I’m going to be doing a couple posts along this line, because the level of holier than thouness and cavalier insensitivity to other races, religions and people of different sexual orientation has hit an incredible level. I’m not amazed that there is hate, but am amazed at how, more and more, the rightwing uses the bible to define why we must discriminate against people.
The post that really got this going was California Ruling Made Me Gay, where I sarcastically assert that because gay marriage was proven to be constitutionally allowed in California, I have been made gay (There’s another post that’s really rocking, but that will be the subject of Part 2 of this topic).
Before we look at some of the comments, it is important to note what I feel are my qualifications to speak to the topic. Unlike my sequestered and seemingly, societally homogenous right wing readers, my life as hardly been sheltered. I was involved in theater and music since I was 4, have spent the last 40 years involved in communities with a large LGBT population, have a gay brother and been involved in the travel industry for the last 17 years (where there’s a disproportionately large gay and lesbian population). When I was a younger man teaching programming to 5th and 6th graders I was shocked one day to find that my mentor had been taken away for child molestation. Last but not least I partner with a company that sells exotic underwear and apparel (I mean really exotic) and a wide range of clothing for the transvestite and transsexual community.
All my life I have been uncomfortable with “simply is” and have always tried to understand why something was. For example, after my mentor was arrested and convicted, I still visited him many times in prison and got a pretty thorough understanding of his sickness and issues. When my brother came out, my father and I spent a weekend in the Castro simply hanging out and trying to understand things thing called “gay” because we really had no clue at all. It is important to me to understand what I am talking about before I condemn or accept it.
So. The assertion by the right is that “Gay” is perverse, deviant and wrong. It’s also a choice that can be unchosen and in one particular comment, a “fad” for people that just really want to be different. I will address all of it, but first – a selection of choice quotes:
Loving another man does not make you gay.
Having oral sex with him does. So we can conclude that it is SEX that makes the sexuality!
Or do you…, and just justify because of some misplaced sense of empathy?
Jeepers, where to start? ::Sigh::
Well first off, the logic just doesn’t connect. There’s a lot of push that being gay is a choice and that it’s only about the sex – so why then is there such hard push back against marriage between two men? One comment concluded, “It’s not gay to love another man. It’s gay to stick your dick in his mouth[sic].” Well then, marriage between two men should not offend you at all – yet it does. (An interesting side note: the first person nature of the comment lead me to some interesting questions about how much self-despising there must be going on for that guy… roflmao: )
Logic aside, let’s look at it this way. I am in touch with the feminine part of my personality, yet I have no desire to have a gay relationship. I’ve not been party to the gay sexual experience nor do I fantasize about it. But what if I did?
Simple answer: Who gives a damn?
More important answer: Why should YOU give a damn? Further, What gives YOU the right to assert right/wrong notions against MY sexuality?
Well, the answer is clearly here, in Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:27…
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
See? If you’re gay then you deserve to be put to death and it’s YOUR OWN FAULT. And see how nicely those two quotes (from two completely different books) come together to damn you perverted nasty fags?
But wait… have we forgotten a little something?
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Ergo, by the book that defines your law, the perpetrator of the evil must atone in front of his/her god alone and explain their sins vir quod deus, not to you sparky. Get with the program.
Then there’s that whole bothersome Constitutional notion of separation of church and state. While this is hotly debated by contemporary evangelicals and other loons, it is a pretty established principal and essentially describes how the state can neither aid religion or how (your) religion can be used as a weapon against (me). This is actually WAY WAY more important because it describes how your chosen book of morals does not have jurisdiction upon my American civil liberties. Ergo, applying laws specifically to impose a priority for your beliefs above my liberties is un-Constitutional and inherently wrong.
Right. Now that I’ve gotten VSloathe all ramped up (our resident scholar) let’s talk ourselves down a bit.
Since there will be no convincing the un-exposed that Gay is not a choice, there’s little point in arguing it. That said, anyone with half a brain and some experience with the LGBT community knows this inherently and pretty quickly. Having been around gay and lesbian people for most my life, I can assert from personal experience that, of the gays and lesbians I know, this is not a choice – it is who they are. Are there those that are confused and want to try it on for size? Of course. Are there those that are not bound to the same notions of man/woman monogamy and heterosexuality as I am? You betcha. But again – what the hell does this do to you? I mean, who cares if YOU think it’s nasty? Don’t do it then! Just because you eat brussel sprouts doesn’t mean that I have to.
One comment was made that “two of my friends were gay and then decided to give it up and are now straight” … and interesting assertion. First off, we cannot really know the motivations and feelings of these people and second, just because some people decide that “it’s not for them” does not make everyone else the same. It’s like saying that since my car has faulty windshield wipers, all brands of wipers suck. It just doesn’t pass any sort of logical test. Similarly, it is arguable that since I have experience of people where being gay is not a choice, it doesn’t mean that all people involved in same-sex behavior are gay, and I’ll concede that. But that means you must concede that to some people, being gay is not a choice.
So now, let’s make my assertions clear, so that they can be flamed:
- Gay marriage does not affect heterosexual marriage. If it’s affecting your marriage then you’re probably not dealing with the fact that you’re gay and/or despise your spouse already.
- What two people do together in the clutch of passion does nothing to me or you. Unless you fantasize about it, in which case you’re probably bi-curious and should give it a try. You might like it. Who am I to judge you and your desires?
- Gay men cannot infect you and make you gay. Unless you really are and want to give it a whirl, but that’s your thing. Have at.
- Being gay is not a choice. Having sex with someone of the same gender may be a choice, but being gay is not. For those that don’t understand this, simply look at your own life: how strongly do you covet someone of the opposite sex? Is it possible for you to imagine that these feelings are equally strong yet simply apply to the same gender in gay and lesbian people?
I have been accused of being intolerant because I rant and rail at those who would assert that gay is anything other than what I have just posted. Well, a bit true: I am intolerant of hate, intolerant of intolerance and intolerant of people so stuck that they are in love with their ignorant biases. Perhaps over time we can talk a few of you out of the trees and back down to reality where the Monster of Gayness is not quite so large.
Alright, have at me. Let’s get this on.
WTF? You only quoted me once?
“Why should YOU give a damn? Further, What gives YOU the right to assert right/wrong notions against MY sexuality?”
Obviously you don’t consider homosexual behavior a threat the the health of society as a whole. I will get some stats on this…give me time.
Secondly I reject the notion of ‘sexuality’ that you refer to. It implies that there is a real choice when there isn’t. Man was made for woman and woman for man. Perversion is not a valid choice and is not judged by me but by society and history as a whole.
@Romans
“Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion”
Like Aids.
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
What this means is not to judge unless you have fixed yourself first. Example, don’t go lecturing people about their drinking too much when you still get drunk all the time.
Don’t call someone lazy when you are lazy. First get yourself right, and then judge.
“Ergo, applying laws specifically to impose a priority for your beliefs above my liberties is un-Constitutional and inherently wrong.”
Every law that is passed is specifically passed to impose a priority for ones beliefs above your former civil liberties and is constitutional and right. For instance, at one time ALL KINDS of drugs were legal. You should have seen my Great Grandmothers medicine cabinet!! She was born in 1898 and lived a very long life.
Every law that is passed is an imposition of someone else’s belief upon my or your civil liberties. So the imposing of ones beliefs by law really has no critical bearing or exclusive ties to the church and state matter alone. It’s a broader subject and you are missing the mark here. Eloquent but misplaced and misunderstood.
–”Since there will be no convincing the un-exposed that Gay is not a choice, there’s little point in arguing it”
Exactly, so stop saying that you KNOW that it’s not a choice. This is soooo easy LMAO!!!! LMAO!!
“Just because you eat brussel sprouts doesn’t mean that I have to.”
Perk, brussel sprouts don’t spread disease! Oops, there I go being HATEFUL again. I love how liberals throw around the H word. Hilarious and transparent.
“Similarly, it is arguable that since I have experience of people where being gay is not a choice, it doesn’t mean that all people involved in same-sex behavior are gay, and I’ll concede that.”
You are not conceding anything. You never said that sex made people gay. Homosexuality is sexual. It’s in the word perk. Sex is the ROOT WORD. Hello?
“But that means you must concede that to some people, being gay is not a choice.”
It means nothing. You conceded nothing. Choosing to sleep with other men is a choice. And it is bad for society in every way. It is also natural to be repulsed by such unnatural behavior but the point is it’s not healthy and is in fact very dangerous.
That’s why this is not a ‘behind closed doors’ issue for me. You are not accurately understanding my perspective.
Closing remark:
Perk, you grew up with homo’s everywhere and you don’t realize it’s wrong. Just like I have a Boston accent but don’t notice it like other people do. I’m surrounded by people who speak with Boston accents.
Your brother chose to be gay and you and your father have found a way to justify it with all kinds of ‘feel good’ notions about being tolerant and understanding. You WANT to be convinced that it’s really ok to be gay. You WANT to be convinced.
You did this because you just don’t want to face the uncomfortable and embarrassing fact that your brother is gay.
While I do understand that you love your brother and would rather avoid hurting his feelings or making him feel uncomfortable around you, I honestly think the best thing you could do for your brother is to tell him to reflect deeply and reconsider his philosophy.
Gays have a very high suicide rate ( I will get stats later) and have a disproportionate substance abuse problem as a demographic. They have a very high mortality rate. I forget the ave life span of a homo but I will find it for you. It’s not good.
So in my opinion if you loved your brother you would try to straighten him out.
Edgar, your stats will be skewed. I’ve read all the same ones – what you’re omitting is that gays only have high suicide and substance abuse rates in areas where they are *not accepted*. Compare Tuscaloosa, AL stats against Los Angeles, CA stats so that we can get an accurate picture, or the stats aren’t even worth examining.
I’ll allow that unconditional love is a hard thing to understand. It’s unique to our species. Perhaps the Perkster just happens to have unconditional love for his brother? Unconditional love never demands that a person change before he or she is accepted. If being gay truly is harmful for Perk’s brother, then the only thing that will “un-gay” him is unconditional love.
You ought to meet Perk. He’s a great guy. We were together in Ireland last month and had a blast. His morals and ethics may not align entirely with your own, but I would be just as impressed by you if you could stick to them the way he does.
@Vsloathe
Are you from Ireland?
“Perhaps the Perkster just happens to have unconditional love for his brother? Unconditional love never demands that a person change before he or she is accepted.”
This is in my book both good and true. Keep in mind, just because I don’t believe that being gay is genetic and beyond simple choice does not mean that I hate gay “People.”
Nor would I despise my brother if he suddenly came out of the closet either.
Being gay is doing something you shouldn’t like lieing, stealing and other no-no’s. I don’t hate people who lie or steal and as a matter of fact I am guilty of many sins just like the next guy.
One never knows what life will bring. A bigot could see a homo and instinctively want to smack him with a bat…but that queer he want’s to harm may be the man who could save his life in some unforseeable event in the future.
I have a gay uncle and I don’t shun him at christmas or anything ya know.
I’m not mean to gay people and I don’t go out of my way to be their best friend either, but I call ‘em as I see ‘em and I firmly believe that it is a dangerous, disease spreading lifestyle that is bad for a society as a whole.
And I’m tough on that issue but not on the people.
“You ought to meet Perk. He’s a great guy.”
I have no doubt. I strongly disagree with Perk on many issues (except our mutual interest in watching the prime ministers questions on cspan) but I do not hold that against him (or the others here).
In fact, we all have one very big thing in common and that is we all are in pursuit of the truth unlike most people.
This is a tough game. we could all be watching TV but instead we engage in mental fitness and honest pursuit of knowledge which I think is commendable.
I would enjoy meeting any of you after all, we are sparring partners in a sense. Kind of like boxing (which is dead now)
Edgar your arguments are clearly from a person that is in love with their beliefs, supported by the bible and all of that is just fine with me. I support you in having your beliefs and not being “OK” with homosexuality. I’m also fine with you not understanding my explorations to understand my brother. Coming from someone that can rationalize torture, I can easily see how you would think acceptance of my brother is rationalization. Standing on the outside of the circle, pointing in at those nasty unfathomable gays and calling names is an easy position for someone that has no understanding of things that violate their beliefs.
Here’s the point: keep your beliefs off my body. Whether it’s abortion or being homosexual, or watching porn or whatever – you have beliefs, live them. Fine. But you have no right to legislate against other people for theirs.
Case in point, Prop 8 (CA) – arguably the first law in modern time to amend a constitution to specifically discriminate against a population of people. Constitutions are negative rights documents, yes: but they are negative rights FOR THE GOVERNMENT. They outline how our rights cannot be trampled or trivialized by the government. They are designed also to make sure that a torches and pitchfork crowd of frothy bullies cannot trample or eliminate the rights of the minority.
I am still looking forward to hearing, regardless of your arguments about suicide or the bible or how much you think it’s wrong, why you and your ilk should be allowed to be in a position of discriminating against other people. Where, Edgar, do we draw the line? You see, I am 100% in favor of the Klan being able to exist and say what they want to say. But hurt someone? Unthinkable. Hinder another person’s liberties? Absolutely not. Impede the forward progress of civil rights? No way.
This is why I called you a coward. Because real liberty means accepting that people of a completely different make up are equal to you and have equal right to exist, prosper and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that takes guts and conviction. And a hard edged look at yourself that rationalization just won’t satisfy. Real liberty means that just because YOU find homosexual behavior wrong and disgusting, others find it as natural and “right” as I find loving my wife. Real liberty means stepping outside yourself and accepting that which you do not understand.
You want to demonstrate courage? Be strong enough to accept that just because my brother wants to live in love with another man, that has no impact on you at all and is guaranteed by our Constitution. Be willing to demonstrate that the price of your freedom and liberties are acceptance of all American’s freedom and liberties.
Real courage? Accept that the US and its international policies have something to do with the creation of the Jihadists that now plague the world. Accept that as quickly as we must exterminate the disease of extremism, so must we reexamine our contribution to the genesis of that cancer.
Real courage? Listen to and accept the elements of your religion that stress tolerance, peace, forgiveness and inclusiveness, rather than cherry picking the pieces that can be used to support your bias – which is what the terrorists do from THEIR book of laws. Extremism is easy when you match anger with homophobia or xenophobia… and when you start to write laws against people to satisfy that impulse, you are the same as them. A smaller version, no doubt. But the same, nonetheless.
We’ll really be getting somewhere when you realize that your Bible-based homophobia is similar to their Koran-based phobia of western civilization, and that the cure is essentially the same.
I’m from Philadelphia, PA but have made my home in Boston, MA.
Peabody, specifically.
Perk and I were both in Ireland for a conference last month, along with several of our dear friends.
@ Edgar – your post came in while I was finishing mine. I appreciate the sentiment and feel the same – particularly about how most people fight to get to the TV rather than take time to evaluate and scrutinize their country and countrymen. I’d imagine that you’re a fine guy as well and you’d probably NOT be one of the assholes with a bat.
But it’s interesting that you’d mention the bat.
On one trip to San Francisco (I go often on business) I was walking towards the Castro with a business associate (he is not gay either) and as we were crossing the street, a pickup truck stopped in the crosswalk in front of us and about 6 guys in the back all stared us down and a few had bats they were beating in their hands like the smiley
This is the problem. They just needed to beat the shit out of SOMEONE to satisfy their anger and hatred. They wanted to instill fear and terror from their biased and ignorant position. They hate “Gay” so badly that they just picked 2 people crossing the street and chose to use terror as their influence mechanism of choice. I have no doubt that if I’d been more aggressive (we simply stood our ground but said nothing) we could have been in real trouble.
That is the logical extreme of your positions, and that’s why we need to discuss and dispel them. How can you associate the notion of stealing something from someone else with being gay? How does a man being gay steal from me? How does it impact my civil rights and liberties? How does being gay in ANY WAY affect me?
@ VSloathe: You are most kind my friend. And the same could be said about you (re your principals et al) in spades.
perk
“You see, I am 100% in favor of the Klan being able to exist and say what they want to say.”
This maybe true… but are you in support of putting there teachings into our school system?
You bash the pres for changing the meaning of torture and yet your ok with redefining words like marriage!
You’re inconsistant.
I dont HATE gays. I may think it’s wrong, but you make your bed… you sleep in it.
No one is trying to take away the’re right to have consentual deviant sex. Just trying to preserve a tradional morality that gives our country strength and pride!
“But again – what the hell does this do to you?”
WOW! I dunno? What does the goverment torchering people have to do with YOU!?
We all try to live by appropriate rules. The governing lines keep getting redifined, rewritten, reworded… When does it stop.
No one id oppressing gays, like blacks were. No one is opressing the gays like women were. They already HAVE the right to be gay. NOW they also want the right to married. That’s a legal binding matter that effects all!
It also effects the vd transmission in the United States. It also effects the cost of our rising health care costs to pay for the people who are effected by the vd transmission.
I’m not saying that gays are the MAIN underlining causes… but they ARE causes.
I asked you under another article perk. but it seems more fitting here. Do you litter?
Of course not. If everyone did it the results would be disasterous. Thats how we know it’s wrong. Not… well if only a few do it…it’s ok.
Simple logic perk….simple!
@Perk.
I didn’t read the whole post yet because I’m sorta in a rush but for now…
“Coming from someone that can rationalize torture, I can easily see how you would think acceptance of my brother is rationalization.”
Perk, honestly, I can not rationalize torture and I don’t even try to. Torture is wrong. I don’t like it at all.
That is my intellectual point of unbaised view. I have no sympathy for a real terrorist that is tortured but, I put that aside when making an honest intellectual decision.
So I say torture is wrong but in my heart I don’t really feel too bad for a scumbag terrorist getting a little of what he gave. What comes around goes around. Karma.
So you and I agree (you still haven’t gotten this) torture is bad.
Where we disagree is whether or not waterboarding is heinous enough to be called torture and I don’t think it is.
Although it’s unpleasant it’s not like we are breaking arms and dislocating shoulders.
Pour some water on the terrorists and let’s not get get too upset.
Trent – first off, no law was being passed to allow gay people to get married, particularly in California. They already have that right, it’s Constitutionally guaranteed. Proposition 8 was specifically about DENYING marriage to gay people. The proposition was about creating discrimination via a Constitutional amendment.
And this “legally binding” thing you mention, “marriage” between two people… it affects you if two men get married huh? What, jealous? Of all the arguments against gay marriage this is definitely the most foolish one. I defy you to present a single example of real affect a gay marriage has had upon you. Because there’ve already been a whole boatload of them man. Here and abroad. So how has your life changed? Have you started burning/melting/becoming gay/become diseased/had a serious loss of mental function?
Oh, wow. I guess there has been one… roflmao:
And to say that if people are married, then there’s MORE transmission of VD? And costs you more for healthcare? Yeah, man that makes a lot of sense. Might want to ask Vanna to buy a clue for that argument.
Interesting side note: of all demographics that are stricken with HIV/AIDS the only one that is shrinking is the homosexual community. The fastest growing segment? Heterosexual men and women over the age of 65.
According to your bible, what are THEY getting punished for?
And last but not least: so… being gay is like littering, eh? Well, Edgar claims it’s like stealing, so you two are on the same track. It’s not, that’s stupid. Tell me Trent: How has the existence of “Gay” affected you? Give me one clear example. Just one. That’s all. Back up your rhetoric with something of substance. Anything. C’mon, give it a whirl. Sure, it’ll be really tough (because you can’t) but give it a try anyway.
“Gay men cannot infect you and make you gay. Unless you really are and want to give it a whirl, but that’s your thing. Have at.
Being gay is not a choice. Having sex with someone of the same gender may be a choice, but being gay is not. For those that don’t understand this, simply look at your own life: how strongly do you covet someone of the opposite sex? Is it possible for you to imagine that these feelings are equally strong yet simply apply to the same gender in gay and lesbian people?”
These are opinions perk. Not facts. It is a fact that men and women have been the only recognized pair, to consent to a legal binding marriage aknowledged by the state, since the beggining of the country(further back even, but that does not apply to the U.S. policies, so i didnt mention it). Why change it now, without knowing for a FACT, that it cannot be taught! There simply needs to be more information, rather than opinion before making legal binding changes to the constitution.
“And to say that if people are married, then there’s MORE transmission of VD? And costs you more for healthcare? Yeah, man that makes a lot of sense.”
no perk….just gay…not married.
@ Edgar & Torture: Perhaps I have confused you with Trent and his position on torture, I’ll go back and look. I apologize if this is the case.
That said, Even McCain was very clear that water boarding was unacceptable. And to Nutballs point, it’s not just about the inhumanity of it: it’s the fact that information gathered under duress has proven over and over to be lies because people will say anything to make it stop. Ergo, the “Bang for buck” of it is poor because we lose all moral high ground, make it clear that it’s OK for other countries to torture OUR people (since we have abandoned the Geneva Convention) and yet we’re getting no better information. It’s pretty simple math IMO.
@ “Pour some water on the terrorists?” LOL … perhaps I did get it right. That’s just a remarkable lack of sensitivity man. And how are you sure you’re only “pouring water” on guilty men? It’d be really great if we could know the hearts of men, but we cannot. So we hold them and torture them until we are satisfied that they are really innocent, right?
And I am with you that I have no love lost for people that would do me, my family or my country harm. Karma does come around. But there’s an important dark little secret here to address: What if the mujahadeen are actually a component of Karma coming back on the US for it’s behavior around the world as well? That does not mean that I excuse terrorism in any form… but we’d be a whole lot better off if we knew the cause so that we can beat back the symptoms.
But back on topic, I think you’re gay and can’t admit it.
roflmao:
BTW: Gay men are not infecting you with VD … um, unless they are in which case my argument is all wrong.
But on the assumption that you’re not playing catcher, you’re probably not being affected by VD from gay sex. You should know, however, that gays are more likely to use condoms than heterosexual people across all demographics and actually pass VD significantly less.
That health care cost is for unprotected teens, although it’s pretty minor, really.
So are you suggesting that if I have not been personaly effected by ‘gays’ then I should not have a sense of right and wrong? That doesnt even make any sense?!
Where are the gays being oppressed? You libs always compare there oppression to that of the blacks, or women. So WHERE is the oppression. I see gays walking “freely” hand in hand, kissing in public. Nothing a piece of property (much like women or blacks were once considered) could ever do! You speak as if they have some great battle to fight, when the only real battle they are fighting, is to be married! Marriage IS a tradition. and although I know you dont think much of tradition… It suits you fine around christmas, thanksgiving, and other christian holidays, when you get time off from work!
Where does it say in the constitution that it’s ok for two men or two women to legally be recognized by the state as a union?
@Perk
“I am still looking forward to hearing, regardless of your arguments about suicide or the bible or how much you think it’s wrong, why you and your ilk should be allowed to be in a position of discriminating against other people”
Discrimination always conjures up images of “Negro Only” signs and White water fountains and black water fountains. Discrimination is a word that carries with it a more sinister implication than that which actually fits the word.
Discrimination is something we all do daily. Whenever you choose one over the other you have discriminated.
Perk are you listening? This is our problem here:
If you believe that being gay is not a choice then you can rightly say that gay are suffering from discrimination.
If you believe that being gay is a choice to participate in deviant behavior then you can also rightly say that gays are not being discriminated against in a bigoted and hateful way like blacks were.
I’m trying to shed light on what I think the most logical approach to this whole argument is for both sides.
Second problem:
If we agree for the sake of the argument that being gay is not a choice there is another issue. Public health and health care costs.
I still haven’t got my stats (might post my stats answer at my blog because it’ll be comprehensive) but there is no doubt that the gay demographic is an unhealthy one and is bad for the health and well being of a society.
But the argument of gay being a choice or not comes before judging discrimination.
@How does gayness affect me?
I find deviant behavior a little unsettling and rather repulsive and twisted. I don’t like the idea of my kids being “educated” to believe that being gay is genetic and ok…
I don’t like it at all and it affects me personally.
@Dudes with Bats Looking to Hurt People
“That is the logical extreme of your positions, and that’s why we need to discuss and dispel them.”
Perk, the logical extreme of my positions do not include violence. Read the commandments I posted above for my and rethink my logical extremes.
@”How can you associate the notion of stealing something from someone else with being gay?”
Because both are morally wrong in my view but I don’t hate PEOPLE who steal or etc…
@REAL COURAGE
Perk, you need to know when to back off and open the dictionary or else you are going to ruin your credibility in all future debates with anyone.
Let me show you how you keep misusing this word.
1. “This is why I called you a coward. Because real liberty means accepting that people of a completely different make up are equal to you and have equal right to exist, prosper and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
That’s called tolerance. You could say I’m intolerant in your opinion. Not a coward.
2. “You want to demonstrate courage? Be strong enough to accept that just because my brother wants to live in love with another man, that has no impact on you at all and is guaranteed by our Constitution.”
You should have written “You want to demonstrate TOLERANCE? Be TOLERANT enough to accept that just because my brother wants to live in…”
3. “Real courage? Accept that the US and its international policies have something to do with the creation of the Jihadists that now plague the world.”
Pay Attention! IF, IF, IF I believed that our policies created Jihadists and I DENIED that because it was not a popular opinion THEN I would be lacking in Courage. Why? Because I wouldn’t have to courage to say what I really believe.
4. “Real courage? Listen to and accept the elements of your religion that stress tolerance, peace, forgiveness and inclusiveness, rather than cherry picking the pieces that can be used to support your bias”
First of all I already listen to and accept all those elements of christianity. Secondly, I would say that in this increasingly liberal climate it actually takes more courage to articulate my positions in general than yours.
In all instances you have purposefully misused the word courage. Why?
Please, please observe the definition of the word courage :
Courage
–noun
1. the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.
2. Obsolete. the heart as the source of emotion.
—Idiom
3. have the courage of one’s convictions, to act in accordance with one’s beliefs, esp. in spite of criticism.
I have acted in accordance with my beliefs in spite of the criticisms here at this blog by articulating what is an unpopular view among liberals.
I am courageous by definition.
Now to further correct your uneducated use of the word Tolerance:
Tolerance
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.
Don’t skim through it…read it!
You must figure that calling me a coward will somehow get up my right wing ass sideways and piss me off.
In fact I love it. You are wrong again and you’ve got your foot in your mouth as much as Donkey did when he said that this country never ever had a major attack on the homeland since the revolution and before 911.
Finally, let me give you a proper example of the use of the word courage.
Know when you are wrong and have the COURAGE to admit it!
@Perk
@Torture doesn’t work
You mean like when the puritans tortured the woman into admitting they were witches? Seems true.
However consider Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 39-year-old former Al Qaeda operative who was the Sept. 11 mastermind and bearer of many Al Qaeda secrets. If anyone had a motive for remaining silent, it was him. But not long after his capture in Pakistan, in March 2003, KSM began to talk. He ultimately had so much to say that more than 100 footnoted references to the CIA’s interrogations of KSM are contained in the final report of the commission that investigated Sept. 11. Not that everything KSM said was believable. But much of his information checked out in separate questioning of other captured Al Qaeda figures.
What made KSM decide to talk? Waterboarding.
So perk, you NEED to understand that there are always two sides to every issue.
@ Perk
You guys are posting fast…
“What if the mujahadeen are actually a component of Karma coming back on the US for it’s behavior around the world as well? That does not mean that I excuse terrorism in any form… but we’d be a whole lot better off if we knew the cause so that we can beat back the symptoms.”
I think it IS karma!! Surprised?
Think about how muslims treat homosexuals, woman and religious minorities…
Now imagine how they feel about the gradual westernization of their culture through media and movies and all that shit…
They don’t want “Sanfransisco” values in that part of the world. It’s your brand of liberalism that we export around the world that they hate!!!
It’s not democracy per se but left wing values that they despise. They HATE the way slutty chicks are all over the TV.
They HATE the way we tolerate homosexuality.
They HATE the fact that woman here get pregnant and live without husbands and act like whores (thier view) and that we TOLERATE it.
Perk, the jihadists have been around a long long time and it has nothing to do with us policy.
