gov'tal practice have demonstrated that there is no set of laws that will restrain the progressive death cult from seeking to impose its will on all.<
That urge to "impose their will on all" exists on both sides of the political spectrum. It's a human thing
>Actually, mak's quoted statement pretty well reflects what a local gay marriage activist said to the media after their recent court victory. They said that the ruling was a good start, but the real goal is to change the way people think. <
I was addressing how it started. Not where it seems to be going (or how a few fringe idiots want to take it).
You see the very same thing in the Feminist movement: started as equal rights (which is hard to argue against), and has moved off into lala land...
-
>Subsequent "innovations" in constitutional thought and gov'tal practice have demonstrated that there is no set of laws that will restrain the progressive death cult from seeking to impose its will on all.<
That urge to "impose their will on all" exists on both sides of the political spectrum. It's a human thing
>Actually, mak's quoted statement pretty well reflects what a local gay marriage activist said to the media after their recent court victory. They said that the ruling was a good start, but the real goal is to change the way people think. <
I was addressing how it started. Not where it seems to be going (or how a few fringe idiots want to take it).
You see the very same thing in the Feminist movement: started as equal rights (which is hard to argue against), and has moved off into lala land...
Interesting notions belied by statements made by the activists themselves at the time. Been reading up on some of the statements and literature put out from a few decades back. I'll post links later if you want.
Point being, it is not some fever dream of Phyllis Schlafly and Ralph Reed. It is just folks paying attention and taking folk at their word.
-
OK.
So... does that mean that Rev and I get to take the fringe of Christianity as speaking for everyone of your faith, that we need to repent and convert or be killed (or at least be second class)? Because those folks are out there, just as much as the fringe of the gay marriage movement are.
Or can we look at this as "reporting made to stir stuff up", as it probably is?
-
we need to repent and convert or be killed (or at least be second class)?
That much is readily apparent. Until you accept the superiority of Safariland Comp IIs, you have chosen to relegate yourself to a very risky second class.
-
I said it that way because I read about it years ago and thus don't have a citation handy for it. I also can't find it right now via various google searches. The problem is that in cases like hospital visitation there are facilities with a history of stonewalling non-relatives, paperwork or not, unless they were rendered 'a relative' by marriage. Now, I know this opens the hospital up for lawsuits, but which would you rather have - visiting your dying loved one, or a lawsuit for being denied said visitation?
Ergo, $500/hour lawyer or not, in some ways the marriage certificate was more powerful than the contracts. Easier certainly, you just need to haul 1 sheet of paper, not dozens. The problem with filling out the free forms is that they're more likely to be challenged than ones drawn up or at least reviewed by a competent lawyer.
Hospitals have a long history of violating the wishes of their patients gay and straight, that's a hospital problem not one relevant to this discussion.
As for 'talking points from the DNC', that's outright unfair, as I have nothing to do with them. I've come to my own beliefs by myself, thank you very much. Get onto some different topics and I'm right with you guys.
So you decided that anyone who opposes gay marriage is just a homo-hating neo-Bull Connor all by yourself? I actually respect that less than if you were just parroting the talking points. I also note who eager you are to central plan the economy, as long as it's being done your way.
As for everybody being treated 'equally', I'm going to go right back to racism. Because I see your argument as the same whether you say 'opposite sex' or 'different race'. Equal protection, right? But is it equal protection when Susie can marry John but not Wanda, but John can marry Wanda?
There is no difference between people of different colors. There is a difference between men and women. Either you're the racist and think skin color is a valid difference, or you have some weird views on biology
Close relatives marrying - a sticky widget indeed, especially if the 'couple' is an obviously non-reproductive one so you can't argue 'health of the children!'.
Why is that a problem for you? They're consenting adults, who are you to judge who they choose to have sex with? Get out oft heir bedroom! Stop being just like a racist!
I understand that many people think that homosexuality is wrong based on their religious documents. I'll respond that our interpretation of them alters over time. Most Catholics use birth control at some point in their lives despite mandates of their church. The Bible has been used to both condone and condemn slavery. The Koran to variously sentence rapists to death or to stone the woman who was raped.
You don't like religion, check. I suppose that's an insight into why you view "slightly different paperwork" as a horrific affront to basic human rights, but "squashes religious liberty" as not worth considering.
I'm not arguing that churches be forced to conduct gay marriages.
That's why they call them "unintended" consequences.
But you should already know that there are various sects of various major religions that are perfectly willing to recognize the marriages, and THAT turns opposing gay marriage into a religious fight. One could say supporting it as well, but how many gays want to get married for the mostly non-religious 'married' part, to include benefits and tax advantages compared with people who oppose it for non-religious purposes?
This is a jumbled cluster of nonsense that's not worth responding to.
For the record I support SSM but also support the ability of religions and small businesses* to not support it.
Oh, and my commander is not only gay, but gay married. His spouse enjoys an increasing number of benefits that an opposite sex spouse has traditionally received for decades, but he fulfills the same 'duties'**, so doesn't he deserve the same benefits?
*I handle large corporations different than small family owned businesses with the viewpoint that you can avoid the latter, but the former is much more difficult.
**Key spouse membership, various functions, political stuff.
You'll get the first, but not the second.
-
*sigh*
>Also, as you yourself have pointed out, if this was truly about equality before the law then they'd have called it a civil union and avoided the worst of the controversy. Here in Seattle civil unions that were exactly the same as a marriage but not called that were passed into law. But that wasn't enough, because equality before the law is a pretext to get the folks who wouldn't necessarily be comfortable with social engineering at gun point to go along with it.<
Do try to read all the words. "The gay marriage movement started...". Key word there that you're ignoring: "started".
1. I would contend that mainstreaming and destigmatizing homosexuality was always a key motivation of many of the proponents of gay marriage.
2. Even if that's not the case, I care less about the historical roots than I do about what the movement actually is and is doing today.
Yes, it has moved on to try and "claim" the title of marriage. And honestly, I'm not invested/involved enough to tell tell anyone why they've made that move. Personally, completely remove the term "marriage" from the legal lexicon: make 'em all "civil unions", defined as "a cohabitation agreement between any two or more consenting adults, which confers certain legal rights..."
Certainly, it seems that every person I've talked to who's against it will bring scripture into the argument. As soon as you can find it in the original Norse runes where I am told that homosexuality is wrong, you'll have a leg to stand on. Until that point, what your holy book says about the subject means bupkis to me (and to many others, as well).
As an adherent to an extreme minority religion, it'd really be in your best interests to safeguard free practice of religion. The movement (however it may have started) is now more about punishing people who don't agree and social engineering at gun point than about protecting gay couples from the horror of filing different paperwork. Sure, it's all fun and games when it's just the icky Christians getting forced to violate their beliefs, but that dog will turn and anything you let your allies do to us will at some point be done to you.
>Also, actual question. Why only sexual relationships? Why not platonic partner contracts that convey the same rights as marriage? Why are we ok with discriminating against the asexual?<
I would be perfectly fine with that. What I said above says nothing about sexual relations
So marriage is essentially meaningless, and any group of people who wish to align for tax or inheritance or any other reason should be able to be "married"? This is your contention?
-
A church can no more be forced to perform a gay wedding than a Jewish or a Buddhist one. The only example of this actually happening is Denmark, which is a monarchy with a state church and the parliament legally being a legislative organ for the church. In other words, it's also completely irrelevant to US, because the legal and political system there is about as removed from ours as possible.
What I think you mean here is, it can't yet.
-
What I think you mean here is, it can't yet.
Oh, sure. It will definitely happen. Right after we get a king and a state church, and Congress becomes the official rule making body for that church.
-
Oh, sure. It will definitely happen. Right after we get a king and a state church, and Congress becomes the official rule making body for that church.
20 years ago, gay marriage was this crazy unthinkable thing no one took seriously. Folks laughed at it, "That can't happen here!"
But no, I'm sure that the same .gov that has a historty of violating rights would never seven dream of doing so in this one area. We can totally trust the feds to have our best interests at heart.
-
OK.
So... does that mean that Rev and I get to take the fringe of Christianity as speaking for everyone of your faith, that we need to repent and convert or be killed (or at least be second class)? Because those folks are out there, just as much as the fringe of the gay marriage movement are.
Or can we look at this as "reporting made to stir stuff up", as it probably is?
Taking the foundational activists of the homosexualist and feminist movements at their word is as legitimate as taking Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul,(and the other NT writers) at their Word. Tracing the foundational beliefs over time is also legitimate.
Problem is, most non-Christians are so ignorant of small-o orthodox Christianity and what the Bible actually says they don't know when some Christian is talking from the Word or from their fourth point of contact. Or when some non-Christian tries to cite scripture from either abject ignorance of theology & context or from ill will.
-
That much is readily apparent. Until you accept the superiority of Safariland Comp IIs, you have chosen to relegate yourself to a very risky second class.
Is not the Holy Trinity of speedloaders the H the K and the S?
-
Is not the Holy Trinity of speedloaders the H the K and the S?
Only if you're trying to load your pocket. I prefer to get the rounds into the gun.
-
20 years ago, gay marriage was this crazy unthinkable thing no one took seriously. Folks laughed at it, "That can't happen here!"
But no, I'm sure that the same .gov that has a historty of violating rights would never seven dream of doing so in this one area. We can totally trust the feds to have our best interests at heart.
So, what legal mechanism is there for them force a church, any church, to do anything?
-
So, what legal mechanism is there for them force a church, any church, to do anything?
Does your church own a building? Does it ever allow any non-church functions there?
Oh look you're a public accommodation so if you won't allow a gay marriage ceremony you're discriminating.
Come on, this is the .gov that found a way to use the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate someone growing their own food. There's always a way.
-
Does your church own a building? Does it ever allow any non-church functions there?
Does you pastor ever officiate a wedding for anyone not a member of the church?
Does your pastor ever officiate a funeral for anyone not a member of the church?
-
Those are just easy, low hanging fruit before we even get to the outright tyranny already seen in Canada.
-
Does your church own a building? Does it ever allow any non-church functions there?
Oh look you're a public accommodation so if you won't allow a gay marriage ceremony you're discriminating.
I thought we were talking about a church performing a gay wedding rather than renting out space for one. Those are not the same thing. I'm pretty sure a church can't have a hall for rent to whites only, and I'm not entirely sure I have all that much of a problem with that.
Don't want people you don't like getting in, make it private. Like, say, restricted to parishioners only. A lot of churches do, anyway.
-
I thought we were talking about a church performing a gay wedding rather than renting out space for one. Those are not the same thing.
;/
I admire your abiding faith in the fed.gov's desire to promote religious freedom.
-
;/
I admire your abiding faith in the fed.gov's desire to promote religious freedom.
Hey, he's not using it, so what's he got to worry about?
-
Hey, he's not using it, so what's he got to worry about?
It never ceases to amaze me how the folks in the least populous and powerful religious groups (atheists, pagans etc) are so eager to enable the fed.gov to over ride religious freedom.
-
I admire your abiding faith in the fed.gov's desire to promote religious freedom.
I just have a slightly more realistic outlook. And, mind you, I actually have lived under a regime that persecuted the religious in very real and tangible ways.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how the folks in the least populous and powerful religious groups (atheists, pagans etc) are so eager to enable the fed.gov to over ride religious freedom.
Please stop painting with the broad brush.There are atheists and pagans on this very board who would disagree.
Frankly I don't care if you want to worship a turnip.Just shut the hell up about it and don't shove it in my face.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how the folks in the least populous and powerful religious groups (atheists, pagans etc) are so eager to enable the fed.gov to over ride religious freedom.
Have you ever considered that what you consider to be freedom for your populous and powerful group might not actually be freedom for them?
-
I just have a slightly more realistic outlook. And, mind you, I actually have lived under a regime that persecuted the religious in very real and tangible ways.
It's a given that once you give .gov the power to do something, it will eventually do it. No matter how "unrealistic" it seems right now.
