View Full Version : US. Supreme Court
Was the Us.supreme court right in making homosexual sex legal?
Most definitely.
Next, please.
Free country isn't it?
I'm ready to strike down anyone who thinks they have a reason why it shouldn't be [;)].
russ_watters
Jun27-03, 12:29 AM
Though I don't know the specifics of the case, in general yes.
if the supreme court ruled the other way, then they wouldn't be doing their jobs.
if we're going to punish people for being born a certain way, like making it illegal to be homosexual, then what's next, making it impossible for mentally disabled persons to have kids, or even killing them so society doesn't have to deal with them?
also makes me glad rick santorum became a senator instead of a supreme court justice.
Of course they were right, and for more than just common sense reasons.
Ivan Seeking
Jun27-03, 02:58 AM
Well, to see this level of agreement is a little scary.
Absolutely correct!
Well, to see this level of agreement is a little scary.
lol. Really, it's not an issue whether or not you agree with their lifestyle. It's whether or not you agree with their freedom to practice that lifestyle.
It reminds me of that famous quote made by Voltaire...
Free country isn't it?
Since when? [;)]
eNtRopY
Jun27-03, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Turtle
Was the Us.supreme court right in making homosexual sex legal?
Don't you mean State of Texas Supreme Court?
eNtRopY
Ivan Seeking
Jun28-03, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by eNtRopY
Don't you mean State of Texas Supreme Court?
eNtRopY
No. It was the US Supreme court. What they really said was that states can not make such private consensual activities illegal.
It will be interesting how long it takes for the don't ask/don't tell military policy in the U.S. to be challenged with this new ruling, also interesting to see the outcome and what Bush's public views are on it.
kyle_soule
Jun30-03, 05:12 PM
I think we all know Bush will take a religious standpoint and denounce the ruling on the basis of morality, whose morality one would ask though? Are gays IMMORAL because they LOVE another of the same SEX?
I think the ruling is fair, and their reasoning is certainly good: it is a definate breach of privacy. Having laws against what a person can do with another person they love is insanse.
::::(Explicit Content Warning)::::
Is anal sex against the law with a man and a woman? Then why should it be against the law for a man and a man?
I would like to know how many laws like this are being enforced, I'm sure there are many more that need removed.
You must ask yourself, why are people making such a big deal about this, though? Do you think even one 'couple' did not engage in homosexual activity because of the current law? Foolish to even have a law that is impossible to enforce.
Ivan Seeking
Jun30-03, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by kyle_soule
::::(Explicit Content Warning)::::
Is anal sex against the law with a man and a woman? Then why should it be against the law for a man and a man?
Actually, in most states the law is regarding sodomy; man, woman, critter, don't matter.
I would like to know how many laws like this are being enforced, I'm sure there are many more that need removed.
You must ask yourself, why are people making such a big deal about this, though? Do you think even one 'couple' did not engage in homosexual activity because of the current law? Foolish to even have a law that is impossible to enforce.
It is interesting how many modern standards can trace their roots to the Bible. I wonder what argument an athiest would make against sodomy or homosexuality.
In some cities, it is still illegal: to spit in the street, to leave your horse untied, for a school teacher to be out past dark or to have sex, or to walk your pigs or sheep through town. Some of these laws are not really that old either. Up until the 1960s, white only drinking fountains could still be found in Portland Oregon. Of course, since the Grand Wizard of the KKK was also the head of the physics department at Oregon State University, well... need I say more? Of course, Oregon is slowly changing. The cities are pretty normal.
I used to know a web site with a list of laws like this. I will try to find it.
kyle_soule
Jun30-03, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I used to know a web site with a list of laws like this. I will try to find it.
I would question the validity of these sites for this reason, on many of them there is this:
under Illinois:
"The English language is not to be spoken."
"You must contact the police before entering the city in an automobile"
"Spitting is forbidden"
"It is forbidden to fish while sitting on a giraffe's neck."
"It is legal to protect naked in front of city hall as long as you are under seventeen years of age and have legal permits."
"Bees are not allowed to fly over the village or through any of Kriland's streets."
None of these are laws in Illinois.
Link: Dumb Laws (http://realpolice.net/dumb_laws.htm)
If there were laws against sodomy, don't you think a lot of porn stars would be put in prison?
PhysicsRocks88
Jun30-03, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by kyle_soule
I would question the validity of these sites for this reason, on many of them there is this:
under Illinois:
"The English language is not to be spoken."
"You must contact the police before entering the city in an automobile"
"Spitting is forbidden"
"It is forbidden to fish while sitting on a giraffe's neck."
"It is legal to protect naked in front of city hall as long as you are under seventeen years of age and have legal permits."
"Bees are not allowed to fly over the village or through any of Kriland's streets."
None of these are laws in Illinois.
Link: Dumb Laws (http://realpolice.net/dumb_laws.htm)
If there were laws against sodomy, don't you think a lot of porn stars would be put in prison?
First off - yes those are all laws in the state of Illinois.
Secondly - on your porn star comment - laws are selectively enforced. There is no law that states law-breakers must be saught out.
Ivan Seeking
Jun30-03, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by kyle_soule
None of these are laws in Illinois.
Link: Dumb Laws (http://realpolice.net/dumb_laws.htm)
If there were laws against sodomy, don't you think a lot of porn stars would be put in prison?
Interesting. I know that some laws like this are true. Also, the state does not typically regulate spitting on the street and such. These are usually under municipal codes. So, perhaps the claim was in error, but not completely false. Also, the court ruled on sodomy. This is the law on most books. Another state recently on the books with this was either Vermont or Maine. No doubt, almost nobody enforces such laws except places like Bushland.
Note: I am aware of some so called "urban legends", that I know for a fact are not urban legends. One web site dedicated to this subject makes at least several false claims. Interesting, how does one introduce such an example? It is an urban legend that the following story is an urban legend?
kyle_soule
Jun30-03, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
First off - yes those are all laws in the state of Illinois.
Secondly - on your porn star comment - laws are selectively enforced. There is no law that states law-breakers must be saught out.
I've never met an officer that didn't speak english...
Born and raised in Illinois, these aren't laws. I work for IDOT and we always have a state cop out there on the interstate to enforce the speed limit, we are spitting all over the place, the cop has never stopped us or said hey, that's against the law.
But hey, you said they are laws so they must be[;)] You give me the exact location these laws are recorded in and I will believe you.
if we're going to punish people for being born a certain way
If we found out tomorrow that there was a "murderer gene", would you advocate the Supreme Court legalizing murder?
What about homosexual acts committed by those who weren't born a homosexual?
Being born a certain way, by itself, should not be grounds for legalization.
Having laws against what a person can do with another person they love is insanse.
So there shouldn't be laws against stalking?
Or what about a man killing his wife if it was consensual?
I'm not buying this rationale.
Are gays IMMORAL because they LOVE another of the same SEX?
I love my dad. I don't have sex with him.
PhysicsRocks88
Jun30-03, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by kyle_soule
I've never met an officer that didn't speak english...
Born and raised in Illinois, these aren't laws. I work for IDOT and we always have a state cop out there on the interstate to enforce the speed limit, we are spitting all over the place, the cop has never stopped us or said hey, that's against the law.
But hey, you said they are laws so they must be[;)] You give me the exact location these laws are recorded in and I will believe you.
You did NOT pay attention.
Those are laws in the State of illoines.
You need to understand that there is no ruling that states laws MUST be enforced. They are laws, but they are NOT enforced - however they could be.
Just because you have committed law-breaking activities and were not arrested doesn't mean they're not laws.
You sir need to go to your local government and look in the state law book and you will see these laws there.
Until then, don't claim you know what is and isn't a law when you have NOT even peaked once into the book containing laws.
Ivan Seeking
Jun30-03, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
If we found out tomorrow that there was a "murderer gene", would you advocate the Supreme Court legalizing murder?
No. It would force a change in the penal system for sure. Also, this is not a fair comparison since there is a victim here.
What about homosexual acts committed by those who weren't born a homosexual?
It is still a personal choice.
Being born a certain way, by itself, should not be grounds for legalization.
So there shouldn't be laws against stalking?
Or what about a man killing his wife if it was consensual?
I'm not buying this rationale.
You are comparing consensual activities mostly with those which have a victim. Also, come on, consensual murder? There is still a victim. The question is not whether we view the activity as morally correct. The question is a right of privacy.
I love my dad. I don't have sex with him.
That's a good thing. [:D] However, if you and your dad are both consenting adults...as disgusting as the thought is [nothing about you personally but you know what I mean], it is surely no business of mine.
kyle_soule
Jun30-03, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No. It would force a change in the penal system for sure. Also, this is not a fair comparison since there is a victim here.
At first I agreed with Hurkyl but you are 100% correct, as long as there is no victim, and all parties involved are willing, and it is of your own personal business, what right does anybody (especially law makers) have impeding with these choices?
I think the religious stance bears mentioning. They will claim it is immoral and a terrible act and a sin, but you must ask yourself this, why do they care if others sin? Why must they always force their own beliefs onto others and our laws, as was mentioned. I cannot think of any other reason for having the law against homosexuals other than religion.
This is the last time I will address the question of the laws in ILLINOIS (not the "the State of illoines", this in itself makes me wonder what knowledge you have of my state). I know these aren't laws because firstly, they are absurd, secondly, the ones that enforce the laws are breaking many of them, thirdly, these
"It is legal to protect naked in front of city hall as long as you are under seventeen years of age and have legal permits."
"Bees are not allowed to fly over the village or through any of Kriland's streets."
cannot possibly be correct because public nudity isn't legal, are you saying there are two contradicting laws, one insanely absurd and the other a reasonable law? As for bees, they are free spirits, you cannot make laws against animals, do you fine them and put them in jail with 10 months of community service for breaking the law?
Sound like tabloid laws, are you going to believe the claim of a personal website or ones own logic? I've never seen a giraffe in Illinois, except in the zoos, and it isn't legal to get in the display with the animals anyways, it's like saying it is illegal to kill a person and it is illegal to make a man's heart stop until death and it is illegal to make a mains brain stop until death and it is illegal to make a man stop breathing until death, these are overkill and need not be mentioned with the former.
PhysicsRocks88
Jun30-03, 08:22 PM
.
Ivan Seeking
Jun30-03, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by kyle_soule
I think the religious stance bears mentioning. They will claim it is immoral and a terrible act and a sin, but you must ask yourself this, why do they care if others sin? Why must they always force their own beliefs onto others and our laws, as was mentioned. I cannot think of any other reason for having the law against homosexuals other than religion.