The only ‘policy’ they have an issue with is the way we support the JEWS because the HATE the Jews.
They have a strict moral code and when I say strict I mean strict! It’s the left wing tolerance for anything and everything perverted, deviant and non tradition that they HATE.
Any thing else you need to know? Just ask, but only if you have the COURAGE to face the truth.
“Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion… Like Aids.”
Edgar, I’m gay and my first boyfriend died of AIDS many years ago, and you have no idea how hateful what you just said is.
How DARE you judge my friend and other people with AIDS as getting God’s judgment? Who the hell are you to pass judgment on those people who have died or friends of mine who are living with it today?
Perk, I wouldn’t waste much more time chatting with a wall of hatred like this. People who are so married to their own bigotry don’t deserve your time.
Edgar, you cannot seriously believe that getting aids or any disease for that matter is punishment. No rational or even remotely educated person can actually think that can they?
every kid who has gotten:
aids
cancer
pnumonia
a common cold
or died from sids
Oh let me guess, your gonna change to “god has a plan” or “god is testing our faith”. The whole God is Punishing X for doing Y, is the most transparently hateful argument the moment you replace an adultX with a childX.
@torture regarding value of intel.
yes waterboarding or any torture can work and get you real, truthful intel, if you are torturing a terrorist. Edgar, your example of KSM is true. Great, the coin landed on heads that time. Many other times it lands on tails.
Here is the thing. You tie me to a board and stick me upside down in a bucket of water, i’m gonna tell you your the prettiest woman i’ve ever met if thats what you want to hear. I am not a trained terrorist, spy, toughass. I am a pussy when my life is in danger and I see no avenue for defending myself. Point a gun at me from 10 feet away and tell me to give you my wallet, you will have it at your feet before the letter a gets past your lips. I understand that you actually do think torture is bad, and possibly even unacceptable, however, you cannot argue for it only by listing positive outcomes. You want to do that, and the gay marriage argument is going to take a very bad downturn for you
@ SFNate: I wondered if we’d see you weigh in here. I also wonder if there will be the tiniest understanding of you and your pain from the men that would post here in bigotry against you. I’m terribly sorry for your loss.
And although I agree that they are married to their own bigotry to such extent that this is almost fruitless, I am hoping that other readers will take note and see their bigotry and ignorance for what it is… and that they will see there are others who support them for who they are.
@ Edgar: I am confusing you and Trent too easily and for that I apologize. I will endeavor to address you two more separately, although your views lean so closely into the same corner that it is difficult to see daylight between you.
@ Courage: No, I meant courage and thank you, but I am plenty literate in these matters. It is you that mistake my meaning because you cannot understand the words I am using.
Your definition of courage against the unfortunately required explanation of my words corroborates my position perfectly, thank you. (As a side note, I doubt very seriously that I’m the one losing credibility here). Irrespective of your assertion that this is all for some Greater Moral Right, the basis for all bigotry is fear.
It will take COURAGE for you to embrace these ideas Edgar because they frighten you. You are scared of what homosexuality will do to you, our society and our country. You are scared and it will take courage for you to get past your fear and embrace that which you cannot understand. It will take courage for you look the pain you feel for the friend lost during 911 and live up to the American ideals of societal inclusion and biblical notions of tolerance and forgiveness.
You see, sometimes it takes an enormous amount of courage to have tolerance my friend. If tolerance were easy, we’d not even be having this discussion.
@ Affects of “Gayness” on you: You haven’t answered the question at all. You’ve said that you find it disgusting. Fine. You find it repulsive. Fine. You’ve said that public health suffers. That’s incorrect and I’ve already established that. And unless you’re having unprotected sex with infected gay men, you’re all good Sparky. The issue is not your opinions, which of course, you are 100% entitled to have. But when you legislate discrimination that’s where we have problems, the same as my feelings about the Klan. They can be all the bigoted they want to be, but when their bigotry encroaches on the rights of others, that’s where it must stop.
The only thing you’ve come up with that is mildly interesting is that you don’t want kids taught that being gay is genetic or something. Well I don’t want them learning anything from your bible in school either, so there. Nowhere that I’ve seen (and I have 3 kids in school Edgar) has the notion of Gay As Genetics been part of the school curriculum. You’re swatting at imaginary flies now, although I get your point.
@ Torture: Of course it works sometimes. Even I cannot imagine that we torture simply for the sport of it… I’ll admit that our behavior is spawned of fear and desire to protect our country, if you can admit that this impetus does not make it right or morally acceptable. You see, it is not the lack of fear that makes a man: it is how he responds to it. This is again where courage comes in: although we are afraid as a country, we must have the courage to NOT respond with our lowest base instincts and instead respond with the code that defines the best of America… that which we all should be able to boast about, rather than have to hide from.
@ Muslims and their hate of Liberalism: No, they hate all things WESTERN. It is hardly a Liberal notion that women should be allowed to wear things other than a Burka. And as we continue to shove our values down their throats with our imperialistic protection of access to oil, so shall we continue to piss them off and be the fathers of Jihad against us. Unlike American medicine, it is time that we begin to look at causes of a problem, rather than just symptoms.
But all that aside, let’s stay on topic for this debate and get back to American imperialism in another thread.
Perk – thank you for raising the discussion and fighting the fight.
You have to realize that I don’t waste much time in these discussions because I’ve dealt with idiots like Edgar and Trent yelling ‘faggot’ at me for just walking down the street with my boyfriend throughout my whole adult life. If Edgar really is so concerned about the suicide rate of gays, maybe he should look at some of the hatred he is spewing and consider the source of why so many (especially young) gay people commit suicide.
I took a course on Christianity because I wanted to understand the religion that has done so much to persecute people like me. (Yes, persecute – look at the Middle Ages and the number of ‘sodomites’ that were burned alive and hung with the blessing of the church for being sodomites, and look at the “God Hates Fags” crowd who protest the funerals of gay people such as Mathew Shepherd who was killed for being gay, and then his funeral was protested by ‘Christians’ who were there to tell everyone this boy who had been beaten to death was now in hell).
What I found in my own study of Christianity was that anti-gay bias has more to do with bigoted culture than it does with religion.
First of all, Christianity has very little to say specifically about homosexuality:
1. Leviticus bans it along with banning the eating of pork. Most Christians don’t restrict their diets with the same fervor they restrict their sexuality.
2. Sodom and Gomorrah has been misread by Christians as being about homosexuality, but if you were to threaten to rape some angels who visited your town, whether you were gay or straight, it wouldn’t be very hospitable, and so the bigger point was, be hospitable to visitors to your town (especially when in those times, the survival of travelers really depended upon hospitality towards strangers).
3. Paul, who never met Christ in person, and is thought to have been struggling with his own sexuality (the “thorn in his side”), said that men should not lay together as with women. Frankly, I trust the words of Christ more than the words of Paul, and Christ did not have a single (not one) thing to say about homosexuality. In fact, the great overall message of Jesus was to love your fellow man, to not ‘cast stones at others’, but to break bread with those who you don’t understand and love one another. So those who stand with Paul rather than Christ should call themselves Paulists, because they are more followers of Paul than followers of Christ himself.
4. The early church was inclusive of homosexuality. If you read John Boswell’s Same Sex Marriages in Early Christianity, you will find ancient texts that prove that the early church was quite tolerant of homosexuality and actually held same sex marriages in some of the eastern churches (which were formerly Ancient Greece). This is not shocking when you consider that ancient Greece, the area the eastern churches took over from pagan cults, was a region where homosexuality had been a comfortable fact of life, and Christianity adopted homosexuality within the church through marriage rituals. But over time, the Catholic Church developed its own biases that are unique to the Catholic Church, but are not necessarily what all Christians believe, and the church became hostile towards homosexuality, banning same sex marriage rituals and leading crusades against sodomites that were as violent as anything you might find in the Middle East today.
So, I have spent plenty of time pondering not only homosexuality, but Christianity, as Edgar suggests that I do. And I am fully confident that my boyfriend and I are the very people that Jesus would be breaking bread with, and people like Edgar and Trent are the ones he would be marching into their churches and throwing the tables over for their use of his name in their hatred. And I spend more time these days with Christians who treat me like a person first (as Christ would have, not as Paul would have), and I don’t wast time on people who are ready to define me before they’ve even met me.
At the age of 23 I had to sit and watch my first boyfriend die of AIDS and I looked very hard into my soul when I visited him. God loved John and loves me just for who we are. I don’t need Edgar and Trent and the rest of the hating crowd’s blessing for salvation. My God’s love is bigger than their hatred.
Wow Nate. Incredibly well said, and thank you even more for your time, since this is clearly a subject that in many ways you’ve simply had enough of.
I love the pork/gay comparison, because this is a horrible conundrum for the so-called evangelical right: they argue the absolute literal interpretation of the bible when it comes to these sorts of topics (homosexuality or evolution), but conveniently ignore stuff they don’t think is right for today, like the eating of pork. The rationalization engine is on overdrive.
I’d love to comment more, but I’m afraid I’d simply take away from your excellent post.
@ SFNate again: We don’t need your f’reals age, but *approximately* how long ago did John die?
1992. He died right before Clinton was elected, two years before Protease Inhibitors started saving people’s lives.
Now that I think back on it, I was 25 when he died.
@SFNathan
““Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion… Like Aids.”
Edgar, I’m gay and my first boyfriend died of AIDS many years ago, and you have no idea how hateful what you just said is. ”
It is what it is. Aids is a plague on the gay community. Of course once a disease like that becomes manifest in a significant part of the population it then grows wings and spreads out to others. But statistically it’s always been a gay plague.
@Hateful
Calling a conservative hateful is a weak attempt at marginalizing their arguments.
If I had said something along the lines of, “Sfnathan, if I saw you with your boyfriend in my neighborhood I would fucking kill you because you’re a sick perverted faggot…” then that would be hateful.
“All fucking faggots should die! ”
That’s hateful.
“I hate queers!!”
That’s hateful
What I’ve done here is outline my reasoning. I reason my way to a conclusion, I don’t “hate” my way to a conclusion.
Hate is just a knee-jerk reactionary word that libs throw up like a squid squirting ink.
Never once have I been hateful toward gays. You just hate me because I disagree with gayness.
You will never marginalize my arguments by throwing the “H” word around because I am not hateful.
I observed AIDS to be a plague upon the gay community…that means I hate?
How’s this: Little kids have runny noses. OK, now I hate little kids too.
Black people are black. Now I HATE blacks?
Poor people are on welfare. Now I hate poor people.
Drunk drivers die in car accidents because they are driving drunk. Now I hate Drunks!
People who share needles and do dope get aids. Now I hate people addicted to drugs.
Smokers get lung cancer. Now I hate smokers.
Theifs go to jail. Now I hate theifs.
Catholic priests molested little boys. Now I hate Catholics.
Liberal Europeans killed the indians. Now I hate Liberal Europeans.
Hitler caused world war two. Now I hate Germans.
Coal miners die from black lung disease. Now I hate Coal Miners.
People died on 911 because of bad karma (like perk suggested) now I HATE America.
I have suffered the consequences of my actions through out my life…now I hate myself.
People fuck animals and get crazy diseases…now I either HATE those people or I HATE animals.
The Earth is polluted because we don’t treat it right…Now I HATE the earth and all of the people in it.
You arrogant turd. You have the BALLS and your own brand of BIGOTRY to call me a HATER just because I disagree with your choice of lifestyle.
You just WISH I would really say something hateful in full disclosure so that you really could marginalize my arguments as stemming from ignorant hatred and nothing more.
Fact is, I have soundly and reasonably stated my position in this matter and YOU have not read my comments in their entirety.
You just HATE me so much that you read one or two things and rush down to the bottom of the page to leave a comment.
@Perk Courage
“Your definition of courage against the unfortunately required explanation of my words corroborates my position perfectly, thank you.”
That is not MY definition of the word courage. It’s from the DICTIONARY.
“It will take COURAGE for you to embrace these ideas Edgar because they frighten you.”
No Perk it wont take courage. It would take a change in my beliefs. I’m not afraid of ideas! WTF?
Perk you are not literate in this regard and speaking of literacy, spelling typo’s aside (we all make typos) you always spell “priciples” wrong! You spell principals as in the principal of the school.
Fear does not stop me from accepting your views about gays. Period. I face no fear.
It will only take courage for me to embrace your liberal notions if I secretly agreed with them but was afraid to come to terms with it.
That is not the case.
Go read the dictionary perk. This is laughable and stupid and really below you.
@Donkey
“Edgar, you cannot seriously believe that getting aids or any disease for that matter is punishment.”
It’s called consequences not punishment.
“No rational or even remotely educated person can actually think that can they?”
Listen Genius, don’t talk to me about being educated when just a few days ago you told us here that the US was never ever attacked on the homeland since the revolution and before 911.
No rational thinking person who is even remotely educated can think that can they?
Pffft…
@SFNathan
“You have to realize that I don’t waste much time in these discussions because I’ve dealt with idiots like Edgar ”
Waste time on these discussions? Go and look through the archives on this blog and you’ll see it was DEAD before I got here.
Perks been writing this blog for quite a while but it is ME who makes it interesting now. Look at the comments and you’ll see it is my commenting that inspires you to get off your butt and engage in a little intellectual jujitsu.
Perk, just to be clear your blog is good and as I read the old posts from time to time I see that they are well written and that you express yourself in an interesting and eloquent way.
But there was no passion in either the posts or comments until I came along.
You guys can’t leave this blog alone! You know I’m here and you can’t WAIT to tell me this or that…
SFNathan, your friends here, unlike you, appartently enjoy sparring with me. Proof is on page man.
The difference is they don’t hate me I don’t think. You do but they don’t. They just disagree. You hate me because I judge you as perverted and deviant for engaging in same sex blah blah blah.
If I hadn’t come to this blog then perk would still be like a tree falling in the woods that only Donkey hears.
Edgar, like every person in the KKK or Nazis or haters of all kinds, you have a lengthy list of reasoning for why you don’t hate.
Your logic is the same type of reasoning that was used to say that black people and white people shouldn’t marry, because god didn’t intend the races to intermarry. You are part of a long tradition of bigots who have used twisted logic (that still has a logic, no matter how warped and hateful) to justify their own bigotry.
I have not said that you are a hater because you are Christian or a Conservative. You ARE a hater because of the way you judge me and all gay people as deserving of a “gay plague” (your words for a disease that the vast majority of people who have been afflicted have actually been heterosexual and live in Africa) – it is your judgment that people like me deserve to die that makes you a hater. You turn your fear of me into self-righteous hatred because you can’t look at your own fear and accept that AIDS is just a disease – not a judgment. For you, it must be a judgment because you choose it to be, because it conveniently makes me into the bogey man you want me to be.
I’ve lived through my friends dying with AIDS and I know what I’m talking about because it’s my life. But you, like so many bigots, cast your stones from afar. You are a coward along with being a bigot. It’s my life we are talking about when we talk about gay people and AIDS. It’s a political/religious conversation for you about other people’s salvation when you talk about it from the comfort of your heterosexual bubble. You are all wrapped up in judging other people about the most terrible things that have happened in their lives – maybe you should take a look in the mirror at what kind of a person you are choosing to be.
Edgar, you have issues you need to deal with for yourself. May God help you.
No Edgar, you connected God’s wrath via the Bible to AIDS as punishment. Go read your post.
No Edgar, you are entitled (as has been said about a bazillion times) to your opinions. Your notion of legislating discrimination is the problem.
Well, thanks for that Edgar. How grateful I am to have come and completed my existence. Frankly, I think my posts have been quite passionate since I started here. But WGAF, because it’s my blog and I like it.
Right. I’ll take the I’m Not Literate part under advisement. And thanks, you’re right I do have a tendency to do that, especially when I’m typing fast. And how proud you must be, Edgar, to have finally gotten something correct here roflmao:
Hmmm. Well, I’m afraid we’re just going to have to agree to disagree here. Frankly, I think you’re panties are in such a twist about the courage thing because it probably strikes too close to home. You’re clearly smart enough to hear what I am saying, so the barrier you put up to protect your opinions must be chafing, as you begin to see the hypocrisy of your position.
You judge, and wonder why people would hate you? Yours is not to judge Edgar. And it is there, in judging, that you exhibit your own brand of hate. Call it logic or whatever all you used to try to justify your position, you make yourself and your nature clear with your choice of words and metaphors.
A “Gay Plague?” FFS man. Can you be anymore spiteful? Can you really be that holier than thou that you’d assign a death sentence to people because they violate your sense of right/wrong? So what’d my wife do to deserve breast cancer, since you seem to be so knowledgeable in this area? Huh? I suppose Lou Gerhig DESERVED to be put down because he only batted a .143 in his last year? Or Gilda Radner was taken from the earth because her skits on SNL just weren’t that funny anymore?
roflmao: Perhaps. Or perhaps not. Sounds pretty angry man. I guess I owe it all to you.
@edgar
:quote:
“No rational or even remotely educated person can actually think that can they?”
Listen Genius, don’t talk to me about being educated when just a few days ago you told us here that the US was never ever attacked on the homeland since the revolution and before 911.
:quote:
meh, typo on my part, I meant no terrorist attack. Pearl Harbor was an attack from a foreign military, and is soundly “legal” in a theater of war, even if the target was not yet in that war. In war, someone has to make the first strike, and it is not called a terrorist attack.
Im also not making a judgment of your education, but of your statement. Consequence or punishment.
your quote:
quoted from perks bible quote: “Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion”
Your response: Like Aids.
Penalty = punishment.
1. a punishment imposed or incurred for a violation of law or rule.
My point is very simple, yet you gloss it over. If AIDS is a punishment/penalty bestowed upon those who are perverted, what perversion pray tell did young children commit?
Additionally, it is now known that AIDS has actually hit this country multiple times, prior to the 80′s outbreak, as early as 69, but never broke out. It began life in the congo in the 1940′s. If this great punishment was meant for gays, the middle of fucking nowhere in the congo is great place to start that plan in action…
One more thing Edgar, since the vast majority of people with AIDS are straight and live in Africa, and the disease originated from Africa, I suppose under your logic, God struck Africa with a plague and the world should be fearful of the heterosexual African sex that brought this plague to the world.
But most good people of the world (even backwards Republicans like George Bush) have stopped vilifying people with AIDS and feel nothing but sadness for the tragedy of AIDS in Africa, or for gay people who have AIDS. It’s just a disease, and assigning religious judgment to it would be like saying a Texas Hurricane was the wrath of God on all those Texans who point their fingers at gay people. It’s wrong and hateful to point at other people’s tragedy and declare it’s religious judgment. It’s the act of a small, hateful person.
Side note, to all reading: I am doing my quotes like I do in my posts. Simply enclose a “quote header” in a div classed as edzQuoteTop and the quote itself in edzQuote. For example:
<div class=”edzQuoteTop”>Edgar</div>
<div class=”edzQuote”>
Stuff, quotes, thangs
</div>
You should put <BR> <BR> in before, after or both if you want space above/below the quote.
Let me share something else. Technically, I am perverted apparently, or at least a perversion of nature. I am a deviant. I am not normal.
I am dyslexic. There is no gene for it that has been identified, yet, there I am. I did not learn to behave dyslexic. I did not chose it (who the hell would, it’s a pain in the ass). Shit is just wired different in my noggin, nothing more. Everything that teachers tried to do has not un-made me, for I am still dyslexic.
I’m waiting for my lighting bolt from on high.
I was perverted up until the last 10-15 years for having done things with my wife that have been illegal and “Against natural law” in many states.
I am pleased that I am no longer legally perverted.
@SFNate and African AIDS: God does not see Africans as people until they embrace Christ. They are outcast and are of no concern to the saved, for they are animals until they come in from the wild. Didn’t you get the memo?
@ Donkey: You are a deviant. Perverted and deviant. God shall smite you down for reversing your Rs.
I am working on a comprehensive response that includes data and references. I may post it here or at my loony blog but it’s going to include data from gay rights activists and gay affirmative scientists and researchers.
I will address christianity and homosexuality, secular opposition to homosexuality, scientific footnotes by noted scholars respected by liberals, Jesus, Paul, Sodom and Lot.
As Arnold said in the Terminator, “I’ll be back”
:popcorn:
BTW Aids came into being when people in Africa were having sex with animals…
I’ll get it all together for you gay liberals to enjoy!
@aids from animal sex.
WTF are you talking about?
There is no actual knowledge of how it began, however, bestiality is pretty much ruled out. The real theories from african origin are that it came from sooty mangabees monkeys and they were eaten, bitten, or cross contamination through ritual or incidental contamination. The left field theory that won’t die is government conspiracy, as usual. 1 more theory is urbanization in america which caused a virus that was in existence for a long time, but limited growth due to thinner population, to explode when we reached a tipping point in the late 60s due to war and population boom. And the final, most likely blame is actually Aid workers from world war2, administering medications to patients, using the same needle over and over, which was common practice back then (think of the glass syringe from an antique medical bag).
Bestiality doesn’t even register on the radar. though, there is one thing that may account for that belief. There is a circumcision ritual in africa where monkey blood is poured onto the wound. Which may be how the bestiality idea got created, like a childhood game of telephone.
Its’ simple edgar,
Libs rely on feelings and emotion to determine there sense of right and wrong. Thats why there sense of right and wrong can change.
Ergo, abortion.
It’s wrong to kill… unless of course your an innocent baby getting in the way of some poor girl who just wanted to slut around a little.
Conservatives believe in a solid moral standard in which we can all refer to as a consistant guide.
Wether you beleive in god or not, the bible gives us a consistant set of standards to live by. yes the old testament has some corky things in which changed in the new testament. Obviously I’m not going to sacrifice a lamb before I go to work….
Perk
“Interesting side note: of all demographics that are stricken with HIV/AIDS the only one that is shrinking is the homosexual community. The fastest growing segment? Heterosexual men and women over the age of 65.”
NOT TRUE!
You should educate yourself before presenting opinions as facts Perk. I thought you were smarter than that.
It’s a FACT. Homosexuality is the LEADING cause in hiv transmission. Here are the facts…
of the 56,300 new infections reported, 53% was male to male sexual contact. (Gayness). Thats more than half perk.
Now there is no way to tell how many infections stem from the bisexual population and transmit to the heterosexual population. given the staggering numbers of gay infecton, my theory is that the number of cases CAUSED by homosexuality would substantialy increase.
I know this is absoloutly devestating to any future arguments you may have about how homosexuality has no dangers to the united states… but you’ll have to pick up the soap and take the truth in!! roflmao:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm
Watch out Edgar…. the squirming, the denial, the evasion…. it’s coming!! :popcorn:
on a side note… why does the popcorn eating smily face appear to eat his own hand?
BD
“Let me share something else. Technically, I am perverted apparently, or at least a perversion of nature. I am a deviant. I am not normal.
I am dyslexic. There is no gene for it that has been identified, yet, there I am. I did not learn to behave dyslexic. I did not chose it (who the hell would, it’s a pain in the ass). Shit is just wired different in my noggin, nothing more. Everything that teachers tried to do has not un-made me, for I am still dyslexic.”
per⋅verse /pərˈvɜrs/ Pronunciation [per-vurs]
–adjective 1. willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary.
2. characterized by or proceeding from such a determination or disposition: a perverse mood.
3. wayward or cantankerous.
4. persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.
5. turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.
perversion is a choice. your analogy is poor, and weak!
Oh SNAP! That one was really a throwing-down of the gauntlet!
roflmao:
and the evasion begins! :popcorn:
no evasion here.
Your right, about the wrong word mind you. I said perverted:
1. Pathology. changed to or being of an unnatural or abnormal kind: a perverted interest in death.
2. turned from what is right; wicked; misguided; distorted.
3. affected with or caused by perversion.
and perversion (of nature):
1. the act of perverting.
2. the state of being perverted.
3. a perverted form of something.
and just to cover all the bases, deviant:
–adjective
1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
–noun
2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.
It’s a little unfair mind you, since I am dyslexic, i have to work harder than most to communicate correctly. I make mistakes of course, but I am more attentive of my language because of the massive amount of miss-communication that has happened in my life.
@smiley
I have thought the same thing. also it looks like when he bites into his hand, it explodes. lol
Edgar, I’ve cooled my jets a little from yesterday.
You have to understand that my boyfriend and several of my friends have died from AIDS and your talking about them deserving to die from a “gay plague” naturally makes me angry. You seem to not understand how disrespectful it is to say that. Imagine if you had friends who you loved very much who died and people you didn’t know were saying they basically got what they deserved? It’s bad enough that my friends aren’t here today to live life with me – and now I have to hear people I don’t even know talk shit about them? It’s a crazy world.
But, I’m actually interested in hearing what you have to say because you are giving some thought to it. So I appreciate that.
Let me suggest something. If I were to try and convince you that you shouldn’t be a Christian because of how horrible Christianity is (citing religious wars and persecution on non-Christians, etc.) or if I were to try and convince you to be a vegetarian, saying how wrong and immoral it is to kill animals, you would probably laugh at what I had to say, no matter how many footnotes and data I presented to you. Just like I have so far had to laugh at this conversation about how perverted being gay is and how people with AIDS are getting the ‘gay plague’ that they deserved. It’s absurd, outrageous and disrespectful.
No one can tell you that you shouldn’t be who you are (even if you choose it, like being a Christian or a meat eater).
However, if you share your feelings and insights respectfully, you might get someone to see something they’ve never thought of before.
I am 100% certain that I’m gay by design. Not by choice, but by genetics, or if by psychology, it’s so deeply embedded, that I don’t even know how I became gay and it’s just a part of me now.
More importantly – I have NO desire to be straight. I think that I was put on this world to make the world a more interesting place. If everyone was like you Edgar, who would you have to debate with? We’d all be pretty sleepy with our world.
But all this said, I’m always interested in hearing what another person has to say, as long as they are being respectful.
I shouldn’t have called you a hater because that puts you in a box. I will say that the things you said were hateful, and you should look closely at the things you said (particularly about AIDS being a gay plague – inferring that gay people deserve to die for being gay). Whenever a tragedy happens for someone, we shouldn’t jump to the assumption that God made the tragedy as his punishment. That’s disrespectful to the people suffering the tragedy and assumes you know God’s plan, which is presumptuous.
I’m curious to see what you have to say and hope that you will speak from your higher self when saying it.
Perk spelled principles correctly.
Principal means first, foremost.
What’s happening to our language? Edgar, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. You may think you’re quite well-read and decently literate, but if I chose to be the grammarian I am by nature (I have spelled out every single word I speak or hear since I can remember automatically, I don’t even notice it anymore it’s so automatic), the spelling and grammatical atrocities that you incessantly commit would come to light.
@SFNATHAN
well said sir. I am working still on a response that covers everything. No hard feelings here as I enjoy debating with you as much as the other guys.
I promise a decent, comprehensive and well thought out response.
I will address all of your points one by one with references from liberal and gay affirmative scientists…
Real references mind you, not obscure nonsense etc…
Side note — Aids would cease to exist if risky sexual behavoir ceased to exist. That includes gay sex. Sex is spreading aids more than anything else and if you are not careful it can get ya.
I promise you Nathan that I’m not trying to sound hateful at all although it may seem like that to you understandably. But the facts are that the homosexual community is ripe with the horrible disease.
This is a bad analogy and I know it so spare me the criticisms but let me put it like this:
If there was a significant segment of the population that enjoyed sex with animals and if that behavior was known to spread disease, one could rightly observe that the animal ‘chasers’ were suffering the consequences of their actions.
All I’m saying is that aids is easily spread by gay sexual intercourse (as well as hetero but it is more rampant in the gay community –facts are coming) and it’s dangerous to underestimate that fact.
You yourself are in the gay community and already you know more people who have dies from aids than I do.
You may not like it but the facts are if you have unprotected gay sex you are more likely to catch aids, as you have witnessed yourself.