Like Mak's point about gun registration. I doubt there were many Canadians laughing and rubbing their hands together at the thought of sending the mounties in to confiscate all the guns then put those damn Quebecois on the death camp trains. But registration must be opposed, because it eventually leads to confiscation, and confiscation leads to genocide.
I'm not saying that if this had gone the other way that tomorrow we'd have commissars holding guns to the head of priests forcing them to marry gay guys, but it's one step down a bad road.
Have you ever considered that what you consider to be freedom for your populous and powerful group might not actually be freedom for them?
The .gov not having the right to force people to do things against their beliefs seems to be of pretty universal benefit to me.
-
Which is why I would prefer removing the term marriage from the table completely.
Again: for legal purposes, you have civil unions, defined as I outlined previously. Want to be "married"? Find the church of your faith that will conduct the ceremony... but that has no legal status, it's ONLY a religious thing
-
Which is why I would prefer removing the term marriage from the table completely.
Again: for legal purposes, you have civil unions, defined as I outlined previously. Want to be "married"? Find the church of your faith that will conduct the ceremony... but that has no legal status, it's ONLY a religious thing
Which goes back to why we have marriage now, and why trying to make it into "any group of people who want to call themselves married" is silly.
-
Does you pastor ever officiate a wedding for anyone not a member of the church?
Does your pastor ever officiate a funeral for anyone not a member of the church?
How does any given church deal with members who suddenly come out of the closet and want to get married soon after? For most, excommunication isn't something that can be done overnight.
-
I thought we were talking about a church performing a gay wedding rather than renting out space for one. Those are not the same thing. I'm pretty sure a church can't have a hall for rent to whites only, and I'm not entirely sure I have all that much of a problem with that.
Don't want people you don't like getting in, make it private. Like, say, restricted to parishioners only. A lot of churches do, anyway.
So in the middle of telling us that churches won't be forced to marry same-sex couples, you're telling us churches won't be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs. That is, they won't be able to come out* and say "God opposes homosexuality, so do we; our wedding services and facilities are only for real marriages."
We've also been informed that Catholic children's homes can't follow their religious beliefs in adoption issues, if the government chooses to contribute to what is the church's rightful sphere (not the governments). That was by the same guy that argued for same-sex marriage licenses on the basis of "equal protection."
I guess churches are not as equal as the currently fashionable minority group.
*Yes, "come out." The closet is now the ghetto where the dissenters from sexual perversion** are expected to reside.
**Much as it may shock the pearl-clutchers among us, I find that "perversion" is the only suitable term, anymore. In the past, I would have just said "homosexuality," but that is now seen as excluding those that consider themselves transgendered, bisexual, or pescaphilic, or whatever their chosen vice may be.
-
>So in the middle of telling us that churches won't be forced to marry same-sex couples, you're telling us churches won't be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs. That is, they won't be able to come out* and say "God opposes homosexuality, so do we; our wedding services and facilities are only for real marriages."<
See, I have no problem with churches doing this. There are some caveats (mainly to stop someone from causing trouble and claiming "religious grounds" when there are none. The current discussion doesn't fall into this category).
>We've also been informed that Catholic children's homes can't follow their religious beliefs in adoption issues, if the government chooses to contribute to what is the church's rightful sphere (not the governments). That was by the same guy that argued for same-sex marriage licenses on the basis of "equal protection."<
Accept government funding, accept government rules.
Now, if you have a church-based adoption service that isn't funded at all with government money, I can't see allowing government to have a say in how it's run (beyond "minimum needs for the kids", and possibly "not allowing convicted pedophiles from adopting")
-
Accept government funding, accept government rules.
Now, if you have a church-based adoption service that isn't funded at all with government money, I can't see allowing government to have a say in how it's run (beyond "minimum needs for the kids", and possibly "not allowing convicted pedophiles from adopting")
I can't remember the case in Massachusetts, but the similar instance in Illinois that I recall, the private charities were not allowed to adopt children out without government support.
So, they aren't allowed to follow their religious duty of caring for orphans without government funds and also can't follow their religious convictions if they take government funds. Nice.
-
>We've also been informed that Catholic children's homes can't follow their religious beliefs in adoption issues, if the government chooses to contribute to what is the church's rightful sphere (not the governments). That was by the same guy that argued for same-sex marriage licenses on the basis of "equal protection."<
Accept government funding, accept government rules.
So you're OK with the government openly discriminating against Catholics?
-
So in the middle of telling us that churches won't be forced to marry same-sex couples, you're telling us churches won't be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs. That is, they won't be able to come out* and say "God opposes homosexuality, so do we; our wedding services and facilities are only for real marriages."
I said no such thing. Are you sure you are replying to me?
-
I said no such thing. Are you sure you are replying to me?
You said you were OK with churches being barred from exercising racial discrimination, and then suggested that if churches couldn't openly discriminate, they could do it on the sly. You were making a parallel with same-sex weddings, so...
I just put your thoughts into different words, to help you better understand what you were saying.
-
>I can't remember the case in Massachusetts, but the similar instance in Illinois that I recall, the private charities were not allowed to adopt children out without government support. <
That would be improper. I could understand government oversight to make sure the kids are properly cared for. But nothing more.
>So you're OK with the government openly discriminating against Catholics? <
Every time you pop something like this off, you make me happier that you never accepted my invitation to stop in when the BACA convention was in St Louis
In no way, shape, or form did I say I was ok with blanket discrimination based on religion. You, however, based on what you write on this forum, are perfectly fine with it, so long as those being discriminated against follow a different faith from you.
-
>I can't remember the case in Massachusetts, but the similar instance in Illinois that I recall, the private charities were not allowed to adopt children out without government support. <
That would be improper. I could understand government oversight to make sure the kids are properly cared for. But nothing more.
This is the gulf between what is and what should be I see in a lot of libertarian thought. Even if you're pro open borders, it'd be silly to advocate them while we still have the welfare state. Even if you think taking .gov funds means you waive all rights to freedom of conscience, it's silly to say that when the .gov forces religious institutions to take them in order to perform religious duties.
>So you're OK with the government openly discriminating against Catholics? <
Every time you pop something like this off, you make me happier that you never accepted my invitation to stop in when the BACA convention was in St Louis
In no way, shape, or form did I say I was ok with blanket discrimination based on religion. You, however, based on what you write on this forum, are perfectly fine with it, so long as those being discriminated against follow a different faith from you.
Unless they've ever received .gov funds, then screw them amirite?
Me personally I only advocate blanket discrimination against folks who can't use {quote} tags. :lol:
-
>We've also been informed that Catholic children's homes can't follow their religious beliefs in adoption issues, if the government chooses to contribute to what is the church's rightful sphere (not the governments). That was by the same guy that argued for same-sex marriage licenses on the basis of "equal protection."<
Accept government funding, accept government rules.
So you're OK with government openly discriminating against those who won't suddenly change their minds, and go along with the gov's new, idiosyncratic view of homosexuality?
As opposed to the govt simply remaining neutral on the issue.
-
>Unless they've ever received .gov funds, then screw them amirite?<
For as long as they are recieving government funds, the government gets to put whatever conditions on them that they wish. The problem that crops up is government saying "you must do X to even exist as an agency". Using the example given (Catholic adoption services), I believe that would be severe government over reach
>So you're OK with government openly discriminating against those who won't suddenly change their minds, and go along with the gov's new, idiosyncratic view of homosexuality?<
You don't even have a coherent argument.
Let's go through it just for you.
Catholic Adoption Agency accepts a government handout of $100 per kid they place. In return, CAA must abide by government anti discrimination rules (so Lutherans can still go through the CAA to adopt). Nobody sees a problem (because there isn't one)
Some court somewhere rules that gay couples can adopt. CAA SHOULD have the choice of a) continuing to accept government money, and abide by the new rules, or b) refuse further government money. If CAA chooses option b, but is forced to adopt children to gay couples (or non Christian, or whatever), that is wrong
-
>Unless they've ever received .gov funds, then screw them amirite?<
For as long as they are recieving government funds, the government gets to put whatever conditions on them that they wish. The problem that crops up is government saying "you must do X to even exist as an agency". Using the example given (Catholic adoption services), I believe that would be severe government over reach
When we get single payer healthcare we will all be "receiving .gov funds." I guess unless you choose to never seek medical care for anything then the state has the right to force you to ignore your religious beliefs.
Also, you may think it's over reach, but it's still the way things actually are and your proposals will still result in loss of freedom of religion. Saying "Well sure, in actual practice what I want will result in guys with guns forcing you to violate your religion, but I don't think it should be like that so it's totally cool."
-
You don't even have a coherent argument.
Please express the incoherency.
Let's go through it just for you.
Catholic Adoption Agency accepts a government handout of $100 per kid they place. In return, CAA must abide by government anti discrimination rules (so Lutherans can still go through the CAA to adopt). Nobody sees a problem (because there isn't one)
Some court somewhere rules that gay couples can adopt. CAA SHOULD have the choice of a) continuing to accept government money, and abide by the new rules, or b) refuse further government money. If CAA chooses option b, but is forced to adopt children to gay couples (or non Christian, or whatever), that is wrong
C) The government should not discriminate against an adoption organization for the perfectly unremarkable practice of disqualifying the sexually deviant. At the very least, the government should be neutral, so as not to impose or promote any particular view. If anyone is to be discriminated against, it would be an organization that takes the questionable step of placing children with the openly homosexual. This should be obvious.
-
Why don't we just ban sex altogether?
Nobody has any children, and we all die out, bickering over who gets to judge who and who goes where when they die.
And rooster, if you want to equate homosexuals with pediphiles, maybe you should up the anti to Rad Fem and start pushing to ban heteosexual men, since those guys are most likely to rape a woman.
Point: pediphilia is just another form of rape. It's not about orientation and it never has been. You sound just like those Rad Fems who blather about all straight men being rapists.
-
Hospitals have a long history of violating the wishes of their patients gay and straight, that's a hospital problem not one relevant to this discussion.
Yes, the state & federal benefits are a bigger one.
So you decided that anyone who opposes gay marriage is just a homo-hating neo-Bull Connor all by yourself? I actually respect that less than if you were just parroting the talking points. I also note who eager you are to central plan the economy, as long as it's being done your way.
Strawman.
There is no difference between people of different colors. There is a difference between men and women. Either you're the racist and think skin color is a valid difference, or you have some weird views on biology
Sure there is. Starting with the genes for skin color and extending to somewhat divergent evolution in the distribution of genes, such as the sickle-cell due to it's resistance to malaria.
Why is that a problem for you? They're consenting adults, who are you to judge who they choose to have sex with? Get out oft heir bedroom! Stop being just like a racist!
Sticky widget - IE due to my social training I find it very, very 'icky', but I can't immediately think of a reason to ban it(between consenting adults) outside of procreation due to the increased risk of bad recessive genes.
You don't like religion, check. I suppose that's an insight into why you view "slightly different paperwork" as a horrific affront to basic human rights, but "squashes religious liberty" as not worth considering.
I think that 'slightly different paperwork' is your own invention, not mine, and I don't support squashing religious liberty so this amounts to a couple strawmen.
That's why they call them "unintended" consequences.
It's simple enough - I'm something of a fence sitter. I support gay marriage, but I also support the 'right' for religious organizations
BTW, if your religion opposes gay marriage, then don't get gay married. Don't go to gay weddings. But there are plenty of religious institutions that are willing to perform the ceremonies.
As such, I look at it like this: Nobody here has pointed out how gay marriages harm them. Closest I see are slippery slope arguments. Thus it becomes a question of religious freedom - on the one hand a group wants the ability to get married. On the other side a group wants to prevent that. An imposition on THEIR religion. It reminds me of how Muslim countries would impose a special tax on non-Muslims. We don't allow that sort of stuff.
Ergo, in the best interests of freedom my position is that the government allow gay marriages but have strong protections in place that allow religious organizations to not conduct/support weddings that they do not support.
Which is why I would prefer removing the term marriage from the table completely.