I will take a stab at this since I am one of the religious. Even though my religious beliefs require that homosexuality is a sin, and the Bible is very clear on this point, I choose these beliefs and I feel that they have no place in politics. The US is supposed to be all about freedom of choice - to the greatest extent possible in my opinion. So, even though I draw the line between religion and the state, I still could not condone such activities in a personal way. However, it is not my place to judge others. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that sort of stuff you know. This is also made very clear in the Bible. At the same time, I am required by the teachings of Christ to spread the word of God. This is why so many christians will try to convert you. I know all about the "they just want more donations" point of view, but, if you believe in the teachings of the Christian Bible, any one of them, the basic points are pretty much the same. So in my own way I try to spread the word AS I READ IT. But in no way does this mean that I should spend time condemning others. I have enough to worry about in my own life. I would think that any other good christian would also. The thing about sin is: We all do it. Sin is sin.
This is the last time I will address the question of the laws in ILLINOIS (not the "the State of illoines", this in itself makes me wonder what knowledge you have of my state). I know these aren't laws because firstly, they are absurd, secondly, the ones that enforce the laws are breaking many of them, thirdly, these
"It is legal to protect naked in front of city hall as long as you are under seventeen years of age and have legal permits."
"Bees are not allowed to fly over the village or through any of Kriland's streets."
cannot possibly be correct because public nudity isn't legal, are you saying there are two contradicting laws, one insanely absurd and the other a reasonable law? As for bees, they are free spirits, you cannot make laws against animals, do you fine them and put them in jail with 10 months of community service for breaking the law?
I wasn't really in the middle of this, I don't think, but I can't help but comment. You may be 100% correct. But not for any of the reasons given. Laws can be complex, contradictory, insane, irreverent, illegal, and about everything else. They stand as written unless challenged. So a really stupid law can stand for decades; even though if challenged it could never stand.
kyle_soule
Jun30-03, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I will take a stab at this since I am one of the religious. Even though my religious beliefs require that homosexuality is a sin, and the Bible is very clear on this point, I choose these beliefs and I feel that they have no place in politics. The US is supposed to be all about freedom of choice - to the greatest extent possible in my opinion. So, even though I draw the line between religion and the state, I still could not condone such activities in a personal way. However, it is not my place to judge others. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that sort of stuff you know. This is also made very clear in the Bible. At the same time, I am required by the teachings of Christ to spread the word of God. This is why so many christians will try to convert you. I know all about the "they just want more donations" point of view, but, if you believe in the teachings of the Christian Bible, any one of them, the basic points are pretty much the same. So in my own way I try to spread the word AS I READ IT. But in no way does this mean that I should spend time condemning others. I have enough to worry about in my own life. I would think that any other good christian would also. The thing about sin is: We all do it. Sin is sin.
All but that last statement I agree with and it is very nice to meet a religious person that isn't oppressive[:)] In a way though, you are being oppressive (somewhat), "The thing about sin is: We all do it. Sin is sin." is kind of forcing your opinions on others, saying I sin isn't true, because I am not religious, outside of religion sin has no relevance, so if religion isn't "real" to me, how can I believe what you claim of me? What you want me to believe is that I sin....I think you get the idea.
Back to the topic:
It is somewhat required of religion to protect its dogmas and condemn blatant challanges of these sacred laws. In this case, homosexuality is the sin it must condemn, the only thing, as you understand and apply, is these dogmas apply to 'potential' converts or the religious family. They ( I almost said you ) cannot expect what they believe to affect everything, and they certainly cannot condemn giving freedom to other people while they enjoy freedoms that could be suppressed. But you realize this and aren't like this, I just see so many people that aren't like you. The pastor at the church I attend raised this issue, he said it is wrong that they legalized homosexuality, but he doesn't condemn those, he simply said it was a sin. I thought this was the best approach the church could take, once they step into the nonbelieving public they must ignore their personal beliefs and give everybody their rights to worship (or not) as they please, and with that right the right to do as they please.
PhysicsRocks88 - if you would like to continue this off-topic discussion, start a new post, I would be more than happy to participate. Turtle didn't intend this thread to be about what websites claim and if their claims are true...
Ivan Seeking
Jun30-03, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by kyle_soule
"The thing about sin is: We all do it. Sin is sin." is kind of forcing your opinions on others, saying I sin isn't true, because I am not religious, outside of religion sin has no relevance, so if religion isn't "real" to me, how can I believe what you claim of me? What you want me to believe is that I sin....I think you get the idea.
True, according to your beliefs. [;)] But what I really meant was that even if tend to find a particular form of sin more or less disturbing [no I'm really not homophobic either], in Gods eyes, other people's lifestyle choices may no worse than my own...even according to my beliefs. Again, it is the issue of "I am not the judge". That is never my job.
And, oh yes. We did hijack the thread a bit eh?
kyle_soule
Jun30-03, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
And, oh yes. We did hijack the thread a bit eh?
Turtle only has 38 posts, you, more than me, can do that. You are the mean, oppressive religious person that forces their opinions on others[:))] Hehe. Just joking.
True, according to your beliefs. But what I really meant was that even if tend to find a particular form of sin more or less disturbing [no I'm really not homophobic either], in Gods eyes, other people's lifestyle choices may no worse than my own...even according to my beliefs. Again, it is the issue of "I am not the judge". That is never my job.
My beliefs are of course correct[;)]
Indeed in God's eyes your sins are no more disturbing than a homosexuals. It's a good thing that the Supreme Court doesn't make laws according to God's eyes...heheh. As long as the thread is ours[<:)] I would like to know why so many religious people also think the answer to all the woahs of our country is to put religion back in schools? Prayer in schools won't stop school shootings, they think if they can just force religion on kids it will 'heal' them. Gr, religion urks me.
schwarzchildradius
Jul1-03, 01:07 AM
Consentual crimes are only immoral if they offend ones personal preferences. The supreme court is taking the law a step forward here. The liberty of privacy is derived from the constitution.
You would think 'conservatives' would support this action. After all, one less law means less government intrusion in our lives, slightly smaller government, ect...
Also, this is not a fair comparison since there is a victim here.
There are those that would argue there are two victims in a homosexual act.
It is still a personal choice.
I'm looking to point out the flaw in the "It's okay because they're born that way" argument.
The "personal choice" argument has the same major flaw as the "born that way" argument; you presume that homosexuality is not a self-destructive (or mutually destructive) act. There are those who would disagree.
Also, come on, consensual murder? There is still a victim. The question is not whether we view the activity as morally correct. The question is a right of privacy.
Again, same point. Unless you are able to use the "right of privacy" to defend consensual murder, it does not apply to the arguments against homosexuality. (at least type of argument I'm considering)
why do they care if others sin?
Why do we have interventions for alcoholics or try to convince people not to commit suicide?
Ivan Seeking
Jul1-03, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
There are those that would argue there are two victims in a homosexual act.
Not in any legal sense. I meant legally. You are effectively suggesting that we use the Bible as the Constitution. If this is not what you mean, then what are we using as a basis?
I'm looking to point out the flaw in the "It's okay because they're born that way" argument.
The "personal choice" argument has the same major flaw as the "born that way" argument; you presume that homosexuality is not a self-destructive (or mutually destructive) act. There are those who would disagree....Why do we have interventions for alcoholics or try to convince people not to commit suicide?
If it can be shown to be self destructive, which is obviously conjecture, thus making your position completely academic, then we should treat it like we do other self destructive activities - TAX IT! Let's victimize some more people to make more soft money for the system.
Again, same point. Unless you are able to use the "right of privacy" to defend consensual murder, it does not apply to the arguments against homosexuality. (at least type of argument I'm considering)
No your logic here completely fails. This assumes your premise that homosexuality is self destructive, or as you put it, the same as murder; which is really just a personal opinion; and a real stretch at that...unless of course you can back up your assertion with evidence.
What is your evidence that homosexuality is the same as consensual
murder?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
There are those that would argue there are two victims in a homosexual act.
I'm looking to point out the flaw in the "It's okay because they're born that way" argument.
The "personal choice" argument has the same major flaw as the "born that way" argument; you presume that homosexuality is not a self-destructive (or mutually destructive) act. There are those who would disagree.
Again, same point. Unless you are able to use the "right of privacy" to defend consensual murder, it does not apply to the arguments against homosexuality. (at least type of argument I'm considering)
Why do we have interventions for alcoholics or try to convince people not to commit suicide?
Your entire reasoning presupposes that it is acceptable for you to force your personal views on others. Comparing homosexuality to murder, alcoholism, and suicide ruins any argument you might have...and you don't have much of an argument.
If we say that sex is legal between consenting heterosexuals, then we CANNOT say it is illegal between homosexuals, or groups, or whatever combination consenting adults can come up with. It is one step away from the government telling you who you are allowed to love.
And, why is the government getting involved? Why is one orifice legal, and another not legal? Why is one adult partner legal and another adult partner not? Isn't a sodomy law the most idiotic and useless law that can exist? Hell, even an anti-spitting law makes more sense!
I generally avoid making assertions about what the right thing for a government to do because there are lots of complications at various levels that I simply don't want to bother figuring my way through. The reason I chime in is because I see people ignoring those complications!
One of the things that really bothers me is how self-evident people think their beliefs are. It certainly wasn't self-evident 50 years ago that homosexuality was ok, what makes it self-evident now?
One of the other things that bug me is that people use cliches that are red herrings. "Being born a certain way" is a prime example; I highly doubt anyone who supports homosexuality using that argument would argue against homosexuality from people who weren't born that way, so I call people on it (and I haven't been wrong yet).
Your entire reasoning presupposes that it is acceptable for you to force your personal views on others.
Arguments like this one are on my list too; it works against ANY law, so it is misleading to try to apply this argument to one law in particular, and I somehow think you don't believe there should be no laws what so ever, right?
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Mulder
Free country isn't it?
I'm ready to strike down anyone who thinks they have a reason why it shouldn't be [;)].
1. No, America is by no means a free country.
2. Strike as you like - you can produce no more reasons why it should be allowed than can someone produce reasons why it should NOT be allowed.
Let's take the anti-freedom argument to its illogical(and religious right-wing supported) conclusion. If the government has a right to legislate sexual behavior between gay people, then they have a right to do it for heterosexuals. You will only have sex with government sanctioned partners, in the approved positions. Next, they can ban masturbation, because only deviants masturbate. Then, I suppose, they will eliminate sex entirely, and all pregnancies will be by artificial insemination, right?
Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
2. Strike as you like - you can produce no more reasons why it should be allowed than can someone produce reasons why it should NOT be allowed.
Constitution, Bill of rights, internationally agreed human rights charters.
Scientific evidence on lack of harmfulness. General assumption of US as land of the free.
Axiom that all men are equal and free.