It’s just an observation. From a Christian perspective it is possible (only possible and not definite) that such a disease could be thought of as a form of self induced punishment from God. But, and this is important, regardless of any Christian slant and from a purely secular view point, gay sex is a dangerous activity that brings with it known consequences.
Not trying to hate, just stating what I believe is a true observation.
But I’m going to leave this alone until my real post is done.
I’ll try to be nicer nate.
@edgar
I would change your statement from “But the facts are that the homosexual community IS ripe with the horrible disease.” to WAS. The gay community had it’s issues, but, frankly, gay’s tend to be more aware today of how badly they can get fucked, than the hetero community. It is appalling to know the stats for hetero teenage VD. 1 in 4 in 1996, and recent stats are pointing to 1 in 3. ouch.
The reason nate knows more Aids victims is partly because of being gay, but not for the reason you think. It’s because the gay community is open about it. Since AIDS was labeled a “gay disease” heteros keep quiet about it. You probably have had a friend die from it, you just think it was cancer or sudden… Family will lie because they don’t want to hear, “oh, i didn’t know your son was gay”. Its sad really.
Well put to both edgar and sfnate. Good debate will bring positive results. I think the important thing to remember is that we can all be labled…human.
In being human there are a great number of things both good and bad that seem to be inherent. Such as emotions, biasness, prejudice, discrimination, also sympathy, compassion, and the desire to be better as a whole.
Humility is something we ALL need to learn. I am as guilty as everyone else in this fashion.
It is important to remember that, in a heated debate (espeacialy where both parties reach deep into there core beliefs), there can be a natural defense mode, that keeps us from being humble.
Facts, Questions, Answers, Theories. This is all just food for thought for when you are alone, thinking and readjusting your perspective.
I enjoy debating on this blog and appreciate everyones participation, and time regarding the entries.
@Vsloathe
@Spelling
You are a good friend of Perks standing up for him when he is wrong etc… Commendable!
Now, I’m not going to call you an idiot because Nathan is here watching me
Vsloathe, get close to the screen and read what perk said and I will break it down for you:
Perk
Fucking pussies won’t even stand up for the principals of which they espoused.
Principals in this context is used as a noun. Do you know what a noun is? Remember back in grade school…person, place or thing????
This is a noun. In this sense principals does not mean “first, foremost. ” Those are adjectives Vsloathe.
When Perk referred to principals as he did in the quote above, he used the word as a noun, but the definition you provide for principals is for the adjective use.
Learn:
“Principles
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics”
Now tell me this: Why do you insist on proving to me that you are a fool? LMAO!!! LMAO!!!!
The Donkey thinks 911 was the only time we have ever been attacted on the homeland…and he calls that a typo now LMAO!!!
Perk doesn’t know the definition of the word Courage
Vsloathe doesn’t understand the difference between principals and principles.
I better not EVER hear one word of BRAGGING about ‘how educated’ you all are. LMAO!!!!
Don’t come back to this stupid argument about the uses of the words courage and priniples…it’s embarrassing. Really it is, just let it go. He was wrong. Can’t you read the friggen dictionary?
:doh: :doh: :doh:
“I would change your statement from “But the facts are that the homosexual community IS ripe with the horrible disease.” to WAS.”
That statement may be true, that in fact YOU would change his statement. In doing so… you would be wrong. The homosexual community is still the most infected with HIV.
“The reason nate knows more Aids victims is partly because of being gay, but not for the reason you think. It’s because the gay community is open about it. Since AIDS was labeled a “gay disease” heteros keep quiet about it. You probably have had a friend die from it, you just think it was cancer or sudden… Family will lie because they don’t want to hear, “oh, i didn’t know your son was gay”. Its sad really.”
I’m under the impression that the implication here is that heterosexuals are dying of HIV in similar proportions to homosexuals, but just simply lie about it because they dont want to be labled ‘gay’.
I dont want to assume… so please clarify the intention of your statement.
@Trent
You are a sharp one!
FFS Edgar, give it up. Honestly, if I bagged you on all your typos, grammatical issues etc this’d get boring rather quickly. I mean, if you’re going to bag me for using “Principles/Principals” incorrectly, then you should at least spell it correctly in your post roflmao: … “priniples” ? I mean really!
So, Mr English: let’s simply take that one post apart and be done with it:
* You yourself misuse principals in your description sentence, because “in this sense, principals …” should have been “in this sense, principles” … see how easy it is to do?
* then you do the exact same thing again in the next sentence.
* You capitalize “Courage” in your sentence where you tell me I don’t know how to use it, it should either be quoted, or italicized. You also forgot your period.
* You single quote “how educated” when there is no reason to to so. Also, when quoting, you use doubles rather than singles, because surrounding something with apostrophes doesn’t mean anything unless you’re programming in PHP.
* You misspell principles with priniples in your second to last sentence, right before “it’s embarrassing” … perfect!
* It’s either ” frigging ” or ” friggin’ ” but “friggen” means nothing.
See how silly that is? And you can’t possibly imagine that your pseudo-intellectualism via definitions and grammar attacks grant you cred, do you? Do you really think that enhances your argument?
I think it’s fair to assume that all of us know what we’re talking about here. Regardless of your refusal to admit it, my usage of courage is spot on. And it’s what I intend to portray with my words, which is what we do with the English language.
It is unwise to throw academic rocks from a scholastic glass house dude.
@perk
“FFS Edgar, give it up. Honestly, if I bagged you on all your typos, grammatical issues etc this’d get boring rather quickly. ”
A typoo iss whenn you acccedentally type the wrong lettter noww and aggain.
You started with calling me a coward…
So there LMAO!!
Yeah, back on topic, I agree
@Perk
Your criticism of my punctuation is fair but I’m not criticizing your punctuation. I’m criticizing the way you misuse words like courage. And you know I’m wright (get it?) but you just wanted to insult me. You were name calling that’s all. You wanted to call me a name to make me mad.
I’ll really leave it alone now
Just be sure to use the right words when talking about me for instance:
intolerant
right wing
christian
idiot
jerk
scholar
but use them when they fit or else I’m gonna pull your pants down. Keep your ‘gloves up’ man.
It’s interesting to me how you must avoid the fact that I’ve called you a coward and have used the word courage to describe what you require most to move forward. You cannot seem to look that one in the face. And no matter how loudly you want to protest or attempt distraction, you will not be able to move me from my position on that … or its fundamental truth.
It’s not to insult you at all Edgar. It’s a statement of opinion re. your position on homosexuality. It WILL take courage for you to really address it.
Perk, you said
“@ Courage: No, I meant courage and thank you, but I am plenty literate in these matters.
“It will take COURAGE for you to embrace these ideas Edgar because they frighten you.”
“You are scared and it will take COURAGE for you to get past your fear and embrace that which you cannot understand.”
“It will take courage for you look the pain you feel for the friend lost during 911 and live up to the American ideals of societal inclusion and biblical notions of tolerance and forgiveness.”
Perk, don’t make me do this to you LMAO!!
LMAO!!
Now just leave it alone damn it!
Cowards lack what perk? What did the “Cowardly Lion” want to make it so he was no longer a coward?
I know where this whole argument is going, “Well, that all depends on what YOUR definition of the word IS is
“It’s not to insult you at all Edgar. It’s a statement of opinion re. your position on homosexuality. It WILL take courage for you to really address it.”
That sentence is based on the premise that I have not really addressed it. That is untrue. Your argument is as follows:
A: if one really addresses the issue of homosexuality then he will be conclude that the pro gay position is the only logical outcome.
B: I am not pro gay
C: Therefore I did not really address the issue.
This is not good logic for it predisposes that it is a factual that gayness is a good thing or at least not harmful in anyway.
It’s impossible to debate the underlying reasons for having one view point or another regarding the morality and soundness of the gay lifestyle, when your fundamental logic presupposes that it is FACT that homosexuality is morally acceptable.
See, you are first coming to a conclusion and THEN working your logic backward from that. That’s called justification.
In intellectually honest pursuit of the truth one can not already assume he knows the truth, and that is borne out in your logic as I outlined it in A-B form above.
If you disagree with me then please keep it simple for me. Refer to my A-B logic statement above and show me where I’m wrong.
FFS Edgar, you’ve moved into the ridiculous.
The lion lacked courage to face his fears. He was cowardly.
Edgar lacks courage to face his fears. He is cowardly.
Just because you fear homosexuality and the lion feared … well, just about everything has no bearing on the definition of courage Edgar. And regardless of how you choose to take it, that’s what I mean, so bugger off.
Stop being a little girl and contend with the real issues where this post is concerned.
WOW! Edgar, he doesnt know where to go with this. cornered. so he’ll continue calling you names like,
“Stop being a little girl ”
It would take ‘courage’ to admit your wrong Perk. I have never seen anyone do as much name calling as you in any debate. How can you credit yourself with being educated when it’s obvious that your so obstanant that it would be impossible for any proffesor to educate you. The proper word to use in your original entries WAS in fact tolerence. Why cant you except the fact you made a mistake. It’s not a big deal to make a mistake Perk. Be a little more humble…
Sheesh!
@edgar
Oh please. I already in prior conversations used the “only major terrorist attack on US soil”, and you agreed (or at the very least didn’t disagree), so don’t go and pretend that you don’t believe it was was honestly an accidental omission on my part.
What does the moral acceptability of gayness have to do with not allowing gay people to get married?
It’s a non sequitur. Logically, they don’t follow.
Oh, unless you think that people ought to make laws based around your particular set of morals.
That seems sort of silly to me. I don’t think it’s morally acceptable to close the source of a piece of software and not allow it to be completely free. Available free of charge, completely modifiable. I realize though, that not everyone holds the same convictions I do so I am willing to make concessions to fags like Perk who buy Macs.
:roflmao:
@perk
“Edgar lacks courage to face his fears. He is cowardly.”
1. Why do you assume that I have not faced my fears.
2. Why do you think I fear homosexuality?
You have no one better to ask about MY fears than me. So ask don’t tell.
“Stop being a little girl and contend with the real issues where this post is concerned.”
I beg to differ. This is actually at the meat of this argument. You conclude that the main reason or at least on of the reasons that I am not pro gay is that I have never really addressed the issue.
You think this is because I lack the courage to do so.
That is because you think once I really address the issue that it’s just intellectually dishonest to come to any other conclusion that your own.
That’s arrogant to think you are just plain old ‘right’ about this and every other conclusion is based on ignorance.
I’ve got news for you Perk. It is in fact possible to have a valid view point contradictory to your own.
@Litte girl?
Come now. I’m not calling you names…I’m just correcting you as I should. I’m not even defending myself against your personal jabs because it’s silly. But I want good debate partners and I’m trying to sharpen you up.
You’ll be more careful next time about your choice of words otherwise it just speaks against you.
See, SFNATHAN informed me that if I was nicer in my delivery then someone who disagrees with me may yet give me an honest ear. I had enough COURAGE to accept that and admit it humbly on this blog.
You on the other hand…calling the triangle a square for the whole world to see with no shame, backed by your liberal friends who don’t want to see you proven wrong by me in any way shape or form.
I’m done discussing this issue. I’m too scared to continue
@donkey
“I realize though, that not everyone holds the same convictions I do so I am willing to make concessions to fags like Perk who buy Macs.”
Well said for a change roflmao:
“What does the moral acceptability of gayness have to do with not allowing gay people to get married?”
As Locke preached laws should not be made which infringe on ones own liberty even if it’s for his own good. For instance, smoking.
However, it’s not uncommon that what is normally deemed morally incorrect is also bad for society in ways that have nothing to do with morals. Example, gay intercourse is risky and you are more likely to get aids from practicing gay sex.
California is the most liberal state in the nation with Mass right behind it. Even still, your california liberals just didn’t want gay marriage.
Perhaps they are ALL wrong and ignorant and only you and Perk and the boys are superior to everyone who disagrees with you.
Touche edgar! Brilliant! You’ve made all your pionts, clear and piercing.
You’ll also notice the lack of facts, statistics, and information provided by the libs. You’ll also notice the evasion of such questions as:
1. Where are the homosexuals being oppressed?
2. Where are the homosexuals rights being violated. (they have the right to be gay as provided by the constitution)
No rebutles on the factual statistics.
Silence concession!
roflmao:
wow – you straight guys really know how to have a flame war
“See, SFNATHAN informed me that if I was nicer in my delivery then someone who disagrees with me may yet give me an honest ear.”
I’ve been at work today Edgar and just read through everyone’s posts. I’m reading it now – did you have your comprehensive post ready to share? I’m interested…
And Trent, I’ll try to put together some facts for you in answer to your two questions (1. where are the homosexuals being oppressed? 2. Where are the homosexuals rights being violated). Those are fair questions that deserve a straight (no pun intended) answer.
I need to eat dinner, I was working all day, but I’ll respond later.
@Trent: Cornered?!?!?!
roflmao:
roflmao: roflmao: roflmao:
(whew) That was a good one.
@ Edgar – man the world is just black and white to you, huh? I’m not asking you to accept any position, accept homosexuality, or saying that you’re a coward because you’re not pro-gay.
I’m asserting that it is wrong to legislate discrimination, wrong to allow your judgement of people to move into comfort with notion that AIDS is repayment for sin, and that you will require courage to face the fact that you are a bigot (not said as a slam, said in the nicest way possible
)
@ Courage, yet again: Introspection is tough when the only basis for opinion is fallacy, errant belief, fear or anger. Looking honestly into oneself may take more courage than you can imagine. Outside threats are often small potatoes compared to what it takes to be willing to shake the superstructure of your own beliefs. You laugh and poke fun and want to throw the dictionary at me because you have no understanding of what I am talking about – ergo, your misguided interpretation of my points. Your lack of comprehension does not change the point. Much like you not understanding Japanese does not make the words spoken any less meaningful, it simply means you don’t understand what was said.
@ You’re a little girl: You’re behaving like one. You and Trent both want to argue about your perception of semantics rather than get to the real meat of the issue, which is again, discrimination, bigotry, insensitivity and hypocrisy. And you persist and persist. You’re not “correcting” me at all… you disagree with the way I’m phrasing my opinions and pointing as if that’s some great argumentative treasure.
@ Valid Contradictory Opinion: I won’t ever argue that you can have a valid opinion that is contradictory to my own – but again, when you want to LEGISLATE based on that opinion then we’ll go toe-to-toe. On a side note, you’ve made it abundantly clear that you have no appreciation for the contents of my opinions, so it is ludicrous to assume that you’d receive anything different in return.
Let’s get back to the notion of how YOUR BIBLE should be allowed to legislate against MY BODY. At the core of this argument: I happily concede that your moralistic views are your right and privilege. Have them. As many as you want. Feel all that disgust about homosexuality you want to, and I will be the first in line to fight for your right to have it all. But when that opinion turns into laws or Constitutional amendments that prescribe discrimination then you’re going headlong into a wall.
@ VSloathe and fags that buy Macs: roflmao: Pucker up buttercup. You kin kiss my Mac lovin ass.
@sfnathan
No I didn’t finish my post. I got behind in work and had to catch up big time. But I promise to post it and it will be non offensive and as referenced as possible.
@Perk
I’m not addressing the issue of you calling me a coward anymore. Let others who read your blog judge in the future. All that needed to be said has been said.
“But when that opinion turns into laws or Constitutional amendments that prescribe discrimination then you’re going headlong into a wall.”
Homosexuality was classified as a mental illness until 1973 and now you expect society to embrace the idea of promoting the gay lifestyle as an acceptable alternative by rewriting the definition of the word marriage?
The people have spoken and now the ball is back in the gay community. It is their burden to convince the American people with any evidence they want that the gay lifestyle is a good, wholesome and acceptable alternative to heterosexual sex.
Discrimination is exercised every time we draw a line somewhere somehow. The people have drawn the line against gay marriage. Discrimination is not always bad.
All men in this country, and all woman for that matter, are given equal rights. SFNathan has the same rights to do the same things that I do. Isn’t that correct?
Someone please correct my ignorant, uneducated, wife-beater-wearing, cave man mentality, intolerant white boy ass in this regard.
SFNathan, what rights do you lack that I do not lack?
@ Gays and sex:
Edgar, you have half a point about gays and sex. It’s true that gay men have higher rates of VD than the heterosexual public. But it’s also true that lesbians have lower rates than the heterosexual public. This shows that the disease factor is related to gender, not sexual orientation. We don’t know why this is, but some sociologists have speculated that women are socialized to be more protective of their bodies and sex, while men are rewarded socially by their sexual adventurousness. A woman is generally perceived as attractive if she is a virgin, while a man can feel embarrassed and immature if he is a virgin for too long. When you put a man and a woman together, you sometimes will have tension between a woman’s desire for intimacy and a man’s desire for sex. When you put two women together, they tend to have stable, long-term monogamous relationships. When you put two men together, they often have the same attitude towards sex that many straight men have: they enjoy sex and don’t see any reason to put limits on themselves. As they lovingly say, men are pigs.
I would also point out that gay men have been leaders in changing sexual behavior to create a model for safer sex that has become a global model for how to be safe and take care of you and your partner. There has been a dramatic drop in HIV cases because of the responsible decision making of gay men who have looked at much of their behavior and decided that changes needed to be made.
Additionally, this is why the marriage movement has taken off in the gay community. Many men like myself would like to see more stable institutions for our community that support stable, monogamous relationships. Institutions like this help people to have stronger relationships and they are especially important for men, in my opinion.
@ AIDS and Heterosexuality: the majority of AIDS cases in the world are heterosexual Africans. Last I looked into that statistic, they didn’t really know why Africa has such a huge number of heterosexual cases of AIDS, while in the West, the majority of cases are in the gay male community. But the overwhelming majority of cases in the world are African and heterosexual, so you really should not call this a gay disease, certainly not a gay ‘plague’, because aside from being horribly disrespectful to people who are living and have died with AIDS, it doesn’t match the facts.
“SFNathan, what rights do you lack that I do not lack?”
- Working on that and answers to Trent’s question in a little bit…
“What rights do you lack that I do not lack? Where are the homosexuals being oppressed? Where are the homosexuals rights being violated?”
Employment Discrimination – if we are fired for being gay, in most states that is legal. People do get fired specifically for being gay, especially when word gets out that they are gay. An obvious case where this happens all the time is for gays who are serving in the military and they tell someone who they have a boyfriend, and they are discharged. Here is a link to just one report on employment discrimination against LGBT people: http://www.glbtcolorado.org/atf/cf/%7BCE082758-3DC0-4B89-A41D-132CD74C3B4F%7D/Employment%20Discrimination.pdf
Hate Crimes – Some crimes are committed specifically because a person is black or a person is Jewish or a person is gay. In addition to the actual damage done to the individual, the assault was a crime against an entire community designed to terrorize the community. The brutal murder of Mathew Shepherd, for instance, wouldn’t have happened if Mathew was straight. And the assault didn’t just impact Mathew, it was a beating that was meant to send a message to every gay man that might find themselves in Wyoming that they better keep moving along. That killing was intended to have a chilling effect on an entire community. This is something that I don’t expect you to understand if you haven’t experienced it before, but if you live in a minority and have words like faggot hurled at you from a young age, and then you see people in your community killed for being like you, that’s not just a crime against that person. It’s designed to be a kick in the stomach to me. And I know, that all of us can feel something for the death of Mathew Shepherd, but you don’t live with the fear that someday walking down the street with your boyfriend someone might pull out a gun and shoot you (as happens all the time in gay neighborhoods throughout the country).
Harassment at public schools – kids who are gay or lesbian and often can’t hide their sexual orientation are often harassed and beaten up at public schools. Some schools have refused to offer support to the kids who have been beaten up this way and have had to be sued to protect the kids. If you live in a state like California, you might win a suit like this, but if you live in other states, you might not. Either way, public schools are sorely lacking in protections for gay teenagers to study at school without being harassed.
Equal benefits – many companies offer domestic partnership benefits now, but many do not. If you live in a state that doesn’t require equal benefits be provided to domestic partners as married couples, than despite being a committed couple, you can’t have the same benefits as married couples. This is blatant, institutional discrimination favoring straight people over gays, as gays are not allowed to marry anywhere except for two states in this country.
Bi-National Marriage Rights – if you are straight and fall in love with a person of another nationality, you can marry. If you are gay and you do, you have to move away from America to Canada, Europe, or any place in the civilized world that accepts same sex marriage.
Domestic Partnership – Forget marriage – most states still do not have domestic partnership laws. And states that have them have recently lost those rights, such as the state of Florida that just amended its constitution to not only ban same sex marriage, but to ban all domestic partnership rights. This means that if two gay people love each other and one goes to the hospital, the other doesn’t have a right to visit him there. This means that if you both own property and your partner dies, your property is reassessed, while a straight married couple’s property would not be reassessed. This means that you have no legal relationship with each other, unless you have the money and the ability to hire a lawyer and draw up a contract for a relationship with each other. This also means that if you are in the hospital and unable to speak, your partner would need to dig up the legal papers and get a court order to come visit you in the hospital rather than just having a marriage certificate on file with the City.
Marriage – even if you live in a state that has domestic partnership rights that are equivalent to married couples, the fact of creating a “separate but equal” system underscores that society is making an explicit statement that these two types of relationship are not on the same level. Marriage is considered a sacred, historical institution that one can only have if you do it the way it’s been done historically. This was the same argument that opposed interracial marriage – it was never done before, so why break centuries of tradition and allow interracial marriage? The answer is that some traditions (such as slavery, women not having the right to vote, gay people not having their relationships honored as equal to straight people) deserve to be undone.
That’s a list of just a few area where gay people are living in a world that is often oppressive.
But I will also say that I have had many enlightening experiences living as a gay man that I don’t think I would have had if I weren’t gay. I’m happy for my life and feel like there is a reason for people like me. I have an amazing boyfriend who I’m very much in love with, and I wouldn’t trade my life for the world. So peace to you Edgar and Trent – I’m not trying to convert you to my view, but hopefully you can understand more of what my life is about.
By the way, there are no hate crimes laws in many states and homosexuality is still left off the list of Federal hate crimes, while assaulting someone for their religious beliefs, race or other categories is considered a hate crime.
* Heroin was used medically until the late 60s.
* Radiation was a cure-all for an amazing list of things until they figured out that it wasn’t.
* Thalidomide was the hot new fertility drug until it wasn’t.
* Cocaine was the zip in Coca Cola fercrissakes, until it wasn’t.
I could go on of course ad infinitum… think of how hard and long the church fought Galileo and Copernicus against the thought that the earth was NOT the center of the universe, and everything rotated around us? Hell, Galileo even had to recant so that he’d not face the inquisition.
Frankly, I’d like to imagine that society has grown a bit. I think the amount (and popularity) of gay men in TV shows gives us an indication that the stigma is loosening. I believe it is only a matter of time. I know where you can get a membership to the Flat Earth Society if you’d like…
I’m pretty much with you on this. IMO the “alternative to hetero sex” bit lumps it into choice category, but that’s really insignificant to the master point.
I think the gay community is also coming to realize that there was a ball dropped in the assumption that “All is well” and they did not need to continue to work for what it is they want. I doubt that will happen again.
I also think there will be some interesting new precedents re. the Mormon church spending what it did in California… there are some interesting questions politically in that bit regarding a church actively engaging in politics. Could be trouble for them.
@the conservatwins
The point i think got lost somewhere in here. No one in this room cares if you approve of homosexuality, think it’s gross, or think its a choice. People argue it because they think you are wrong, but, in the end, no one actually cares about that.
I care however about the idea that misrepresentation, misunderstanding, fear and loathing, can drive decisions that have a negative impact upon and entire social group of US citizens.
The same outrage would apply if the government revoked non-profit tax status for all the charities out there.
The same outrage would apply if they passed a law baring any over 65 years old from driving. (even I think they probably should be banned… my dad sucks. lol)
So, there is outrage about preventing homosexuals from having the same legal marriage rights as heterosexuals.
The argument that gay lifestyle is diseased and dirty and blah blah, is irrelevant. Banning gay marriage does not make Trent, or any other gay/lesbian say, “oh well, can’t get married, fuck it, i’m gonna go straight”. It’s a ludicrous contention that by making it illegal, it will cease to happen. Prohibition worked so well, it was repealed.
@trent
good info. Good points about lesbian vs gay infection rate, it didn’t even occur to me, even though I knew that bit of info.
@PERK
“think of how hard and long the church fought Galileo and Copernicus against the thought that the earth was NOT the center of the universe, and everything rotated around us? Hell, Galileo even had to recant so that he’d not face the inquisition.”
Yes and that was stupid! Just stupid! The people of ‘the church’ at the time were stupid. But that was just one church. There is more to christianity than catholic history right?
How did protestants come to be as a group after all…
But yeah, they were fucking idiots. That doesn’t represent the rest of the people at that time though and many christians probably felt oppressed by the church themselves, I suppose.
@SFNathan
What rights do you lack that I don’t lack was my question.
I’m Edgar, I’m a man and I live in the USA. You are SFNathan, you are a man and you live in the USA also.
What I can do you can do and what you can do I also can do.
You made a valid case for the existence of discrimination against gays and I read your link.
You cited,
1. Harassment at public schools
2. Equal benefits
3. Hate Crimes
4. Domestic Partnership
5. Marriage
Regarding harassment and hate crimes, while unfortunate those are not rights that I enjoy and you don’t. I’ve been harassed too.
Regarding Gays getting fired just because they are gay.
At every place I ever worked there was a big sign on the wall in the break room that had information about minimum wage and employee rights etc…
That sign is in every work place in America as it’s the law. They have to post it. On that sign it specifically states that people can not be discriminated against based on their ‘sexuality’
That’s the law and to my mind it’s clear.
But simply and directly this does not spefically inform me of a lack of rights.
What I simply mean is that we are both men and citizens of the USA and as such we have equal rights.
Now, some people don’t like to be labeled. I forget at the moment, I think it was Vsloathe, but someone was totally pissed at me for trying to label them or something…whatever.
So I will refrain from labeling you a homo if you refrain from labeling me straight.
As individuals we are the same. You cannot marry another man and neither can I.
You can not avoid harassment at times and neither can I at times.
You may have been discriminated against at work and so have I indeed.
You can be gay and so can I.
You can be straight and so can I.
You can be the victim of a hate inspired crime and so can I.
I think what it comes down to is the issue of marriage. That’s really the cornerstone of the issue in my opinion.
But is marriage a right? Or is it a tradition of union between man and woman?
You may say that married people are allowed to enjoy benefits that unmarried people don’t enjoy, but benefits and rights are different things. Furthermore, because married people may enjoy some benefits that in itself does not qualify marriage as being a ‘right’
The argument is a semantic one at heart. In most people’s eyes the definition of marriage is defined by the history and tradition of marriage. Marriage has traditionally been thought of as a union of man and woman.
This tradition has never been confronted as it is today. True than ancient greeks were open to homosexuality but even then, marriage was and still is considered naturally to be between man and woman.
In lamens terms it can be said that most people believe that no matter how close to friends are (male friends) they are not married. Because obviously marriage is a man-woman, father-mother thing.
Since marriage is a union of man and woman it is by definition impossible for two men to marry. They may play the roles of traditional marriage partners but unless of you is a woman then it’s not ‘marriage’
So you SFNathan have the right to marry as do I. But bear in mind that historically, traditionally and by definition marriage involves a man and a woman.
Only recently has the definition of marriage been challenged, and you can’t redefine a word based on what you may WANT it to mean. It means what it means.
The problem for gays is that the notion of marriage is unquestionably ingrained in people’s minds as a man-woman union.
Though out time if you had just asked someone, “hey, what’s marriage?” they would probably have responded with, “It’s when a man and a woman form an everlasting bond with a big ceremony at a church. (or JOTP)”
Most people feel (as is evidenced in the voting) that the actual definition of marriage is man and woman. To try and get the world as a whole to redefine the word marriage to include gay union is asking reality to bend.
So as men without label you and I have the same rights and restrictions.
@PERK
“Edgar
The people have spoken and now the ball is back in the gay community. It is their burden to convince the American people with any evidence they want that the gay lifestyle is a good, wholesome and acceptable alternative to heterosexual sex.