Again: for legal purposes, you have civil unions, defined as I outlined previously. Want to be "married"? Find the church of your faith that will conduct the ceremony... but that has no legal status, it's ONLY a religious thing
Word. Oh, and I agree with all the other posts of yours I see. Generally more eloquent as well. Take the state's money, follow the state's rules. Don't take the state's money and you should be much more free to operate, though there are limits.
-
"Prove how gun registration directly affects you. Bah, those are just slippery slope arguments, worrying about unintended consequences is for losers."
Supporting gay marriage with a caveat of strong religious protections is like supporting illegal amnesty cause they totally promised to get tough on enforcement this time. I'd call it naive, but it's really just that you don't care about the consequences but can't admit that.
You should really stick to telling us your vision for centrally planning the economy.
-
I'm still trying to figure out how inviting the government as a third person into the "marriage" contract is keeping the government out of the bedroom, that is the first absurdity.
Redefining marriage by judicial fiat as something other than what it is, a man, a woman joining together and becoming a family group themselves, is the second absurdity.
The culture that holds sway over our government is the culture that holds the power of coercion. Government uses brute force to impose its world view. Cultural Christianity has to some degree historically wielded that blunt object of persuasion just by nature of the fact that a majority were culturally Christian. The worm has turned and I would say a cultural shift has occurred. The basic world view of the majority no longer line up with the historic cultural Christian consensus.
Christians have compromised themselves and supported activist government since the very beginning of our country. Being the majority in the culture blinded us to the potential dangers. The lie that as long as the correct people were in authority moving the levers of power we would be alright was bought hook line and sinker. We will now reap the whirlwind of straying away from a purely classical liberal limited government model. Someone else is taking a turn at those levers, they aren't Christian but they are still moralizing busy bodies. Just not the morality of which we are accustomed.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - CS Lewis
-
Why don't we just ban sex altogether?
Nobody has any children, and we all die out, bickering over who gets to judge who and who goes where when they die.
And rooster, if you want to equate homosexuals with pediphiles, maybe you should up the anti to Rad Fem and start pushing to ban heteosexual men, since those guys are most likely to rape a woman.
Point: pediphilia is just another form of rape. It's not about orientation and it never has been. You sound just like those Rad Fems who blather about all straight men being rapists.
First good idea in this thread!
Somehow I don't think it's enforceable ..... but hey, it WAS an IDEA! [tinfoil]
-
The culture that holds sway over our government is the culture that holds the power of coercion. Government uses brute force to impose its world view. Cultural Christianity has to some degree historically wielded that blunt object of persuasion just by nature of the fact that a majority were culturally Christian. The worm has turned and I would say a cultural shift has occurred. The basic world view of the majority no longer line up with the historic cultural Christian consensus.
Christians have compromised themselves and supported activist government since the very beginning of our country. Being the majority in the culture blinded us to the potential dangers. The lie that as long as the correct people were in authority moving the levers of power we would be alright was bought hook line and sinker. We will now reap the whirlwind of straying away from a purely classical liberal limited government model. Someone else is taking a turn at those levers, they aren't Christian but they are still moralizing busy bodies. Just not the morality of which we are accustomed.
Without the restraint of Christian morality, we would never have had as limited a government as we did. Christians aren't "reaping the whirlwind" for something that would never have existed absent them in the first place.
-
Without the restraint of Christian morality, we would never have had as limited a government as we did. Christians aren't "reaping the whirlwind" for something that would never have existed absent them in the first place.
I tend to agree that a good and moral people are necessary to a free society. Soon we will find out whether a culture that dumps its traditional Christian presuppositions regarding life and ethics can remain free in any real sense. We have lost a lot of liberty but there is a boatload more we can lose.
This is a slow motion train wreck. The core of cultural Christianity was hollowed first with the New Deal then the Great Society. Cultural Christians were able to put the burden of taking care of others on to the government from off their shoulders. This allowed them to feel good about themselves without personally doing anything (other than paying their "fair" share). Dumping the "do's and don'ts" was the next burden the cultural Christian worked on eliminating. It took a while for post modernism to work its magic but it's finally bearing fruit. Nearly all our major Christian sects are in internal conflict; with post modern ideology supplanting traditional philosophy/theology.
The ethical failings and moral confusion found in modern American Christianity is in large part do to the conflation of being a cultural Christian with being an actual true believer in a living God. The more I think about this the more I come to believe an even more radical separation between between "church" and state is necessary.
-
As such, I look at it like this: Nobody here has pointed out how gay marriages harm them.
Red herring. (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzybAqeY.png&hash=b01199010c8f97bf91b1d1613fdb809fb298c2be)
If anyone in this thread were trying to stop same-sex couples from doing anything, then they might feel obligated to explain such. As has been pointed out at least a dozen times over the past few years, it is the other side that wants to change the law, change an ancient concept, change our culture, etc. They are the ones who must explain why the government should care that two men are pretending to marry one another. The traditionalists, at this point, have shown themselves perfectly willing to let the two men live their own lives as the two men see fit. The traditionalists owe no one an explanation, as they are not the ones proposing bizarre changes.
Closest I see are slippery slope arguments. Thus it becomes a question of religious freedom - on the one hand a group wants the ability to get married. On the other side a group wants to prevent that. An imposition on THEIR religion. It reminds me of how Muslim countries would impose a special tax on non-Muslims. We don't allow that sort of stuff.
Nonsense. Your religious beliefs may be that 2+2=5, but you're not going to get anywhere demanding that be taught to your children in your public school. By this definition of religious freedom, you should be able to claim that your religion believes the home is a sacred place of worship. And therefore, all of your fellow worshipers' households are tax-free. Go ahead and give that one a try.
Take the state's money, follow the state's rules. Don't take the state's money and you should be much more free to operate, though there are limits.
Fine, but the state should follow some rules, as well. In the situation we were discussing, the state is playing favorites with those who have conformed to its new-found (and completely arbitrary) love of the homosexual, while casting aside those whose views are no longer considered fashionable. That's not so religious-freedomy, is it?
-
How, exactly, does letting them get a piece of paper do what you say it would do?
You say your willing to let them love their lives as they see fit.
what if they see fit to be legally married?
What, exactly are the huge cultural ramifications that will destroy the fabric of our society if same sex marriages are legal?
I mean, other then, "because it's not like it was ."
-
How, exactly, does letting them get a piece of paper do what you say it would do?
I'm sorry, but I'm really not sure what you think I "said it would do."
You say your willing to let them love their lives as they see fit.
what if they see fit to be legally married?
Generally, when people try to claim a legal status for which they don't (and certainly shouldn't) qualify, we don't consider that "living their lives as they see fit." Obviously, having a wedding ceremony and living their lives as if they were married (unofficially) is something they are free to do.
What, exactly are the huge cultural ramifications that will destroy the fabric of our society if same sex marriages are legal?
I mean, other then, "because it's not like it was ."
Of all the things I ever didn't claim...
Same-sex marriage is a symptom. Writing it into our laws is just another step on a road to mindless government down which we have trod quite far enough.
-
I'm sorry, but I'm really not sure what you think I "said it would do."
Generally, when people try to claim a legal status for which they don't (and certainly shouldn't) qualify, we don't consider that "living their lives as they see fit." Obviously, having a wedding ceremony and living their lives as if they were married (unofficially) is something they are free to do.
Of all the things I ever didn't claim...
Same-sex marriage is a symptom. Writing it into our laws is just another step on a road to mindless government down which we have trod quite far enough.
Why don't they qualify OTHER THEN THEIR GENDERS? And why shouldn't they?
And I agree with the last section, though not for reasons you would probably agree on. You see, I don't think anyone should be going to the government to get married. Straight people "can just go having a wedding ceremony and living their lives as if they were married (unofficially) is something they are free to do."
>:D
-
For the folks who are standing on their religion grounds.
So, what if you had a sibling, son or daughter that was gay and wanted to get married to a person of the same sex. Would you support them or shun them?
-
Would you support them or shun them?
That's a bit of a false dichotomy. There are options in between condoning and supporting a loved one's wayward lifestyle and shunning them.
-
For the folks who are standing on their religion grounds.
So, what if you had a sibling, son or daughter that was gay and wanted to get married to a person of the same sex. Would you support them or shun them?
This isn't about religion. Plenty of people have strong convictions about sex, and everything else. People have disagreements with their families, pretty frequently, and have to make choices like this. What are you getting at?
-
Why don't they qualify OTHER THEN THEIR GENDERS? And why shouldn't they?
Other than their genders? I think I've been fairly straightforward in saying that the sex of the participants is precisely the reason why same-sex "marriages" are not. (Hence the term "same-sex" to distinguish them from marriages.) So, no, no reason other than gender.
And I agree with the last section, though not for reasons you would probably agree on. You see, I don't think anyone should be going to the government to get married. Straight people "can just go having a wedding ceremony and living their lives as if they were married (unofficially) is something they are free to do."
>:D
Yawn. This opinion has become monotonously popular. It solves a problem that exists only in fevered imaginations. Just another left-wing, spread-the-misery approach.
-
"Prove how gun registration directly affects you. Bah, those are just slippery slope arguments, worrying about unintended consequences is for losers."
Gun registration affecting us is EASY.
Supporting gay marriage with a caveat of strong religious protections is like supporting illegal amnesty cause they totally promised to get tough on enforcement this time. I'd call it naive, but it's really just that you don't care about the consequences but can't admit that.
Not seeing it.
-
This isn't about religion. Plenty of people have strong convictions about sex, and everything else. People have disagreements with their families, pretty frequently, and have to make choices like this. What are you getting at?
Praying gay away and not allowing gay marriage is not about religion? If it wasn't about religious beliefs, civil unions between two consenting adults would be a the law of the land many many many years ago.
-
Praying gay away and not allowing gay marriage is not about religion? If it wasn't about religious beliefs, civil unions between two consenting adults would be a the law of the land many many many years ago.
I wasn't referring to the prayer, and I doubt you were, either. We were talking about same-sex marriage. Please explain how religion is the only thing keeping same-sex unions from being "the law of the land."
-
I'm sorry, but I'm really not sure what you think I "said it would do."
If anyone in this thread were trying to stop same-sex couples from doing anything, then they might feel obligated to explain such. As has been pointed out at least a dozen times over the past few years, it is the other side that wants to change the law, change an ancient concept, change our culture, etc. They are the ones who must explain why the government should care that two men are pretending to marry one another. The traditionalists, at this point, have shown themselves perfectly willing to let the two men live their own lives as the two men see fit. The traditionalists owe no one an explanation, as they are not the ones proposing bizarre changes.
I think what's happening is that the culture is changing and people are trying to change the laws to follow suit, rather than trying to change the law in order to force the culture to change. Seems to me the anti gay marriage side is trying to force the culture to conform to the laws.
-
Gun registration affecting us is EASY.
If it's so easy, please feel free to demonstrate real, non-theoretical or slippery slope damages that it causes.
Not seeing it.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ff.kulfoto.com%2Fpic%2F0001%2F0028%2FtSSxA27560.jpg&hash=81b28fdeeb4867b331ff968c9f5d7e75260403c8)
-
I think what's happening is that the culture is changing and people are trying to change the laws to follow suit, rather than trying to change the law in order to force the culture to change. Seems to me the anti gay marriage side is trying to force the culture to conform to the laws.
How does your theory account for all of the anti-gay marriage initiatives that have been passed by popular vote and then struck down by activist judges?
-
For the folks who are standing on their religion grounds.
So, what if you had a sibling, son or daughter that was gay and wanted to get married to a person of the same sex. Would you support them or shun them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
-
So, what if you had a sibling, son or daughter that was gay and wanted to get married to a person of the same sex. Would you support them or shun them?
What if your gay son wanted to marry you?
-
I wasn't referring to the prayer, and I doubt you were, either. We were talking about same-sex marriage. Please explain how religion is the only thing keeping same-sex unions from being "the law of the land."
I'm not going to step into your trap this time.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
It is only a false dilemma because you don't want to answer it. People don't want to appear as a-hole parent or back peddle on their feelings towards gay people.
-
What if your gay son wanted to marry you?