Occarum's razor against senseless laws.
schwarzchildradius
Jul2-03, 07:42 PM
How is being gay and doing gay things moral or not moral? All morality is completely irrelevant. Only the result of a code of laws matters - an orderly society is more productive and will make more copies of itself. Gay men and women are statistically more affluent and productive than their straight bretheren, therefore gays are inherently MORE moral than straights. The supreme court decision reflects the new gay superiority.
We have laws because they make society better, not to satiate an archaic Bronze-age religion.
kyle_soule
Jul2-03, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Let's take the anti-freedom argument to its illogical(and religious right-wing supported) conclusion. If the government has a right to legislate sexual behavior between gay people, then they have a right to do it for heterosexuals. You will only have sex with government sanctioned partners, in the approved positions. Next, they can ban masturbation, because only deviants masturbate. Then, I suppose, they will eliminate sex entirely, and all pregnancies will be by artificial insemination, right?
heheh
1984...Junior Anti-Sex League[:)]
Ivan Seeking
Jul2-03, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by kyle_soule
heheh
1984...Junior Anti-Sex League[:)]
Hey, we can also change all dietary information so that the Recommended Daily Allowance is the Mandatory Daily Allowance. I refuse to pay for all the health problems of all those vitamin deficient scumbags out there killing themselves. And my god where is the junk food tax! How many heart attacks do I have to pay for...and these people are killing themselves. Don't you also think that people who feed their kids junk food are unfit parents? They're killing their kids. Also, we need salt police. I and any good physician could rant all day about the evils of salt! These lifestyle choices are costing me money and killing people. How can we endure these great evils in our society? Oh, and all sports must go. They are too dangerous and they are killing people! Oh yes, and all cars also. They kill people - 20,000 kids a year in this country alone. How can we endure this?
What about the extra cost that I must endure to pay for lost productivity due to lack of sleep, and from personal problems interfering with work duties? In fact, isn't it really irresponsible to try to be a parent and to have certain jobs? How can we allow children's lives to be ruined by parents who are constantly working and are absent from home. Isn't this really just another form of neglect? I don't think I can take it any more!
I keep hearing how government should butt out, that laws exist to tell teh government what it is not allowed to do...unless it is someone having sex, in which case the government should control every aspect.
Dissident Dan
Jul3-03, 10:59 AM
A lot of people who are ignorant of the subject think that people choose to be gay, but that is almost universally not the case, I think. Either way, it is irrelevant. This is not an action which adversely affects others. Try to impose laws against homosexuality is an unjustified limit on freedom. It is truly anti-American (with "American" meaning of or relating to the principles upon which this country was founded).
And the absurdity of anti-gay laws is readily apparent to those who break free of their societal/religious assumptions. When you are emotionally trapped by those assumptions, then it may be hard to realize it. 50 years ago, people in the USA were much more emotionally trapped by those assumptions.
kyle_soule
Jul3-03, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
A lot of people who are ignorant of the subject think that people choose to be gay, but that is almost universally not the case, I think. Either way, it is irrelevant. This is not an action which adversely affects others. Try to impose laws against homosexuality is an unjustified limit on freedom. It is truly anti-American (with "American" meaning of or relating to the principles upon which this country was founded).
And the absurdity of anti-gay laws is readily apparent to those who break free of their societal/religious assumptions. When you are emotionally trapped by those assumptions, then it may be hard to realize it. 50 years ago, people in the USA were much more emotionally trapped by those assumptions.
Of course this is hard to prove either way, I agree it is mostly genetics, I believe certain traumas can cause it, and in some cases it is a choice. True, this is irrelevant, but I find it interesting you say the principles America was founded on, because there certainly is a legitamite argument that America was founded on Christian principals[:)] Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. This is all for the sake of argument of course.
Break free of their religious assumptions? This is foolish to say, seeing as how their religious assumptions govern their lives, and society is generally accepting of gays, what the major block is the unwillingness to accept in others what you consider a sin. Also their religious assumptions aren't something to be broken free of, you wouldn't be much of a Christian if you thought of the Christian morals were something to be broken free from.
I don't agree with people that take the religious standpoint on laws, because all Americans don't follow a religion. Of course we shouldn't be targetting Christians, the Christians of today are getting bombarded when the Christians of old made the laws. There are certainly many atheists that don't think gays should have the rights they want. I for one don't think they should be allowed to be married because, IMO, marriage implies a family, and gays and lesbians just aren't able to have a family. Let them marry and you completely destroy family values, IMHO.
I think the media plays this up too much. I don't really care if gays have rights or not, it just heats up a national debate and the media loves that. Stupid media[:)]
Originally posted by kyle_soule
I for one don't think they should be allowed to be married because, IMO, marriage implies a family, and gays and lesbians just aren't able to have a family. Let them marry and you completely destroy family values, IMHO.
The problem with this argument is that it also disqualifies men and women who can't or won't have children from getting married.
kyle_soule
Jul3-03, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Zero
The problem with this argument is that it also disqualifies men and women who can't or won't have children from getting married.
Simply, that is where discrimination comes in[:)] Heheh
Here is how I would argue this, I mentioned family values, there is a family with a man and a woman who adopted, not with two men. Since the child cannot say yes or no I want/don't want two men to raise me, I think we should do what is natural, put a child in a family with a mother and a father, simply for no other reason but two men cannot provide the female aspect of a family. As for one parent adoptions, I don't think those should happen, I think you should put the child in a family that is 'normal' and 'healthy', and that SHOULD involve a mother and a father.
You would confuse the child and cause arguments between the two dads, the child would say "hey dad" and both would answer, and when the childs first words were dadda they would prolly argue until one killed the other[:)]
Your arguments make presumptions that have no basis in any facts.
That's just as many facts that have supported anything else in this thread.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Simply, that is where discrimination comes in[:)] Heheh
Here is how I would argue this, I mentioned family values, there is a family with a man and a woman who adopted, not with two men. Since the child cannot say yes or no I want/don't want two men to raise me, I think we should do what is natural, put a child in a family with a mother and a father, simply for no other reason but two men cannot provide the female aspect of a family. As for one parent adoptions, I don't think those should happen, I think you should put the child in a family that is 'normal' and 'healthy', and that SHOULD involve a mother and a father.
But the child also doesn't have a say as to whether it wants to be adopted by a man and a woman either. And no, I don't buy the "natural" stuff. I mean, try this.
The majority of people in america are white. So, it is natural for the child to be brought up with white parents, as black parents cannot provide the white element in their lives that society is made of. It is only normal and healthy that black people should be excluded from the adoption program. After all, the child doesn't have a say into whether it wants black parents, does it? Though we have no evidence as to whether being adopted by black people is wrong or not, we can say that it is against the traditional values of family that the nation was created in. I mean, shock horror, we can have children who have an attachment to deviant (from normal, healthy whites of course) black culture!
Can you really put a difference between this, and homosexuality?
The fact is, some people are bigots who think that thier way should be everyone's way. In my mind, someone's sexuality is only important to the person they are sleeping with. It is no one's business otherwise.
Am I correct in presuming that "your way" is that sexuality is nobody's business except those involved, and you think that should be "everyone's way"?
Some quick questions on your view: is it a wife's business if her husband is sleeping with another woman? Is it the courts' business if a man rapes a woman? Is it a boyfriend's business if his girlfriend is sleeping around?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Am I correct in presuming that "your way" is that sexuality is nobody's business except those involved, and you think that should be "everyone's way"?
Some quick questions on your view: is it a wife's business if her husband is sleeping with another woman? Is it the courts' business if a man rapes a woman? Is it a boyfriend's business if his girlfriend is sleeping around?
'Everyone's way' is whatever individuals choose to do with other consenting adults...you act as though heterosexuality is somehow in danger, which is ridiculous. If you choose to be celibate or sleep with 2 people at once, so long as you are all consenting adults, it is none of my business.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand...it is not the government's business in cases of consentual sex between adults. Of course, irrelevancy is the main argument against freedom, isn't it? A marriage is a legal contract, and a breach in it is possibly government business. Rape is nonconsentual, therefore not germaine to this discussion. Cheating girlfriends are bad for the boyfriend, but not a place for the law to intervene.
It's as if you were consciously trying to avoid answering a single question I posed...
Originally posted by Hurkyl
It's as if you were consciously trying to avoid answering a single question I posed...
I answered your question...try understanding the answer, or rephasing the question? So far, your questions are mostly signs that you equate homosexuality with rape and dishonesty. There is no evidence to support that, therefore I am forced to assume you speak out of bigotry. Care to correct my impression?
Do you think that others' sexual behavior is nobody's business but the two directly involved?
Do you think everyone should think that way?
Does this not satisfy your own definition of bigot?
As for the three questions I asked about your point of view, I don't think they can be phrased any clearer... you're trying so hard to read between the lines when there's nothing there.
I did not ask you if the government should care about a breach of legal contract, I asked you if it's the wife's business if her husband is sleeping around.
I asked you if cases of rape are the government's business.
I did not ask you if the law should intervene in the case of cheating girlfriends, I asked you if it's the boyfriend's business.
The point to my questions, if you really need to know where I'm going before answering, is to show that even you don't believe your nice happy politically correct oversimplification of the issue.
And if you haven't caught the main theme of the posts I've made on this topic, I'll spell it out for you: People have deluded themselves that oversimplifications like yours actually carry some meaning behind them.
We are talking about LAW. We are not talking about what you find distasteful. We are not talking about the mores of your social group. We are talking about the legal basis for banning someone from loving the adult(s) of their choice, in ways that they mutually agree on.
Your cases are irrelevant, because in each case someone is involved in something they are not consenting to. Being cheated on is a case where your chosen relationship is being misrepresented by the other person, so your consent to remain in that relationship is gotten by fraudulent means. The rape situation needs no clarification.
Try again?
Show me where I was discussing what I find distateful, or where I was discussing the mores of my social group. You should stop fighting strawmen sometime.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Show me where I was discussing what I find distateful, or where I was discussing the mores of my social group. You should stop fighting strawmen sometime.
You should try just stating your claim, and showing a reason, instead of bringing up irrelevant issues like infidelity and rape. Just tell me what either of those things have to do with consentual sex between adults, whatever their sexual orientation.
Dissident Dan
Jul3-03, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by kyle_soule
[B] but I find it interesting you say the principles America was founded on, because there certainly is a legitamite argument that America was founded on Christian principals[:)] Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. This is all for the sake of argument of course.
No where in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution does it mention christ, jesus, yahweh, jehovah, moses, or anything like that. Many prominent "founding fathers" were not christians, such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.