I’m pretty much with you on this. IMO the “alternative to hetero sex” bit lumps it into choice category, but that’s really insignificant to the master point. ”
You are right it does lump it into the choice category. Some homosexuals often try to prove that it is not a matter of choice.
Fine, fine. I’ll bite.
But is marriage a right? Or is it a tradition of union between man and woman?
You may say that married people are allowed to enjoy benefits that unmarried people don’t enjoy, but benefits and rights are different things. Furthermore, because married people may enjoy some benefits that in itself does not qualify marriage as being a ‘right’
Somewhat immaterial. Benefits are conveyed from rights. I have the right to see the evidence the state has gathered against me at a trial (writ of habeus corpus, unless the state labels me a “terrorist”). This conveys several benefits that in and of themselves are not rights. Does that mean not everyone should enjoy the writ of habeus corpus?
The argument is a semantic one at heart. In most people’s eyes the definition of marriage is defined by the history and tradition of marriage. Marriage has traditionally been thought of as a union of man and woman.
This tradition has never been confronted as it is today. True than ancient greeks were open to homosexuality but even then, marriage was and still is considered naturally to be between man and woman.
Argument from tradition. Fallacy. Discarded. Stop mentioning it.
In lamens terms it can be said that most people believe that no matter how close to friends are (male friends) they are not married. Because obviously marriage is a man-woman, father-mother thing.
Since marriage is a union of man and woman it is by definition impossible for two men to marry. They may play the roles of traditional marriage partners but unless of you is a woman then it’s not ‘marriage’
Argument from ignorance, argument from tradition.
So you SFNathan have the right to marry as do I. But bear in mind that historically, traditionally and by definition marriage involves a man and a woman.
Only recently has the definition of marriage been challenged, and you can’t redefine a word based on what you may WANT it to mean. It means what it means.
Actually, that’s exactly how words get redefined. People decide what they want a word to mean and so it does. Take a broad swathe of car colloquialisms: “rims”, “ride”, “wheels”. A word is defined by its usage, not some leatherbound tome.
The problem for gays is that the notion of marriage is unquestionably ingrained in people’s minds as a man-woman union.
Though out time if you had just asked someone, “hey, what’s marriage?” they would probably have responded with, “It’s when a man and a woman form an everlasting bond with a big ceremony at a church. (or JOTP)”
Once again, hearsay, conjecture, tradition. Not syllogistically acceptable. I’m waiting for the stuff of laws here Edgar, and not simply popular opinion.
Most people feel (as is evidenced in the voting) that the actual definition of marriage is man and woman. To try and get the world as a whole to redefine the word marriage to include gay union is asking reality to bend.
Reality is relative. Truth is completely relative. If I walked up to you 500 years ago and told you that the earth was flat, I would be telling you the truth as I understood it. I’d be telling you the truth, but not a factual statement.
Cultural and societal change is the only constant force throughout history. You can board the train or get run over. It makes little difference in history’s annals.
Somehow in the above comment my divs to quote edgar were removed. Regardless, you can tell who’s who by the tone.
Edgar, I lack the right to marry the person I love.
Your saying that I have a right to marry because I have a right to marry a woman would be like saying “you can get married, but it will only be certified by the government if you do it in a Christian Church” – If people of other faiths want a real marriage (and all the government benefits that go with it), they have to convert to a religion they don’t believe in. That’s what you are asking me to do if I want marriage – convert to be straight, or don’t have the government benefits of marriage. It’s a ridiculous idea – I don’t have a right to a marriage I would want – I’d have to change who I am to get the benefit.
I lack the right to a job in many states if the manager decides he doesn’t want someone gay to work there. The signs you have seen at every place you work at reveal that you work in states that ban discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation. Not all states ban that.
I lack the right to serve in the military without keeping my relationship with my boyfriend a secret. Sure, I have the right to be there, but contingent upon my secrecy. You have the right to serve without having to hide your wife from view of your employment. You have a right to openness that I do not have.
I lack the right if I fell in love with a person from another nation to marry them and live together in the US. You have the right to choose any woman you would like to spend your life with that is from another country and make a life together. I don’t have that right.
One of the fundamental rights we all are supposed to have as Americans is equal protection under the law. So you and I may not have a right to employee benefits provided at work, but we are supposed to have equal benefits under the law. Not all states provide this equal right. You have some rights in some states that I do not.
And while you and I both have a right to live free from violence and harassment, it’s a fact that some people are targeted more frequently for violence and harassment, and special attention of law enforcement and the courts is needed to ensure that these people are not subject to violence and harassment. We all share the same right, but attention needs to be paid to areas where there is a greater problem.
I have to get back to work but I will follow up with more later.
I cant keep up with you guys…
everyone has the same rights under the constitution. If I DECIDE to start ‘loving’ animals, all the above said would be true for me as well.
Should we protect EVERYONES rights as long as it doesnt effect you or I? HMMMMMM, Lets take a look (and I know you guys hate this but bear with me here…)
If I were a pedophile and was ‘in love’ with a 13 year old girl, why should’nt our rights be protected.
And if your going to say ‘because it’s wrong’;then I’ll ask ‘by who’s moral standard?’
And if you say ‘because it hurts the child’; then I’ll ask ‘How? Love is not bad…is it?’
Now I know what your thinking… That would phsycologically warp the girls mind, implying that her sense of love would be distorted. With that would come the notion that love can be TAUGHT!
So…. Why not guys…
(btw it is disgusting to violate children, and this entry is not to support in any way shape or form any indecent acts to children, only to make a point)
No offense SFNATHAN
but the link you have there is weak with very low numbers. I’d make a leap to say the average white middle class working man between 18 and 40 are probably more discriminated against.
Ive read quite a bit here, and I wonder, why you liberals HATE conservatives so much. I dont have the time, but it would be interesting to count the amount of times you have called us names, spouted the word hate like it’s synonomous with conservatives. You guys are bigots, your very hateful, and when someone doesnt agree with your ‘opinion’, you start calling them names! Ridiculous!
Perk. I’ve provided facts to show you how dangerous being gay is. I’ve displayed defintions to remind you that being gay IS perverse. (much like pedophilia) and all you spout is opinion after opinion. Your a lazy debater! Spend some time and show me some credible information that supports your arguments as i have.
SfNathan
“Edgar, I lack the right to marry the person I love. ”
Well I lack the right to marry my cat. That doesnt mean the whole world is against me….it means I am against the whole world! I know it’s unnatural… but we’re in love!! roflmao:
( hope you can take a joke)
@Vsloathe
“A word is defined by its usage, not some leatherbound tome.”
A word is defined by its usage. Let’s think about that. Marriage has been used (usage) to describe a bond between a man and a woman. That IS my point Vsloathe.
“The argument is a semantic one at heart. In most people’s eyes the definition of marriage is defined by the history and tradition of marriage. Marriage has traditionally been thought of as a union of man and woman.
This tradition has never been confronted as it is today. True than ancient greeks were open to homosexuality but even then, marriage was and still is considered naturally to be between man and woman.
Argument from tradition. Fallacy. Discarded. Stop mentioning it.”
First of all arguments from tradition are not trivial or absurd.
Secondly my argument is not from tradition. Marriage means what it has meant all along and still means. Marriage has a history and that history is tradition. You can’t have tradition without history. They are inseperable.
Marriage in itself is a traditional concept and is spoken in a traditional sense. This does not mean that my argument is based on tradition.
What I’m saying is that the word marriage has acquired it’s definition by describing the union between man and woman. That is a fact and it’s also a fact that it’s rooted in tradition.
A word is defined by its usage you say. Well then I agree with you. And marriage has always been used to describe relations between man and woman.
“Since marriage is a union of man and woman it is by definition impossible for two men to marry. They may play the roles of traditional marriage partners but unless of you is a woman then it’s not ‘marriage’
Argument from ignorance, argument from tradition.”
What am I ignorant of?
Marriage is between a man and a woman and always has been and always will be and I’m afraid it’s just that simple.
“Truth is completely relative.”
Was the Earth flat 500 years ago? If not, then it was not true to call the world flat either now or then.
When everyone believed (dems, repubs, europeans, middle east nations, russia, china) that Iraq had WMD was it true?
Did GWB act on the truth at the time? If so then he is to be commended.
The truth is a known known. The truth is not what the popular consensus is necessarily.
The truth is true and if it’s not then it’s not the truth.
@SFNathan
First of all I didn’t read your whole comment yet so forgive me.
I just want to respond to one little thing then I’m done for now. I’ve got to get my promised response together and I’ve been busy as hell. I’m going to work on that tonight.
“Edgar, I lack the right to marry the person I love.
Your saying that I have a right to marry because I have a right to marry a woman would be like saying “you can get married, but it will only be certified by the government if you do it in a Christian Church”
The GOV isn’t restricting you anymore than me though. The gov’t can not give homosexuals the right to get married because it’s impossible. Two men together is not marriage. It’s a definition thing.
A woman may want the right to pee through a penis but she can never be granted that right because it’s impossible.
If the definition of marriage changed then it would only change in a leather bound book. The actual usage of the word and it’s uncontested (until now) implications are what actually defines a word as Vsloathe rightly said.
Regarding religion, church, marriage and forced conversion.
Can’t people get married by a JOTP? That’s secular isn’t it?
nathan
“I lack the right if I fell in love with a person from another nation to marry them and live together in the US. You have the right to choose any woman you would like to spend your life with that is from another country and make a life together. I don’t have that right.”
I lack the same rights if I choose to want a man…
Individually we have the same rights.
@edgar
I had never before realized Nathan’s point of not being able to greencard a lover, by way of marriage, because he is gay, and cannot be married. It’s a good point. Diminishing it through piddly semantics and word play is of no real value. You, being straight, can greencard a foreigner that you fall in love with through the simple act of getting married, in a church or with a justice of the peace. Nathan could not, because he is gay. The importance was “love” not gender, and you know that.
You made some good points in your post about the rights, as two individual men. But those points are only valid when you leave “the pursuit of happiness” out of the conversation, which is a core constitutional right, which all laws are to be built upon. Your happiness is in the form of a woman, Nathan’s is a man. There are certain aspects of law, as Nathan pointed out, that do specifically allow you certain pursuits of happiness, and not him. The foreigner example is a good one.
I can throw something into the pile, that didn’t occur to me before. If morality as dictated by religious institutions, can dictate the legitimacy of marriage to a government, why then can people get married by a Justice of the Peace, without any religion involved?
I am Atheist, and I was married in a church, with the pastor knowing full well that I have ZERO belief in God, and my wife is Agnostic. Why was that accepted by the church? I participated in NONE of the ritual, such as praying, amen, crossing, etc etc etc. Is my marriage invalid?
Homosexuals are denied benefits that you and I enjoy, as do many non-church marriages, which stem from rights they do not have but we do. Yes, they have the right to marry a woman, just like you and me, but that does not contribute to their pursuit of happiness like it does for you and me.
The pedantic argument of “well I also can’t marry a man” doesn’t hold water when measured against the pursuit of happiness. Nor does being pedantic in your argument of both having the same exact rights. Of course you have the same rights, if you live in the same state, and even town mind you, you both have to adhere to the same laws. But those rights, stemming from laws, are not being applied in a just and non-discriminatory manner.
I don’t know what religion you are, but lets just pick Catholic. If 1 day, the government said “all people can practice religion, as long as it is only Judaism”, you would not make the same claim that you and a Jew have the same rights. Of course, you technically do, since after all, you could chose to practice Judaism and not Catholicism.
Oppression is an interesting beast, since the oppressor will often use the null-argument as a pretense to prove a point as being right. Sharing the right to NOT do something is not a right. There is never a law on the books that says white men have the right to not vote. But yet there was no law, for a very long time, giving the right to blacks and women.
@trent
actually in many states you can marry a 13 year old (even younger), with parental permission or emancipation. Your also bringing up extreme examples which are not relevant. There are probably like 5 people in the country that would marry their pet, and maybe 50 who would marry a 13 year old. There are a few million homosexuals. Thats not a statistical anomaly, thats a social group.
All I’m advocating is laws (those things that affect everyone, and not just you) to be based on logic and reason that stands on its own without having to be backed by tradition (not a good enough backing) or the [insert religious text here]. Appeals to tradition or appeals to authority do not hold up in debate. This is the problem with modern debate. Guys like Sean Hannity have convinced you that it’s not necessary to follow any logical or syllogistic rules. You just state your opinion in such a way as to presume its validity as “common sense” and pre-obviate your biases, rather than acknowledging your biases in order to confront them in service of rational debate.
And Trent, would you stop mentioning bestiality and pedophilia? Stick to the topic at hand. If someone was asking to repeal laws strictly forbidding those things, then we could talk about them. Why the fixation? Some people call it the “slippery slope” fallacy. You could also refer to bestiality and pedophilia as straw men, as no one is advocating any changes in laws regarding them.
This is not debate. I have seen very little rhetoric here. I use the word in its classical sense to say “the language of debate”. There are no premises, no assertions, simply opinion after opinion. Make an assertion, cover your bases, and acknowledge that a premise may be flawed every here and again. Or at least acknowledge that you’re not willing to accept the same premises so debate is pointless.
Exemplar: One of my premises is the notion that laws are for everyone, not just you, and that anything that does not harm another human being or damage his property ought to be legal. E.g. my rights end where yours begin. I’ve heard the argument that gays are bad for society. Unfortunately for that argument, I disagree with its conclusions. No homosexual has ever negatively impacted me or my society in any meaningful way, and they’ve been around since the beginning of recorded history. There’s a premise we can’t agree on: that somehow, the existence of gays has a negative impact on YOU. May as well not discuss that one further. It’s pretty hard to give up your biases, few humans can do it. That’s a premise that needs to be deconstructed in order to be properly examined and we would need to figure out where the skew in those statistics are, as anecdotally, I find it highly improbable that gays have a negative impact on society. That’s completely ignoring the human factor as well. I find it unconscionable to treat anyone any differently for something that is far beyond his control – whether genetic, or learned, or what have you.
@ Trent: “I lack the right to marry my cat. That doesn’t mean the whole world is against me… it means I am against the whole world! I know it’s unnatural… but we’re in love!!”
Trent, I appreciate your humor. The idea of you in love with your cat is fucking funny. But really, think for a minute if you were not allowed to marry a woman. Imagine if you were a freed slave in Colonial America who wanted to marry a freed black woman. You were in love with her and she meant the world to you. But in the Colonies, even if you were free, marriage was not your right. Because despite being free from your owner, you still did not have the right to vote, the right to marriage, the right to all the things white citizens enjoyed under the law. Or imagine if you were white and fell in love with a black woman in the early 20th Century. She meant the world to you and you wanted to spend your life with her. But you couldn’t marry her because some people said God didn’t intend the races to intermarry. It was against nature.
People have been using “nature” as a reason to discriminate throughout history. I know that you are a good person and wouldn’t want men and women in the situations I just mentioned to be kept from loving each other. Who really would want to keep them from their love? But then, it really is just a small leap to think of those same people when you think of me and my boyfriend. Trent, I truly love him and want to marry him some day. I love him with all my heart and just want the same happiness you do. He’s not like my cat. He’s the earth and sky to me, just like your wife is (or will be some day) to you.
Is that so much to ask for you to respect that?
Or would you rather I not follow my heart and just have some sham marriage with a woman I feel nothing for? What would you have me do?
@Vsloathe: “Only recently has the definition of marriage been challenged, and you can’t redefine a word based on what you may WANT it to mean. It means what it means.”
@Edgar: “Two men together is not marriage. It’s a definition thing.”
Vsloathe and Edgar, in fact, marriage has been redefined constantly throughout the ages and in America. Part of the challenge of the gay community is to remind people to read their history on this subject. Here are some of the ways marriage has been traditionally redefined over the centuries:
1. Ancient Greece – with marriage, women became the legal property of men along with slaves. Marriage was a property contract. There are many accounts in ancient Greek texts of violence, rape and torture of women who did not obey their husbands, and wives had no recourse. This isn’t to say that there weren’t loving marriages, but the institution of marriage was a property arrangement akin to slavery, not a romantic institution like it is today.
2. Ancient Rome – women could divorce their husbands, but only if the father of the bride gave permission for the divorce, and the father retained legal rights over the daughter. Women were the property of either their husband or their father. Again, the institution of marriage was a property contract between two families that looked nothing like our romantic concept of marriage today.
3. Medieval Same Sex Marriage between Men – Historian John Boswell was the first scholar to document the fact that when Ancient Greece became Christianized, the early Christian Church incorporated gay male relationships into Christianity with church officiated same sex marriages. This tradition (found in images, literature, and many documents from this period) shows that these marriages, ordained in the Eastern Church, lasted for several centuries until the Western Church banned them and destroyed most documents related to the marriages. This proves that Christian marriage was not always an institution between men and women, but for centuries, included same sex couples.
4.19th Century Romantic Marriage – With the rise of the industrial revolution and changes in people’s lifestyles, marriage was again redefined from a contract between two families into a contract between two people that enshrined the ideal of “true love”.
5. American Colonial Ban on Marriage between Slaves. It is important to note that at one time, marriage was BY DEFINITION, not something afforded to black people in America. Slaves were considered property, and not people, and so how could you apply the traditional term used for citizens with legal rights to slaves who were property?
6. 1890 Utah Mormons officially renounce Polygamy. Another aspect of the Christian tradition of marriage was the Mormon tradition of polygamy.
7. 1948 Supreme Court overturns Interracial Marriage ban – ending centuries of tradition.
8. 1965 US Supreme Court overturns an Alabama law banning married couples from using contraception – marriage is deemed no longer about having children. This was fought by those who argued that marriage has traditionally been only about having children, a same argument used against gay marriage today.
9. 1969 Divorce – California adopted the first “no fault divorce” law in the nation.
10. Article 16 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Marriage is included in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a basic Human Right. The right does not define marriage as between a man and a woman, but says that all persons of age have the right to marriage.
My Point: Traditional marriage has evolved constantly over the centuries, sometimes including same sex marriage, and sometimes including traditions we would never want to return to, such as excluding black people from legal marriage. The real question is – what is the right marriage policy? Why should some people be allowed to be married and why should some people be excluded from marriage?
My answer – if two consenting adults want to marry, let them.
Here are some source materials for the above:
Eva C. Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus, Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens, 1985, University of California Press.
Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian, 1991, Oxford University Press
John Boswell, Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. 1994 Villard Books.
History of Civil Marriage in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race-based_legal_restrictions_on_marriage
Anti-Miscegenation laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race-based_legal_restrictions_on_marriage
UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, Article 16: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
sorry – wrong link for History of Civil Marriage in the US. Here’s the right link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_civil_marriage_in_the_U.S.
@Donkey
“You, being straight, can greencard a foreigner that you fall in love with through the simple act of getting married, in a church or with a justice of the peace. Nathan could not, because he is gay”
Only if I choose to fall in love with a woman, or at least just want to bang her bad enough to marry her lol..
I couldn’t greencard a male lover either gay or not.
That is, I couldn’t greencard a male lover whether I’m gay or not.
@ Green Card
Edgar, Come on guy – I’m being honest with you in this discussion and laying out lots of factual detail, but I’m getting the impression that you aren’t being honest with me.
Do you really think you should have the right to fall in love with someone from another country and be able to spend your life with her, but I shouldn’t have the right to fall in love with the person of my choice (a man) and spend my life with him?
If nothing else, be honest and admit that you have a right (attached to your love, not gender) that I don’t have.
Donkey
“You made some good points in your post about the rights, as two individual men. But those points are only valid when you leave “the pursuit of happiness” out of the conversation, which is a core constitutional right, which all laws are to be built upon.”
As individuals we, nathan and I, both wake up everyday as male citizens of the USA. My rights are no less or more than his according to the constitution.
We both have the same options and same restrictions in our mutual pursuit of happiness.
@Nathan
I’m am honestly being honest. You and I were born unto the world the way it is. You and I both get up everyday and make decisions. You and I both enjoy the protection of the same rights, after all, we both live in the same land under the same law and we are equals.
“Do you really think you should have the right to fall in love with someone from another country and be able to spend your life with her, but I shouldn’t have the right to fall in love with the person of my choice (a man) and spend my life with him?”
You can fall in love with someone from another country and spend your life with that person.
So can I.
You can’t greencard a same sex person in the name of marriage but, neither can I.
Nathan, what if tomorrow I suddenly said, “Ah, woman are BITCHES!!! That’s it!! I’m going for a walk on the wild side…”
Then perhaps I would be in your position but what has changed? Not the law. I would then, and am now as you are protected and restricted by the law of the land.
We as individuals have the same rights.
Edgar, my job is not to convince you, but just to explain to you. It’s for you to really look in your heart and think about it.
I will just say that my love for my boyfriend and my desire to marry him is as valid as your love for your wife (or your wife some day). Also, if you read my post to you and VSloathe above, marriage is not defined in stone. In fact, it’s been constantly evolving.
I think I’ve laid out my case, and if you can’t accept it now, I hope in time you do.
Donkey
“But those rights, stemming from laws, are not being applied in a just and non-discriminatory manner”
According to locke and jefferson we are born with rights and the gov’t does not give them to us. Laws don’t give us rights, we have rights that are inalienable.
That’s the framework the constitution was built around.
You have the right to have sex with other men but the majority also has the right to not embrace that idea.
Many homosexuals go straight (it’s all in my report which is coming along nicely) and find happiness in more normal behavior. Many homosexuals go straight.
@Vsloathe
“You could also refer to bestiality and pedophilia as straw men, as no one is advocating any changes in laws regarding them.”
What about NAMBLA?
“If I were a pedophile and was ‘in love’ with a 13 year old girl, why should’nt our rights be protected. And if your going to say ‘because it’s wrong’;then I’ll ask ‘by who’s moral standard?’
And if you say ‘because it hurts the child’; then I’ll ask ‘How? Love is not bad…is it?’
Completely different argument. What you describe is not a mutually consensual situation and describes a predator/prey scenario, not anything at all like what is being described of consensual gay relationships.
Perk. I’ve provided facts to show you how dangerous being gay is. I’ve displayed defintions to remind you that being gay IS perverse. (much like pedophilia) and all you spout is opinion after opinion.
Precious few of your statements carry even a fleeting relationship to facts, and your notion of perversion is based on your own value structure, not some kind of universal truth. Just because a lot of people feel the same does not make it true. We’ve dispensed with the flat earth notion, it’s time to move forward here as well. It is gigantically important for you to realize that the moral laws and guidelines I follow have nothing to do with your bible at all … your moral structure has no jurisdiction on me and because we are a nation of LAWS not RELIGION it is neither appropriate or Constitutional for your beliefs to form structures that inhibit my freedoms.
In the case of Proposition 8, it’s not that they were passing a law saying that everyone must now embrace homosexuality, it specifically BANS a freedom from homosexual people. You really need to get you arms around this: This isn’t some new thing freedom or right or privilege they passed – it was written specifically to countermand the freedom for gay people to marry in California. It is a law specifically prescribing discrimination.
And at pedophilia and bestiality: knock it off. If I was associating you with Hitler and the gas chambers of Aushwitz and Mauthausen you’d be screaming your head off. If I associate you with Vlad the Impaler or Charles Manson you’d laugh at my extremism. Yet I can make an excellent case for all 3 of these comparisons, if need be. But they really are over the top and inapplicable, just as your associations are.
When everyone believed (dems, repubs, europeans, middle east nations, russia, china) that Iraq had WMD was it true? Did GWB act on the truth at the time? If so then he is to be commended.
Wrong thread for this, but GWB had PLENTY people yammering at him to wait simply until the international commission had confirmed or denied the data. He shot his wad early because the real motivation was not WMD, as we have come to find out. But all that for another topic, let’s not pollute this thread.
The GOV isn’t restricting you anymore than me though. The gov’t can not give homosexuals the right to get married because it’s impossible. Two men together is not marriage. It’s a definition thing.
You’re right: it’s a definition thing. And by definition, YOU don’t see marriage between 2 men as valid. Bravo. But I do. And so do a great many others. And the great thing about this country is that we don’t need to agree to live in the same space. But the essential notion of liberty is that yours ends where mine beginsa and the discriminatory legislation that is being passed goes directly against that fundamental American value. It is un-patriotic and contrary to everything we stand for.
@NAMBLA
Edgar, we could paint heterosexuals as the people who are responsible for the sexual slave trade of women and girls, an almost exclusively heterosexual international problem and that would be about as fair as you saying homosexuality is synonymous with NAMBLA.
Also, my post above on the history of marriage was just now approved by the moderator – it had info for Edgar and Vsloathe…
Perk
“Just because a lot of people feel the same does not make it true. ”
Vsloathe
“Truth is completely relative. If I walked up to you 500 years ago and told you that the earth was flat, I would be telling you the truth”
You guys are ALL GAY and I predict nathan will marry a beautiful woman soon.
I’m outta here and I’m not coming back until my post is finished.
I swear, if instead of commenting here I would have just worked on my comprehensive response it would have been finished already.
BTW Perk, you are wrong about truth and so am I apparently. Just ask Vsloathe and he’ll explain it to you.
LMAO!!!!!
“You guys are ALL GAY and I predict nathan will marry a beautiful woman soon.”
Edgar,
Why should I read another word you have to say if this is the level of dialogue you want to have?
Guys, we’re at over 100 comments now and Edgar still hasn’t put up his masterpiece of why gay people are terrible human beings, and he still can’t be respectful in this dialogue.
Maybe it’s time to close this thread.
@ Approved: SFNat’es post had too many links and got tagged requiring approval, so it stayed hidden until I got here to approve it tonight. It is #94 and very much worth reading.
@ SFNate & Close Thread – as much as it pains me to say it, I think he was just trying to inject some levity here, I don’t think that should be taken seriously. Given how deeply you have given to this thread I completely understand, but that may be a DrinkAndPost result…
Alright Perk – if you say so, I’ll cut him some slack on this one.
You guys have to remember – this whole conversation is directed towards me as a gay man and it’s hard not to take some of this personally. But, I’m trying to stay in this conversation because I think conversations like this are important.
Your continued presence here, particularly in the face of people that would call you names and discount/trivialize/marginalize or simply despise your existence is a gift and I REALLY appreciate you being willing to continue.
It is hard for me as well not to get personal because I have a gay brother, and I get right to the edge of wanting to be quite aggressive with my words. Quite aggressive indeed.
Thanks again, SFNathan.
“Completely different argument. What you describe is not a mutually consensual situation and describes a predator/prey scenario, not anything at all like what is being described of consensual gay relationships”
I didnt say rape. I’m speaking of a consensual relationship between 1 13 yo girl and an adult who both are ‘in love’.
Same situation.
SFnathan
“If nothing else, be honest and admit that you have a right (attached to your love, not gender) that I don’t have.”
I dont have that right either. Nor do I want that right.
wow. there are a lot of posts here. it’s going to take me a bit to catch up.
I didnt say rape. I’m speaking of a consensual relationship between 1 13 yo girl and an adult who both are ‘in love’. Same situation.
Bullshit. Children cannot make that decision, it’s not consensual. You obviously have no children. Persisting along this line will neither be good for the thread or your posts.
I dont have that right either. Nor do I want that right.
I don’t choose to exercise my right to suicide, but it is important that I have it. Your desires, yet again, have nothing to do with how we legislate on OTHERS. This is not about you. It’s about how we stay a nation based on freedom and not oppression.
SFNathan:
“@Vsloathe: “Only recently has the definition of marriage been challenged, and you can’t redefine a word based on what you may WANT it to mean. It means what it means.””
You replied to this assuming I said it. As noted in my comment below that one, I was quoting Edgar.
I’m probably something of a civil libertarian as the rights of individuals go. If civil libertarianism supported labor unions, that is what I would be. Since it doesn’t, there is no political classification into which I fit.
But believe you me, I think the “one man, one woman” argument from tradition and authority is complete and utter bunk. If you and another man want a committed, monogamous, lifelong relationship then you ought to be afforded that right.