Isn't there already laws about close relatives wanting to marry?
-
It is only a false dilemma because you don't want to answer it. People don't want to appear as a-hole parent or back peddle on their feelings towards gay people.
;/
So if someone is making a bad decision, your only options are to support them or shun them? No middle ground? Interesting.
Isn't there already laws about close relatives wanting to marry?
Evil discriminatory laws fueled by hate that must be struck down for freedom.
-
It is only a false dilemma because you don't want to answer it. People don't want to appear as a-hole parent or back peddle on their feelings towards gay people.
Oh, and to answer your question I'd treat it the same way as if one of my straight children wanted to live with a person of the opposite gender outside of marriage.
-
;/
So if someone is making a bad decision, your only options are to support them or shun them? No middle ground? Interesting.
I think you read too much into that. You could opine back with something in between those extremes. To support someone could be as simple as buying them lunch once or as complicated as providing them with all their basic needs and luxury items.
-
Oh, and to answer your question I'd treat it the same way as if one of my straight children wanted to live with a person of the opposite gender outside of marriage.
...and how is that?
-
It is only a false dilemma because you don't want to answer it. People don't want to appear as a-hole parent or back peddle on their feelings towards gay people.
No, it's a false dilemma because you're presenting a binary choice when the reality is that there are many more choices than that. One can maintain a fine relationship with a loved-one while disapproving of some of their lifestyle choices. My wife and I both have siblings who live lives filled with choices we don't approve of or agree with. Yet we all still manage to maintain good relationships with them and all enjoy each other's company when we get together. Something your false dilemma doesn't allow for.
I think you read too much into that. You could opine back with something in between those extremes. To support someone could be as simple as buying them lunch once or as complicated as providing them with all their basic needs and luxury items.
You posited a situation where one's child wants to marry someone of the same sex, then asked if one would support said child. The implication is that you're asking if they would support the marriage itself, not buy them a burger.
-
You posited a situation where one's child wants to marry someone of the same sex, then asked if one would support said child. The implication is that you're asking if they would support the marriage itself, not buy them a burger.
Y'all read way too much into things.
-
How does your theory account for all of the anti-gay marriage initiatives that have been passed by popular vote and then struck down by activist judges?
I'd say that our country is not supposed to be run by mob rule.
-
I'd say that our country is not supposed to be run by mob rule.
Instead it is run by our "enlightened" elite oligarchy.
-
I'd say that our country is not supposed to be run by mob rule.
Nice evasion, but I posed that question because you posited that "the culture" ie the mob had changed its mind about redefining marriage and the .gov was just following along. So, how do you square your contention that "the culture" has changed to accept the redefinition of marriage, with the fact that in many areas the voters ahve chosen to enact bans against that redefinition?
Y'all read way too much into things.
Come on, you're straight trolling now. You know exactly what "support" means in the context you used it, and you're trying to play petty games with definitions to avoid getting called on it.
...and how is that?
Love them, maintain the relationship, while letting them know that what they're doing is wrong.
-
Come on, you're straight trolling now. You know exactly what "support" means in the context you used it, and you're trying to play petty games with definitions to avoid getting called on it.
Actually I'm not, just wanting people to think a bit.
-
Actually I'm not, just wanting people to think a bit.
Think about what? If they'd be willing to buy a hamburger for their child if they did something you don't approve of?
I suppose if you buy the silly lie that anyone opposed to redefining marriage is just a closet WBC member burning with vitriolic hatred of gays then that's a real thought provoking question. Since that's a silly and insulting strawman that exists only in your imagination, I'm gonna go ahead and keep on with the dismissing it.
-
Think about what? If they'd be willing to buy a hamburger for their child if they did something you don't approve of?
I suppose if you buy the silly lie that anyone opposed to redefining marriage is just a closet WBC member burning with vitriolic hatred of gays then that's a real thought provoking question. Since that's a silly and insulting strawman that exists only in your imagination, I'm gonna go ahead and keep on with the dismissing it.
Enjoy the weekend.
-
I just want to know why the misbehaving children problem is only posed to religious folk. That's why I asked what religion has to do with it. There's no reason to think that non-religious folk won't object to their children gay-marrying.
-
I want to do a, well not a poll, but I guess a survey, APS wide.
I want to see the numbers for age and religious affilation for those who oppose gay marriage.
As for majority, I'm guessing the younger generations either don't care or support gay marriage and as soon as the older set dies out, it will happen, without a fuss. Which is why I say just cave to the ineventable and you can spend the rest of your time grumbling about "kids these days".
And Fistful, isn't marriage about vowing before God (or whatever) to spend the rest of your life, good and bad, with someone you love? A contract that is the beginning for a new family (and, no, I don't want to hear it about gay people not having kids. Kids do not make a family unit and gay people have plenty of ways to have kids anyway)? To have and to hold and yadda yadda yadda?
Because all that doesn'r have anything to do with gender.
I keep hearing all this talk from ya'll about how it's got nothing to do with religion, but the ones with religious objection seem to be the vast majority of those who oppose it.
-
I just want to know why the misbehaving children problem is only posed to religious folk. That's why I asked what religion has to do with it. There's no reason to think that non-religious folk won't object to their children gay-marrying.
Yes there is, because so far I havn't seen numbers for non religous folk who oppose gay marriage. From what I can tell, this thread seems to be split mostly Christian against and Christian, atheist/agnositic and alternitive for.
-
As for majority, I'm guessing the younger generations either don't care or support gay marriage socialism and as soon as the older set dies out, it will happen, without a fuss. Which is why I say just cave to the ineventable and you can spend the rest of your time grumbling about "kids these days".
FTFY
And Fistful, isn't marriage about vowing before God (or whatever) to spend the rest of your life, good and bad, with someone you love? A contract that is the beginning for a new family (and, no, I don't want to hear it about gay people not having kids. Kids do not make a family unit and gay people have plenty of ways to have kids anyway)? To have and to hold and yadda yadda yadda?
Because all that doesn'r have anything to do with gender.
None of that has to do with the .gov forcing others to recognize those relationships either, so...
I keep hearing all this talk from ya'll about how it's got nothing to do with religion, but the ones with religious objection seem to be the vast majority of those who oppose it.
Going by party affiliation and religion within that, the vast majority of those opposed to gun control, the welfare state etc are religious. So what?
-
Nice evasion, but I posed that question because you posited that "the culture" ie the mob had changed its mind about redefining marriage and the .gov was just following along. So, how do you square your contention that "the culture" has changed to accept the redefinition of marriage, with the fact that in many areas the voters ahve chosen to enact bans against that redefinition?
I don't think there's a single culture in the US. I think that the reason resolutions to redefine marriage as "one man and one woman" are passed is because those in the cultures that are accepting of same sex marriage don't vote.
-
FTFY
None of that has to do with the .gov forcing others to recognize those relationships either, so...
Going by party affiliation and religion within that, the vast majority of those opposed to gun control, the welfare state etc are religious. So what?
Why do you think I'll be distracted by your effort to avoid answering my question and get all butt hurt over stuff we arn't talking about?
You want to push for no more socialism, they you should jump on board my "no marriage" train. Otherwise, man up and smell the roses in the gay wedding boquet.
-
Isn't there already laws about close relatives wanting to marry?
Why are those more reasonable than any other laws restricting who can marry who?
-
Why are those more reasonable than any other laws restricting who can marry who?
Probably enacted to have a criminal action against a parent who may over power "authoritatively" a child to perform sexual relations, even as an adult.
Biology 101: Because if there is a heterosexual* relation, then you could have the bad results of inbreeding where a particular undesirable (heath reasons, not ethic/etc) genetic trait is expressed at a greater frequency because both parties may/probably have the undesirable trait.
*could be homosexual and no reproduction occurs but one should not discriminate against one form of relationship against another.
-
Why are those more reasonable than any other laws restricting who can marry who?
Charby said it, but it deserves to be said again. Inbreeding leads to unhealthy stock.
Dog breeders do line breeding and it's complicated and involves more knowledge of genetics then the type of people who fall for their cousins generally have.
Look at the British royal family. William's marriage to Kate was a good thing, genitically speaking. That old Hanovarian line needed fresh blood. Victoria and Albert were really not a great match, and they spread it around to half of Europes Royal houses before they were said and done.
Besides, I'm pretty sure incest is a crime in of itself in at least most places. Plus, it seems most cases involve either boy/girl pairings or abusive situations, so I'd leave it on the books.
-
Probably enacted to have a criminal action against a parent who may over power "authoritatively" a child to perform sexual relations, even as an adult.
Biology 101: Because if there is a heterosexual* relation, then you could have the bad results of inbreeding where a particular undesirable (heath reasons, not ethic/etc) genetic trait is expressed at a greater frequency because both parties may/probably have the undesirable trait.
*could be homosexual and no reproduction occurs but one should not discriminate against one form of relationship against another.
Why should a higher risk of health problems prevent parent child or first cousin marriage? The same logic would call for outlawing homosexual relationships where the health risks are elevated relative to heterosexual relations.
-
Why should a higher risk of health problems prevent parent child or first cousin marriage? The same logic would call for outlawing homosexual relationships where the health risks are elevated relative to heterosexual relations.
1st question:
I never said I agreed or disagreed with close relatives reproducing. I gave my opinion on why society accepts that it shouldn't be down.
2nd question:
I don't see a greater sexual health risk between a monogamous homosexual relationship vs monogamous heterosexual relationship. Greater health sexual health risks occur when you start to have multiple partners, regardless of sexual orientation.
-
Why should a higher risk of health problems prevent parent child or first cousin marriage? The same logic would call for outlawing homosexual relationships where the health risks are elevated relative to heterosexual relations.
I take it you've never had sex with a woman? Because, you know, we can get hurt down there during sex, and it's not exactly uncommen.
I would bet good money that more woman end up at the doctor due to a sex related UTI then gay men from rough anal sex.
If it's purely a question of health risk alone, hetrosexual woman risk more, and you don't even need to count anything more than pregnacy related risks to beat out everyone else.
So, that arguement was dead before you even typed it out, dude.
-
If it's so easy, please feel free to demonstrate real, non-theoretical or slippery slope damages that it causes.
Canada's long gun registration system ballooned in cost for effectively no benefit. California and New York's confiscations.
http://f.kulfoto.com/pic/0001/0028/tSSxA27560.jpg
Also not a counter-argument. Especially with the Hobby-lobby ruling, it makes it much less likely that the slippery slope you fear(religious institutions forced to perform marriages against their beliefs) will occur.
-
Canada's long gun registration system ballooned in cost for effectively no benefit. California and New York's confiscations.
Also not a counter-argument. Especially with the Hobby-lobby ruling, it makes it much less likely that the slippery slope you fear(religious institutions forced to perform marriages against their beliefs) will occur.
First thing isn't directly harmful anymore than anything else the .gov wastes money on. Last two are just proof that the slippery slope is a valid argument. Registration, in and of itself, does no direct harm.
Wasn't intended as a counter argument, it was intended to express my contempt for you. And feel free to tell the small businesses that have been sued into bankruptcy that there's no danger of negative consequences.
-
Why do you think I'll be distracted by your effort to avoid answering my question and get all butt hurt over stuff we arn't talking about?
What are you talking about? The part I quoted was a statement, not a question. Your argument is that gay marriage is inevitable based on your reading of social trends, so no one should fight it. I was pointing out that continued expansion of the .gov and further restrictions of rights are just as "inevitable" but we all still fight against them.
You want to push for no more socialism, they you should jump on board my "no marriage" train. Otherwise, man up and smell the roses in the gay wedding boquet.
That's a complete non-sequitor, and actually contrary to your position. If you wanted to argue that there should be no legal recognition of marriage I'd disagree but understand and sympathize with that position. But you're seeking to expand the scope and involvement of .gov in these relationships.
-
Charby said it, but it deserves to be said again. Inbreeding leads to unhealthy stock.