While there are certainly some principles that are among the list of christian principles and also principles upon which this country was founded, this country was definitely NOT founded as being a christian nation. There principles that are christian that were not principles of the national foundation. There are principles that exist in many spheres, and one group cannot claim that a nation or body is their group or nation because it happens to share some principles with the founders...otherwise, you could call iran a christian nation because its founding shares some principles with christianity.
There are certainly many atheists that don't think gays should have the rights they want.
That's where the societal part comes in.
Since the child cannot say yes or no I want/don't want two men to raise me,
I think that this was already covered rather well.
I think we should do what is natural, put a child in a family with a mother and a father, simply for no other reason but two men cannot provide the female aspect of a family.
Have you ever looked at research regarding this issue? If not, then I don't think that you are qualified to make such a statement regarding the issue.
You would confuse the child and cause arguments between the two dads, the child would say "hey dad" and both would answer, and when the childs first words were dadda they would prolly argue until one killed the other
I'm sorry, but I find this to be one of the weakest arguments that I've heard in a while. You must not give gay people much credit. I mean, damn! And all this time, we thought that gay people were also civilized member of a modern society...
Originally posted by kyle_soule
I think we should do what is natural, put a child in a family with a mother and a father, simply for no other reason but two men cannot provide the female aspect of a family. As for one parent adoptions, I don't think those should happen, I think you should put the child in a family that is 'normal' and 'healthy', and that SHOULD involve a mother and a father.
So, you are saying that a child should be taken out of a single parent household, or that parent should be forced to marry? Or that two stable people of the same sex are less 'healthy' than stable people of the opposite sex?
You would confuse the child and cause arguments between the two dads, the child would say "hey dad" and both would answer, and when the childs first words were dadda they would prolly argue until one killed the other[:)] The only confused child here is you, buddy.
You should try just stating your claim
See:
The point to my questions, if you really need to know where I'm going before answering, is to show that even you don't believe your nice happy politically correct oversimplification of the issue.
and
People have deluded themselves that oversimplifications like yours actually carry some meaning behind them.
instead of bringing up irrelevant issues like infidelity and rape.
I presume that when you said:
The fact is, some people are bigots who think that thier way should be everyone's way. In my mind, someone's sexuality is only important to the person they are sleeping with. It is no one's business otherwise.
You intended this statement to have some bearing on the discussion.
Recall my point, which I shall repeat a third time:
People have deluded themselves that oversimplifications like yours actually carry some meaning behind them.
My primary step towards justifying this assertion is
to show that even you don't believe your nice happy politically correct oversimplification of the issue.
Given my presumption that you intended
In my mind, someone's sexuality is only important to the person they are sleeping with. It is no one's business otherwise.
To have some bearing on the conversation, yet
you don't believe your nice happy politically correct oversimplification of the issue.
I will have provided a concrete example that
People have deluded themselves that oversimplifications like yours actually carry some meaning behind them.
And, hopefully, this will cause people like you to realize the sparsity of their justification, and will either accept the fact they have a weak logical foundation for their beliefs or devise a more sophisticated argument that actually has substance to it.
And I will say, just in case I haven't made it sufficiently clear, that I am not arguing against the ruling, or against homosexuality in general. As I said earlier:
I generally avoid making assertions about what the right thing for a government to do because there are lots of complications at various levels that I simply don't want to bother figuring my way through. The reason I chime in is because I see people ignoring those complications!
Originally posted by Hurkyl
And, hopefully, this will cause people like you to realize the sparsity of their justification, and will either accept the fact they have a weak logical foundation for their beliefs or devise a more sophisticated argument that actually has substance to it.
Nice...you think you can teach me something? Ha! My absolute justification is, it isn't my business or yours. In any case where something causes no harm, doesn't intrude on others, and is done privately between consenting adults, the government should keep its nose out of it.
Nice...you think you can teach me something?
Why the sarcasm? You think you know everything?
My absolute justification is, it isn't my business or yours. In any case where something causes no harm, doesn't intrude on others, and is done privately between consenting adults, the government should keep its nose out of it.
Which is pretty much what I figured it is. This is the only meat to your argument, everything else is meaningless dressing.
Now that we know what your argument really is, we can consider it more intelligently. Your argument starts with the assumption that "[homosexuality] something causes no harm, doesn't intrude on others"; to my knowledge the other side of the argument hotly contests this statement, so we can progress to a more sophisticated argument if you can logically support this statement.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Why the sarcasm? You think you know everything?
Which is pretty much what I figured it is. This is the only meat to your argument, everything else is meaningless dressing.
Now that we know what your argument really is, we can consider it more intelligently. Your argument starts with the assumption that "[homosexuality] something causes no harm, doesn't intrude on others"; to my knowledge the other side of the argument hotly contests this statement, so we can progress to a more sophisticated argument if you can logically support this statement. Are you affected by a random single man sleeping with a random single woman? If so, how?
My idea, in general, is that we are free to do anything at all, except where there is a compelling interest in preventing it. In other words, it is not for government to specifically list each thing we are allowed to do. Its job is to outline those few cases in which our complete freedom would infringe on the freedom of others.We are not free to steal, because it infringes on the right of another to keep what is theirs. Same with murder, rape, speed limits and anti-polution laws. Where is your right to have a family your way infringed on by others allowing to have a family in their way?
You're still assuming a priori that there's nothing harmful about homosexuality. The question I'm asking is if you can prove it.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
You're still assuming a priori that there's nothing harmful about homosexuality. The question I'm asking is if you can prove it.
I say we don't have to prove it isn't, you have to prove that it [iis[/i] harmful. With lack of evidence to the contrary, the default position is more freedom, not less. You would have to show that one sexual act is inherently different from another, and I don't believe that you can.
Some quick questions on your view: is it a wife's business if her husband is sleeping with another woman? Is it the courts' business if a man rapes a woman? Is it a boyfriend's business if his girlfriend is sleeping around?
I think the big divide here is the issue of consent. Homosexual relations are generally carried out between two consenting adults, in mutual faith. In the examples given, consent is voilated and the person has the right to terminate the relationship, or seek legal aid.
You're still assuming a priori that there's nothing harmful about homosexuality. The question I'm asking is if you can prove it.
I think this is unreasonable. In general, things are acceptable until it is show otherwise, not the other way round. It is perhaps even impossible to prove that anything is completely not harmful. I don't suppose you have to prove PF is not harmful to protect it from legal banning, do you?
The position is simple: there is no evidence that homosexuality is neccessarily harmful, or neccessarily intrusive. There is every evidence of background homosexual activity occuring since roman times without any public alarm. Hence, by default, homosexuality can be seen as not harmful.
It is an assumption of most western justice systems that in general, it is more right to let the guilty go free than arrest the innocent - the assumption of innocence.
I think the big divide here is the issue of consent. Homosexual relations are generally carried out between two consenting adults, in mutual faith. In the examples given, consent is voilated and the person has the right to terminate the relationship, or seek legal aid.
Exactly. Just because it's a sexual act between two individuals doesn't mean it's nobody else's business.
I think this is unreasonable. In general, things are acceptable until it is show otherwise, not the other way round. It is perhaps even impossible to prove that anything is completely not harmful. I don't suppose you have to prove PF is not harmful to protect it from legal banning, do you?
The difference here is that there is pre-existing legislation banning homosexuality, not to mention a once strong social stigma against it. Ignoring laws/rules/warnings/traditional wisdom just because you can't see the harm in it is a surefire recipe for disaster (http://www.darwinawards.com/).
And, of course, it is just as impossible to prove something is completely harmful as it is to prove it is completely not harmful. But just like any scientific hypothesis you strive to prove it beyond reasonable doubt; you go out and consider the ways it could be harmful, and reason that it is not.
Quick, name a way that homosexuality is harmful to society. Just a single way.
Quick, name a way that homosexuality is harmful to society. Just a single way.
You're the one trying to assert a claim, I'm not going to do your work for you.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
You're the one trying to assert a claim, I'm not going to do your work for you.
Hmmmm...you are anti-freedom, apparently.
Hmmmm...you are anti-freedom, apparently.
And this is an ad hominem attack.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
And this is an ad hominem attack.
No, it isn't. You assert that someone should lose freedom, unless they can prove they should have it. That isn't freedom in my book. If you want to take away someone's freedom then you have to provide a good reason to.
No, it isn't.
It isn't?
(a) You made a comment about me.
(b) You were not responding to any argument I was making.
Isn't that, by definition, an ad hominem attack?
You assert that someone should lose freedom, unless they can prove they should have it.
Where did I assert that? Zero, stop posting lies about me. [:D]
If you want to take away someone's freedom then you have to provide a good reason to.
Okay. So?
(a) I have not argued that anyone's freedom should be taken away.
(b) Taking away freedom isn't even the topic; it's taking away a restriction.
(c) I have not argued that any restrictions should not be taken away.
This is about removing a restriction that has no reason for existyance. Someone needs to show a reason for a restrictive law to exist. Until they do, it needs to be removed.
This is about removing a restriction that has no reason for existyance.
And I'm asking you to show there is no reason for it to exist.
Someone needs to show a reason for a restrictive law to exist. Until they do, it needs to be removed.
Apparently someone did once upon a time, because the law exists.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
And I'm asking you to show there is no reason for it to exist.
Apparently someone did once upon a time, because the law exists.
Again, I don';tr have to prove that I am not going to kill someone before you allow me freedom to walk the streets; it is understood that we are innocent until proven guiolty. In the same way, you have to prove that homosexuality is negative before it is constitutional to ban it.
And slavery was legal...peple years ago were idiots about all sorts of things. They hated freedom for anyone but themselves.
Again, I don';tr have to prove that I am not going to kill someone before you allow me freedom to walk the streets; it is understood that we are innocent until proven guiolty. In the same way, you have to prove that homosexuality is negative before it is constitutional to ban it.
It's not the same way.
(a) There isn't a pre-existing law that says you are not allowed to walk the streets.
(b) We're not talking about whether an individual is innocent or guilty, we're talking about whether an act is a crime or not.
And slavery was legal...peple years ago were idiots about all sorts of things. They hated freedom for anyone but themselves.
Your point? People years ago made some mistakes. People years ago did some things right too.
I think we are done here...
If I were to speak out against something, I would have a reason. I would not assume it is wrong until someone proves it is ok. For instance, I could say that having sex with children is wrong because it interferes with their development, it traumatizes children, and no child is able to give adult consent, among other reasons. If I couldn't giove reasons such as these, what business would I have saying it was wrong. The answer of 'I find it distateful' or 'I wouldn't do it', or 'my religion says so', are nonsense from a legal standpoint. Especially in the religious case, because by that standard, we could have a push to criminalize eating pork.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Apparently someone did once upon a time, because the law exists.