“@Vsloathe
“You could also refer to bestiality and pedophilia as straw men, as no one is advocating any changes in laws regarding them.”
What about NAMBLA?”
Someone always brings that up. Are we arguing in support for NAMBLA? I’m sorry, I must have missed that part. I assure you Edgar, it’s not part of my argument. This is exactly the straw man I’m talking about. It’s not worth wasting the time it takes me to type these responses if you can’t stick to addressing the argument about 2 committed, monogamous adults who happen to be homosexual. It’s central to the argument for marriage. Do you honestly think NAMBLA enters into the equation? Be reasonable. For one thing, we are talking about two people who are of age to be *married*. I’m straight and am forbidden by law to marry a 12 year old girl. It doesn’t factor into this particular equation.
@Vsloathe “But believe you me, I think the “one man, one woman” argument from tradition and authority is complete and utter bunk.”
I appreciate your thoughtful outlook on this.
The reason I wanted to direct your attention in my post #94 (which I hope you had a chance to read fully – I put a lot of work into it), is that whether you support my right to same sex marriage or whether some people oppose it, many people on both sides of the argument refer to traditional marriage as if it’s a fixed concept that either gay people have to accept (if you oppose gay marriage) or have to transcend (if you support gay marriage). My reason for post #94 was to show in factual detail that marriage has been redefined throughout its history and doesn’t have a fixed definition.
@Nathan #94
excellent! That’s the core issue at hand, but unfortunately, can be dismissed with the simple wave of the bible if someone chooses to do so.
It is interesting to see in historical context the looseness of the definition of marriage, and how it morphs constantly. Of course another argument can be used of “this is america not ancient greece” and “who cares what the UN says”. Those of course are head in sand arguments, but nevertheless, like a strawman argument you can never actually convince the opposition that the argument is null and void.
I think 1 problem in general is the desire to tie a religious context of marriage to legal context of marriage. I have a feeling that at least Edgar could give 2 shits if you got “legally joined” to another man, and got the property rights, tax beni’s and such. As long as you don’t call it marriage, am i right edgar? But of course that doesnt account for the people who just want you to disappear/die/go-straight, which i really do think is a small percentage, but still unacceptably large.
Your historical points are just like any other argument for change. Blacks were not human, legally in the US, until abolition. It was illegal to be a communist, until only a few decades ago, yet they still ask in a citizenship QandA (my mom recently became a citizen, and she was asked if she was or knew any communists or terrorists, LOL). It was illegal to drink, it was illegal to look at porn, blah blah blah. There is always a loud minority that will fight against change.
but unfortunately, can be dismissed with the simple wave of the bible if someone chooses to do so.
This, to me, is the real core of the problem: religion. We’ve moved to a place where people are comfortable saying we have a “Christian Nation” and that loon in Utah is actually trying to pass legislators to ENCOURAGE the use of Merry Christmas over Happy Holidays. Not that I give two shits what anyone says, but the steady eroding of religious freedom in our country (or freedom FROM religion) scares the hell out of me.
I ams still looking forward to ANY argument that asserts why biblical belief (in all it’s wacky incarnations) should be given the tiniest precedence over my civil liberties.
I spent hours today working on my argument that I had previously mentioned. Instead of a bunch of shoot from the hip, back and forth bull shit, I’m going to provide many references and even include those provided by gay rights groups.
@SFNathan
“My reason for post #94 was to show in factual detail that marriage has been redefined throughout its history and doesn’t have a fixed definition.”
As the liberals have said, “argument from tradition -disgarded!”
Nathan you will not be disappointed with my more formal argument and YES it’s coming.
BTW – Relax nathan about the comment I made earlier about everyone being gay and you finding a woman. Being hypersensitive is not good for sound judgement.
NAMBLA = Homosexual predators…shall we all visit the NAMBLA site?
@ Edgar: it’s easy to say “Don’t be hypersensitive” when the issue is not about you. He cut you slack and backed off, you’d also do well not to push that advantage.
The issue is also about me perk. This is a gay/straight issue and I’m the straight guy.
It’s also about me because I’ve been labeled ignorant and cowardly for having the nerve to base my arguments on fear, phobia and lack of knowledge.
It was a joke…what, I can’t make jokes? It’s not politically correct? This PC stuff is just off the wall…but that’s why I love you guys!
You guys are like intelligent loons…weird.
Working on my post…later.
Uh huh.
@perk
“Your continued presence here, particularly in the face of people that would call you names and discount/trivialize/marginalize or simply despise your existence is a gift”
You MUST be talking to me…. roflmao:
“Bullshit. Children cannot make that decision, it’s not consensual.”
Thats obvious perk. I’m making a point. ‘Children not being able to make that decision’ is an opinion. Some are able to make adult decisions earlier than others.
My point here is that pedophila is closly related to homosexualtiy. I know that statement burns, but it’s not out of hatred. It’s out of facts!
-a recent study in demography estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 per cent
-a significant percentage of child sexual abuse victims are boys
-The American Psychiatric Association removed pedophilia from its list of sexual perversions in 1994
-while homosexual men make up less than three per cent of the adult male population, they commit a disproportionate number (one third or more) of child sexual molestations
Canada Family Action head Brian Rushfeldt says “Do you treat the cocaine addict the same way you treat the alcoholic? If a priest abuses young boys, that’s a homosexual act, and we have to recognize it as such if we want to help him.”
A HOMOSEXUAL act
It’s VERY closely related.
Now… umbrellaed under your arguments for civil rights, pedophiles should be covered.
YOUR making THERE arguments FOR them! Not me.
“Precious few of your statements carry even a fleeting relationship to facts, and your notion of perversion is based on your own value structure, not some kind of universal truth”
“Precious few of your statements carry even a fleeting relationship to facts, and your notion of perversion is based on your own value structure, not some kind of universal truth. Just because a lot of people feel the same does not make it true”
WOW. I didn’t even have to ask you to make my arguments…you did it all on your own! And here I thought you beleived in relative morality!
How DO you know right from wrong perk…Do you just… go with the flow? Whatever everybody else seems to think, you’ll follow along? Or do you have some universal truth in wich you follow?
You bring religeon into so much perk. But the fact is homosexuality is dangerous. Dangerous to our community, and dangerous to our children.
We should not legisltate for such dangers to our society. Thats why California, Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas has voted against gay marriges.
The people have spoken! Thats the way it works isn’t it perk. The people get to decide whats best for our country! Or do you think we should change that too, until it fits YOUR ideals?
Heres some links I got information from.
http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyHomosexualAbuse.htm
“Precious few of your statements carry even a fleeting relationship to facts”
Where are your facts perk…. :popcorn:
Please note that I have succesfully linked pedophelia AND HIV transmission to homosexuality.
@sfnathan
“marriage has been redefined constantly throughout the ages and in America”
Suggesting and or implying that the homosexuals are trying to redifine it today… our point exactly!!
“The right does not define marriage as between a man and a woman, but says that all persons of age have the right to marriage”
huh…all ages huh!?
no, all persons of age.
Are you dyslexic Trent (not meant as an insult, I’m genuinely curious as I have several friends who have to deal with dyslexia)?
I r dyslexic, as I have stated previously, and I didn’t even read that line wrong. seems a tad intentionally misstated, considering the other ridiculous statements like “succesfully linked pedophelia AND HIV transmission to homosexuality.”
by trent that is.
“Please note that I have succesfully linked pedophelia AND HIV transmission to homosexuality.”
Trent, please note that pedophilia is more often a heterosexual problem than a homosexual problem. And also, please note that there are more heterosexuals with HIV in the world (because of the number of cases in Africa) than there are homosexual cases.
“The right does not define marriage as between a man and a woman, but says that all persons of age have the right to marriage” – “huh…all ages huh!?”
Trent, of age means that they must be “of legal age”. That’s the whole point. The United Nations declared that marriage is a human right for people, as long as they are adults (but they didn’t specify marriage as being between a man and a woman).
“marriage has been redefined constantly throughout the ages and in America” – “Suggesting and or implying that the homosexuals are trying to redifine it today… our point exactly!!”
Trent, you cherry-pick your listening to avoid the obvious. My point is that IF you consider two people of the same sex getting married to be a complete redefinition of marriage, then redefinitions like this have been happening throughout history. (did you read even a sentence of what I wrote in that long post #94?)
Trent, I also wrote you a specific question in post #93 and I still haven’t heard any response from you. Do you have anything to say to that? Or are you just going to run around and scream “pedophile” and “AIDS”?
“Relax nathan about the comment I made earlier about everyone being gay and you finding a woman…”
my apologies Edgar – when re-reading your post it’s pretty obvious that it was meant as humor.
“Please note that I have succesfully linked pedophelia AND HIV transmission to homosexuality.”
You’ve done nothing of the sort, because it cannot be done.
This is your second warning. Stop with this line. It is equivalent to me attaching you to Nazis. I’m telling you. Stop it.
SFnathan
“Trent, please note that pedophilia is more often a heterosexual problem than a homosexual problem. And also, please note that there are more heterosexuals with HIV in the world (because of the number of cases in Africa) than there are homosexual cases”
No. pedophila is more of a homosexual problem as you can see with my links.
Also remember there are more heterosexuals in the ‘world’, Africa and Haiti mostly, becasue it has been festering there for over 100 years. There has only been a homosexual surge in the us since the 60′s. ironicly the same time as the begginig of the hiv infection (first diagnosed in 5 homosexuals in L.A. in 1981) and also the beggining of the pedophelia surge(preists ect..). I dont suppose you think this might have to do with the ‘sexual revoloution’.
Bill Clinton said it best, ‘If you think the 60′s was good for the country, your probably a democrat. If you think the 60′s was bad for the country, your probably a republican.’
You’d have to completly ignore the changes to the U.S. both morally and statistically to think it was good.
(yes. 130 was a misread error. Thats why i questioned it. my apologies)
“This is your second warning. Stop with this line. It is equivalent to me attaching you to Nazis. I’m telling you. Stop it”
unless you can make statistical links like i have perk, then your spouting off more opinion. Show me some numbers, show me some facts, stop being so lazy. I have provided the links…try reading them. You might learn something.
Trent, pedophilia is irrelevant to the discussion. I think that’s the finer point you miss. SFNathan and gay men like him have no interest in little boys. Are there gay men who do? I’m sure, as is evidenced by NAMBLA. But there’s a distinction in that no one’s talking about MAKING ANY LAWS here. Things that are already illegal for good reason, like pedophilia, we are all for keeping them illegal! No one’s even talking about making a law that makes it legal to be gay, we’re talking about repealing laws that you “small government” conservatives have decided are necessary.
By the way, the notion of small government conservatism cracks me up. You guys seem to think government should be strictly limited to the powers enumerated in the constitution, which includes banning abortion and gay marriage. NEW LAWS STRENGTHEN AND EXPAND THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT. ALWAYS. YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. Oh and Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
Sorry I had to put it so bluntly.
Trent, you still haven’t answered my post #93, specific question to you.
And I just read through your posts and don’t see the links you want me to read about pedophilia. What links are you talking about?
And the CDC statistics you site are common knowledge. 53% of 2006 US AIDS cases were gay males, 31% heterosexual. If you factor in Africa, the numbers shift dramatically towards it being globally a heterosexual disease. The point you and Edgar were trying to make was that AIDS is a gay plague, which is clearly untrue. It’s a disease that has impacted more straight people than gay people (and choosing to imagine a tragedy like this in religious terms is 100% rooted in your own belief and not fact).
Re-post of my specific question for Trent:
Trent, Think for a minute if you were not allowed to marry a woman. Imagine if you were white and fell in love with a black woman in the early 20th Century. She meant the world to you and you wanted to spend your life with her. But you couldn’t marry her because some people said God didn’t intend the races to intermarry. It was against nature.
It really is just a small leap to think of me and my boyfriend in this situation. Trent, I truly love him and want to marry him some day. I love him with all my heart and just want the same happiness you do. He’s the earth and sky to me, just like your wife is (or will be some day) to you.
Is it so much to ask for you to respect that?
Or would you rather I not follow my heart and just have some sham marriage with a woman I feel nothing for? What would you have me do?
And one more question – if you want gays to not be promiscuous, wouldn’t it be better to let us marry?
No. pedophila is more of a homosexual problem as you can see with my links. Unless you can make statistical links like i have perk, then your spouting off more opinion. Show me some numbers, show me some facts, stop being so lazy. I have provided the links…try reading them. You might learn something.
Last warning Trent. As VSloathe eloquently placed it, this is not about making laws against something that is ALEADY ILLEGAL. It is not about making NAMBLA anything other than the stain and vulgarity that it is. It is not even about homosexual SEX except that sex is involved in any healthy marriage. This is NOT ABOUT the sick fascination old men have about young boys on ANY SENSE AT ALL. And tying pedophila to healthy gay men is like tying YOU to being a child molester.
It is about the pre-existing right (particularly in California) for men OF AGE to be married and have the same rights and privileges that other married people do. Equating this to pedophilia is like equating you to the keepers of the showers in Germany, circa 1940. Your bigotry, however ugly, cannot reasonably be extrapolated into a desire to kill jews because of their religion. They are different things – can you see this? So marriage between two consensual, adult males cannot be extrapolated into a predator preying on young people. PERIOD. Get that straight.
There is, however, a case to be made that people like you are the genesis of the ugliness that swept Germany in the 40s – left unchecked, bigotry, ignorance and self-righteous fervor have a tendency to become an ugly mob.
So stop it. This is not a point that will continue to be debated here.
You bring religeon into so much perk. But the fact is homosexuality is dangerous. Dangerous to our community, and dangerous to our children. We should not legisltate for such dangers to our society. Thats why California, Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas has voted against gay marriges.
I do not bring religion into it. The tenants of your religion, or even your statements that SEEM to impulse from the bible are either religious, or ignorant bigotry or both. The only people that come from either religion or biblical fundamentalism are you and Edgar.
Homosexuality is “dangerous?” So was Tom Sawyer. We got over that. So was interracial marriage, we got over that. Women having the vote would kill our country. The Russian communists were going to come here and ruin our country, then the Koreans, then the Vietnamese. The world is flat and we’re at the center of the universe. Thalidomide is a wonder drug. Radiation is good for you. Alternative sexual activities between husband and wife were “against natural law” and were illegal in many states even up to a decade ago.
The real danger here is allowing opinions like yours – backed up by connecting dots that have no business being connected – to run amok and create the kind of panicky irrationality that you exhibit when you say things like that.
@SFNATHAN
“And the CDC statistics you site are common knowledge. 53% of 2006 US AIDS cases were gay males, 31% heterosexual. If you factor in Africa, the numbers shift dramatically towards it being globally a heterosexual disease”
Not necessarily true nathan. One of the main reasons aids has spread to the heterosexual community in africa is the fact that they have poor health facilities. That’s a big factor..
In the US our health facilities are in a much better way and so spread of HIV is squelched in that regard.
So implying that heterosexual sex is responsible for the spread of aids in africa is merely selective reading of the statistics and doesn’t take into account the real reason. Poor health facilities.
That’s why GWB sent more money to africa than anyone else ever!
Ah…I love Uncle George!!
Nathan, please hang in there for me as I’m REALLY working hard on my argument against gay marriage. It’s taking me a while because I’m really trying to gather tons of references.
Wow, what a pain in the ass actually. I feel like I’m writing a wiki page lol…
@Trent – Vsloathe – Pedophelia
I think what trent is trying to do is show a slippery slope argument. He is not saying that you liberals are advocates for pedophilia.
The facts are that most of the pedophile cases are heterosexual ones however that is because 99% of society is heterosexual.
The minute segment that identifies itself as gay is responsible for a disproportionate amount of child abuse.
I think what trent is trying to do is show a slippery slope argument.
Exactly. The slippery slope argument is very effective, because it also describes how ignorant bigotry can slip into “raping women is OK because they asked for it,” hanging niggers is OK when they’re uppity, dragging fags behind a pickup is a good thing because they’re an abomination of nature and burning jews because they are the root of all evil and have forsaken god is blessed by our Bible. Those damn slopes can be so slippery.
We’re not going there. I’m going to wager that both you, Edgar, and Trent are equally disgusted and abhorrent of child molestation – and I’d ask you to consider that just because one’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity isn’t the same as yours, does not mean that they’d not find that sort of behavior equally repugnant.
What you’re saying is that my brother, SFNathan and literally thousands of other people that I know are just a choice away from going from healthy, normal component of our community to predatory criminal. It’s inaccurate, ignorant, hurtful and will not fly here. We are free to debate the real issue, but we’re not going to even go close to Gays are Pedophiles In Waiting. Period.
“The minute segment that identifies itself as gay is responsible for a disproportionate amount of child abuse.”
Do you disagree with that?
Edgar, Men are disproportionately sexual abusers, not just gay men.
You have no point there because all men are largely responsible for most child abuse (not to mention rape and the adult sexual slave trade of women, which are disproportionately a heterosexual, male problem) – are you going to say that every man on this chat is responsible for pedophilia, rape, the sexual slave trade and all other acts of sexual exploitation that are largely a problem of men?
Perk is right – we all agree here that pedophilia is wrong, it’s already crime and we all agree it’s reprehensible.
Let’s discuss over something we really disagree upon, like same-sex marriage.
Rape, incest and pedophilia are all acts of aggression, control and anger. Homosexuality is neither a prerequisite or a precursor to any of those behaviors. A predatory personality may also be gay, but this is not causal, as has been proven since research really got going into sexually aggressive behaviors in the late 60s.
Predation needs to be seen from it’s own perspective – not twisted into a cause/effect relationship as you and Trent have endeavored to do, and is why I will not truck disrespectful discussion of it. You have not addressed my assertion: Are you, in fact, saying that my brother, SFNathan, and the hundreds (literally) of gay men I know are just a simple choice away from being predatory child molesters?
(Hey SFN, sorry, you got that in just as I was posting – I was talking to Edgar)
Perk, you are absolutely right on post 146 – we all agree here that pedophilia is wrong, it’s already crime and we all agree it’s reprehensible.
But why don’t we discuss something we really disagree upon, like same-sex marriage. I’m over this tangent – this is a straw man that is wasting your and my time.
You’re right SFN, but the line of thinking cuts personally and essentially assaults my family and friends. It is a difficult one for me not to get personal and emotional about.
But you are right. And I need to return to my core value here, which is that this is a topic non grata and we should be discussing the real issue.
I know Perk – it’s a real struggle to not react with emotion about this. Thanks for having this discussion – it’s important.
@SFNathan
“You have no point there because all men are largely responsible for most child abuse (not to mention rape and the adult sexual slave trade of women, which are disproportionately a heterosexual, male problem) – are you going to say that every man on this chat is responsible for pedophilia, rape, the sexual slave trade and all other acts of sexual exploitation that are largely a problem of men?
No of course I wouldn’t you or perk or donkey or sloathe are pedophiles or anything at all like that, unless I had a specific reason which I don’t.
Nothing I say here about homosexuals or their supporters should be taken personally. That goes for everyone. I really am arguing the issue and not the person. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I enjoy our debates food fights aside.
You asked me what I’m saying? It’s a simple fact that I stated.
““The minute segment that identifies itself as gay is responsible for a disproportionate amount of child abuse.”
Do you disagree with that?”
There are no implications or inferences nor is there any innuendo implied. It’s just a simple fact that I found at the cdc.
That fact states that among all men, homosexual men as a demographic are disproportionately responsible for child molestations.
What makes that so stunning is the fact that the gay community only account for 1.5% of the population or so.
Interesting thought: Look at all the priests who have molested all those young boys. Did you hear of any priests molesting young girls?
I haven’t but I haven’t looked into it either. But I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of the cases were young boys…if not ALL of the cases.
Yes Nathan I agree that more men are pedophiles than woman are and it can be thought of in that sense. So I agree with your perspective there.
But it’s also true that we could break this down further and ask, “among all men, which groups of men are more prone to child molestation” at which point we would define the groups that men could be classified in ie, ‘white collar, blue collar, poor, rich, gay, straight etc…
Studies from the cdc and san fransisco aids foundation as well as gay health, show that even though the gay pop is under 3% at most, they commit a disproportionate acts of child molestation.
Please don’t misconstrue this as an attack on you, and please don’t disregard this as hate speech. These are the numbers as recorded by a multitude of legit organizations, like the cdc, sfaf…
See, if the numbers were different, say if the gay population in this country was at %50 then the numbers would make sense. It wouldn’t be more of a gay problem or a straight problem. But the gay pop is under %3 percent at best.
So if this is true then you cannot simply dismiss the idea that there is a link between homosexual behavior and pedophelia. It’s too harsh to judge that proposition as absurd when the statistics clearly show that it ought to be given serious thought.
I forgot to comment on this Trent:
Heres some links I got information from.
http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyHomosexualAbuse.htm
You’d quote a “staff writer” at the interim and a site that up front CLAIMS TO BE questioning moral turpitude today as facts?!?!?! Hang on, I’ll start quoting Wikipedia and some really cool blogs I know of. I can find a site that will support anything I want to say, cowboy. Anything I want to say.
@Perk
“Are you, in fact, saying that my brother, SFNathan, and the hundreds (literally) of gay men I know are just a simple choice away from being predatory child molesters?”
Did I say that? Where? Now that you bring it up I will say that they are in fact a simple choice away from that as are we all. Anybody could wake up tomorrow and make that choice I suppose, theoretically. It’s possible so yes. I don’t see how that would help my argument or yours though?
The underlying causes of homosexuality and pedophilia may be linked at some points.The way the homosexual mind works may be similar in ways to the way the pedophiles mind works as is supported by my comment above regarding the disproportionate acts of child molestation from the gay community.
Edgar, are you quoting the Center for Disease Control? I cannot find anything that supports your fact there, however I’d wager that if anything, it shows that a disproportionate amount of pedophiles are gay, not that a disproportionate amount of gay men are pedophiles. This is a vital distinction.
In any case, the articles at the CDC that I find all reference pedophilia in the context of disease and disorder. For example:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/anniversary/abuse-transcript.htm
and
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/pdf/ti-civil.pdf
However the best explanation document that I’ve found yet to address your misguided notion is a paper by Dr. Greg Herrek, a professor at UC Davis: Facts about Homosexuality and Child Molestation. Here are some interesting clips, but I recommend that you read it yourself.
By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.
Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow gay people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 54% in 2005, compared to 27% in 1977.
From there Dr. Herrek goes on to describe, in excellent detail, the problems with your assertion and the scientific data you desperately need to slide out from under the oppressive thumb of bigotry. Dr. Herrek’s blog is also excellent: Beyond Homophobia.com.
Did I say that? Where? Now that you bring it up I will say that they are in fact a simple choice away from that as are we all. Anybody could wake up tomorrow and make that choice I suppose, theoretically. It’s possible so yes.
Fair enough, and I agree: we are all a choice away from the ACTION of child molestation, but the vast majority of us are a whole psychosis away from pedophilia, there’s a pretty big difference there.
Much like the the majority of heterosexual men are only a choice away from playing with bi-curiousity (and an even larger majority are plenty happy to have their WOMEN be bi-curious…), but biologically not gay. There’s a huge difference here as well.
I’m glad we’re starting to clear this up.
@Perk
“if anything, it shows that a disproportionate amount of pedophiles are gay, not that a disproportionate amount of gay men are pedophiles. This is a vital distinction.”
So you agree that the act of child molestation falls disproportionately within the gay community?
Almost half of child molestations committed by little more than %1.5 of the population is disproportionate indeed.
Does this data suggest that it is completely absurd to entertain even the notion that there could be a link between that %1.5 of the population and pedophelia?
Let me ask this another way by inventing some statistics.
Let’s say that burglary is a problem in the US and every year 100,000 homes are burglarized by men.
Now let’s say that %1.5 of Americans are crack addicts and they are responsible for 50,000 burglaries a year, even though they only make up %1.5 of the population.
1. Do you think, based on this invented data, it is fair to argue that crack and crime are somehow linked? Or would that notion simply be rooted in bigotry toward crack addicts?
2. Do you think based on that data that it is absurd to conclude that crack leads to crime?
I’m not associating crack users to homosexuals.
Example #2
Suppose 100,000 people die from lung cancer every year in the USA.
Almost half of them are smokers.
Smokers comprise %1.5 of the population.
3. Would it be fair to argue that smoking and lung cancer are somehow connected?
I’m not comparing homosexuals to smokers. What I’m doing is substituting variables but keeping the numbers the same to show that it is not absurd to link crack with crime (in my invented example), smoking with lung cancer (ditto) and homosexuality with pedophelia.
In my examples above I changed only the demographics and not the numbers or the conclusions. In other words the equation stayed the same.
Edgar, I appreciate your thoughtful approach and civil tone. I don’t take offense to your argument, but I do think it is a distraction. None of us supports pedophilia. We all think it’s reprehensible. But if we are going to continue this distraction then let’s be fair and have a balanced conversation.
Every two minutes in the United States a man rapes a woman. When you search rape statistics, they are overwhelmingly reported as man on woman incidents. While rape among lesbians and gays, or women raping men is not unheard of, those problems are infinitesimal in the broader problem of rape. This is overwhelmingly a problem of heterosexual men abusing women.
Here is a link to statistics of men raping women: http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm
Now we can go back and forth talking about how it’s a fact that straight men are disproportionately rapists and you can allege that gay men are disproportionately child molesters, but that’s a pretty futile discussion.
The truth is, men need love, sex and companionship and it’s unhealthy to deny them that. And I also believe that marriage is an especially important institution for men. Whether gay or straight, the ideal of marriage helps men to work towards an idea of love that actually can help to prevent some of the very problems of rape and child molestation. If you are taught how to love your partner and respect them, and share a monogamous relationship with them, you are less likely to have promiscuous sex, or assault another person.
@SFNathan
“Edgar, I appreciate your thoughtful approach and civil tone. I don’t take offense to your argument, but I do think it is a distraction. None of us supports pedophilia. We all think it’s reprehensible.”
I’m glad you can see it is not from bigotry that my argument stems.
@distracting from main argument
Why is it OK for the State to not officially consider two committed same sex people a marriage?
I believe that is pretty much the main argument here right? Please correct me if I’m wrong.
That argument demands reasons. A link between homosexuals and pedophilia could be one of those reasons so it belongs in this argument.
Of course I would imagine non pedophile gays to be extremely offended by the association I’m inferring from the aforementioned statistics.
On the other hand I just don’t think it’s really honest to simply conclude from the get-go that it’s an ABSURD notion to even consider a connection between the two.
As in my lung cancer example in my comment immediately above, who would not conclude that smoking is somehow linked to lung cancer.
Can we now agree that it’s not absurd, hateful or illogical to see that somehow homosexuality and pedophilia are linked statistically much in the same way as smoking and lung cancer?
Can we now agree that it’s not absurd, hateful or illogical to see that somehow homosexuality and pedophilia are linked statistically much in the same way as smoking and lung cancer?
Absolutely not Edgar.
You persist in seeing a relationship from the gay->pedo perspective, rather than considering the possibility that child molesters are a breed unto themselves and some are also gay. Acceptance of your argument (that cigarettes cause lung cancer) as a proper metaphor for homosexuality causing pedophilia means we must imagine that there is a causal relationship, where there is not. This is a pseudo-logical argument, because even though you say “you’ve not changed the equation” you have utterly changed it by substituting the essential variables. This is a bait and switch attempt to draw credibility to the assertions and is non-credible.
@ “I’m glad you see that it is not from bigotry that my argument stems.”
Complete nonsense. That would make your argument somehow logical, which it is not. All arguments of this form are impulsed from bigotry, yours is no different. You have an excellent support structure to support your feelings, but so did Klansman as they were surrounded by like-minded racists.
The causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia is a myth. It does NOT belong in the argument. It simply serves you to try and paint homosexuality as some horrible b-movie nastiness, rather than dealing with the fact that, although it is incomprehensible to you, two men can fall in love, become married and live a long happy life as a loving set of life partners.