Even still, that consequence rarely manifests in a single generation of inbreeding, and there are certainly easy ways to nullify it anyway. (One or both already being sterile, or having themselves rendered permanently so.) Thus, rather than a prohibition, a single, simple restriction could eliminate that argument entirely.
-
I just want to know why the misbehaving children problem is only posed to religious folk. That's why I asked what religion has to do with it. There's no reason to think that non-religious folk won't object to their children gay-marrying.
Why is being gay misbehaving? One would think a person becomes gay because that is the behavior that they are most comfortable with. Misbehaver would be a person who know they were gay but forced themselves into a heterosexual relationship.
-
Even still, that consequence rarely manifests in a single generation of inbreeding, and there are certainly easy ways to nullify it anyway. (One or both already being sterile, or having themselves rendered permanently so.) Thus, rather than a prohibition, a single, simple restriction could eliminate that argument entirely.
You need to spend more time on your Mendel. Ressesive genes can cause problems for one generation of breeding for unrelated pairings. Two children of two unrelated carriers of certain genes could certainly produce unhealthy stock in one generation.
But that's beside the point. I didn't think of modern medical advances that would make the question of inbreeding moot. You are correct that laws against incest could be altered in favor of mandatory sterilization for those who would participate in it.
I still think it's ewwy though. :barf:
-
What are you talking about? The part I quoted was a statement, not a question. Your argument is that gay marriage is inevitable based on your reading of social trends, so no one should fight it. I was pointing out that continued expansion of the .gov and further restrictions of rights are just as "inevitable" but we all still fight against them.
That's a complete non-sequitor, and actually contrary to your position. If you wanted to argue that there should be no legal recognition of marriage I'd disagree but understand and sympathize with that position. But you're seeking to expand the scope and involvement of .gov in these relationships.
;/ because the GOP isn't socialist in conservative clothing.
Seriously, take the hint, ax the "social" from the political conservitive and we maybe could avoid that road.
People vote on the issues that affect them personally, and on the issues they see in day to day life. They get gay marriage, not balancing the federal budget.
Here's an idea, stop worrying about who other people are screwing and start worrying about all of us getting screwed.
-
Why is being gay misbehaving? One would think a person becomes gay because that is the behavior that they are most comfortable with. Misbehaver would be a person who know they were gay but forced themselves into a heterosexual relationship.
:lol: Now that was hilarious. You win one internet.
OK. Why are children getting "gay-married" against their parents' wishes a question just for religious folk? How about nonreligious people who object to such?
-
:lol: Now that was hilarious. You win one internet.
OK. Why are children getting "gay-married" against their parents' wishes a question just for religious folk? How about nonreligious people who object to such?
Again. A show of hands, where are these nonreligious folk who object to their children's gay marriages?
-
;/ because the GOP isn't socialist in conservative clothing.
Seriously, take the hint, ax the "social" from the political conservitive and we maybe could avoid that road.
People vote on the issues that affect them personally, and on the issues they see in day to day life. They get gay marriage, not balancing the federal budget.
Here's an idea, stop worrying about who other people are screwing and start worrying about all of us getting screwed.
So your point is that both major parties are socialist, but that if neither party objected to gay marriage then we would have a chance to stop socialism.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20140501150431%2Fwalkingdead%2Fimages%2F3%2F3d%2FWat.jpeg&hash=3ec95f02a4ed7f166760ea7caa417a9fc0dc9024)
-
Again. A show of hands, where are these nonreligious folk who object to their children's gay marriages?
It goes back to this:
For the folks who are standing on their religion grounds.
So, what if you had a sibling, son or daughter that was gay and wanted to get married to a person of the same sex. Would you support them or shun them?
I want to know why religion affects the above question. If a person is opposed to their kids getting married to the same sex, why does it matter whether their view is religious, or otherwise?
-
I want to know why religion affects the above question. If a person is opposed to their kids getting married to the same sex, why does it matter whether their view is religious, or otherwise?
Well I guess we better toss out "my faith guides my life" that religious people tend to use to live their life. Toss it out forever more!
-
It goes back to this:
I want to know why religion affects the above question. If a person is opposed to their kids getting married to the same sex, why does it matter whether their view is religious, or otherwise?
Charby assumes that only those damn crazy WBC equivalent religious folks oppose gay marriage, and the only reason they do so is cause they just hate hate hate the gays so much.
-
Again. A show of hands, where are these nonreligious folk who object to their children's gay marriages?
Here!
Atheist here!Checking in.
No kids.Wouldn't want them to marry within their sex.
My reason?I wouldn't want my child to(potentially) suffer the stigma that goes with being gay.I wouldn't want my child to be associated with the filthy loud disgusting trash that shows up at rallys supporting gay rights.Basically I'd like my kid to be able to lead a healthy life with as little stress as possible.I believe that a hetero relationship,while absolutely not being being without problems,the kid would have a better chance to work thru those problems.Less social stigma.There are also(more I suspect)social workers used to dealing with hetero realationship problems.Easier to get trained help if needed.
You say that I have no say over my kids life?And that they should be free to live it as they see fit.Without my interruption.You'd be right.Doesn't make me wrong though either.
One of the things I've learned as I age is that your parents never stop being your parents.They just get older.Sometimes,if you listen,they still even know more than you.
Just my thoughts that no one asked for. :P
-
What the hell is that????
Really!!What is it???!?!?!
-
Charby assumes that only those damn crazy WBC equivalent religious folks oppose gay marriage, and the only reason they do so is cause they just hate hate hate the gays so much.
So where the hell did you get that?
and yes there are people who hate gays in the name of religion (there are other religions that Christianity), more than the WBC crowd.
OTH->
Recent polls show that more are in support then oppose.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html
Fifty percent say the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not.
Beyond the constitutional questions, a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed, the widest margin tracked in Post-ABC polling.
-
Oh, Balog, no one thinks you hate the gayz.
I, for one, think you're grossed out by men kissing men and just can't stand seeing it so you'll do anything in your power to make it stop.
Do you get a little barfy when you see gay men hold hands?
>:)
I also note that the lot of you whinging about gay marriage seem uber focused on the gay men, but ya'll don't say much about the lesbians.
I'm guess you don't find two woman getting it on nearly as gross as the men. It's hard to be grossed out by something that turns you on, isn't it?
:angel:
-
Recent polls show that more are in support then oppose.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html
Not intending to muddle your point but quoting any on-line poll as fact seems to be informationally dangerous.(words fail me sometimes,I can't help it)
I remember the poll taken on a ferry in San Francisco that said unanimously that Al Gore had won."100% of Americans agree that Gore was robbed".
You know what I mean.
-
Not intending to muddle your point but quoting any on-line poll as fact seems to be informationally dangerous.(words fail me sometimes,I can't help it)
I remember the poll taken on a ferry in San Francisco that said unanimously that Al Gore had won."100% of Americans agree that Gore was robbed".
You know what I mean.
I know what you mean.
-
Here!
Atheist here!Checking in.
No kids.Wouldn't want them to marry within their sex.
My reason?I wouldn't want my child to(potentially) suffer the stigma that goes with being gay.I wouldn't want my child to be associated with the filthy loud disgusting trash that shows up at rallys supporting gay rights.Basically I'd like my kid to be able to lead a healthy life with as little stress as possible.I believe that a hetero relationship,while absolutely not being being without problems,the kid would have a better chance to work thru those problems.Less social stigma.There are also(more I suspect)social workers used to dealing with hetero realationship problems.Easier to get trained help if needed.
You say that I have no say over my kids life?And that they should be free to live it as they see fit.Without my interruption.You'd be right.Doesn't make me wrong though either.
One of the things I've learned as I age is that your parents never stop being your parents.They just get older.Sometimes,if you listen,they still even know more than you.
Just my thoughts that no one asked for. :P
That sounds more like you'd prefer your kids to just not be gay.
I'm asking if your kid is gay, would you support them if they got married to their same sex partner?
Remember, the alternatives would be alone for the rest of their lives, living a lie and miserable with someone they don't love or being out and either in a succession of uncommited relationships or a commited relationship that is basically marriage without the paper work.
-
I, for one, think you're grossed out by men kissing men and just can't stand seeing it so you'll do anything in your power to make it stop.
Do you get a little barfy when you see gay men hold hands?
>:)
I also note that the lot of you whinging about gay marriage seem uber focused on the gay men, but ya'll don't say much about the lesbians.
I'm guess you don't find two woman getting it on nearly as gross as the men. It's hard to be grossed out by something that turns you on, isn't it?
:angel:
If I could.
It's even worse when a couple of hairy bears start swapping spit.
Same difference.A reasonably attractive,gay,female is a waste.Not likely to reproduce in a manner I'd find appropriate.Test tubes and turkey basters aren't the way Mother Nature intended things to proceed.
I,for one,have never found two women getting it on to be attractive.Never wanted to join in either.
Broad brushes= :facepalm:
-
So where the hell did you get that?
and yes there are people who hate gays in the name of religion (there are other religions that Christianity), more than the WBC crowd.
OTH->
Recent polls show that more are in support then oppose.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html
I got that from the WBC pictures you posted earlier. And really, assuming that the opposition to gay marriage comes from hating gay people is the only way to make sense of a lot of your lines of reasoning.
I also note that polls consistently over-estimate how popular gay marriage is at the voting booth. Not to mention the regional differences.
-
If I could.
It's even worse when a couple of hairy bears start swapping spit.
Same difference.A reasonably attractive,gay,female is a waste.Not likely to reproduce in a manner I'd find appropriate.Test tubes and turkey basters aren't the way Mother Nature intended things to proceed.
I,for one,have never found two women getting it on to be attractive.Never wanted to join in either.
Broad brushes= :facepalm:
First of all, you, sir, are a minority admist hetrosexual males. I am impressed, actually. The whole "two chicks banging is so HAWT!" get's really old afterawhile.
Second, I hope you end up with a woman who desperatly wants children and you are infertal, so you end up having to decide weither to break her heart or suck it up and deal with "unnatural" children.
That comment actually ticks me off for the shear stupidity of it.
-
That sounds more like you'd prefer your kids to just not be gay.
I'm asking if your kid is gay, would you support them if they got married to their same sex partner?
Remember, the alternatives would be alone for the rest of their lives, living a lie and miserable with someone they don't love or being out and either in a succession of uncommited relationships or a commited relationship that is basically marriage without the paper work.
That's true.I'd rather banish any gayness that crops up.Exorcism,whatever.In reality I understand that all I could do would be to try and intill my morals into their little fleshy gorps and hope that enough stuck.
Eh.That's more complicated.The way I was raised being gay was a BAD THING.It ranked right with un-wed mothers,single moms,welfare recipients,and probably a few others I can't recall right now.IOWS,my judgement is colored by my own experiences.As is anyone elses.
That said,to try and answer the question?I'd hope,if the gay were the way,that my spawn would be smart and keep their head down and just try to live a healthy,moral life.I'd accept it better if my kid and partner would accept me and my thoughts/feelings.If the kids(mine and the +1)were of the strident harpy variety I'd say no.I wouldn't support them.
For some reason I think that a gay couple would be more likely to pose ultimatums(ie.You don't love my gay partner so you don't love me!) than the typical hetero crotchfruit.Might be wrong.Case by case.
-
Oh, Balog, no one thinks you hate the gayz.
I, for one, think you're grossed out by men kissing men and just can't stand seeing it so you'll do anything in your power to make it stop.
Do you get a little barfy when you see gay men hold hands?
>:)
I also note that the lot of you whinging about gay marriage seem uber focused on the gay men, but ya'll don't say much about the lesbians.
I'm guess you don't find two woman getting it on nearly as gross as the men. It's hard to be grossed out by something that turns you on, isn't it?
:angel:
I choose to live in Seattle, a place that is vying with San Francisco for most gays per capita. When I worked in downtown I saw gay guys doing a lot more than holding hands on a daily basis. It doesn't bother me on a visceral or emotional level, not even a little bit. I'd wager a month's pay that if you asked any of my (many many many) gay co-workers and friends if I treated them badly or differently, or if they suspected that I thought badly of them, for their orientation that they'd all say no.