A simple case: No one can even really remember why the law was in place in the first place, suggesting that it does not really continue to be relavent. The only case given for the continuation that can be stated now is that of scriptural reference - which as has been mentioned, is legally unconstitutional.
IMHO, an argument that is secret and refered to without detail is not a real argument for the continuation of the law. We cannot base the law on reasons unknown or forgotten, but ones that are shown to continue to be relavent. If so, it would be impossible to remove any senseless law. It is only reasonable that laws continue to be revised on whether they continue to be relavent. Faith in the older generation means nothing.
The idea that there are nameless original reasons that must be disproved for reform is not valid logic, as it does not provide a falsifiable argument. You cannot disprove the original reasons, if you do not know the concrete details of whatever should be disproven.
For a better example, let's talk women's rights to vote. For centuries, women were denied electoral representation as a matter of law. Based on your argument, in order to allow the women to vote, it has to be proven that allowing them to vote would not harm the nation. But this cannot be done, as women have never voted before. As a result, if you follow your argument, women will NEVER be allowed to vote. In reality however, it has recognised (albeit with lots of pressure from feminist groups) that the idea behind the orginal law was not a reasonable basis for law, and had no real supporting evidence. Hence the original law was removed.
Traditionally, A is considered true.
Nobody has shown me why A is true.
Therefore A is false.
I missed this rule of deduction in school.
Suppose I am unaware of an argument showing law/rules/traditional wisdom correct, but I am also unaware of an argument showing laws/rules/traditional wisdom incorrect (just like our current discussion). Why, then, should we presume that traditional wisdom is incorrect?
In reality however, it has recognised (albeit with lots of pressure from feminist groups) that the idea behind the orginal law was not a reasonable basis for law, and had no real supporting evidence. Hence the original law was removed.
You mean people investigated the why the law exists, and argued that the reasons weren't valid?
Isn't that what I'm asking you and Zero to do? To investigate why such a law would exist and argue that the reasons are unfounded?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hurkyl
Isn't that what I'm asking you and Zero to do? To investigate why such a law would exist and argue that the reasons are unfounded? [/B][/QUOTEI've stated the only reasons I know for anti-homosexual bias...religious bigotry, and childish, juvenile ideas about sexuality. Neither of thoise is a solid basis for a law. Do you know another reason, besides that the law exists, so we should continue to accept it? It is about time you put something on the table, Hurkyl, besides complaining that I have to convince you.
It is about time you put something on the table, Hurkyl, besides complaining that I have to convince you.
You were presenting your views with the expectation that others should agree with them, right? What makes you think that others should accept your views if you refuse to prove them?
It seems to me that despite the fact I've said it over and over, you don't believe that I am merely objecting to your reasoning. I get the impression that you think I am trying to get you to admit that you don't have an argument, at which point I will pounce and say "Aha! So homosexuality is bad!".
Is my impression correct?
Anyways, I assert your reasoning is of the form:
Traditionally, A is considered true.
I don't know why A should be true.
Therefore A is false.
And furthermore I assert that reasoning of this form is invalid.
Do you agree with either of these two assertions? If you disagree with the first one, will you spell out the logical form which you think you're using?
My argument is that inserting a penis into a person for pleasure and a show of love is the same whether the other person is male or female. The courts generally strike down laws against certain acts betwen heterosexuals, therefore those same acts should be legal for homosexuals.
Well, it's clearly not literally the same because in one case the other person is male and in the other case the person is female.
Anyways, since I'm getting bored, and I don't think you would ever deign to do the research you should be doing to make your case, I will point out that "love" is one of the topics you should be discussing in-depth.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Well, it's clearly not literally the same because in one case the other person is male and in the other case the person is female.
Anyways, since I'm getting bored, and I don't think you would ever deign to do the research you should be doing to make your case, I will point out that "love" is one of the topics you should be discussing in-depth. You're a waste of time...don't bother posting here anymore.
D'oh! Ad hominem attack and a threat. [:(] You should have stuck by last night's decision to be done with it; I was content to stop there too, and at least it would have ended with some class...
Originally posted by Hurkyl
D'oh! Ad hominem attack and a threat. [:(] You should have stuck by last night's decision to be done with it; I was content to stop there too, and at least it would have ended with some class...
No threat, you just haven't added a single thing to the discussion.
I tend to interpret "don't bother doing X" in general as a threat... though I didn't perceive you as having your moderator hat on at the time.
I was just hoping to see some progress on the issue; it is so rare in these kinds of issues to see one side acknowledge the points of the other side and take an attempt to put them to rest... so that the issue is resolved rationally instead of by whichever side has a better PR campaign. Acknowledging there's more than one side to an issue reduces the brick wall phenomenon too.
I imagine you are (or at least were) curious as to what I really think. I do quite frequently avoid complicating issues with what I think; I think it's necessary to do so in order to seriously consider the ideas of others. I too think homosexuality should be legalized, but there should be a serious drive to help treat homosexuals and help them to quit... kind of like smoking. (and recent reading I've done on the issue due to this thread indicate that this may be a reasonable policy). But, I also see that there could be merit in keeping it illegal, much like the various illegal drugs. And, of course, I can see merit in keeping it fully legal without any pressure on people to change, and (if barred from religious reasoning) I can see merit in the belief that homosexuality really isn't something harmful but is perfectly fine to keep around.
Because I don't see any strong rationale for picking any of these alternatives over any of the others, I have been fishing to see if someone who does strongly believe in one of the alternatives can provide reasons why it's better than any of the others.
To a lesser extent, I think the "Oh, I don't see a reason for rule X, so it's okay to break/change it" to be a gravely misguided philosophy. All other things being equal, it's pretty likely that the way something is now is better than the alternative; it's stood the test of time, and that should count for something. I think I tend to argue this a little too vigorously, though.
It is your attitude of trying to guide me somewhere, instead of just stating things, that I find distateful. I am not your student, or a child to be led.
And, ummm...your idea that homosexuality is a sickness to be treated shows your bias. It nearly constitutes bigotry, even though I am sure you don't mean it that way. It is common for the majority to assume that it is the default postion, and everyone else is inferiour.That doesn't make it right.
kyle_soule
Jul5-03, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
The majority of people in america are white. So, it is natural for the child to be brought up with white parents, as black parents cannot provide the white element in their lives that society is made of. It is only normal and healthy that black people should be excluded from the adoption program. After all, the child doesn't have a say into whether it wants black parents, does it? Though we have no evidence as to whether being adopted by black people is wrong or not, we can say that it is against the traditional values of family that the nation was created in. I mean, shock horror, we can have children who have an attachment to deviant (from normal, healthy whites of course) black culture!
Can you really put a difference between this, and homosexuality?
There is no difference between a black and a white person, are you also saying there is no difference between a man and a woman? This is what your example would indicate. If we are attempting to expose the child to all different lifestyles, why not bring them up in a serial killers care, eh?
All I am saying is, if you raise a straight child in a gay home there is GOING TO BE SEXUAL CONFUSION. In this case, the majority should have the final pick.
So, you are saying that a child should be taken out of a single parent household, or that parent should be forced to marry? Or that two stable people of the same sex are less 'healthy' than stable people of the opposite sex?
Well, Zero, I think this is a foolish post, all of it, but this specifically. Yes, of course I think a child should be taken away from a parent that HAD the child? (notice the sarcasm?) How is there ANY relationship between a child with no home (up for adoption) and a child in a parents care?
When a gay couple can have a child, then by all means, let them keep it!
Dissident Dan, read the last sentence of what you quoted, it becomes obvious I don't agree with the argument I posed. This of course doesn't mean it is an argument without merit. Do you really need statistics to tell you two men can't provide the same thing a man and a woman can? Ha ha.
I'm sorry, but I find this to be one of the weakest arguments that I've heard in a while. You must not give gay people much credit. I mean, damn! And all this time, we thought that gay people were also civilized member of a modern society...
Jesus Christ, nobody noticed that was meant as a joke, ignorance! Bloody ignorance! Do you think I am that stupid to think that they would kill eachother? I mean, damn!
kyle_soule
Jul5-03, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Zero
And, ummm...your idea that homosexuality is a sickness to be treated shows your bias. It nearly constitutes bigotry, even though I am sure you don't mean it that way. It is common for the majority to assume that it is the default postion, and everyone else is inferiour.That doesn't make it right.
We all must be biased on the subject then to have opinions? If we all had no opinions then this topic would be quiet boring, no?
I should have said 'unreasoned bias', which is different. I am biased towards personal freedom, where it harms no one. None of you have shown the harm in homosexuality, therefore I remain committed to freedom.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
All I am saying is, if you raise a straight child in a gay home there is GOING TO BE SEXUAL CONFUSION. In this case, the majority should have the final pick.
By what logic? Because the child will learn that women can be more than servants, and that men don't have to all be sexist?
Originally posted by Zero
By what logic? Because the child will learn that women can be more than servants, and that men don't have to all be sexist?
Uhh, two gay men raising a child will show women can be more than servants how? and are you saying that gay men by default aren't sexist?
"By what logic?"!
kyle_soule
Jul5-03, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Zero
By what logic? Because the child will learn that women can be more than servants, and that men don't have to all be sexist?
I never had the illusion that woman were servants. And my father isn't sexist, they can easily learn this is a mother/father home. Perhaps you should ask yourself By what logic?.
Let's look at what they would learn in a gay home.
Men are supposed to like men (this can be logically assumed because this is what they will see from childhood)
Sodomy is ok - I call it sodomy because the norm is not gay, they could relate the only possible sex for two men as also normal for a man and woman.
That's all I care to discuss for now. I must ask you Zero, why are you still discussing things in this topic when your position is clear, others sexuality is none of my business. With this attitude you should not be in any of the topics concerning sex and sexuality. I don't want you to leave, your arguments are as welcome as mine, I simply question if you firmly believe in your position.
Just trying to fight ignorance where I see it. Your argument is circular...you assume that homosexuality is bad, then list examples of homosexuality as being bad because they are homosexual, without ever showing how it is bad.
kyle_soule
Jul5-03, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Just trying to fight ignorance where I see it. Your argument is circular...you assume that homosexuality is bad, then list examples of homosexuality as being bad because they are homosexual, without ever showing how it is bad.
Bad in what sense? It has the potential to destroy things such as family values, evolution, and sexual clearity. But, I for one, don't think it is bad in the sense I think you are describing. Many have shown how it is bad, if you believe it is bad, one would assume you would formulate examples of how it is bad, you simply do not see our arguments as valid. I wouldn't call my argument circular, intended to be persuasive, perhaps; examplamentary (that isn't a word but I'm certain you know what it would mean if it was).