It is not absurd to question the link between the two, but it is absurd to persist after the notion is dispelled. And it is this clinging to straws that makes your argument irrational and bigotry based, rather than looking at the reality of the people.
You clearly did not take even a moment to read the data I provided, or comment on the fact that the CDC that you quote does not seem to back you up the way you assert. You do not comment at ALL on the heterosexual statistics from SFNathan. Are you going to address the issues, or simply continue to try to justify your prejudice?
“Can we now agree that it’s not absurd, hateful or illogical to see that somehow homosexuality and pedophilia are linked statistically much in the same way as smoking and lung cancer?”
Edgar,
1. it is absurd to link them in a vacuum. You completely ignored the statistics I pointed to on heterosexual men and rape. The strongest association sexual assault is gender, not sexual orientation.
2. Smoking causes cancer. That’s been proven. You have no proof that homosexuality causes pedophilia. You are suggesting that there are more gay pedophiles than straight ones, but you have no evidence of what causes pedophilia.
@Perk
“This is a pseudo-logical argument, because even though you say “you’ve not changed the equation” you have utterly changed it by substituting the essential variables.”
The variables are not essential because I’m not saying that homosexuality causes pedophilia.
I’m saying at what point can one look at statistics and draw a reasonable conclusion.
When the numbers are the likes of %1.5 responsible for %40 or ANYTHING AT ALL, then it’s reasonable to note this data as special and peculiar and from there to figure out the cause of the disproportionality.
In other words if the population were 50/50 gay and straight but gays were responsible for %55 of child molestations, then it would be a stretch to simply say that there is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.
But when the numbers are %1.5 and %40 then there is cause to conclude that there is a special reason why.
@Pedophile/gay connection
Pedophilia is almost always an anger based activity, like rape, but with a more sexualized intent, where as rape is more about the control and fear. Priests are angry at god/humanity/themselves when they do it. Women who do it are angry at themselves. Men who do it are generally angry as well at something from their childhood. It’s often rooted in some deep hatred for something in their past or present. Sometimes it is anger over the happiness of the parents of the child, the wealth they have, the life they live. Sometimes it’s an entitlement issue. But often, it’s lashing out at the past. They may not realize it, until later in analysis, but it is extremely rare that it is “i like to diddle little kids because I think they are hot and sexy”. Most say they can’t even understand why, and they felt “dirty” the whole time. I don’t feel dirty when I bang my wife, or any prior girlfriend, unless I want to
That said, the disproportionate percentage of child molesters who are gay (lets just assume that its true, regardless of the legitimacy of the connection) can actually be fairly easily explained though social issues, not sexual issues. A disproportionate percentage of gay men feel vilified, hated, fearful, etc etc etc, when compared to straight men.
I would be willing to bet, knowing nothing at all about Nathan, that at some point in his life, he was in the closet and fearful people or at least someone specific would find out. I hope he doesn’t have to do that today, but I bet you anything, you could find a situation today in which Nathan’s desire for self preservation and fear for his life/livelyhood, would force him to try to pass as the straightest dude in the crowd if he was alone, without backup, regardless of whether he is stereotypically gay or your average guy you didn’t know was gay kind of gay. It is also likely that at some point, Nathan went through the stage of “angry gay guy”, similar to angry black guy, angry white guy, angry rich guy, angry poor guy, blah blah blah.
Compare angry gay guy to angry black guy and there is a very big difference, which can explain the different result. Black guys are put down, assumed to be criminals, lazy, whatever other stereotypical name calling you want to come up with. But the nature of the hatred aimed at them revolves around violence, so what happens, a disproportionate percentage of violent crime is committed by black men. The hatred that is aimed towards gay men revolves around sex.
In school I got in A LOT of trouble constantly for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Eventually, teachers just started assuming I was the one who did whatever bad thing happened. Something as simple as my papers getting blown out the window by the stupid heating unit which had not been on for weeks, got me landed in detention. This was often the case with the “trouble makers”, and you probably can think of a few kids who got in a lot of trouble, but weren’t actual trouble makers, but may have eventually became such. It’s the problem of being told enough times that you are __BLANK__ and eventually you believe it. Parents telling kids they are worthless, teachers telling kids they have jail to look forward to as a career, people telling gays they are disgusting deviants who should be cast out of society. Guess what they do, if it is impressed upon them enough times? They fulfill the prophecy.
You can choose to read this as a reason why gays should not be allowed to exist, and if you do, you miss the point entirely. If you ever called a gay guy a pervert, disgusting, should die, etc, YOU are the one responsible for pedophilia, not gays.
@aids being a gay disease
Being that lesbians have the lowest percentage of HIV infection, and the idea that AIDS is ‘punishment’ just made me laugh thinking about this. Wouldn’t that mean that lesbian women are the “chosen ones” by god then, since god infects them the least?
Edgar – We have nothing to talk about if you continue to ignore the statistics I showed you about straight men and rape.
If you want to have a one-sided debate of looking at your facts but ignoring mine, than we are jerking you off and this is boring me.
@SFNathan
“Edgar,
1. it is absurd to link them in a vacuum. You completely ignored the statistics I pointed to on heterosexual men and rape. The strongest association sexual assault is gender, not sexual orientation.”
One thing at a time. I’ll deal with heterosexual problems later.
2. Smoking causes cancer. That’s been proven. You have no proof that homosexuality causes pedophilia. You are suggesting that there are more gay pedophiles than straight ones, but you have no evidence of what causes pedophilia.
Suppose we didn’t know that smoking causes cancer. OK? Now, could we then still look at the statistics I gave above and reasonably assume that smoking is linked to lung cancer?
“One thing at a time. I’ll deal with heterosexual problems later.”
Edgar, you are choosing to look at them as heterosexual problems and homosexual problems when they are MALE problems.
Now, if you want to look at the statistics together, we can keep talking, but I’m not interested in a one-sided debate.
@Perk
1. “All arguments of this form are impulsed from bigotry, yours is no different.”
references please…
My arguments are based on numbers not emotions or values.
2. “I’m glad you see that it is not from bigotry that my argument stems.”
Complete nonsense. That would make your argument somehow logical, which it is not.
Perk, I was responding to SFNathans comment, “Edgar, I appreciate your thoughtful approach and civil tone.”
Would Nathan have said that if he though my approach was not thoughtful but bigoted?
Thanks Nathan.
3. “The causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia is a myth.”
References please otherwise —discarded.
I’m not commenting on heterosexual anything right now. I will happily comment later. I’m focused on reasons why gay marriage and with it gay behavior should not be condoned.
“I’m not commenting on heterosexual anything right now. I will happily comment later. I’m focused on reasons why gay marriage and with it gay behavior should not be condoned.”
If you cannot look in the mirror, than you have no right to look at me.
We have nothing to talk about Edgar. Conversation over.
“Now, if you want to look at the statistics together, we can keep talking, but I’m not interested in a one-sided debate.”
This is a one sided debate. We are talking about gay marriage pro and con.
Go answer my questions from 159 and 161
Conversation over. Read post 170.
Hey Edgar, have you maybe stopped to think that pedophilia is not linked to sexuality at all, but is more prevalent in the gay community because young men get messed up in the head from being constantly marginalized, discriminated against, and ridiculed? That might have something to do with it. Fortunately, attitudes are changing. The end to these prejudices can’t possibly happen soon enough.
Edgar has stopped to think about nothing but how he can use pedophilia as a way to malign gays and isn’t entertaining any thoughts broader than that.
We just determined that.
@SFnathan
Sure, run away crying and call me a bigot. Always an easy way out isn’t it?
Despite the overwhelming evidence of a link between homosexuality and pedophilia (I have not defined the link but only state that there is a substantial link) in that %1.5 of the population is responsible for child molestations, you obstinately refuse to acknowledge that there is any significance in that.
Then you try to say that it has no bearing on the real topic which is gay marriage and benefits, because the numbers are too damning.
Then you imply that it’s just ‘too much of a stretch’ to draw any conclusions at all from even such lopsided numbers ie %1.5 etc…
IF you all can’t see that I’m arguing numbers and drawing inferences from those (extremely lopsided) numbers then YOU are the ones not looking in the mirror.
How can you say that my argument is based on bigotry when it’s based on statistics?
You’ve answered none of my questions from 159 and 161 either because it’s rather obvious that such conclusions are logical and that hurts.
I spend time to further our discussions here with real data and simple arguments. You guys make it sound like I’m just saying, “Ah, all those gays are pedophiles…just look at ‘em”
Hey Nathan, you want to know why the people voted down gay rights? Because liberals make big mistakes when arguing their points and have thus failed to make the homosexual case.
Calling me a bigot and hateful does not address any points that further the homosexual argument in the long run. You just make yourself appear to be unwilling to confront overwhelming data that speaks against the gay movement.
“How To Argue With A Conservative 101″
–when wrong or in danger of being wrong don’t give up! Just call the conservative a bigot, vilify him quickly and banish everything he said from your memory –then move on”
If you are all going to sit here and dismiss everything I say as bigoted and insult my intelligence and character in that way then I will cease to be a part of further discussions. If I’m a really a bigot then I truly have nothing of value to add.
Peace.
Edgar – Read Post 170.
Look in the mirror if you want to have any validity in making comments about me.
Seriously Perk, now it really is time to close this thread.
We have spent days replying to Edgar and Trent’s comments about gays being linked to pedophilia. We have posted lengthy replies with data to back them up (yours which refuted the connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, mine which showed the relationship between heterosexual men and rape to show that sexual assault is really the key male problem, not sexual orientation).
While we graciously listened, evaluated and responded to their assertions, Edgar has declared that he won’t even entertain our data or arguments. He is choosing to put blinders on himself.
So, I think that as a moderator, it’s probably time to close this one down. Edgar has declared he will only have a one-sided conversation on his terms, and that’s an unacceptable way to have a discussion.
And by the way, I have really appreciated the thoughtful comments from Brain Donkey and Vsloathe. It’s really wonderful to hear thoughts from open-minded people out there who are willing to listen as well as comment. I’ve enjoyed reading your comments a lot. (Great stuff on your last one Brain Donkey).
Trent, I never heard back from you on comment #93, but I hope you will think about it.
@perk
“Homosexuality is “dangerous?” So was Tom Sawyer. We got over that. So was interracial marriage, we got over that. Women having the vote would kill our country. The Russian communists were going to come here and ruin our country, then the Koreans, then the Vietnamese. The world is flat and we’re at the center of the universe. Thalidomide is a wonder drug. Radiation is good for you. Alternative sexual activities between husband and wife were “against natural law” and were illegal in many states even up to a decade ago.”
And homosexuality is O.K. and has nothing to do with pedophelia, or the spread of HIV. But I’m shure we’ll get over that eventually once people take off the blinders and actually look at numbers. Numbers Dont lie. They are unbiased, and they’re FACTS!
Your bigotry and obstanance and pride are preventing you from saying ‘yes, 53% of HIV cases are homosexual, yes, 1.5 % of the population causing over 33% of child sex abuse cases is at least worth looking into, as some link obviously exists.’
Are you suggesting then that if a male adult viloates a male child, that he is NOT a homosexual? It seems pretty clear that male to male sex is homosexual. The male adult is obviously a homosexual. Among other things, grant you, but still a homosexual.
O.K. Perk. Let’s try it this way.
- Do you agree that 53% of new HIV infections in 2006 are that of homosexuals while 4% are that of IVDU of homosexuals reported to the CDC?
- Do you agree that 1.5 % of the U.S population is that of male homosexuals?
- Do you agree that over 33% of child sex abuse was perpetrated by male homosexuals?
- Do you agree that HIV is dangerous?
- Do you agree that child sex abuse (wether it effects you personally or not) is bad?
Yes or No’s will do Perk.
“You’d quote a “staff writer” at the interim and a site that up front CLAIMS TO BE questioning moral turpitude today as facts?!?!?! Hang on, I’ll start quoting Wikipedia and some really cool blogs I know of. I can find a site that will support anything I want to say, cowboy. Anything I want to say”
You didnt seem to have a problem with SFnathan linking to wikipedia! But I guess that one slipped right by you didnt it Perk. Your very hateful to people who dont share your opinion. Thats what makes you a bigot Perk. It’s people who share your hatred and demand so much change, that brought upon the holocaust. ( I can make the same associations)
@Sfnathan
sorry for not responding sooner. Very busy.
“Is that so much to ask for you to respect that?
Or would you rather I not follow my heart and just have some sham marriage with a woman I feel nothing for? What would you have me do?”
I’m sure you believe this with all your heart. I’m sure you’re a great person.
).
To answer your question. Love is taught, and I beleive your a little confused on what love really is.
Perk loves his brother. He obviously means a great deal to him. This does not mean he is homosexual (although he could be…. I don’t know
When a child is little, he will often touch his mothers breasts inappropriately. He will then be told that this is not good. He learns that his love for his mother has boundries.
We all ‘learn’ to love.
This is why some people beat there wives. Not because they hate them. Thats what love is to them. (usually taught from fathers abusing mother)
Someone once told me a story about how much they hated corn beef hash. Then they went to prison. They didnt get fed much, but every Saturday morning they got served the hash. At first he didnt want to eat it, but was so hungry he did. He soon got a taste for the hash.
Now after he got out, he absoloutly loves the stuff…. Do you think you might have been hungry for something at one point, and all you got was ‘hash’?
Have you ever questioned your sexual desires. Really looked inwards, and asked ‘where does that come from?’.
You know it is illegal to marry your sister or brother. Regardless if they are sterile and can not reproduce. Even if they are the sky and the stars of there lives, they dont have that right!
Most learn there boundries when there young. Not all. We’e all heard the stories. We all know what happens out there. There world is crazy place. We dont have to let it drive us crazy with it.
Like children who have been abused in one form or another, they grow up on what I call a shakey foundation.
Much like a house, all our thoughts, morals, charactor, personality and heart are built off of a foundation. And like a house, if the foundation is weak, it cannot hold or sustain great amounts. Yet as humans we continually build and add on without ever repairing the foundation. Only then, when the house is built and settling on this foundation do we ask, “What would you have me do?”
As much work as it is to do while the house is on it…. If you want a sound house, you’ll have to dig deep in the basement, find out what went wrong and fix it. This does not mean the house is no good. It just means it needs a little TLC.
@perk
“The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that “Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children” or that “Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner.”
By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters”
The key words here perk are ‘belief’ and ‘agreed with assertions’
Beleifs and assertions as an argument against factual numbers is laughable! Do you really expect to be taken seriously with all your bigotry and elitism? roflmao:
@sfnathan
No offense man but it seems every other post your ready to throw in the towel.
Call it quits…shut er down! If you want to avoid digging for a truth, then run with your tail between your legs and conceed! A deep debate like this will have it’s ups and downs. Only those who have ‘courage’ will sustain such a draing topic. We are all obviously putting alot of effort into our thoughts and research. I’m sure as we dig deeper we will all get tired. But it’s in those tired moments that we may open our minds to new ideas. Now… let’s debate.
“No offense man but it seems every other post your ready to throw in the towel.”
Trent, Edgar just told me flat out that he’s not going to entertain the data or arguments I’ve given him. He’s a brick wall that will only discuss pedophilia.
I just read your post. The main point is that I’m a good guy, but my foundation is bad (I assume because I’m gay) and with some TLC, I can be fixed. I need to unlearn who I am (the same way that baby’s learn not to touch their mother’s breasts).
But you didn’t answer why. You and Edgar keep going back to pedophilia because you have nothing else to say. I need to change who I am because you think gays are pedophiles. That’s your argument and you don’t want to move the discussion from there. We’ve been through almost 200 posts of this.
I’m not throwing in the towel. You guys are refusing to move on from the same dead-end point you won’t move from. The only way you will discuss this issue is from the vantage point of pedophilia.
I put together a HUGE post about the history of marriage. You guys had not a single comment about it.
I put together data about rape, showing that men are really the problem, not just gay men. You have no comment on that.
Brain Donkey just wrote a thoughtful analysis on why it might make sense that from a societal perspective why some gays might end up becoming abusers because they’ve been abused themselves. -No comment from you guys on that.
Perk put together links disputing the argument that gays are pedophiles – no response to that data.
You guys are a locked down, closed-minded book about one subject: pedophilia and that’s the beginning and end of the story for you, and you won’t talk about anything else.
So I’m not throwing in the towel, I’m refusing to have a one-sided conversation any longer. You need to listen to us, have an exchange of ideas, and actually absorb something more than your own points, or it’s a waste of my time to be here.
O.K. Perk. Let’s try it this way.
- Do you agree…
Nice try Edgar, but no dice. Your questions are akin to the old ploy, “Have you ever been caught masturbating?”
SFNathan is right, this thread has moved beyond salvaging. Trent and Edgar – if you want any sort of respect in the future on this stuff, then when you’re harping on about “bring facts” and such, perhaps you should read what facts and data are presented to you – there was a tremendous amount of information presented, time and time again, and you reference or respond to almost none of it. It would make things so much more interesting.
@ sfnathan
“I put together a HUGE post about the history of marriage. You guys had not a single comment about it.
I put together data about rape, showing that men are really the problem, not just gay men. You have no comment on that.”
They are wonderful posts. And like most of the posts you completely read into whatever you want. The points are not to say homosexuals are pedophiles. go back and read the posts.
The goverment should not support homosexual marriage because it is in fact dangerous. and these are some of the reasons why. Even though I have posted factual statistics, you ignore them completly! You side step around the numbers. just admit the numbers are what they are. I didnt make them up Natahan. They are what they are. If the gay community wasnt responsible for 53% of new HIV infections, I could never post those numbers. If 1.5 % of the U.S population wasnt responsible for over 33% of child sex abuse cases, I couldnt post that either. You asked “what would you have me do?”. I told you. Go to therapy. Your under the assumption that there is nothing wrong with you. You like puttinng things in your ass! you like penis in your mouth! (sorry so blunt. trying to be as nice as I can Nathan. Please do not take this as a personal attack) The anus is a single cell thick. the vagina is 3 cells thick. The anus was not designed to have things jammed up there. You can fight the obvious, If you want. Put the state shouldnt legislate for such dangerous assumptions such as, ‘it’s nota perversion, and it’s not taught’. Now maybe you and perk were home schooled, but most schools teach that the kkk is bad. Even though they have the right to be who they want and say what they want, they are regognized as bad for society and treated as such! We dont HATE people who are KKK members. I feel sorry for there ignorance and obstanace to see the obvious, as you and I do. Why do you think they continue to think the way they do even though it is completey obvious to you and I that is bad for everyone! The whole point of the mother and the breasts is to show you that we are blank slates when are kids. We learn EVERYTHING as we go. Especially about sex. Edgar is not avoiding talking about heterosexuals. He’s trying to keep you from straying off the topic as you and perk continuously do. The goverment is designed to allow the people to have a say about legislating the laws in the country. They did so in California. And still, there is an outrage. This should now become a silent outrage, for the people have spoken. Other people see the obvious, that you dont yet see. I wish you could.
You and perk argued that being gay isnt about sex.
Two men live together, they love each other. They mean the world to each other.
They will both do anything for the other man. They share everything. Are these men gay…NO they are brothers. Now if they were engaging in homosexual sex acts…THEN they are gay (and other things b ut you get the point) We shouldnt be legislating for sex. You can love who ever you want. But homosexuality comes down to sex. Thats why the word sex is in homosexual, and heterosexual. It’s not homoloveual. Get it! When I said to perk that you guys are fighting the pedophiles fight for them, it’s becasue homosexuals are having sexual deviant behavior. As soon as we start legislating for homosexuals, the pedophiles are to soon follow. Because they are so closley related in the way that thinking deviant sexual behavior is’nt hurting any one… so they should be protected under the constitution. This is YOUR argument. I’m not suggesting that you support pedophila, I’m suggesting your so blind to the obvious that you havnt realized how closley related they really are, and how they will use your same arguments to try to pass future legislation. BD said gays may become abusers because they have been abused themselves. My point exactly. Without knowing this Nathan, you have been abused earlier in life be being led astray. Now your trying to convince people that it’s if everyone is taught the same way because your ok with the way you turned out. Your unaware of how you were effected. This doesnt define you ( i hope ) it is just part, of your charactor. We all have charactor flaws. That doesnt mean we are all bad people.
“SFNathan is right, this thread has moved beyond salvaging. Trent and Edgar – if you want any sort of respect in the future on this stuff, then when you’re harping on about “bring facts” and such, perhaps you should read what facts and data are presented to you – there was a tremendous amount of information presented, time and time again, and you reference or respond to almost none of it. It would have made things so much more interesting”
Then you sadly didnt read any of our responses. And I cant make you read them, if you choose to ignore them that is your own fault. We have addressed every issue that is related to the topic. What you may have created here by way of out numbering could be similarly related to a philibuster. you simply spue off numuerous entrees, per every one we enter and then cry about the fact that we cant keep up with you. Nice strategy but very transparent! If you want a real debate with facts and address issues We’ll be glad to provide more information. But since your conceeding, I’ll respectfully allow you to bow your heads. Thank you gentlemen.
I guess there’s always some danger in allowing people their rights.
It’s the price we pay for the liberties we enjoy.
Even if the conclusions you draw from your statistics are accurate (and I’m not conceding they are, as statistics can be used to generate whatever conclusions one wants to believe when not treated in the proper way [e.g. discussing outliers, pulling apart by quartile, allowing the possibility of hidden causal relationships as correlation != causality]), that is not a sufficient argument for denying rights to citizens.
And let me reiterate it for those who don’t read parentheticals or haven’t taken a college level statistics course: CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.
Hope that helps.
@trent
at no point in my post did i imply that nathan is gay because he was abused, nor any other gay person. There are plenty of gays who became gay in a household that was 100% anti-gay, and there are gays who became gay in a household where it was 100% accepted. It happens regardless of the social environment. My point was simple, but obviously missed. Children of abuse, tend to exhibit the behavior of that abuse later in life. Often though that does not mean the same exact abuse. Beater children often do not become child beaters, but instead exhibit a different abusive method.
@everyone
Any abused child or person eventually will begin to embrace the abuse and fit it their life. Kids who were beaten by their parents, tend to beat their kids/wives/husbands or become introverts afraid of everything. Moms who don’t love their kids raise wife beaters or serial cheaters. Kids who are diddled have an array of anti-social behaviors, pretty much any you can think of. But all of those are gay,straight,bi or even none. The environment doesn’t turn you gay. If it did, there would be a specific correlation between gays and a certain type of event in their upbringing.
Let me put it this way. I can show you correlations between virtual every single kind of anti-social, abnormal or just “different” behaviors, and the childhood trauma they are associated with. There are of course exceptions, just like with any statistical set, but the vast majority have something in common. Often it is perceived as an oversimplification of someones problems and shrugged off as such, but you can’t. It is rare to have a kid from a loving open family, with no serious events in their life, grow up to become a murderer. It is common however, if the kid was abused, usually mentally, by their parents. Growing up in a ghetto doesn’t even cause the behavior, if you exclude gangs. It doesn’t mean those correlations are the cause (as V stated above), but nevertheless they do exist, and are in related areas of interest, so the probability that they are the causation becomes increasingly probable. An incorrect correlation example is that pirates cause global warming, because that is 2 disparate concepts or areas of influence that have been randomly forced into correlation (chart at http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/).
So whats the correlative history that causes people to become gay? There is none. What is correlative history that causes people to become child molesters? Abuse of a sexual nature, usually mental and emotional. Interestingly most child molesters were never physically or sexually abused, and even have a current satisfactory physical sexual life.
So to restate, the only reason the percentages lean more towards gays for child molesters is because of the higher probability of gays being exposed to the “child molester manufacturing behaviors” that work on both straight or gay men.
Of course this still has nothing to do with marriage, except this. By preventing gays from getting married, you are excluding them from being “one of us”, “part of the family”, “accepted”. The only reason they are excluded from marriage is because of a sexual reason. So you are excluding them from marriage because of sex. If child molesters are born of negative social-sexual influence from the people around them, what do you think preventing them from getting married tells them? “You’re dirty, gross, icky, blah blah blah”. This only serves to continue the negative external forces regarding their sexuality, and thus increasing the possibility of a new molester being created. So, you want to protect kids because you think gays are gonna molest them, fine, let gays get married and accept it as legit.
@levity
Anyway, gays tend to throw pretty kick ass parties. Oh maybe thats the real reason, the straight folks don’t like coming in second place… rofl
@Trent: this has moved to the stupid.
Your assertions are based on your opinions, not fact. The requirement for them are based on your bigotry and ignorance, nothing else. You are part of a dying breed of male (about 19% as of 1999) that still believe the way you do. You’ve been presented with data to move from your asinine persistence on outdated notions that you do not read. When you do look at something, it’s, “Well, you can take it anyway you want.” You have no logic here except pseudo-connections that support your bigotry.
(BTW – it is laughable for you to say that WE are the hateful bigots, because we think that our country should be more inclusive and not restrict the rights of it’s citizens. Laughable)
“[We, the left]simply spue off numerous entrees per every one we enter then cry about the fact that we can’t keep up with you.”
First off, I don’t spue entrees: I’m a pretty damn good cook. But if you’re talking about our comments on the post, well I’ve just gone over this entire list. Both you and Edgar spout the same essential shit, backed up by nothing, and the lefties keep presenting you more and more reason to open your eyes – but you don’t. You truly are the worst part of conservatism: the inability to look at anything other than your past experience, and holding on dearly to your beliefs so as not to rock your world. That’s the difference between conservatism and liberalism BTW: holding on to the past or being willing to look at a different future.
But indulge me for just a moment. Look back at Donkey’s posts, Nathans VSs… there’s some UNBELIEVABLY great stuff in there, logical, backed up as well as being clear common sense. Great factual references to support the ideas and non-moralistic final analysis that is inclusive and fair. Just what America should be. You really, really need to take a look at this stuff because frankly it AMAZES me that they are still willing to put pearls in front of swine. The time that they are investing in trying to drag you, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century is a frigging GIFT and it saddens me that you neither see it or appreciate it. You’re really stuck, man.
“just admit the numbers are what they are. I didnt make them up Nathan… If the gay community wasnt responsible for 53% of new HIV infections, I could never post those numbers. If 1.5 % of the U.S population wasnt responsible for over 33% of child sex abuse cases, I couldnt post that either. You asked “what would you have me do?”. I told you. Go to therapy.”
Edgar, I am in a monogamous relationship. I am not contributing to HIV infections and I would never, ever contribute to child abuse. And I don’t need therapy. I’m happy and in love.
You don’t want me to seek therapy and stop being gay because of the problems of HIV and Pedophilia. When you advise me to get therapy, you are advising me because of another reason. This is the true heart of where you are coming from:
“You like puttinng things in your ass! you like penis in your mouth!”
Thank you for being so honest and putting down in writing what this is all about. You are uncomfortable with gayness and when you look at me, all you can think about is me taking it up the ass.
Now why don’t you look at your grandparents and every family member and think about all the straight sex they have had? Why don’t you look at your kids in your family and think of the reality that they are going to be having sex some day. When you think about people in a sexual context, it’s not comfortable. But WE ALL HAVE SEX and it’s not always pretty to look at.
Just because I’m gay doesn’t mean I’m any more sexual than you Edgar. And most of the women in your life are going to like that terrible thing of putting a penis in her mouth (maybe the rear too). Sex is a part of life – why do you fear it?
This really is about fear (or something like that) of sexuality. When you think of me taking it up the ass, it hits a button for you.
But Edgar, my life isn’t just about sex. Frankly, 99% of my relationship with my boyfriend is spent telling each other how much we love each other, taking care of the laundry, going out to dinner together, dreaming of buying a house some day, taking care of each other when we have a bad day at work, talking with each other (especially when he is feeling down because his entire family won’t speak with him anymore because he’s gay), and dealing with life’s day-to-day issues.