Has anyone in this thread even mentioned gender, aside from maybe Roo in his stats on disease transmission? You're projecting sweetie.
-
I choose to live in Seattle, a place that is vying with San Francisco for most gays per capita. When I worked in downtown I saw gay guys doing a lot more than holding hands on a daily basis. It doesn't bother me on a visceral or emotional level, not even a little bit. I'd wager a month's pay that if you asked any of my (many many many) gay co-workers and friends if I treated them badly or differently, or if they suspected that I thought badly of them, for their orientation that they'd all say no.
Has anyone in this thread even mentioned gender, aside from maybe Roo in his stats on disease transmission? You're projecting sweetie.
Then, seriously, what is it about a piece of paper with a WORD on it so bothersome?
What does the WORD change?
"marriage" is a word. As with a lot of high impact words it means a lot of diffrent things to a lot of diffrent people. You don't find that word invalid when used by people of other religion who don't swear before your god. You don't find that word invalid for hetrosexual couples who swear before NO god. You don't find it invalid for those who swear it to multiple people (and I'm talking in a historical context. I belive the Bible even has mention of men married to more then one woman at a time) You don't find it invalid when it's sworn to God (nuns are married to god)
So why does this one (of a GREAT many) definition get you in a lather?
-
Second, I hope you end up with a woman who desperatly wants children and you are infertal, so you end up having to decide weither to break her heart or suck it up and deal with "unnatural" children.
That comment actually ticks me off for the shear stupidity of it.
You assume that she'd want a test tube kid as opposed to just adopting a child(children)?
If I'm infertile(and I know I'm not)I'd be happier with an adopted child.
To get waaaaaay off topic a second( :P ),what would you,as a woman,rather have?Some other mans child(not from a different relationship mind)?Or an adoptee?
A pound puppy or a test tube?I'm curious.
For myself,I'm a single 44 year old guy that won't date a woman with kids.The reasons aren't germane to the conversation except that I'm unlikely to match up with a woman that wants kids anyways.
As for being shearly stupid? ;) See my earlier comment about personal experiences.Mine are different than yours.My feelings and perspective are also different.
-
That's true.I'd rather banish any gayness that crops up.Exorcism,whatever.In reality I understand that all I could do would be to try and intill my morals into their little fleshy gorps and hope that enough stuck.
Eh.That's more complicated.The way I was raised being gay was a BAD THING.It ranked right with un-wed mothers,single moms,welfare recipients,and probably a few others I can't recall right now.IOWS,my judgement is colored by my own experiences.As is anyone elses.
That said,to try and answer the question?I'd hope,if the gay were the way,that my spawn would be smart and keep their head down and just try to live a healthy,moral life.I'd accept it better if my kid and partner would accept me and my thoughts/feelings.If the kids(mine and the +1)were of the strident harpy variety I'd say no.I wouldn't support them.
For some reason I think that a gay couple would be more likely to pose ultimatums(ie.You don't love my gay partner so you don't love me!) than the typical hetero crotchfruit.Might be wrong.Case by case.
The first issue of gay being bad isn't as much the norm anymore.
The second, well, talk to some of the resident parents around here. Gay, straight, doesn't matter. Those issues abound with all adult children, regardless of orientation.
In fact, the one most likely to pose such an ultimatiam is a daughter of any orientation. Seriously. That's a girl thing.
-
Then, seriously, what is it about a piece of paper with a WORD on it so bothersome?
What does the WORD change?
"marriage" is a word. As with a lot of high impact words it means a lot of diffrent things to a lot of diffrent people. You don't find that word invalid when used by people of other religion who don't swear before your god. You don't find that word invalid for hetrosexual couples who swear before NO god. You don't find it invalid for those who swear it to multiple people (and I'm talking in a historical context. I belive the Bible even has mention of men married to more then one woman at a time) You don't find it invalid when it's sworn to God (nuns are married to god)
So why does this one (of a GREAT many) definition get you in a lather?
I could care less about "the word" I care about the laws that govern us. I care about fed.gov social engineering, I care about the "unintended" consequences I foresee this having on liberty.
Seriously, have you actually read any of the arguments that I and others have advanced in this thread? Hundreds if not thousands of words explaining why I feel this is 1 unneeded and 2 a threat to liberty, and you still claim to not understand why I would object to it aside from an emotional response?
If you don't understand my position from all of the posts I have previously made in this and other threads, then I literally don't know what more I can do to convey my position.
-
The first issue of gay being bad isn't as much the norm anymore.
The second, well, talk to some of the resident parents around here. Gay, straight, doesn't matter. Those issues abound with all adult children, regardless of orientation.
In fact, the one most likely to pose such an ultimatiam is a daughter of any orientation. Seriously. That's a girl thing.
I understand that the current norm,for all the points I mentioned,has changed to become more accepting(too accepting in some cases-again,a different conversation).
The girl thing though?That's what I was thinking too.I'm just too wimpy to say it first! >:D
-
You assume that she'd want a test tube kid as opposed to just adopting a child(children)?
If I'm infertile(and I know I'm not)I'd be happier with an adopted child.
To get waaaaaay off topic a second( :P ),what would you,as a woman,rather have?Some other mans child(not from a different relationship mind)?Or an adoptee?
A pound puppy or a test tube?I'm curious.
For myself,I'm a single 44 year old guy that won't date a woman with kids.The reasons aren't germane to the conversation except that I'm unlikely to match up with a woman that wants kids anyways.
As for being shearly stupid? ;) See my earlier comment about personal experiences.Mine are different than yours.My feelings and perspective are also different.
Test tube.
Adoption would be last resort. I want to actually do the whole thing, even though it's supposed to suck ass. It's about the experiance. Part of it is to prove to myself that I'm that tough. Part of it is sheer curiosity (and yes, I know, curiosity killed the cat. I've been killed many times over in my life and many more to come, I presume. Such is my nature) Part of it makes no real sense, but I want to.
And yes, stupid. There are A LOT of reasons a woman would go through such for a child and lesbians are the least of it. Lesbians can (and do) have children from natural insemination.
To even bring it up as a reason to oppose gay marriage is stupid.
-
Then, seriously, what is it about a piece of paper with a WORD on it so bothersome?
What does the WORD change?
"marriage" is a word. As with a lot of high impact words it means a lot of diffrent things to a lot of diffrent people. You don't find that word invalid when used by people of other religion who don't swear before your god. You don't find that word invalid for hetrosexual couples who swear before NO god. You don't find it invalid for those who swear it to multiple people (and I'm talking in a historical context. I belive the Bible even has mention of men married to more then one woman at a time) You don't find it invalid when it's sworn to God (nuns are married to god)
So why does this one (of a GREAT many) definition get you in a lather?
You've just explained why marriage is not "just" something done privately, for religious reasons (not that religion is especially private, but anyway). While it is very meaningful in religious traditions, it has a social significance which is just as important.
Of course, trying to dismiss the controversy by claiming that marriage is just a word, or just a piece of paper, is specious and a cop-out. Marriage is "a word," in the sense that fatherhood is a word, or fairness. Those are real things, identified by words.
As an evangelical, FWIW, I don't consider the vows of a religious order to be a marriage. I don't know whether the Catholics consider it to be equivalent or not, even if they may use the term.
-
Test tube.
Adoption would be last resort. I want to actually do the whole thing, even though it's supposed to suck ass. It's about the experiance. Part of it is to prove to myself that I'm that tough. Part of it is sheer curiosity (and yes, I know, curiosity killed the cat. I've been killed many times over in my life and many more to come, I presume. Such is my nature) Part of it makes no real sense, but I want to.
And yes, stupid. There are A LOT of reasons a woman would go through such for a child and lesbians are the least of it. Lesbians can (and do) have children from natural insemination.
To even bring it up as a reason to oppose gay marriage is stupid.
Really?Even if your partner were opposed and wanted to adopt?In a perfect world it'd be something that should be discussed beforehand but...
Now this seems silly.I understand the experience want/need.I understand the curiosity too.(I've no desire to be in the delivery room BTW,again for a different reason than you'd assume).Tough enough though?Really?LOL,what woman isn't tough enough?Giving birth is basic,fundamental part of life.Yooouuu caaannn doooo eeeeeettt! =D
Did I use that as banning reason?I thought we had side stepped the main topic?
-
You've just explained why marriage is not "just" something done privately, for religious reasons (not that religion is especially private, but anyway). While it is very meaningful in religious traditions, it has a social significance which is just as important.
Of course, trying to dismiss the controversy by claiming that marriage is just a word, or just a piece of paper, is specious and a cop-out. Marriage is "a word," in the sense that fatherhood is a word, or fairness. Those are real things, identified by words.
As an evangelical, FWIW, I don't consider the vows of a religious order to be a marriage. I don't know whether the Catholics consider it to be equivalent or not, even if they may use the term.
You're talking to a chick that calls her mother's ex boyfriend "Dad" and considers him a father. Or are you going to tell me that he can't be my Father because he's not the one who knocked up my mother? Fistful, the one word you should have not offered as an example to me and you know it. I think you want to lose this fight.
Marriage is a word with a meaning. So is Love, Faith, Honor, Moral and a whole lot of other words that are both simple concepts and highly complicated with varied concepts at the same time.
Just because you don't recognise it as "marriage" doesn't mean a whole lot of other people think the same thing. Hell, you just gave an example of your own. You may not recognise that the nuns arn't married to god, but the catholics sure do.
Government sactioned marriage has to include all of society, not just what you recognise as legit. And if the Catholics can figure out how to get God to sign the papers, I'd support their right to legally marry off woman to God.
-
Oh, Balog, no one thinks you hate the gayz.
I, for one, think you're grossed out by men kissing men and just can't stand seeing it so you'll do anything in your power to make it stop.
Do you get a little barfy when you see gay men hold hands?
>:)
I also note that the lot of you whinging about gay marriage seem uber focused on the gay men, but ya'll don't say much about the lesbians.
I'm guess you don't find two woman getting it on nearly as gross as the men. It's hard to be grossed out by something that turns you on, isn't it?
:angel:
Meh. I have always supported the rights of homosexuals to be homosexual, even though I find many of its traits to be revolting. And FWIW, it's mainly the effeminate behavior/dress/speech from men, and butch behavior/dress from chicks. The sexual aspect is repellant to me, but less so.
-
Meh. I have always supported the rights of homosexuals to be homosexual, even though I find many of its traits to be revolting. And FWIW, it's mainly the effeminate behavior/dress/speech from men, and butch behavior/dress from chicks. The sexual aspect is repellant to me, but less so.
I think I know more effeminate straight men than gay men. Damn metrosexuals.
-
I think I know more effeminate straight men than gay men. Damn metrosexuals.
From an outside perspective they do tend to blur the lines,don't they?
-
You're talking to a chick that calls her mother's ex boyfriend "Dad" and considers him a father. Or are you going to tell me that he can't be my Father because he's not the one who knocked up my mother? Fistful, the one word you should have not offered as an example to me and you know it. I think you want to lose this fight.
;/ I'm actually not wrapped up enough in your issues to remember what your situation is. You're also proving my point, that words represent real things. That's why it matters to you whether he is considered a father, and that is why you brought up the significant fact that you call him Dad.
Just because you don't recognise it as a "marriage," doesn't mean a whole lot of other people think the same thing.
Oh, yeah, 'cause I'm the one arbitrarily making up my own definition for marriage. A union that excludes one of the two necessary sexes has not generally been recognized as a marriage. Not in thousands of cultures, thousands of religions, and thousands of years. Maybe that means something.
Hell, you just gave an example of your own. You may not recognise that the nuns arn't married to god, but the catholics sure do.
I was honestly unaware that nuns were getting marriage licenses from the state, and suing bakers for not making their wedding cakes.
Government sactioned marriage has to include all of society, not just what you recognise as legit.
Actually, no. Government is under no obligation to include people who refuse to actually get married (by choosing someone of the same sex.) And just FYI, I agree with Jesus, who said that second marriages are un-legit, while the first spouse is still living. You don't see me pressing for those to be prohibited.