We are also trying to fight ignorance[;)][6)]
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Let's look at what they would learn in a gay home.
Men are supposed to like men (this can be logically assumed because this is what they will see from childhood)
Sodomy is ok - I call it sodomy because the norm is not gay, they could relate the only possible sex for two men as also normal for a man and woman.
That makes little sense. Being tolerant of other people's lifestyle isn't a wrong thing...and why would a child know about the sexual habits of their parents? Did you know your parents were having sex when you were a child?
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Bad in what sense? It has the potential to destroy things such as family values, evolution, and sexual clearity. But, I for one, don't think it is bad in the sense I think you are describing. Many have shown how it is bad, if you believe it is bad, one would assume you would formulate examples of how it is bad, you simply do not see our arguments as valid. I wouldn't call my argument circular, intended to be persuasive, perhaps; examplamentary (that isn't a word but I'm certain you know what it would mean if it was).
We are also trying to fight ignorance[;)][6)]
No one has shown anything like how homosexuality is bad. I'm still waiting, and waiting, and WAITING for someone to show anything. It isn't that I reject arguments, I just haven't seen one!
How is it bad for 'family values' for people who love each other to get married? Hetero marriage isn't doing so well, lets' see if gay people can do better. Evolution? What does that have to do with anything, any more than people choosing not to have children?
kyle_soule
Jul5-03, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Zero
No one has shown anything like how homosexuality is bad. I'm still waiting, and waiting, and WAITING for someone to show anything. It isn't that I reject arguments, I just haven't seen one!
How is it bad for 'family values' for people who love each other to get married? Hetero marriage isn't doing so well, lets' see if gay people can do better. Evolution? What does that have to do with anything, any more than people choosing not to have children?
Of course if human's all stopped having sex hahah, and you speak of OUR weak arguments? Gays will never be able to have kids, this is not good. Although I said potential, I didn't say it would destroy evolution definately.
I agree the current rate of marriage and divorce is also destroying family values; I don't see how gays will strengthen the family unit, seeing as how they will never have a family of their own. I'm sure you will bring up couples that cannot have babies, this is as legitimate as couples with genophobia, they are few and far between, and their numbers are without comparison to gays [when considering their ability to have children].[:)]
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Of course if human's all stopped having sex hahah, and you speak of OUR weak arguments? Gays will never be able to have kids, this is not good. Although I said potential, I didn't say it would destroy evolution definately.
I agree the current rate of marriage and divorce is also destroying family values; I don't see how gays will strengthen the family unit, seeing as how they will never have a family of their own. I'm sure you will bring up couples that cannot have babies, this is as legitimate as couples with genophobia, they are few and far between, and their numbers are without comparison to gays [when considering their ability to have children].[:)]
Adoption? Artificial insemination? Surrogate mothers? Why are thos options only valid for straight couples, and rich single people? Try again.
kyle_soule
Jul5-03, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Adoption? Artificial insemination? Surrogate mothers? Why are thos options only valid for straight couples, and rich single people? Try again.
Adoption isn't your own child, and I said your own family. As far as I am concerned I am talking of to homosexual men. Artificial insemination is the only legitimate argument for lesbians though, as a surrogate mother is the same concept as adoption.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Adoption isn't your own child, and I said your own family. As far as I am concerned I am talking of to homosexual men. Artificial insemination is the only legitimate argument for lesbians though, as a surrogate mother is the same concept as adoption.
So adopted children have no real family...I'm sure alot of folks would be interested in finding that out from some kid on a message board.
kyle_soule
Jul5-03, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Zero
So adopted children have no real family...I'm sure alot of folks would be interested in finding that out from some kid on a message board.
Some kid on a message board, looking down on me because I am only eigtheen years old? I wouldn't consider myself a child.
I am reminded of russ_watters, I would be interested to see where I said adopted children have no real family. What I UNMISTAKABLY (beyond any doubt except for manipulation and changing of my words) was they don't have a family of their own, MEANING, as I have said in almost every post relating to this topic, a family they bore themselves.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Some kid on a message board, looking down on me because I am only eigtheen years old? I wouldn't consider myself a child.
I am reminded of russ_watters, I would be interested to see where I said adopted children have no real family. What I UNMISTAKABLY (beyond any doubt except for manipulation and changing of my words) was they don't have a family of their own, MEANING, as I have said in almost every post relating to this topic, a family they bore themselves.
There is a distinction between those two things under the law? Do adoptive parents have different rights than natural parents?
Until I did the surfing the past couple days, I had believed the hype about sexual orientation being locked in at birth.
This website (http://couragerc.net/PIPPsychTreatmentStudy.html) was pretty interesting, but I imagine something without a religious connection like NARTH (http://www.narth.com/menus/about.html) might be more convincing. One of NARTH's position statements:
Social science evidence supports the traditional model of man-woman marriage as the ideal family form for fostering a child's healthy development.
Anyways, simply to drop some facts on the table, it seems that homosexuality is not genetically determined at birth, and therapy has plenty of success with changing the sexual orientation of a homosexual.
Wow, anti-gay websites, how convincing. And I do mean 'hating the homosexual lifestyle' when I say anti-gay. Try again?
And, hey...I don't care if homosexuality is a choice, we are free to make choices. This isn't the Soviet Union or Iraq, remember?
*snicker* From the NARTH website under "our purpose" at the bottom:
gay advocates ... intimidated dissenters by casting them as personally bigoted and hateful
In any case, your response is yet another ad hominem attack; you're attacking the source and not the arguments. And the NARTH website seemed quite level-headed to me. Go look at the "Is Homosexuality Genetic" page.
Wow, anti-gay websites, how convincing. And I do mean 'hating the homosexual lifestyle' when I say anti-gay. Try again?
I'm up one to nothing in attempts to present facts. Try once? I'm about to jump into a two to nothing lead!
http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/timt/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#b&p91
And, hey...I don't care if homosexuality is a choice, we are free to make choices.
It came up sometime earlier in the thread, I'm pretty sure.
In any case, I've made an effort to present some topics for discussion. Care to come out of your ivory tower and do the same?
I never made the claim about genetics...so don't expect me to defend it. As far as the rest, treating homosexuality as a disease flies in the face of actual homosexuals, who are generally happy, except for the bigoted harassment they face, and the idiotic feelings that are forced on them by intolerant society.
Again, for teh last time, I ask: where is the harm in homosexual sex, versus heterosexual sex. Why is anal sex worse if it is two men? And why should the majority be allowed to assert their bigotry on a minority?
*Sitting here, trying to figure out how the sex lives of my neighbors affects me*
Dissident Dan
Jul6-03, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Bad in what sense? It has the potential to destroy things such as family values, evolution, and sexual clearity.
How does it destroy "family values"? And what are so good about the "family values" that you claim are being destoyed. Evolution? Most people aren't gay and will continue to not be gay. Are you you saying that you want gay people to breed, even though it appears that you find what they are doing to be bad? Sexual clarity? Like Zero said, how would a little kid know what the parents do in the bedroom. And kids would also see the tons of heterosexual couples out there. It's not like they will be locked in a box because their parents are gay. What is wrong with the kids seeing that there are alternatives beside the traditional heterosexual relationship.
Before you make any claims about homosexual parenting being bad (being married doesn't necessarily have anything to do with raising, in this case, adoptiong, children, anyway, does it?), you should look up studies on the matter to see if your claims have any basis in reality.
Dissident Dan
Jul6-03, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]
In any case, your response is yet another ad hominem attack; you're attacking the source and not the arguments. And the NARTH website seemed quite level-headed to me. Go look at the "Is Homosexuality Genetic" page.
There is great importance in evaluating what your source is. I thought that this was common knowledge. A source that is biased will often actively use whatever it can to promote its viewpoint, often twisting the facts, or at least conveniently omitting ones that detriment their argument. The credibility of the source is paramount. It is paramount when they are giving you the data upon which you are basing your argument. The attack on the source is an attack upon the statistics which you base your argument on, which in turn can invalid your argument.
There are two aspects to the argument which one can attack:
1) the premises
2) the reasoning which leads form the premises to the conclusion
The criticizing of the the source is a criticizing of the premises. It if was trying to criticize the reasoning, then he would have to directly address the reasoning. But Zero did not put any stock in the "data" supplied by this website.
Now, if someone said, "Nuh-uh, because you're a right-wing poopyhead!", then that would be an ad hominem attack.
I'm up one to nothing in attempts to present facts. Try once? I'm about to jump into a two to nothing lead!
http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/timt/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#b&p91
[/quote]
This seems to indicate that there is a genetic relation to homosexuality.
Dissident Dan
Jul6-03, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
To a lesser extent, I think the "Oh, I don't see a reason for rule X, so it's okay to break/change it" to be a gravely misguided philosophy. All other things being equal, it's pretty likely that the way something is now is better than the alternative; it's stood the test of time, and that should count for something. I think I tend to argue this a little too vigorously, though.
I definitely do not agree. They way things are is often much worse than the way the could be if the majority took up the effort to change things. There have been many widely-accepted things that "stood the test of time" that were very bad things that eventually were done away with--serfdom, slavery, sexually-discriminatory polygamy, monarchy, theocracy, ethnocentrism and xenophobia, etc.
Dissident Dan
Jul6-03, 12:33 PM
Not only is there no evidence for homosexuality being bad, but there is no logical link.
And, the burdon of proof is on the person making the claim: that homosexuality is bad. The default position would be not assuming that there is a problem with someone's lifestyle.
Anyway, two people of the same sex having sex with each other does not lead to violence. It does not lead to vagrancy. It does not lead to sloth. There is no link between any of those and homosexuality...not just empirically, but logically.
Think about it:
"Man A sticks his willy in Man B. Therefore, people will kill each other." How much sense does that make? The same goes for the other "conclusions."
It really does not make a difference if the person whom a person has sex with has a penis and testicles or a vagina, ovaries, and breasts. Which of these bodily characteristics the person whom you decided to have sex with has will not affect your virtues. It's not like male anuses give off anti-guy vibes, that, when met with the anti-guy vibes of a penis, turn into a ball of hatred.
In the event of a gay couple raising a child, the child will probably grow up to be more questioning (not necessarily opposing, but questioning) of the norms, and that is hardly a bad thing. The same is true of any parent(s) who have an atypical lifestyle or who teach their children the value of not following the herd, homo or hetero.
BTW, one of the "greatest" societies of all time was rather infiltrated by homosexuality. This society was that of Greece. Nobody had a problem with it. Alexander the Great was gay. So, the idea that homosexuality destroys family or society or whatever is shown false by example.