So, while sex might be the primary thing you think of when you look at us, sex is about 1% of my world right now. And I am no harm to society’s chances of spreading AIDS or harming children. And I’m not dangerous to you (you said same sex marriage is dangerous – affirming my life-long relationship with this one person would not be dangerous to you at all).
Sorry – the above was meant for Trent…
And by the way Trent, I feel the same way about going down on a woman that you feel about taking it up the butt. No amount of therapy could make me feel like “mmm that sounds good.”
Sigmund Freud, the ultimate advocate of developmental psychology, believed that sexual orientation was learned. BUT, he believed it was so deeply ingrained in us that we could never unlearn it through therapy. He was of the opinion that we could only learn how to come to peace with our feelings about sexuality, but we couldn’t change it. (and in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association enshrined his opinion as the broad rule of the majority of psychiatrists). So whether you think sex is by nature or nurture, our feelings about sex are fixed and no amount of therapy can remove them (despite what a handful of ex-gay con artists might tell you).
And while you might think I shouldn’t feel the way I do or have the relationship I have, no one has the right to tell me I can’t have my relationship with my partner. So, the real issue is, whether my partner and I will have the same rights and respect under marriage that you have with your partner.
And while you might think I shouldn’t feel the way I do or have the relationship I have, no one has the right to tell me I can’t have my relationship with my partner. So, the real issue is, whether my partner and I will have the same rights and respect under marriage that you have with your partner.
This is absolutely fundamental to the argument, and the core of the debate. Since you being married does nothing untoward to the tax base, nothing but help clarify sticky legal inheritance and right-of-survivorship issues and allow people to see each other in the hospital, it is perfect that the judges in CA are working to demonstrate how Prop 8 is unconstitutional and will be overturned.
I was just about to post that Nathan.
I have about as much interest in banging you as you would have in banging my wife.
In the same vein, I also have no interest in watching you bang your boyfriend, much in the same way you probably have no interest in banging my wife. Does that mean either of us would run for the hills if presented with it? Probably not because we are probably secure enough to know that we won’t suddenly go gay or straight.
Funny, I thought that what you just laid out there Donkey was common sense (a term neocons just love to throw around), and that coming to terms with that particular reality is just part of “Growing Up”.
I guess Trent got over the “girls are icky” phase, but he’s still struggling with the “gays are icky” phase.
Life’s too short people. Live and let live. There’s nothing so important that it should trump another human being’s right to the pursuit of happiness. You act like the fragile threads of our society will unwind if all of a sudden gays are permitted to enter into lifelong committed, loving relationships. Heaven forbid!
@ Fragile threads: THEY WILL Vsloathe, that’s the problem!
Have you not witnessed the demise of our culture and the complete dissolution of our American framework since Blacks and Women have had the right to vote? Have you not noticed that our race has become corrupted because of the integration of African Americans into our blood lines? Have you not become poor and enslaved because Jews control the entire financial world?
My god man! You’re blind!
Meh
Society was gonna collapse when slavery was abolished, who was gonna pick the cotton?
Society was gonna collapse when blacks got to vote, their not smart enough.
Society was gonna collapse when women got to vote, their to soft on things requiring aggression.
Society was going to collapse when the cassette tape came out, then can copy music and screw us out of money.
Society will collapse when * is allowed to *, because they will *.
boring.
All very good posts. I will read them, and respond respectfully.
My comments obviously come off as hatefull to you guys, and for that I apologize! I certainly don’t want you to think I hate anyone. Debating with you boys is fun and it keeps me on my toes, and I hope it does the same for you.
I think I understand your views, and although I disagree, at least you guys are putting effort into your answers. And for that I am greatly appreciative.
I’ll respond as soon as I can. Like you guys, I work long hours so it can be pretty difficult to keep up.
Be posting soon.
Well met Trent. I’m sure we’ll all look forward to your thoughtful replies.
The cover story of the current Newsweek has a pretty interesting Christian argument in support of same sex marriage: http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653
Wow,,,,,
It’s AMAZING isn’t it..?!!!!
That ever since the “sodomites” have been let-out-of-the-closet…that there has been nothing short of political and cultural chaos..at THEIR..demise.
Maybe what we ought to do…is put them back into the sodomizing closet…AND CLOSE THE DOOOOOOR!!!!!!!!!
Now i understand that All you liberals will think …hey here’s a bigot..when we see one. Well…wrongo…homo!!!
I…like my Lord…Do love you….as i love all men..as Jesus has determined to show us..that this is right.
What Jesus DOES say to hate……IS YOUR SIN..!!!
We do not hate gays…we hate their S_I_N..
So when you use the term bigot…be very careful..instead of cowardly.
Close the SODOMIZED DOOR TO THAT DANG CLOSET!!!!!!!
IF THEY WANT TO HAVE UNMITIGATED,PERVERTED SEX WITH A CAT…OR EACH OTHER….LET ‘EM DO IT WITHOUT AN AUDIENCE!!
Bigot…??….GET REAL!!!
Civil rights..??…..YOU HAVE ‘EM….psttt….you are NOT black…..shhhh…don’t tell anyone…..no one knows….
Excellent article, SFNate.
I strongly encourage full absorption of the information contained within, particularly by the conservatwins.
I’ll check it out. They’ve got me all bowed up at work! I’ll respond after I’ve read it.
Fuck me, another looney.
Jack Your notion of “Sin” has no jurisdiction on my body, nor anyone else’s. If you think that YOUR BIBLE is the rule of land then you are contrary to the fundamental American belief as outlined in the Constitution, as well as an ignorant, stuck bigot.
See, you can CHOOSE to have butt sex with your neighbor (and it sounds like you protest too much: perhaps you’re actually using the church to hide from your own desires) but you cannot CHOOSE to be gay any more than one can choose to be heterosexual.
It’s already been well established here. Your biblical beliefs are absolutely a non-starter here for the argument. We are a country of LAW not a country of mythology, which is what your bible is. This thread is about using LAW to discriminate against the people of this country. It’s not about the love of your religion.
@Edgar, Trent, Jack …
If sexuality is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?
Curious.
“What Jesus DOES say to hate……IS YOUR SIN..!!!”
I seriously hate this argument. It automatically sets the tone that you determine the rules to fit your needs at the moment.
If I am a sinner, and you hate my sin, since I am committing that sin, you hate me by association. But you feel “clean and just” because you can say, “I don’t hate you, just your sin.”
So, the same logic will now be applied, “I don’t hate you, I just hate your skin color.”
Idiotic.
Jack, I don’t hate the bigot, I hate the bigotry.
Your focus on “What Jesus does say to hate…” shows the soft spot in your heart for hatred. If you think Jesus was teaching us “What we should hate”, that says much more about your soul than it does about Jesus Christ.
And stop your whining and accept that people like me are never going back in the closet. Ever. You can kick and scream your little homophobic heart out, and we are never going to go back in the closet. Ever.
Jesus taught love. Not what to love to hate. That’s the entire sarcastic point of this post: Hate as a Family Value. Congrats, you’ve put the coda on my assertion eloquently and succinctly.
Jack you are no better than the Jihadists that would pervert the Koran to create an argument for murder. You pervert the words of Jesus and the Bible to support your bigotry. I feel fairly certain that God does not drive an F150 with a gun rack and a spare pointed white hood under the seat. As such, I doubt ANY God, much less an all-loving one that your bible would profess, would get behind what you have to say AT ALL.
Perhaps you should find another one. Or a nice set perhaps. The Greek trio of perpetual anger, Alecto, Tisiphone and Magaera (so identified by Euripides, but named later by other admirers) would probably be excellent for you, representing unceasing anger, vengeance and jealousy. Not a perfect fit, but they’d probably do nicely in a pinch.
Much more so than a God of Love.
@Perk responding to Jack
“See, you can CHOOSE to have butt sex with your neighbor (and it sounds like you protest too much: perhaps you’re actually using the church to hide from your own desires)”
Perk that is SO lame man. Isn’t it a rather old and used up trick to ‘accuse’ the anti gay guy of being a homo?
That’s so silly and is neither here nor there. What, EVERYONE who is anti gay rights is a SECRET queer?
That doesn’t offend as you would like it to and it’s almost as old as the crust in your underwear.
Find a new line…
“This thread is about using LAW to discriminate against the people of this country”
No, this is about not awarding benefits to people who behave a certain way. It is a law that basically says “we the american people do not condone this behavior”
It has nothing to do with people but behavior. The state will not award benefits to just anybody…even if they have butt sex.
Blame it on the blacks who live in california because they are the ones who mostly voted against this even though they voted overwhelmingly for obama. Blacks generally believe in liberal fiscal policies but have conservative social bearings.
It is about behavior and benefits, not identity and civil rights.
Edgars back bitches…. roflmao:
@jairez
“If sexuality is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?
Curious”
Everyday you dope! What kind of stupid question is that?
I could let a queer suck my you know what for $500 if I wanted but I don’t ok?
@Donkey
“So, the same logic will now be applied, “I don’t hate you, I just hate your skin color.”
another idiot! A skin color isn’t a behavior, action or anything. It is neither a sin or not a sin. A sin is an ACTION.
Your analogy is embarrassingly missing the point.
@SF
“Your focus on “What Jesus does say to hate…” shows the soft spot in your heart for hatred. If you think Jesus was teaching us “What we should hate”, that says much more about your soul than it does about Jesus Christ.”
Jack you better listen to nathan because he took a class in christianity once. He knows everything about the bible and is never wrong.
“And stop your whining and accept that people like me are never going back in the closet. Ever. You can kick and scream your little homophobic heart out, and we are never going to go back in the closet. Ever.”
SfNathan, stop bitching about the rights of straight people to voice their opinions. You think you have special rights and try to paint yourself as a victim.
The reality is that the world does not approve of YOUR behavior and you need to learn to deal with that. We are never ever going away. To most straight guys, watching to gays hold hands and kiss is like watching someone eat his own boogers.
Stop demanding that everyone respect your perversion toward men when you don’t respect the opinion that the VAST majority holds. Case closed.
@ Edgar: See, here’s the interesting point: you could choose to suck another man’s dick, it still would not make you gay. It doesn’t even make you bi-curious. It’s a simple interaction of two body parts between two people. The act may be a symptom of homosexuality – much like you enjoying breasts (broad assumption here) is a symptom of your heterosexuality, not the cause. That’s what you perpetually don’t understand, to you & your argument’s discredit.
It really doesn’t matter how much you want to assert that homosexuality is a choice Edgar, it isn’t. You’ve been given SO MUCH data along these lines it’s not even funny. Did you happen to read the Newsweek article about Biblical Reasons for Homosexual Marriage? It was superb, but I’d wager that you’ll discount it as Liberal Media Elite.
And no, this thread is NOT about “behavior” it’s about the law and the Constitution. The movement away from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the other loud, irrelevant Righties is another piece of evidence that you’re being left in the tar pools with the other dinosaurs Edgar.
Edgar, for you the case was closed and discussion was over at Post #170
If you aren’t willing to look in the mirror, and look at heterosexuality with the same critical eye you look at homosexuality (and look at them in the same discussion), than we have nothing to talk about.
perk it is not a fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Simple, so why do you talk as though it is fact?
It’s a choice and many so called gays turn straight
@SF
“If you aren’t willing to look in the mirror, and look at heterosexuality with the same critical eye you look at homosexuality (and look at them in the same discussion), than we have nothing to talk about.”
Since when do I have to LOOK IN THE MIRROR to discuss data related to homosexuality?
What do I have to do? Defend all of heterosexuality from your charges? Who gives a shit about heterosexuals when the post is about homosexuals?
You just didn’t want to talk about the lopsided and embarrassing statistics linking homosexuality and pedophilia.
You want to take me off topic because this topic sucks for you. The topic is gay rights not heterosexual bullshit.
YOu say pedophilia is a ‘male’ problem but when you break it down further (which you DON’T want to do) it is clear that the homos are stalking our children.
Homos = 1.5 percent
homos involved in pedophilia cases = %33
Read it and weep. The discussion is about Gay this and that not ‘me’
You definitely don’t want to stay on topic…please…
Sorry. Been away working. I’m sure you all missed me!
Listen. It’s pretty simple. right and wrong. How we define it, liberal OR conservative.
How do liberals define what is right or wrong? We already ready know how conservatives come to there logic. How do liberals come to theres?
Well… What we do know, from responses from this blog, is that even after given statistical facts of the dangers in homosexuality, and statisticly linking homosexuality to child abuse… the obstanant liberals, adamantly deny that there is any link. Although if those same numbers appear in any of there ’causes’, then automaticly they MUST be right. This is what makes them elitists. They think they are right simply because they believe they somehow have a more correct view on what right or wrong is. They think they are better than you or I. They think it’s absurd that they COULD be wrong! I mean…. obviously they have to be right! they’re ‘educated’! Those pesky conservatives cant be as educated as a LIBERALs!!!! COULD THEY!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! :drama:
I wonder if they REALLY think that you CANT decide what you like, and dont like. That somehow, it is all mapped out for us, eliminating the pesky inconveniances of having to make smart decisions. It gives them absolution without ever having to admit that they sin! ( and for you non believers, we’ll assume this to reference right from wrong)
If every one chose to be homosexual, the human race would die! Thats is an obvious fact! Whats good for one is good for all! If all can’t have the ability to behave in a fashion that would be terminal to humanity… then no one person should!
After all they (libys) say about how we offend them of this and offend them of that… not one of them stops to thinks that they are offending others! Supporting a type of sex (that is in most americans view) perverted, dirty, bad for children to be subjected to, and just plain wrong!
Due to the ignorance of statistical facts, they will never have to face the fact that they are confusing children across the country! It’s absurd that you most children know it’s not right for a ‘daddy’ to be with another ‘daddy’! It doesnt make sense! It doesnt take complex understanding to realize that homosexuality is strictly about sex and nothing else! You can say it’s about love, but people who love each other are not called homosexuals. people who have SEX with the same gender ARE! SEX! homoSEXual! Obvious! even someone with a low iq score of 100 could figure THAT puzzle out!
They will even argue that it happens in nature too!
Yes, there are some oddities in nature! These oddities are rooted out by means of lack of procreation. A natural mess up!
So that theroy doesnt work either (this is if they choose to ignore the fact that sexuality is learned!)
-”If sexuality is a choice, when did you choose to be straight?
Curious.”
It was over time! Not just one day! I learned about sex through the ol’ birds and bees’! And occasionaly the hustler magazines i’d sneak a look at that were in the attic!
How do you learn about blow jobs and anal sex? How do you associate them with other men.
I was attracted to a girl i used to date in high school! I didnt think older girls were attractive! By your logic… I dont have a choice? Really!!! The I should ALWAYS like 15 year old girls! my life expierences shouldnt change what I like! But it does!!!
I feel like I’m looking at those 3d computerized pictures you stare at for a couple minuets, and the picture pops out at you, and no one else can see it but me!!
Good to get that out…. it’s been building up!!
A woman dresses up in a tight, hot pink mini skirt, high heels, revealing more clevage than dolly parton…. lipstick, make up, you know…. all dolled up!
THEN!!! It’s ‘ why are all the guys checking me out?’, ‘How dare you look at my clevage’, ‘your a pig for checking me out’!
typical liberal! know what I mean? roflmao:
Q: How do you tell the difference between a liberal and a conservative?
A: Easy. Watch a man drowning fifty feet offshore.
The conservative will throw out 25 feet of rope and shout “swim for it!”
The liberal will toss out 50 feet of rope, drop his own end, and go off to do another good deed.
Thought that was funny!
“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”
Someone other than myself wrote this.
brilliant observation!
We sit on the shoulders of the giants who came before us!
“Since when do I have to LOOK IN THE MIRROR to discuss data?”
Because I refuse to consider your arguments if you won’t consider mine.
@SF
“Since when do I have to LOOK IN THE MIRROR to discuss data?”
Because I refuse to consider your arguments if you won’t consider mine.”
Yes you do refuse to look at the facts. It’s not MY argument Nathan, it’s THE argument. It does not belong to me, so you can consider it without giving me unintentional kudos.
Nathan, we are talking about the topic which Perk laid out. In the course of this discussion there are many arguments to be made against the practice of homosexuality. Linking it to child abuse is one of them. I’m on topic.
You can run away from it if you want. Run, run Forrest run… but the ugly, damning facts are there whether you stick your head in the sand or not.
I want to talk about the link between homosexuals and pedophilia because it is just ONE ugly truth about homosexuality that bolsters my argument. Just one. I’m not going away from this until you guys get it through your thick fucking heads that when 1.5 percent of the population is GUILTY of 33 percent of pedophelia cases there is something wrong.
Your argument is fucking ridiculous because per capita heterosexuals commit WAY less pedophelia. Hello? Do you get it or what?
Look, we normal people have our benefits IF we choose to get married. It’s the gays that don’t get any benefits so that is why we are talking about all things homosexual.
You just don’t have the GUTS to deal with the ugly truth and you refuse to listen to reason because you have an authority complex.
Run away from this argument Nathan, it’s just too much for you to take HEAD On!!
Pffft…
@Perk,
Ok perk, sucking another guys dick doesn’t make you gay? No wonder you say you are not gay!!!! Let’s take a clinton break here:
“That all depends on what YOUR definition of the word IS is…”
This is your mentality and it’s no wonder you can’t tell simple right from wrong. The only person you’ve fooled with your line of thinking is yourself.
@Liberals here
You guys are not good liberals. Perk, you talk of John Locke all the time. Have you actually read more than the preface to “An Essay Concering Human Understanding?”
Locke, the grand father of modern liberal thought says that we are not born with ideas a proiri. That means we are not born gay or straight but the behavior is learned.
So go ahead an quote locke again. Dude, I know locke better than you and based all of my liberal philosophy off of the great man until I finally understood the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ by Kant.
No one has ever rationalized themselves to perfection which is why rationalism aka liberalism faded after Kant.
Do you know how many prominant gay activists openly admit that no one is born gay?
Shall I bring the quotes or should we change the argument Nate??
@Data
You have nothing to support your WISH that being gay is not a choice.
Gay guys like young gay guys so they try to pick up teenage boys and fuck them. It happens all the time. Most homosexuals report that they had a gay encounter with an adult when they were teens.
It’s all in the cdc and other places and I’m too lazy to go get it. But it doesn’t change the facts.
Predators feeding their unrestrained sexual appetites. some pedo’s are control freaks, but a third are homos looking for fresh meat!
Hey Nathan, don’t hate the messenger…
Just try to have the balls to face this head on, or run away and pull the blankets up over your head.
@Trent,Jack
Don’t give up on our liberal friends here they need our help and we should love them and educate them. They might be good guys underneath all the snotty crap they spew.
Incredible. I’ve never, ever read such self centered, self righteous uneducated and stuck on what I want to believe horseshit. Edgar: you must read something other than your bible (if you read that) and blog sites that support your prejudice. You don’t understand the heart of Liberalism at all, don’t even try it. If you really understood anything of Liberalism AT ALL then you’d be more interested in seeing how the case for inclusivity and generalized good will is profoundly more important than your iron-fisted bias against homosexual men.
There is no argument here because, Edgar, Trent and Jack, you simply need to believe that homosexuality is a choice. Since you are clearly unwilling to either read, listen, address Nathan’s flat out excellent points, Nutballs excellent points, VSloathe’s excellent points, the data confronting you from a rack of my posts, address the subtle yet penetrating question posed by Jairez etc etc there is little we can do here. You do not address the arguments, you simply want to tell Nathan that he’s a whiny Liberal pervert that chooses dick over ‘tang and shout that Liberals are all gay and you and you’re ilk are the last line of moral defense for this country. What a load of crap. It is actually quite funny how you call the Libs here elitist, hating, whiney and unbending – you’re a fount of anger, bias and prejudice. It drips from your every word.
Religion is not a prerequisite for morality boys, and in fact your so-called Right/Wrong argument is, according to my beliefs, both immoral and repugnant. And since this is a free country, and since your liberties end where mine begin, you have neither jurisdiction nor mandate to strip the rights of two men from enjoying the legal benefits of marriage just because you don’t like it. And irrespective of if you think you’re in the majority or the minority doesn’t matter – in California as with the Federal document, the Constitution makes clear how a minority cannot be bullied by a torch and pitchfork majority. Neither can your religion be used as a weapon against anyone else’s liberties. And we will see that error corrected in the next year or so, you just watch.
You’ve presented some websites, I’ve gone to them and cannot follow your assertions. You’ve said you’ll find real data to support your positions and document them here, you have not – and you won’t be able to because they are irrational extensions of your prejudice, nothing else. You don’t research anything presented to you or address other people’s arguments, you simply shout from your holier-than-thou position ergo, you have neither right or position to stand and demand that others should address yours.
I like you, however, because my lurking readers are getting a really clear picture of the ugliness, hatred and bigotry typified by the last 8 years, as well as how much work there is for us to do.
Edgar, You are the one who ran away from dialogue when you declared you will not consider my arguments. When you did that, I stopped reading your posts after post 170.
I don’t hear you anymore.
If you want anyone to listen to you, you need to listen as well.
@edgar
“Locke, the grand father of modern liberal thought says that we are not born with ideas a proiri. That means we are not born gay or straight but the behavior is learned.”
You are drawing an invalid assumption. Just because he believed that we are not born with ideas, does not mean that he thinks all human actions are based on ideas. case in point, I don’t breath because someone told me to, or i figured out it was a good idea. The distinction is if you believe gay is an idea/choice, or a born trait. It can be argued, that like breathing, gay is a biological function. But it purely comes down to the belief that its a choice, vs a trait.
@edgar again
““So, the same logic will now be applied, “I don’t hate you, I just hate your skin color.”
another idiot! A skin color isn’t a behavior, action or anything. It is neither a sin or not a sin. A sin is an ACTION.
Your analogy is embarrassingly missing the point.”
And your embarrassingly one sided, causing you to miss the point. A sin is only a sin by choice. You choose to say being gay is a sin because of some book you read. Being black is not a choice and of course since it’s not an action, it is not able to be made a sin, and Nathan’s argument is that he did not chose to be gay. My analogy stands, and your narrow simplicity of understanding is getting in your way.
Which is the sin? Being gay or having gay sex? obviously by your argument, you can only say that ‘having gay sex’ is the sin. But what makes it the sin? The action of having sex? or the recipient of that sex being the same gender? The recipient is not an action. The action itself is the sex. the sex is the sin, regardless of who you have it with if you want to pick nits.
@the conservadinks
Please stop with the stupid ass negative fallacy arguments. They are not valid and they gain ZERO mileage here. Saying something like, ‘I choose not to suck dick even if I was paid $500″ doesn’t prove that gay is a choice, it just proves that you would not suck dick for $500 dollars. Even if you did, it wouldn’t prove that you are gay, just that you would suck dick for as little as $500. There is a money amount which you would suck for however, it might be huge, but you are a liar if you say no money would make you do it. And it still wouldn’t make you gay, just rich.
@perk
“If you really understood anything of Liberalism AT ALL then you’d be more interested in seeing how the case for inclusivity and generalized good will is profoundly more important than your iron-fisted bias against homosexual men.”
@”Religion is not a prerequisite for morality boys,”
Is that a fact? Where do we get out ideas about morality then? Do you make them up as you go? Probably.
You’re gonna sit here and shit on MY religion and at the same time accuse me of being intolerant? What a fool! LMAO!!!
@Choice
Perk there are many militant pro homo activists that agree with me…it’s a choice. Sorry but it’s true.
Fact is homos are spreading aids in america (and in africa too, but the medical facilities there are atrocious so it has infected the public at large) and fucking our young boys in the ass.
1.5 percent (gay pop) responsible for 33 percent of child molestations.
deal with THAT.
OK, lets give SPECIAL BENEFITS to a segment of the population that spreads aids in america and is fucking our children in the ass before they are 18.
This is not about being inclusive or exclusive as that’s much too broad. Let’s be inclusive and let everybody out of jail to enjoy their freedoms.
@perk
“strip the rights of two men from enjoying the legal benefits of marriage just because you don’t like it.”
that’s not my argument although you wish it were.
Where did I say that gay should be stripped of their rights just because I don’t like it?
SHOW ME!
PERK
“Neither can your religion be used as a weapon against anyone else’s liberties.”
Too bad for you this country was founded on judeo christian law. LMAO!!!
They say a prayer in congress at the start of the day, not to allah either.
We have God on our money.
The constitution was finally ironed out when ben franklin started leading the members in prayer. (am I wrong?)
“under god, with liberty…”
That’s where we came from. Now the liberals want to keep our kids from saying merry fucking christmas in school because it might be OFFENSIVE.
But the libs want us normal people to accept that it’s NOT OFFENSIVE to bang your buddy up his ass, and then have the balls to ask for benefits that were put in place for married couples.
“You don’t research anything presented to you or address other people’s arguments”
I stay on topic. What stats do you challenge me to bring? Go through my posts and cite my stats, and then challenge me to bring them here. I’ll do it.
@SF
“Edgar, You are the one who ran away from dialogue when you declared you will not consider my arguments”
Screw that nathan, I’m not leaving this uncomfortable topic alone. You ran away from the argument when you suddenly wanted to STOP TALKING about gay this and that and START talking about something new.
How about citing what I said in my posts (like I do every time I post) when you respond to me. Don’t just summarize my post in your own words thank you. I don’t do that to you. I address every single line wiht a quote and rebuttal.
Nathan, I’m going to talk about “THE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY” not “WHATS WRONG WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD TODAY”
Cheap cop out dude but I don’t care, run away LMAO!!!!
Most of the world agrees with me
@Donkey
You amaze me with your ignorant stubbornness!!
“And your embarrassingly one sided, causing you to miss the point. A sin is only a sin by choice.”
YOU miss the point and it’s incredible. You compare sin with color. That’s fucking idiotic!
Bottom line, a sin is an action, a color is not!
LMFAO!!!
@Donkey
“Please stop with the stupid ass negative fallacy arguments. They are not valid and they gain ZERO mileage here. ”
speak for yourself donkey. I’m here as well and so is trent and now jack.
You want to talk about stupid ass arguments? Who tried to tell me the united states has NEVER had a terrorist attack since the revolution and up until 911?
Comparing in an analogy an action and a non action.
Now comparing breathing, a necessity for life with butt sex. This is just ridiculous.
I wonder what trent and jack think about how much milage my arguments get?
Read a history book.
Edgar will you please either learn something or shut the fuck up. You’re wrong about the Gay Choice, wrong about the link between pedophilia and homosexuality and you’re making my head hurt with your asinine perseveration on pseudo-facts and opinionated rants that you read somewhere but cannot substantiate.
One last time at attempting to help you out, but this is it. Any one of the following links will assist you with learning. Several of these are not the experts, but all of them are good aggregators of data pointing to the actual scientific research that substantiates the claims – and all of them can be followed and cited.
Try facts, Edgar, Trent and Jack – that plus juice toast and milk make for a healthy breakfast. This has been fun because you’ve done an excellent job of corroborating my argument about ignorance, bigotry and hatred – even as you try so hard to say you’re not into hate, your words make it so clear you either hate gayness or are afraid of it. It’s so obvious it’s breathtaking.
So here you go. Psychology Today is perhaps a nice place to start, although all of these articles point to real, scientific data that makes clear that you are simply wrong.
Homosexuality and Pedophilia: The False Link
ARE HOMOSEXUAL ADULTS IN GENERAL SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO CHILDREN AND ARE PREADOLESCENT CHILDREN AT GREATER RISK OF MOLESTATION FROM HOMOSEXUAL ADULTS THAN FROM HETEROSEXUAL ADULTS?
Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation and Child Abuse
Homosexual link to Child Abuse Debunked
In Their Own Words: Christian Dominionism vs. Homosexuals
Homosexuality and Pedophilia: The False link
Homosexuality And Pedophilia: The False Link
Facts About Homosexuality & Pedophilia
And oh, BTW: “One nation, under God” … the “under God” part was added in 1954 after a 4 year long campaign by the Knights of Columbus. It was never there before then.