-
;/ I'm actually not wrapped up enough in your issues to remember what your situation is. You're also proving my point, that words represent real things. That's why it matters to you whether he is considered a father, and that is why you brought up the significant fact that you call him Dad.
Oh, yeah, 'cause I'm the one arbitrarily making up my own definition for marriage. A union that excludes one of the two necessary sexes has not generally been recognized as a marriage. Not in thousands of cultures, thousands of religions, and thousands of years. Maybe that means something.
I was honestly unaware that nuns were getting marriage licenses from the state, and suing bakers for not making their wedding cakes.
Actually, no. Government is under no obligation to include people who refuse to actually get married (by choosing someone of the same sex.) And just FYI, I agree with Jesus, who said that second marriages are un-legit, while the first spouse is still living. You don't see me pressing for those to be prohibited.
You are a broken record and, what's worse, you can't provide any reason beyond an antiquated definition of word that has been thrown around haphazardly for centuries.
Gays getting married has no direct impact on you, other then they tick you off and gross you out. You keep clinging to a word and moaning "but it's for just a man and woman because history says so!!" which just doesn't cut it.
How many words have changed? How many societies have changed? How many socially constructed instatutions have changed over the course of human history have changed to the point of being nearly unrecognisable from the originals?
Hell, you would be Catholic if not for Luther's challenging what it meant to be a Christian. Today, it's accepted to be Christian but not Catholic, but in the past, you'd have been ostrasized, excumincated and possible stoned or burned to death because of a acceped word and a definetion that had ment a specific thing throughout a culture and their history.
-
You are a broken record and, what's worse, you can't provide any reason beyond an antiquated definition of word that has been thrown around haphazardly for centuries.
Between the two of us, I'm not the one using logic by assertion. Nor am I insisting on the definition of a word. We've already been over this, but marriage is not a word, it is a thing, and it has certain limits that cannot be exceeded, and still be that thing. As an example, let's go back to fatherhood. If my biological father were a bad, abusive person, who left when I was ten; he would still be, in some way, my father. If another man raised me, he might be considered a father, as well, in another sense. But that doesn't mean I can legally claim anyone off the street as my father, in a legal sense. Someone you call your father, informally, may qualify by a different set of characteristics. A father has certain characteristics that must be met, or no one's going to take you seriously, when you say he's a father. All I'm telling you is that a same-sex couple, no matter how much they love one another, or how committed, or how much we may approve of their situation, is ever going to be a marriage. Not because anyone disapproves of them, but because that's not what marriage is. The world can disagree, but they'll just be wrong.
Gays getting married has no direct impact on you
Exactly why the government need not be involved.
-
Exactly why the government need not be involved.
So how do you feel about government getting involved with the movement that lead up to the Civil Right Act of 1964?
-
I'd say that our country is not supposed to be run by mob rule.
I'm glad we are not run by mob rule, I think America would have folded a long time ago if it was.
-
I'm really not sure what you think I "said it would do."
If anyone in this thread were trying to stop same-sex couples from doing anything, then they might feel obligated to explain such. As has been pointed out at least a dozen times over the past few years, it is the other side that wants to change the law, change an ancient concept, change our culture, etc. They are the ones who must explain why the government should care that two men are pretending to marry one another. The traditionalists, at this point, have shown themselves perfectly willing to let the two men live their own lives as the two men see fit. The traditionalists owe no one an explanation, as they are not the ones proposing bizarre changes.
I think what's happening is that the culture is changing and people are trying to change the laws to follow suit, rather than trying to change the law in order to force the culture to change. Seems to me the anti gay marriage side is trying to force the culture to conform to the laws.
Wow, Balog really had your number on that one. The facts are not what you thought they were. As he pointed out, same-sex marriage did terribly at the polls (in California), and succeeded in the seats of power (the courts). Government has led this fight. If the public is actually supporting it now (that's if), it's probably because they've been beaten over the head with it just enough to surrender.
When I talked about changing the culture, I didn't mean that I was afraid the gayzors were going to change our culture. What I mean is that supporters of the movement are trying to force change through the government. This is why they must explain their position to us skeptics, and not the other way around.
-
Yeah, call me a racist. That's a snappy and original response.
-
I'm glad we are not run by mob rule, I think America would have folded a long time ago if it was.
Aren't you the guy that keeps telling so-cons to drop their social causes, because unpopular? ???
-
Aren't you the guy that keeps telling so-cons to drop their social causes, because unpopular? ???
No because we bigger problems to solve, the run away national debt, under and unemployment, etc.
-
Between the two of us, I'm not the one using logic by assertion. Nor am I insisting on the definition of a word. We've already been over this, but marriage is not a word, it is a thing, and it has certain limits that cannot be exceeded, and still be that thing. As an example, let's go back to fatherhood. If my biological father were a bad, abusive person, who left when I was ten; he would still be, in some way, my father. If another man raised me, he might be considered a father, as well, in another sense. But that doesn't mean I can legally claim anyone off the street as my father, in a legal sense. Someone you call your father, informally, may qualify by a different set of characteristics. A father has certain characteristics that must be met, or no one's going to take you seriously, when you say he's a father. All I'm telling you is that a same-sex couple, no matter how much they love one another, or how committed, or how much we may approve of their situation, is ever going to be a marriage. Not because anyone disapproves of them, but because that's not what marriage is. The world can disagree, but they'll just be wrong.
Exactly why the government need not be involved.
My father is my father because of his actions, not biology, and there were plenty of legal option that could have been taken to make him such.
A husband is a husband due to his actions, not the gender of his partner.
A wife is a wife due to her actions, not the gender of her partner.
And I agree, government shouldn't be involved at all. You don't need government to validate your marriage anymore than anyone elses, but since it does, accept that there is a large portion of the population that thinks "marriage" is something the LBGT can and should have, because they don't define that word or instatution the same way you do.
Move beyond your personal feelings on the subject and be the bigger man. Accept that the fact that others beliving diffrently does not invalidate your opinion and accept the validity that they have the right to redefine the word "marriage" if they want to.
It's no skin off your back if they do. It doesn't diminish your marriage. If you think it does, well, you might want to rethink your own marriage.
and you never addressed the fact that once "Christian" meant Catholic and nothing else.
-
No because we bigger problems to solve, the run away national debt, under and unemployment, etc.
Can you just make this repost over and over and over and over?
Because this is the ultimate problem with most of the social issues at hand.
Again, people vote on what affects them personally. Controversaly issues draw voters. If politics was boring and focused on the stuff that actually matters, the voters who come out on the social issues and teh feelz are mre likely to stay home and the people who pay attention will vote.
I don't know how it will turn out in the end, but I have a feeling it would cut down on the BS.
-
BSL, you may want to brush up on your history of Christianity before trying to "teach" others.
Christian sects and practices outside of the Roman Catholic sphere numbered in the dozens even before the reformation.
American Evangelicals share much of their fundamental theology with the Waldensians who we have records of dating back into the second century. The Waldensians and many other groups often united in fellowship with those who left the Roman Catholic Church. So they are considered Protestant even though they existed prior to the protestant reformation.
-
BSL, you may want to brush up on your history of Christianity before trying to "teach" others.
Christian sects and practices outside of the Roman Catholic sphere numbered in the dozens even before the reformation.
American Evangelicals share much of their fundamental theology with the Waldensians who we have records of dating back into the second century. The Waldensians and many other groups often united in fellowship with those who left the Roman Catholic Church. So they are considered Protestant even though they existed prior to the protestant reformation.
Yet the majority of the christian world wouldn't know that at the time. It was the middle ages and the majority followed the Catholic church and had no clue other sects exisited.
The Protestent Reformation is what matters. This is when you have a larger portion of the population debating what defines a Christian, and among them people who insisted that anyone who was not of the Catholic faith was not Christian.
It's kind of like getting all fussy about the Roanoke colony. Yes, it's a great historical mystery, but in the big scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. It exisited and it was mearly further proof that settling the New World was going to be a challenge to settle, but it's actual impact on the history of the world is minimal at best.
Talking down to me and throwing around historical trivalties doesn't negate my point, Ron.
-
Yet the majority of the christian world wouldn't know that at the time. It was the middle ages and the majority followed the Catholic church and had no clue other sects exisited.
The Protestent Reformation is what matters. This is when you have a larger portion of the population debating what defines a Christian, and among them people who insisted that anyone who was not of the Catholic faith was not Christian.
It's kind of like getting all fussy about the Roanoke colony. Yes, it's a great historical mystery, but in the big scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. It exisited and it was mearly further proof that settling the New World was going to be a challenge to settle, but it's actual impact on the history of the world is minimal at best.
Your anglocentric view of Christianity is showing.
Your obvious lack of knowledge about the various sects persecuted by the Roman Church in Europe is showing.
Where do you think the nascent protestants got their ideas from? Maybe the rich history of non Roman Christian thought?
-snip-
-
I would contend that the historical lineage of what we now call the evangelical movement here in America is not a historical triviality.
It speaks to both the OP and your contention that before the reformation there was no church other than the Roman Catholic Church.
Your point is negated by a casual knowledge of the history of Christianity. I'm sorry if you take offense at my pointing that out. I'll try to post in a nicer tone when responding to your disparaging of the christian religion :angel:
-
I take it you've never had sex with a woman? Because, you know, we can get hurt down there during sex, and it's not exactly uncommen.
I would bet good money that more woman end up at the doctor due to a sex related UTI then gay men from rough anal sex.
If it's purely a question of health risk alone, hetrosexual woman risk more, and you don't even need to count anything more than pregnacy related risks to beat out everyone else.
So, that arguement was dead before you even typed it out, dude.
I take it you've never studied the issue of transmission of disease via the various modes of intercourse? Or the differences in the number of sexual partners between those who practice heterosexuality vs those who practice homosexuality?
WARNING: Math content ahead.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html
Estimated Per-Act Probability of Acquiring HIV from an Infected Source, by Exposure Act
Type of Exposure Risk per 10,000 Exposures
Parenteral3
Blood Transfusion 9,250
Needle-sharing during injection drug use 63
Percutaneous (needle-stick) 23
Sexual3
Receptive anal intercourse 138
Insertive anal intercourse 11
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse 8
Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse 4
Receptive oral intercourse low
Insertive oral intercourse low
Other^
Biting negligible4
Spitting negligible
Throwing body fluids (including semen or saliva) negligible
Sharing sex toys negligible
Adding Probabilities. With Coin Flip and 1/1000 Chance to provide perspective.
Exposures 1 5 10 25 50 100 200
Prob_Acq_HIV_% 1.38 6.90 13.80 34.50 69.00 138.00 276.00
Coin_Flips 1 5 10 25 50 100 200
Prob_Tails_% 50.00 250.00 500.00 1250.00 2500.00 5000.00 10000.0
One_in_1000 1 5 10 25 50 100 200
Prob_% 0.10 0.50 1.00 2.50 5.00 10.00 20.00
Here is a digest of studies regarding the number of partners homosexual males claim:
"A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners." [1]
"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners." [2]
"A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners." [3]
"In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that 'few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.'" [4]
1. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see also Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
2. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.
3. "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.
4. M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 25.
Now, all that ^^^ is a bit too supportive of my assertion and horrifyingly destructive of yours for me to be entirely comfy. I am very wary of data that looks too supportive. Sort of like I am very wary when I write some code and it runs without error the first time. Time to dig some more.
In that vein, I deliberately sought out data that tried to minimize homosexual male partner numbers. Pretty common approach: to seek out upper and lower bounds (by those who are interested in understanding the problem).
http://humbumbershoot.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/are-gay-men-more-promiscuous-than-straight-men-analyzing-research-results/
Number of partners in last five years (expressed in % of N)
sex of partners 0 1 2 3 4 5-10 11-20 20-100 100+ 1+ DK #
Exclusively Male 0 12 8 12.8 12.8 19.2 14.4 14.4 4 2.4 N= 125
Exclusively Female 0 17.8 14.2 14.4 14.4 23.3 9.3 5.1 0.4 0.7 N= 1,903
My conclusion, then, is that (according to the GSS data) there is a segment of gay men (roughly 13% of the total of gay men) who are promiscuous to a degree that straight men are not....