Specifically, that site is idiotic(ad hominem enough for you) because it confuses and blends separate issues that have nothing to do with each other. Homosexuality is NOT 'gender confusion', pedophilia, or a mental illness. NARTH's website posts articles that fly in the face of the establishment, in their search to promote their anti-homosexuality agenda.
Funny, homosexuals don't have an agenda for others...that falls to their bigoted enemies.
This seems to indicate that there is a genetic relation to homosexuality.
But it also indicates that it's far from being genetically locked in at birth; there are more pairs of identical twins with one homo one hetero than both homosexual, clearly indicating the environment is stronger influence than genetics. Also, some studies have shown that the adopted siblings of homosexual children have a greater than random chance of becoming homosexual.
This is in strong contrast to the propaganda going about the last couple decades that homosexuality is something that is decided at birth.
that were very bad things that eventually were done away with--serfdom, slavery, sexually-discriminatory polygamy, monarchy, theocracy, ethnocentrism and xenophobia, etc.
And how many of those were done away with at a time when nobody could provide an argument against them?
Not only is there no evidence for homosexuality being bad, but there is no logical link.
By "logical link" do you mean "solid proof" or "potential rationale"?
And, the burdon of proof is on the person making the claim: that homosexuality is bad.[/qutoe]
Which is why I've refrained from asserting that claim.
Incidentally, the burden of proof is also upon someone making the claim that homosexuality is not bad.
[quote]The default position would be not assuming that there is a problem with someone's lifestyle.
(a) A default position is something you are justified in believing when faced with no evidence against it. A default position is NOT a substitute for proof when you are trying to convence others of something.
(b) I disagree that it is the default position since it is common wisdom that homosexuality is a problem with someone's lifestyle.
Homosexuality is NOT 'gender confusion'
What evidence is there that homosexuality is not decided during a time of sexual confusion? It's clear that the environment is a stronger influence than genetics...
NARTH's anti-homosexuality agenda.
NARTH is providing an option for those who wish to convert from homosexuality to heterosexuality; what are they supposed to do, tell everyone they were born homosexual and should live with it?
kyle_soule
Jul6-03, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
How does it destroy "family values"? And what are so good about the "family values" that you claim are being destoyed. Evolution? Most people aren't gay and will continue to not be gay. Are you you saying that you want gay people to breed, even though it appears that you find what they are doing to be bad? Sexual clarity? Like Zero said, how would a little kid know what the parents do in the bedroom. And kids would also see the tons of heterosexual couples out there. It's not like they will be locked in a box because their parents are gay. What is wrong with the kids seeing that there are alternatives beside the traditional heterosexual relationship.
Before you make any claims about homosexual parenting being bad (being married doesn't necessarily have anything to do with raising, in this case, adoptiong, children, anyway, does it?), you should look up studies on the matter to see if your claims have any basis in reality.
Come now, Dissident Dan, must I repeat what you quoted?
POTENTIAL
Can you deny if everybody was gay and lesbian it would destroy evolution? To those that will say "everybody won't turn gay" I raised this for the sake of argument, you look at things in a much larger sense and you see the smaller effects of its current state.
Family values, bah, use your head.
By 5th grade I knew my parents had sex, I imagine kids know a lot younger than this now; example, a 7th grader just got pregnant in my town. I would say a fifth grader is still sexually pliable.
Give me the studies, I have got my opinion and I'm not going to go out of my way to prove myself wrong[;)] I certainly don't see you accepting arguments going the other way, so why would you expect me to believe your opinions?
Why is it bad for kids to learn sodomy is good? By the same token, why even teach a child what is right and wrong? I'm sure somewhere there is a minority that sees what you say is wrong as right, shouldn't the child be exposed to that opinion also?
What if a group of people start a movement for suicide at a certain age? There are no victims outside of the consentees, our children should learn that it is perfectly normal and good to commit suicide, as long as it doesn't involve others. It's none of my business right?
Dissident Dan
Jul6-03, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
But it also indicates that it's far from being genetically locked in at birth; there are more pairs of identical twins with one homo one hetero than both homosexual, clearly indicating the environment is stronger influence than genetics. Also, some studies have shown that the adopted siblings of homosexual children have a greater than random chance of becoming homosexual.
This is in strong contrast to the propaganda going about the last couple decades that homosexuality is something that is decided at birth.
I never said that it is locked at birth. I am not foolish enough to say any one thing is due completely to genetics. Look at muscles for a second. Tendencies to become muscular run in families, but a muscular dad does not always have a muscular son(or uncle-nephew, etc.). A wussy dad does not always have a wussy son. But a lot of wussy dads have wussy sons. Are you going to tell me that it is a wussy kid's choice to not be as strong as his elementary-school peers?
Anyway, I really think that the choice thing is irrelevant. It's a person's choice to do it missionary position, doggy style, or whatever. I would NOT justify outlawing doggy style because it's a choice.
And how many of those were done away with at a time when nobody could provide an argument against them?
Ummm, none of them. But that's a red herring because that has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to make.
By "logical link" do you mean "solid proof" or "potential rationale"?
I mean that A logically leads to B through cause and effect. No empirical evidence, just pure logic.
(a) A default position is something you are justified in believing when faced with no evidence against it. A default position is [b]NOT a substitute for proof when you are trying to convence others of something.
(b) I disagree that it is the default position since it is common wisdom that homosexuality is a problem with someone's lifestyle.
No, a default position, not in terms of human psychology, but in terms of philosophy and logic, would be to not believe anything about it. For example, a default position concerning deities would be not to believe in them--not to affirm that they don't exist, just to not have a positive belief in them. Really, a person does not even know of the idea of a god until (a)He imagines it or (b)Someone else tells him the idea. I am not trying to turn the debate to a god topic, just trying to describe what a default position is.
If the default position is what you are describing, there would be infinite default positions, which is self-contradictory.
Dissident Dan
Jul6-03, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Can you deny if everybody was gay and lesbian it would destroy evolution? To those that will say "everybody won't turn gay" I raised this for the sake of argument, you look at things in a much larger sense and you see the smaller effects of its current state.
If everybody became homosexual, it would not "destroy evolution." It would mean the end of the human race if no one breeded with the opposite sex, and we did not use artificial insemination or similar means. However, we do have artificial insemination, and it will continue to be used.
But it is absurd to talk about the hypothesis of everybody turning gay. Why don't you outlaw abstinence while you're at it?
And another major, if the the most important factor, is the individual rights aspect. What you are talking about is no less than forced breeding. How can you justify forcing someone to mate with the opposite sex because you want to see the species continue?
Family values, bah, use your head.
I guess that my head doesn't work sometimes. Please enlighten me.
Give me the studies, I have got my opinion and I'm not going to go out of my way to prove myself wrong[;)] I certainly don't see you accepting arguments going the other way, so why would you expect me to believe your opinions?
The burden of proof is on your opinion. To make the claim that homosexuality is bad, there must be proof to support that claim. We cannot just assume that it is, because ***-U-ME-ing makes an *** out of you and me. (Sorry, I just had to.)
Why is it bad for kids to learn sodomy is good? By the same token, why even teach a child what is right and wrong?
Where is the link between your statements? One is about a certain thing being bad or good, and someone you extrapolate that to the basic question of the existence of right and wrong.
What if a group of people start a movement for suicide at a certain age? There are no victims outside of the consentees, our children should learn that it is perfectly normal and good to commit suicide, as long as it doesn't involve others. It's none of my business right?
There are multiple errors here. First of all, we know that suicide is harmful to someone. There has been presented no evidence, only conjecture, that there is harm in homosexuality. Secondly, it will affect the families of the suicidal person. Thirdly, in some rare cases, suicide actually is the better option. That's one reason why we have euthanasia for pets.
I never said that it is locked at birth.
Many do, and use that presumtion in their rationale for whatever their stance on homosexuality is. I was bringing it up for GP, not as a specific rationale for any specific point.
Ummm, none of them. But that's a red herring because that has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to make.
Your point sounded an awful lot like "People used to make mistakes, so we shouldn't believe anything people used to believe".
My claim is that if a piece of wisdom has survived a hundred years, then it's more likely that it's a good piece of wisdom than a bad piece of wisdom. Of course there will be some mistakes, but there will be less than other alternatives.
I mean that A logically leads to B through cause and effect. No empirical evidence, just pure logic.
Well, pure logic can prove nothing but statements about pure logic.
No, a default position, not in terms of human psychology, but in terms of philosophy and logic, would be to not believe anything about it.
Which is why I rarely assert statements in these types of threads. Unfortunately, most people (such as Zero) invoke "default position" to mean a position that everyone must accept as true unless they can prove otherwise... I was presuming you were using the common usage.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Come now, Dissident Dan, must I repeat what you quoted?
Can you deny if everybody was gay and lesbian it would destroy evolution? To those that will say "everybody won't turn gay" I raised this for the sake of argument, you look at things in a much larger sense and you see the smaller effects of its current state.
Family values, bah, use your head.
By 5th grade I knew my parents had sex, I imagine kids know a lot younger than this now; example, a 7th grader just got pregnant in my town. I would say a fifth grader is still sexually pliable.
Give me the studies, I have got my opinion and I'm not going to go out of my way to prove myself wrong[;)] I certainly don't see you accepting arguments going the other way, so why would you expect me to believe your opinions?
Why is it bad for kids to learn sodomy is good? By the same token, why even teach a child what is right and wrong? I'm sure somewhere there is a minority that sees what you say is wrong as right, shouldn't the child be exposed to that opinion also?
What if a group of people start a movement for suicide at a certain age? There are no victims outside of the consentees, our children should learn that it is perfectly normal and good to commit suicide, as long as it doesn't involve others. It's none of my business right?
Your opinion on sodomy is that it is wrong. That is fine, continue to have that opinion. Just, please, try to see that your opinion should not be made into law, just because it is your opinion.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Until I did the surfing the past couple days, I had believed the hype about sexual orientation being locked in at birth.
This website (http://couragerc.net/PIPPsychTreatmentStudy.html) was pretty interesting, but I imagine something without a religious connection like NARTH (http://www.narth.com/menus/about.html) might be more convincing. One of NARTH's position statements:
If it is a non-religious site, why are so many of the sourses Christian? Check where the authors got their degrees, or what groups they are affiliated with.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Can you deny if everybody was gay and lesbian it would destroy evolution?
If everyone voted republican, it would be the end of democracy. Therefore, no one must vote republican.
A more unbiased observer would note that (a) homosexuality has always been woith us, (b) it is (if genetic) a natural effect of random variation or (if chosen) an effect of the society we live in. I prefer to have a varied society. I prefer to preserve the element of choice in our lives.