Edgar you..are sooooo… right!! roflmao:
These sodomites hide behind words..like ignorance,bigotry,and hatred. AMAZING how 95+% of this blessed country is straight. So that must mean….oh my..soooo much hatred and misunderstanding,on their part…wahh..wahh ..wahh. You sodomites just openly refuse to accept that your “fudge-packin’” lifestyle STILL hasn’t taken root in America. And why is it that when Trent,Edgar and me disagree with the rest of you, WOW the hatred POURS_OUT of your mouths. You can’t just admit that sodomites can remain sodomites here in this free country, and yet NOT have full rights as in marriage. Heck if that were the case..you’ll be havin people marrying their dogs and tell you sodomites..”WOW you have no idea what you’re missing.”
And you “THE MORON” who wrote that just because i disagree SO MUCH with your lifestyle, that i MUST be a closet -gay. WHAT AN ASSENINE THING TO SAY!!!
So if i have an argument, OR a disagreement at McDonalds with their staff….NOW according to you MORON , that would make me a “closet-hamburger”. Get your own pompous ideas and please stop with the cliches, that’s such a liberal habit!!
Now i don’t care if you were the Head Fudge Packer at your local Chocolate Factory or…if you were Straight.
95% Cannot be wrong. OHHhhhhh i’m so solly guys, what a hateful thing to say.
Edgar , Trent, God bless ya both for standing in the face of the “Velvet Mafia” and expressing your opinions.
Hey fellers….DID YOU SEE WHO OBAMA(MAMA) PICKED FOR HIS OPENING SPEECH AT THE INAUGURAL..??
RICK ” a child of GOD ” WARREN !!!!!!!
Heck even Obama KNOWS the velvet mafia wields NO power in any way shape, form . or manner.
Mr. Obama…like us Christians, don’t really care about “fudge-packers”…issues….ONLY THEIR SALVATION and REPENT…..JESUS SAID….REPENT!!!
There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with you guys, BUT please..STOP the whining and marching in the streets. Californians shot your butts da-da-da-daDOWN!!!!!. And there again i have to say..you hate the fact that your SODOM & GOMORRAHRIC lifestyle sucks…(whoops NO pun intended).
If the people of California had gone the other way( whoops NO pun intended. Do you really think the Christians would be rioting in your streets..NOPE!!!!
And the Sodomites had the nerve to blame the Mormons, when they ALL CLEARLY KNEW, that it was the BLACK VOTE, that was the loudest heard. Let’s see the sodomites riot in the black sections of town,…BUT NOOOOOOoooo….too scared to take it to them, even though it is known all over the country that the Mormon vote DID NOT turn the tide. Again i state, those are facts, not this wizard of oz world you guys would love to live in.
Then they go and interrupt a service or 2 while in progress, did anyone hear of Christians rioting in the streets, or raiding their..*&&()$#@%..CLUBS????
No way….o-mo-mhay.
Face the facts, God wants you to repent..and you throw your curses at Him..and whistle out stuff like..” we’re queer and we’re stayin here.”
Well i say……..When you die, and you’re all alone…
as He makes you kneel before His throne.
You won’t be tossing your cliches then……
All that’s left..is eternal..b-u-r-n-i-n-g.
When He asks, why you didn’t listen…….
You won’t be tossing your cliches then…
All that’s left is eternal burrrrrNING!!!!!
And when He says, “my book was
ALWAYS OPEN…….
Your cliches He will not take……..
All that’s left…IS THE FIERY LAKE.
Edgar Trent God Bless…..
And to you sodomites…read the Word..ROMANS 1:24-32
I don’t need to interpret what it says…IT IS VERY CLEAR….
And to you too mr sodomite guy….GOD BLESS YOU ALL….NOT YOUR LIFESTYLE!!!!
And stop hiding behind those words…IT IS SOOOO OLD…WOW…THIS IS 2008…..NOT 1978!!
Like i stated before….WE NEED TO CLOSE THE VELVET DOOR
LIKE WE HAD IT BEFORE.
WELDING AND LOCKING IT EVER SO
TIGHT…….
LET THEM ROT IN THEIR OWN SIN…
OR BETTER YET…. be a “SAVED” ..
S-O-D-O-M-I-T-E.
sorry guys…i’m allowed my opinion. Lots of facts. Stop the tears long enough to see the truth……and the WHINING…WOW!!……psssttt..?….(whispering)…you’re supposed to be grown men(No pun intended). And like Edgar said….DO YOUR DAMN HOMEWORK AND STOP WEARING TUTU’S THRU OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. You sure as heck would’nt do that at your local restaurant. Why…..??
OH yeah …like i stated fudge-packers—2+%
straighteeze—-95+%
(this 97% is off 2-3 points due to liberals NOT finding their way out of an OUTHOUSE……single-seat only..to empower themselves.
Maybe the pointage would be higher..i guess….i don’t know….ONLY YOU GUYS KNOW HOW MANY FIT INTO A CLOSET…So long fellers…..seeya in a few….
Jack,
You can say that hate is just a word, but I’m telling you sincerely, you are full of hate. Just take a step back and look at the tone of your post. It speaks for itself.
Between all your slurs about fudge packers, sodomites, skirt wearing men, lakes of fire and the rest, I couldn’t find anything of value that was worth reading – just a series of slurs against me.
God bless you too – as the resident sodomite in this discussion, I’m not wishing any lakes of fire on you, or casting any stones at you. I would recommend you look in your own heart to listen to God on this.
I can’t make you stop hating me, and I certainly won’t stop being gay because of people like you.
Edgar,
I spent the first 170 posts responding to you in great detail. I read your data, I responded, and I even ceded you points. Remember I acknowledged that gay men are statistically more promiscuous than heterosexuals, ceding a significant point, but also I gave you an argument for why I think that is (because the real statistic to notice is that MEN are more promiscuous than women, and lesbians are the least promiscuous of all groups). And I wrote lengthy counter arguments backed with factual detail in response to your other arguments (like where I responded to your arguments about traditional marriage with my lengthy account on the history of traditional marriage). These counter arguments you completely ignored. You did not cede any points, you did not acknowledge any validity to my arguments, and you basically put your hands over your ears and completely ignored me.
You aren’t here to have an exchange. You are here to spout your opinion and have everyone to validate you. That is a waste of all of our time and that’s why I’m not listening to you anymore.
@SF
“I spent the first 170 posts responding to you in great detail.”
Look, trent brought up a point about homosexuality and pedophilia and he was chastised for it.
I looked into it and saw that in fact there was a strong link.
But if you can sit there and tell me that you can’t draw an obvious conclusion when %1.5 of the population is responsible for about one third of child molestations, YOU are ignoring the facts. Not me.
Those are the facts whether I tell you or not. They exist and they aren’t going away and it’s bad for your cause.
To say that those stats show absolutely no connection is just plain absurd!
What you hate me because I talk about facts that you don’t like? So instead of talking about those nasty facts you want to talk about whats wrong with the rest of the world first?
The reason I make such a big deal about this is because with numbers like those, you can’t deny a connection of some sort. But the level of stubbornness here at the blog is beyond sane and you all refuse to acknowledge the obvious. It’s no contest!
If 1.5 percent of ANYTHING is responsible for about 33 percent of SOMETHING then an obvious connection suggests itself. That’s my big problem here.
Everyone wants to talk about EVERYTHING but that. Whether it’s how I didn’t respond to this or that…whatever.
Ceding points? The only point I care about is intellectual honesty. If you can’t honestly admit that the said numbers above show an OBVIOUS connection then I don’t know what’s wrong with you.
English professor Karla Jay, Ph.D., and well-educated journalist Allen Young, both homosexual activists, conducted the first major survey on homosexuality in America in 1979. Their work is still cited in academic studies and involved over 5,000 homosexuals from all walks of life. Titled The Gay Report, the study published data on underage sex, disease, gross promiscuity, suicidal tendencies and more.
One cannot help but applaud the honesty of these two homosexuals in publishing the results of their study, which documented that “23 percent of respondents admitted to having had sex with youths aged 13-15, while 19 percent felt positive about sexual activity within this age group.”
Tragically, 50 percent of the males in their survey experienced their first sexual encounter at age 15 or less…
…Yale and Harvard-connected psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover states that “careful studies show that pedophilia is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals.” Satinover adds, “The greater absolute number of heterosexual cases reflects the fact that heterosexual males outnumber homosexual males by approximately 36 to 1. Heterosexual child molestation cases outnumber homosexual cases by only 11 to 1, implying that pedophilia is more than three times more common among homosexuals.”
@PROMINANT GAYS SAY IT IS NOT A CHOICE
* Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist at The Salk Institute in San Diego, founded the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Education in San Francisco after researching and publishing the study of hypothalamic structures in men most widely-cited as confirming innate brain differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, as he himself initially argued. He later acknowledged:
“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”
I have a ton more from ALL kinds of places both liberal, conservative and medical.
I can leave a post like this everyday for the next month. It just takes too much time.
Edgar,
If you want to be intellectually honest, you would talk about something we really disagree upon (like gay marriage) rather than child molestation, which we both agree is wrong.
I shouldn’t have my right to marry my boyfriend denied me because some gays are child molesters any more than you should not be allowed to marry your girlfriend because some straight men are rapists.
Every two minutes a straight man rapes a woman. Straight men can be sick and evil too. That doesn’t mean most straight men are bad.
Edgar: With the exception of quoting Trent, where do you get this 1.5% => 33% number? This is pretty important, because if you’d shut your pie hole for half a moment and check out even one or two of the links that I posted for you, you would see that it is patent horseshit.
@Jack – I think you should know that I don’t find your mythology important or significant at all. That’s the beauty of this country – you can have that for you, and I can have what I find significant for me. Your biblical laws, notion of burning in hell and all – you can have it, it means nothing to me. But much more important – it is meaningless in the context of law. And this is a country of laws, not mythology.
And much like Edgar and Trent, you’re becoming another EXCELLENT example of the ignorant right. Go man go!
@SF
“If you want to be intellectually honest, you would talk about something we really disagree upon (like gay marriage) rather than child molestation, which we both agree is wrong”
We are not talking about whether child molestation is wrong nathan. We are talking about gay marriage and by extension homosexuality.
1.I think homosexuality can be argued from a non christian and entirely secular perspective.
2. I chose not to discuss the morals of homosexuality here as this discussion is also related to liberty as defined by the constition.
3.I believe the strongest argument in this particular sense is the ill (we are contesting that here) side effects homosexuality has or could have on society.
4. A negative effect on society (we are contesting that at this blog) would be bad for me personally. This is where gay liberty would interfere with my liberty.
5. The Gay-Pedo link is just one single point of many in the “gay is bad for society” argument.
Therefore I’m actually quite on topic. Not only that Nathan, but prominent gay activists also agree with me, not you or the other libs here, but me.
They agree that being gay is a choice and they look at gays like you as cowards for not being open and unafraid.
It’s in my comment above but there are MANY examples that I have, where those angry gays even agree with me.
Perhaps they are bigots like me? LMAO!!!!!!!
The fact that gay men are molesting boys 36 to 1 vs heterosexuals is proof of some kind of connection.
What is that connection and why does it exist? Could it be that people given to deviant behavior become desensitized and seek even more deviant and sexually exciting behavior? I don’t know.
But I do know that homosexual behavior is bad for society and I’m going to prove it one issue at a time, starting with the pedophilia issue.
Hopefully you understand my line of thinking regarding my pursuit in this argument.
@Perk
“Edgar: With the exception of quoting Trent, where do you get this 1.5% => 33% number? This is pretty important, because if you’d shut your pie hole for half a moment (perk throws his almost empty beer can at me) and check out even one or two of the links that I posted for you, you would see that it is patent horseshit.”
I got it when I was doing my research. I will check. I actually got that or numbers close to it from several sources. I think the cdc was one. I will check…
I’m not drunk Edgar, I’m just tired of your unsupported circularly supportive assertions that are simply wrong. WRONG.
Actually, I’m really interested to see if you EVER read ANYTHING that is posted here for you, just as others have when you post something. Many of us have done you the honor of spending our time looking at your assertions. Your opinion has no more coin.
“But I do know that homosexual behavior is bad for society and I’m going to prove it one issue at a time, starting with the pedophilia issue.”
This is your whole point. You are here to prove to all of us that gays are bad for society.
This is why we can’t talk Edgar. You can’t prove anything to me just like I can’t prove anything to you. We can listen to each other and learn, but you aren’t listening, so the conversation is moot. This isn’t an exchange of ideas between people who mutually respect each other – I’m respecting you and listening to you, but you aren’t respecting me and hearing me.
No offense, but you are wasting my time in this conversation by not being as good of a listener as you are a talker.
Hey Nathan, since I’m here and you’re here doesn’t that make this OUR time?
Perk, all you do is ignore everything I write and say that I am full of shit. This will get you started, and I have a LOT LOT LOT more. I have a long way to go before I finish matching my resources to my argument that I have saved in draft.
Dr. Judith Reisman, formerly a research professor at American University, veteran pornography researcher and expert witness before the attorney general’s commission on pornography has reached disturbing conclusions about the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. WorldNetDaily reports on Dr. Reisman’s research in the current issue of their magazine. Contrary to the view expounded by homosexual activists that gays are no more likely to sexually moles children, Dr Reisman says research proves the opposite. Homosexual men are anxious to recruit young boys — a practice that is becoming easier thanks to sex education and “diversity programs” in schools that teach children to consider homosexuality as both acceptable and normal, says Reisman.
Reisman conducted two recent scientific studies. “Crafting ‘Gay’ Children: An Inquiry into the Abuse of Vulnerable Youth Via Establishment Media and the School Room” and “Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation,” are continuations of the work Reisman began with her study, “Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences.”
Reisman’s research based on government statistics for 1992 notes that: Of 86 – 88 million heterosexual men, 9 percent of them victimized 8 million girls under age 18, which constitutes 25 percent of all girls. An uncertain percentage of the estimated 2 million homosexual men victimized 6-8 million boys, under age 18, amounting to 17 – 24 percent of all boys. Therefore, considered in the aggregate, 3 to 4 boys are sexually molested per homosexual adult male. Only .09 girls are sexually molested per heterosexual adult male, which is to say that, on average, 1 in 11 heterosexual males victimizes a girl under 18.
Further corroborating these findings, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the following facts:
50 percent of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male by the age of 16.
20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an adult male by age 10.
Based on the government’s own statistics — the “Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1992, Data on Boys and Girls,” published by the U.S. Commerce Department — Reisman cited the following for that year:
* Of 86 – 88 million heterosexual men, 9 percent of them victimized 8 million girls under age 18, which constitutes 25 percent of all girls.
* An uncertain percentage of the estimated 2 million homosexual men victimized 6-8 million boys, under age 18, amounting to 17 – 24 percent of all boys.
* Therefore, considered in the aggregate, 3 to 4 boys are sexually molested per homosexual adult male.
* Only .09 girls are sexually molested per heterosexual adult male, which is to say that, on average, 1 in 11 heterosexual males victimizes a girl under 18.
The Advocate,” a popular homosexual newsmagazine, conducted a survey of its readers. Of the 2,500 responses obtained, 21 percent admitted that an adult man committed a sexual act with them by the time they were 15.
The Free Republic reproduced the following data/studies:
o Alfred Kinsey, the preeminent sexual researcher in the history of sexual research, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old. [Alfred Kinsey data described in P.H. Gebhard andAB. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, "Homosexual Sample: Age at First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact," and Table 444, "Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact."]
o A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles.” [Zebulon, Z.A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey. "Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women." Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 2000 [Volume 29, Number IJ, pages 67-76.]
o Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%.” [Ray Blanchard, et. aI. "Pedophiles: Mental Retardation, Maternal Age, and Sexual Orientation." Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 28, Number 2, pages 111-127.]
o A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that ” . . . the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.” [Kurt Freund, Robin Watson and Douglas Rienzoo "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference." Journal of Sex Research, February 1989 [Volume 26,Number 1), pages l.]
o A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. [W.D. Erickson, et al. "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters." 17 Archives of Sexual Behavior 77,83 (1988).]
o In a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, sex researchers found that “The proportional prevalence of [male] offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent.” [Freund, G. Heasman, I.G. Racansky, and G. Glancy. "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality." Journal of Sex andMarital Therapy, Fall 1984 [Volume 10, Number 3], pages 193 to 200.]
o Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals I have acted as “chicken hawks” – that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys. [Homosexual activists Karla Jay and Allen Young. The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak OutAbout Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275.]
o In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested. [Freund & R.I. Watson. "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study." 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992).]
o A study by sex researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger. [Alan P. Bell, et. aI., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [Simon and Schuster, 1980].]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1399042/posts
I have much, much more to share with you guys just on the pedo-gay link alone. I have sources from everywhere, not just church sites or what ever. But even the church sites have references otherwise I wont post them!
All truth passes though three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
— Arthur Schopenhauer
Then the famous gay organization (that’s how they are classified) that marches in gay parades everywhere…NAMBLA.
The NAMBLA thing is ugly.
Wait until I get to health issues…
NATHAN
I can prove that homosexuality is bad for society as the numbers show it. You just don’t HAVE to admit it. That proves nothing.
Guess what guys? The vast majority thinks like me. Things aren’t going to change until WE change. That’s not going to happen by dodging the hard questions and deflecting the argument.
See Nathan, things are already going my way ie prop 8 and things like that. I’m trying to explain to you why us normal people don’t approve of homo behavior.
I have no cause, I’m just explaining why I think most people don’t approve.
You on the other hand have a cause. You are fighting for gay rights. It’s your job to convince me and and the rest of america that being gay is good for society.
If all you do is call names and deflect the hard questions then you’ll never change anyones mind.
Your stats only back up your arguments when you stray off topic which you do when the facts are uncomfortable.
I’m sticking to topic and you want me to read 19 pages about the price of tea in china!?
@Perk and other Libs
You guys can’t handle the majority opinion can you. Just remember that when your argument gets tough, you can always just accuse me of hate speech (no need to read my post of course) and go on your merry way.
Edgar, you give me a hard time for my “taking a class on Christianity and think I know everything about it”, and then you come back and present one single scholar’s critique of homosexuality and treat it like the bible?
You rely on your entire post on an account from Ms Reisman, a biased source that has been rejected by mainstream researchers who think she is a quack.
Here’s one critique of the single source (Ms Reisman) you have brought us to “prove” homosexuality is bad for society (from Sex Science Skeptic, a review of scholarship):
“Dr. Judith Reisman is not actually a doctor in science or medicine. Her doctorate is in communications. She has no formal scientific training, nor has she done peer reviewed research. Except once. She got money from the federal government to prove a link between Playboy magazine and pedophilia. Her research was so poorly done that the sponsoring university refused to publish it.
Social conservatives love her. They consider her the leading expert on obscenity in the country, an expert on sex education, and an expert on the crimes of Alfred Kinsey. She’s testified before Congress and consulted for the Justice Department.
Her views are those of the classic pseudoscientist, who believe they have special access to knowledge and understanding that lesser mortals do not. She believes that sex education is morally wrong. She believes that the entire field of sexology and sex research is a fraud, and morally wrong. She’s the leading critic of sex research pioneer Alfred Kinsey, equating him to Nazi doctor Josef Mengele. She accuses him of being a child molester, and just about anything else bad she can think of. She has made a crusade and mini-career out of attacking him and the Kinsey institute, unburdened by the old fashioned tradition of actually providing proof.
Homophobia is not a strong enough term to describe how she feels about gays. She believes that since they can’t have children, they have to aggressively recruit children. If not stopped, she says, some 30 percent of the population will become gay. She has her own version of Holocaust denial- she claims that gays were not killed by the Nazis, and in fact, the Nazi movement itself was actually a gay conspiracy. That’s why she claims that gay youth support groups are equivalent to Hitler youth.
She accuses Jews of leading the abortion industry, despite being Jewish herself. She’s testified as an expert witness that photographer Robert Mapplethorpe was a “fascist” whose pictures were “not art” because he did not show faces. She compared the book “Harmful to Minors” with “Mein Kampf,” admitting she had read neither.
She presents herself as a researcher, although she has no background in science, medicine or research. She testified before Congress that, “Pornography triggers myriad kinds of internal, natural drugs that mimic the ‘high’ from a street drug. Addiction to pornography is addiction to what I dub ‘erototoxins’–mind-altering drugs produced by the viewer’s own brain.” She admits that no scientific research was done to develop her theory. Actual scientists don’t even accept the idea of porn addiction, let alone her notion of it being more powerful than cocaine and making permanent harmful changes to the brain. Her point, though, is to have pornography reclassified as a drug, thus allowing the federal government to control it, and skirt around that pesky first amendment.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are the Kinsey Institute’s responses to Ms Reisman’s faux scholarship:
Kinsey Institute:
“Below is a reiteration of these accusations, recently reported, and the Institute’s response.
Accusation based upon Reisman’s book:
‘The act of encouraging pedophiles to rape innocent babies and toddlers in the names of “science” offends. The act of protecting them from prosecution offends. The act of falsifying research findings which, in turn, open the floodgates for the sexual abuse of children, offends.’ (from Dr. Laura Schlesinger’s website)
Response:
This would be a cause of great concern if it were true. Kinsey was not a pedophile in any shape or form. He did not carry out experiments on children; he did not hire, collaborate, or persuade people to carry out experiments on children. He did not falsify research findings and there is absolutely no evidence that his research “opened flood gates for the sexual abuse of children.” Kinsey did talk to thousands of people about their sex lives, and some of the behaviors that they disclosed, including abuse of children, were illegal. In fact, many sexual behaviors, even those between married adults, were illegal in the 1940′s and 1950′s. Without confidentiality, it would have been impossible to investigate the very private lives of Americans then, and even now.
Where did Kinsey’s information about children’s sexual responses come from?
Kinsey clearly stated in his male volume the sources of information about children’s sexual responses. The bulk of this information was obtained from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was from parents who had observed their children, some from teachers who had observed children interacting or behaving sexually, and Kinsey stated that there were nine men who he had interviewed who had sexual experiences with children who had told him about how the children had responded and reacted. We believe that one of those men was the source of the data listed in the book.
In a British documentary, a woman says she was sexually abused by her father and grandfather, and that her father justified it as doing research for Alfred Kinsey by filling out questionnaires.
We have no reason to doubt that this woman was sexually abused. However, Kinsey did not ask people to fill out questionnaires. It is conceivable that this woman’s father or grandfather wrote to Kinsey, as many people have done. Following that documentary, we checked through Kinsey’s correspondence and could not find any that would match this story. We do know that there have been people who have used Kinsey’s name to justify what they do sexually, even recently.
Accusation:
Kinsey used a Nazi SS officer from Germany as one of his key contributors
Response:
In Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Kinsey invited people to write to him about their sex lives. In 1955, a German wrote to him and told him about his sexual experiences with children. Kinsey, in his reply, was non-judgmental, as usual. He did however point out how strongly society condemned such behavior. Kinsey never made use of the information from this man. He also had no idea that this man had been a Nazi ten years earlier…. To suggest that Kinsey had something to do with Nazi torture of children is a bizarre fabrication.
Here is the Kinsey Institute Link:
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/controversy%202.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edgar, you have grabbed a single source that is clearly biased and not respected within the field as a competent researcher. She’s full of it. Just because she lists citations doesn’t make them accurate. Her misuse of data as pointed out by the Kinsey institute and others makes every source she cites as evidence suspect.
Show me, for instance, the actual issue of the Advocate, where the magazine “conducted a survey of its readers… and found that 21 percent admitted that an adult man committed a sexual act with them by the time they were 15..”
If all you have is this crazy woman’s word for her sources, than we have no reason to believe any of her citations.
Now why don’t you review the information I gave you on why the concept of traditional marriage has been changing throughout its history and there is no good reason it shouldn’t change again…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re-post on marriage history:
Marriage has been redefined constantly throughout the ages and in America. Here are some of the ways marriage has been traditionally redefined over the centuries:
1. Medieval Same Sex Marriage between Men – Historian John Boswell was the first scholar to document the fact that when Ancient Greece became Christianized, the early Christian Church incorporated gay male relationships into Christianity with church officiated same sex marriages. This tradition (found in images, literature, and many documents from this period) shows that these marriages, ordained in the Eastern Church, lasted for several centuries until the Western Church banned them and destroyed most documents related to the marriages. This proves that Christian marriage was not always an institution between men and women, but for centuries, included same sex couples.
2.19th Century Romantic Marriage – With the rise of the industrial revolution and changes in people’s lifestyles, marriage was again redefined from a contract between two families into a contract between two people that enshrined the ideal of “true love”.
3. American Colonial Ban on Marriage between Slaves. It is important to note that at one time, marriage was BY DEFINITION, not something afforded to black people in America. Slaves were considered property, and not people, and so how could you apply the traditional term used for citizens with legal rights to slaves who were property?
4. 1890 Utah Mormons officially renounce Polygamy. Another aspect of the Christian tradition of marriage was the Mormon tradition of polygamy.
5. 1948 Supreme Court overturns Interracial Marriage ban – ending centuries of tradition.
6. 1965 US Supreme Court overturns an Alabama law banning married couples from using contraception – marriage is deemed no longer about having children. This was fought by those who argued that marriage has traditionally been only about having children, a same argument used against gay marriage today.
7. 1969 Divorce – California adopted the first “no fault divorce” law in the nation.
8. Article 16 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Marriage is included in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a basic Human Right. The right does not define marriage as between a man and a woman, but says that all persons of age have the right to marriage.
My Point: Traditional marriage has evolved constantly over the centuries, sometimes including same sex marriage, and sometimes including traditions we would never want to return to, such as excluding black people from legal marriage. The real question is – what is the right marriage policy? Why should some people be allowed to be married and why should some people be excluded from marriage?
My answer – if two consenting adults want to marry, let them.
Here are some source materials for the above:
Eva C. Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus, Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens, 1985, University of California Press.
Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian, 1991, Oxford University Press
John Boswell, Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. 1994 Villard Books.
History of Civil Marriage in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race-based_legal_restrictions_on_marriage
Anti-Miscegenation laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race-based_legal_restrictions_on_marriage
UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, Article 16: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
@Edgar: Big problem here pal. First, your sources are known non-objective. Try something for real, like the Kinsey Report as Nathan has. Real science has it’s place. Second, you leave no links or way to follow up you research and develop opinions, you simply blather out facts you’ve read, oh, somewhere.
Question for you: is a priest, that has taken a vow of celibacy, no longer heterosexual? I mean, since you’ve defined sexuality as the act of sex (an inaccurate description, but follow me here) then since he’s no longer having sex is he no longer heterosexual? For that matter, when I’m not lying with my wife, am I no longer heterosexual? Are we only heterosexual when we’re fucking?
And what then, about gay priests? Sworn to celibacy but they know that they are gay? Are they not really gay? Are they heterosexual and they don’t know it? Wait, they can’t be because they’re not have sex.
You see, the overall problem here is that you’re trying (ad nauseum) to tie sexuality to the sex act. And although they share root words, they describe two different things. Kind of like Ass and Assume.
I really don’t know what you, Trent or Jack’s problem is other than a holier than thou problem or fear of the unknown. Understanding people who are different than you is tough, I know. But it is the way that this we as a people and this country in general will move forward and grow. If you think back, the times that we celebrate are when we were bigger than ourselves and freed the slaves, or gave women the vote – it’s times when we stepped past our petty insecurities and recognized that we are one people and that the best of us lives in sharing, fostering and supporting individual liberities and freedoms, not writing laws to suppress them.
I’m stopping this thread because it’s not something that will resolve here. I’d like to thank all of the EXCELLENT posts by the readers here and most specifically I’d like to thank SFNathan whom, even in the face of insult, hatred and being essentially told he will burn in hell, has persisted in giving all of us the bigger viewpoint – and more importantly, the tools to follow and learn ourselves.
Thanks again all. Hopefully I’ll have some time now to post something new for us to argue about