In my view, the fact of this 13% is of grave concern. Our society needs to address this problem.
This last source is not conservative, politically or theologically I would bet. The author considers this a problem of grave concern and he is correct. Because even if "only" 13% of the homosexual male population are walking door knobs, it will take a very, very short time for disease to tear through the population of less-active homosexual males and then spill over to other populations.
========
To sum up, if one looks at probabilities of transmission and opportunities for transmission of even just one sexually transmitted disease, the health damage caused by homosexual sex is much more than that of heterosexual sex. Even if one assumes the lowest number of partners reported.
This assumes that pregnancy is not considered "damage," in the way an incurable and fatal sexually transmitted disease would be, but an expected and natural occurrence when engaging in heterosexual relations.
-
Second, I hope you end up with a woman who desperatly wants children and you are infertal, so you end up having to decide weither to break her heart or suck it up and deal with "unnatural" children.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifrific.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2FYou-Stay-Classy-San-Diego-Anchorman.gif&hash=eb45009d7f719cec15ee8bb9c53c97e15ed38448)
-
1st question:
I never said I agreed or disagreed with close relatives reproducing. I gave my opinion on why society accepts that it shouldn't be down.
2nd question:
I don't see a greater sexual health risk between a monogamous homosexual relationship vs monogamous heterosexual relationship. Greater health sexual health risks occur when you start to have multiple partners, regardless of sexual orientation.
See my response to BSL.
You make assumptions of monogamy that are less viable with the male homosexual population, do not account for the greater risk of infection given their activities, and do not account for the greater prevalence of disease in the homosexual male population.
Other than that, your post was solid.
-
My father is my father because of his actions, not biology, and there were plenty of legal option that could have been taken to make him such.
A husband is a husband due to his actions, not the gender of his partner.
A wife is a wife due to her actions, not the gender of her partner.
And I agree, government shouldn't be involved at all. You don't need government to validate your marriage anymore than anyone elses, but since it does, accept that there is a large portion of the population that thinks "marriage" is something the LBGT can and should have, because they don't define that word or instatution the same way you do.
Move beyond your personal feelings on the subject and be the bigger man. Accept that the fact that others beliving diffrently does not invalidate your opinion and accept the validity that they have the right to redefine the word "marriage" if they want to.
It's no skin off your back if they do. It doesn't diminish your marriage. If you think it does, well, you might want to rethink your own marriage.
and you never addressed the fact that once "Christian" meant Catholic and nothing else.
Move beyond my personal feelings? This is ironical, coming from the one who just admitted her emotions were getting to her. If you actually read what I said about fathers, I agreed with you that fatherhood comes in different forms.* Marriage also comes in different forms. Neither can be twisted beyond a certain point, without becoming something else, that should called by a different name. Now please stress yourself no further by imagining that I can't think about fatherhood without reference to you. I happen to have my own fathers to think of.
In the larger debate, in or outside APS, it's obvious which side relies more on emotional appeal, and feels befo' reals.
Further, I've never claimed that same-sex marriage diminishes my marriage. Please stop making me responsible for every argument anyone else has ever used.
*I also did not claim that non-biological fathers can't become legal parents, guardians, etc. I can see how you got that idea, but that's not what I said. The real point is that even the fuzziest concept has limits that make it what it is.
-
Hell, you would be Catholic if not for Luther's challenging what it meant to be a Christian. Today, it's accepted to be Christian but not Catholic, but in the past, you'd have been ostrasized, excumincated and possible stoned or burned to death because of a acceped word and a definetion that had ment a specific thing throughout a culture and their history.
Luther corrected the church of Rome, not by making up his own, new doctrines; but by going back to the scripture, the creeds, and the Church fathers.
-
Please stop making me responsible for every argument anyone else has ever used.
Isn't that your traditional role on this board?The scapegoat? =)
-
Isn't that your traditional role on this board?The scapegoat? =)
True. Until I redefine scapegoatiness.
-
True. Until I redefine scapegoatiness.
Heretic!
-
Gods Kingdom is not going to come to pass nor be be promoted by any legislation (or lack thereof) IMHO. I completely reject the notion that God calls believers to be cultural warriors by way of the legislative process.
Believers and unbelievers alike should vote for men and women who cherish life, promote liberty (defined as individual freedom from government interference) and protect private property.
Um, sort of, kind of, not really.
I don't know whether it makes us "culture warriors," but God does call on us to look after the orphan, the widow, etc. This may mean legal/political activism for the rights of those who can't fight for themselves (banning non-life-threatening abortions, for example). He further calls on us to "expose" the "works of darkness," which could be political, as well.
Even where God does not call the believer into politics, our republic does call upon us to have a say in her government, as she does non-believers.
-
First thing isn't directly harmful anymore than anything else the .gov wastes money on. Last two are just proof that the slippery slope is a valid argument. Registration, in and of itself, does no direct harm.
1. It turned into massive impositions on gun owners
2. Only proves the slippery slope case for gun registration, not religious freedom.
3. You have yet to prove that gay marriage affects YOU even as much as a firearm registration system would.
Wasn't intended as a counter argument, it was intended to express my contempt for you. And feel free to tell the small businesses that have been sued into bankruptcy that there's no danger of negative consequences.
Real high road. I object to the small businesses being sued into bankruptcy over customer selection.
My reason?I wouldn't want my child to(potentially) suffer the stigma that goes with being gay.I wouldn't want my child to be associated with the filthy loud disgusting trash that shows up at rallys supporting gay rights.
1. Stigma is declining, and declining rapidly. If they're truly homosexual, suffering the stigma today is a lesser harm than denying what they are.
2. Going to rallies has always been optional.
3. Wishing for grandkids is still a valid reason; though sperm donation/IV fertilization is always possible.
Not intending to muddle your point but quoting any on-line poll as fact seems to be informationally dangerous.(words fail me sometimes,I can't help it)
I happen to agree, so I tracked down the poll. (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-march-2014-politics-obama-and-2014-midterms/855/) - "This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Feb. 27-Mar. 2, 2014, among a random national sample of 1,002 adults, including landline and cell phone-only respondents. The margin of sampling error for overall results is 3.5 percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York"
The gay stuff starts on page 14. Roughly speaking, the population's opinion on the subject has completely flipped in the last 10 years. Even then, gay marriage bans have only really passed in conservative areas with the phenomenon that people who OPPOSE gay marriage tend to use it as a voting issue and while gay people probably also get out and vote, their friends are less likely to.
-
I'm impressed that this thread has:
A) Lasted this long; and,
B) Remained, for the most part on topic and effectively debated, with both (all?) arguing the subject and not the person.
Bravo Zulu and carry on.
-
I'm impressed that this thread has:
A) Lasted this long; and,
B) Remained, for the most part on topic and effectively debated, with both (all?) arguing the subject and not the person.
Bravo Zulu and carry on.
Oh yeah? Well, your pants are too long!
-
Oh yeah? Well, your pants are too long!
Most definitely!
-
========
To sum up, if one looks at probabilities of transmission and opportunities for transmission of even just one sexually transmitted disease, the health damage caused by homosexual sex is much more than that of heterosexual sex. Even if one assumes the lowest number of partners reported.
This assumes that pregnancy is not considered "damage," in the way an incurable and fatal sexually transmitted disease would be, but an expected and natural occurrence when engaging in heterosexual relations.
The studies mention anal sex, not homosexual sex. They are not one and the same. Straight people have that kind of sex too, and homosexual people aren't limited to it. I would bet it's rather rare among homosexual women.
And if promiscuity is a problem, wouldn't gay marriage be just the thing to fix that?
-
========
To sum up, if one looks at probabilities of transmission and opportunities for transmission of even just one sexually transmitted disease, the health damage caused by homosexual sex is much more than that of heterosexual sex. Even if one assumes the lowest number of partners reported.
This assumes that pregnancy is not considered "damage," in the way an incurable and fatal sexually transmitted disease would be, but an expected and natural occurrence when engaging in heterosexual relations.
The studies mention anal sex, not homosexual sex. They are not one and the same. Straight people have that kind of sex too, and homosexual people aren't limited to it. I would bet it's rather rare among homosexual women.
And if promiscuity is a problem, wouldn't gay marriage be just the thing to fix that?
-
And if promiscuity is a problem, wouldn't gay marriage be just the thing to fix that?
It could be, but gay marriages trend more towards the "open" variety, so no:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=2&
I've read several more recent articles along that vein (all written by liberal or otherwise pro-gay authors). I was trying to find one I'd read recently on some liberal site crowing about how same-sex marriage would destroy traditional marriage (and how that was a good thing), and one of the reasons was basically posited as straight couples seeing how great these open gay marriages were, and thus would want open marriages as well. If I find it I'll tack the link on here.
-
I've never considered open marriage to be marriage at all.To me it's like tofurkey,kinda like the original,maybe along the same vein.Intended to be like the original.If you've never had the real bird you could say it's the same.
It's not.
Open marriage within the gay community seems(to me) to be more about getting benefits for a small subset of that population.Kinda like getting insurance and a place to sleep for a friend-with-benefits.
Like I said before,marriage is a problem for a man and a woman.Let the other combos have a civil union or whatever else they want to call it.A kumqwat maybe,whatever.
-
And if promiscuity is a problem, wouldn't gay marriage be just the thing to fix that?
Are you trying to say that gay people can't or won't be faithful to a single partner without permission from the government?
-
And if promiscuity is a problem, wouldn't gay marriage be just the thing to fix that?
Cargo cult thinking.
-
Only a single digit percentage of what is 10% (being very generous) of the population are going to be involved in a so called same sex marriage.
Way too much energy being spent on this issue IMHO.
If you are a culture warrior you are being drawn into a battle on your opponents battlefield.
I've come to the conclusion it's a dumb battle.
Let them do.
-
The studies mention anal sex, not homosexual sex. They are not one and the same. Straight people have that kind of sex too, and homosexual people aren't limited to it. I would bet it's rather rare among homosexual women.
And if promiscuity is a problem, wouldn't gay marriage be just the thing to fix that?
Read the whole post.
The inclusion of the data in the post such as number of partners and a little math showing how frequncy effects odds of transmission is significant.
Then stretch your mind a bit and compare the above to heterosexual odds and fequencies.
Oh yeah and plus one on the cargo cult thinking.
Otoh it worked so well eliminating formerly uncontroversial and necessary requirements for a mortgage to blast open the subprime mortgage market and instantly propel millions into middle class status because home ownership is something responsible middle class people with sober middle class values do.
-
Marnoot...
Recent/old whatever. Such articles have been common since homosexual activism emerged. Came across a link showing such over the years. When i get in front of a real pc i will hunt for it.
-
Ron: conservatives can't stop talking about it, because the liberal media won't ever stop asking over and over and over. No one is asking Hillary if Bill was a horrific hateful homophobe for DADT, but anyone who's not vocally supportive will be attacked and attacked and attacked. Not fighting this is not an option.
-
>and one of the reasons was basically posited as straight couples seeing how great these open gay marriages were, and thus would want open marriages as well.<
This, I need to address.
It's the "everyone is like me" issue. Same projection issue we see in the antis, taken in a slightly different direction. Can sum it up via religious views REALLY well
For Fistful (and others, but I'm going to pick on him), Christianity speaks to him. It "works" for him. For me (and again, many others), Christianity makes no sense. That doesn't make either one of us right or wrong: it makes us different.
What you saw in that article is people who think* open marriage works for them, projecting that into the rest of the world. Fairly typical psychology there. Unfortunately, most people falling into that trap will deny it (regardless of the issue)
*I say "think open marriage works for them" because most of these folks don't have the ability to truly be in any kind of relationship, let alone put in the work for an open relationship to work
-
Actually, Christianity is so far from working for me, that it calls for me to die.