There is no difference between a black and a white person, are you also saying there is no difference between a man and a woman? This is what your example would indicate. If we are attempting to expose the child to all different lifestyles, why not bring them up in a serial killers care, eh?
I think there is very clearly a difference between a black man, and a white man - clearer in most cases than between a man and a woman. What I am saying is that in this context, it has not been shown that this difference is in any way significant. After all, it is obvious that heterosexuality of parents has never prevented people from being homosexual.
In times past, people have tried to make very convincing cases for "racial confusion" by whites and blacks living together. How easily do you say now that their is no difference! Is was never "proven" that there is no difference, no harm, but rather assumed that all men are equal. It took a civil war to recognise this. It shouldn't take one to recognise the liberty of homosexuals.
Family values, bah, use your head.
WHAT family values? Look back over history, and you will see how "family values" have always been changing. If you lived fifty years ago, family values meant giving the wife a permanent place in the house, and as occassional sex object. If you looked back 300 years ago, family values included private homosexuality.
My claim is that if a piece of wisdom has survived a hundred years, then it's more likely that it's a good piece of wisdom than a bad piece of wisdom. Of course there will be some mistakes, but there will be less than other alternatives.
Except it hasn't. At some point, it must have been introduced, as historians have found much evidence of homosexuality in the past. And nothing that follows the guideline of "hate X because he is different, for a reason that is not given" can really be considered wisdom. There is no requirement to drive normally law-abiding, private and harmless individuals underground.
The statement is something else altogether. We shouldn't believe something because they used to believe it, but because we agree with their arguments.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
You mean people investigated the why the law exists, and argued that the reasons weren't valid?
Isn't that what I'm asking you and Zero to do? To investigate why such a law would exist and argue that the reasons are unfounded?
The trouble is that there is no apparent reason for such a law in the first place. The law presents an unfalsifiable hypothesis - an act of faith that homosexuality is bad. This is not a valid basis for the infringement of people's rights.
Traditionally, A is considered true.
Nobody has shown me why A is true.
Therefore A is false.
To be blunt, almost yes. More precisely, it is not a matter of definitely saying that A is false, but that of saying that A is not clearly true. And that the matter here is not of whether anyone has shown me, but that of the lack of arguable, reasonable reasons at all.
The attempts made mostly tie into the collusion of church and state, or the misuse of statistical facts. (Consider that social science statement - parental abuse is far more likely in heterosexual families. Incest victims classically occur in isolated, traditionalist communities. Homosexuals are found to be usually more socially capable.) In a matter that has effects on individual liberties, prior belief means nothing. Especially when this belief runs contrary to other principles such as liberty.
Let's take a few examples. The principle of atheism is that although it has been traditionally thought that God exists, latter examination reveals no (as far as the atheist is concerned) reason for God's existence. Hence, while you cannot be expected to disprove god, the atheist chooses not to believe in God's existence, and so not to act as though God exists. Another example - racial discrimination. Though traditionally blacks were considered subhuman slaves, examination shows no evidence why their skin colour is relevant. While it is impossible to prove that blacks are not inferior (as in the moral case of homosexuality, you cannot really give an absolute answer on the vague idea of good or not, superior or not), the laws which rest on the idea of this inferiority are judged to have no valid basis, and hence are abolished.
(Damn... I'm doing a lot of edits recently...)
To expand on a point FZ+ made, homosexuality has been a constant throughout history. It has generally been made illegal for religious reasons. Some would say that it is on moral grounds, as though a specific religion gets to set the morals for a society. This is specifically NOT the case in America, which is founded partially on a foundation of religious freedom. The fact that religious groups now you corrupted research to 'prove' that homosexuality is bad, doesn't change the fact that their basic reasoning is based on their cult's doctrine. On those grounds alone, I would say that it is un-American to make homosexuality illegal.
A more personal level, I say that those anti-American forces who would ban consentual sexual activity would not stop at homosexual sex, if they had their way. They would ban ALL sexual activity that does not fit their cult's 'moral' views. They would legislate every aspect of culture to fit theoir narrow interpretation of their particular book of fables. Such an idea is repugnant to me, and should be to anyone who loves America. Further, the idea that allowing minority groups to have rights takes away from the majority, is a foolish fear-mongering idea. When one group is more free, we are ALL more free. That is a facet of freedom that some people hate, maybe most people hate.
kyle_soule
Jul7-03, 04:20 PM
http://www.wfcr.com/diseases.html
http://www.dbbm.fiocruz.br/www-mem/956/3982.pdf
Links to diseases in homosexual men.
This, along with what Hurkyl linked, are two facts based reasons for our positions.
Someone thought I implied homosexuality should be outlawed, I don't remember who. But from the beginning of this post my stance has been clear, no marriage - no adoption. I really don't care if they want to have sex or not.
As for the suicide, Dissident Dan, if I had a homosexual son I would be affected, as for the other side, some families aren't affected by suicide.
The burden of proof is not on my opinions, it is on me to provide you with proof if I was trying to convince you of what I believed, I'm just discussing what I believe.
The link between the two statements was not apparent when you split them from the next sentence.
There are multiple errors here. First of all, we know that suicide is harmful to someone. There has been presented no evidence, only conjecture, that there is harm in homosexuality. Secondly, it will affect the families of the suicidal person. Thirdly, in some rare cases, suicide actually is the better option. That's one reason why we have euthanasia for pets.
An increased risk of disease is harmful. It's like saying smoking isn't harmful because you aren't guaranteed to get a disease, idle tar and such in your lungs isn't necessarily harmful, unless you live an active lifestyle, even then it doesn't hurt you if you can't breath as well, it is just uncomfortable. Affecting families was discussed before, a straight family has a good chance of being affected by a son that pops out and announces he is homosexual. Suicide is a better option? I can't believe this, burden of proof lies on you[;)] and we aren't talking about pets being homosexual here, even if their was a valid point in putting a pet down.
One might note something that is hidden in those sources - there are far far more diseases associated with heterosexuality, most because of the greater prevalence of it's practice. And that parts of the documents are complete lies. Eg. "AIDS - 5000 times" seems behind on the fact that Aids is now a disease primarily of heterosexuals, as gay men have learnt to be more careful in their relations. It utterly ignores the major point - that these diseases are connected not to specific sexuality, but sexual ignorance and being exempted from the advice of the health system. Is it any surprise that a group forced underground should make mistakes. This is analogous to saying that alcohol must be continue to be banned due to the actions of smugglers and gangster during the prohibition. The right approach is not to hide, but to advance.
But from the beginning of this post my stance has been clear, no marriage - no adoption.
All the more reason that gay marriages should be legally recognised.
As for the suicide, Dissident Dan, if I had a homosexual son I would be affected, as for the other side, some families aren't affected by suicide.
Would you be happier then if he commited suicide because you refused to accept him for his beliefs? Recognise that the choice lies in the individual, please, and that the comparison with suicide is entirely vacuous. Homosexuality does not prevent you from making friends, from having a good career, from living a life.
The burden of proof is not on my opinions, it is on me to provide you with proof if I was trying to convince you of what I believed, I'm just discussing what I believe.
Then your belief is wrong the moment you try to enforce it on others. In the same way the homosexuals would be wrong if they tried to discriminate against non-homosexuals etc etc.
An increased risk of disease is harmful. It's like saying smoking isn't harmful because you aren't guaranteed to get a disease, idle tar and such in your lungs isn't necessarily harmful, unless you live an active lifestyle, even then it doesn't hurt you if you can't breath as well, it is just uncomfortable.
Are we banning smoking then? Notice how smoking will probably always be allowed in private surroundings - it is not anyone's business except for passive smoking which inherently is harmful to others. And homosexuality is in no way comparable, because the diseases are not inherent in this case.
Affecting families was discussed before, a straight family has a good chance of being affected by a son that pops out and announces he is homosexual.
They also have a chance of being affected by him announcing himself to be an atheist, if not more so. The fact is, they get over it. The sort of domineering control that would create a situation where they don't get over it, that they refuse to support an individual's choice should not be supported by law - that, by evidence is far more harmful to the child's adult life that allowance of homosexuality.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
http://www.wfcr.com/diseases.html
http://www.dbbm.fiocruz.br/www-mem/956/3982.pdf
Links to diseases in homosexual men.
This, along with what Hurkyl linked, are two facts based reasons for our positions.
Someone thought I implied homosexuality should be outlawed, I don't remember who. But from the beginning of this post my stance has been clear, no marriage - no adoption. I really don't care if they want to have sex or not.
As for the suicide, Dissident Dan, if I had a homosexual son I would be affected, as for the other side, some families aren't affected by suicide.
The burden of proof is not on my opinions, it is on me to provide you with proof if I was trying to convince you of what I believed, I'm just discussing what I believe.
The link between the two statements was not apparent when you split them from the next sentence.
An increased risk of disease is harmful. It's like saying smoking isn't harmful because you aren't guaranteed to get a disease, idle tar and such in your lungs isn't necessarily harmful, unless you live an active lifestyle, even then it doesn't hurt you if you can't breath as well, it is just uncomfortable. Affecting families was discussed before, a straight family has a good chance of being affected by a son that pops out and announces he is homosexual. Suicide is a better option? I can't believe this, burden of proof lies on you[;)] and we aren't talking about pets being homosexual here, even if their was a valid point in putting a pet down.
Warriors For Christian Radio website? There's a good sourse for medical information!! Do they do your taxes too? *rolls eyes*
And, oif course, you comparison to smoking is wrong...like most of teh rest of your comparisons. Try again? Or give up while you are only WAY behind?
my only argument against adoption is that the kid(s) will probably get harrassed. 5 years ago, back when i was in grade school, kids got harassed because someone would say they were gay. i think most kids would be tolerant, especially as they got older and it was more accepted by society, but i think you'd still hear a lot of "haha, mikey has two dads!" on the playgrounds. i know that that isn't a good reason for same-sex partners not to have kids, but it's something to consider. also i doubt this is very likely, but if those kids got pulled out of school because of the harassment, that could start up a new form of segregation, and god knows we've had enough of that bs to last a lifetime.
as for suicide, i don't think i'd really be affected all that differently, depending on if my son "pops out and announces he is homosexual." i imagine the risk for suicide would be higher, but it's still there. and would you have a reason to kill yourself if society accepted you for who you were?
Heh heh...watch me be evil.
Heterosexuality leads to divorce, rape, child abuse, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, children who are a drain on out resources, stalking, sexual harrassment in the workplace, Lifetime movies, and a general lack of morality in our society.
I won't disagree with that! [;)]
Life inevitably leads to death. Avoid it at all costs! [;)]
Ivan Seeking
Jul8-03, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Heterosexuality leads to divorce, rape, child abuse, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, children who are a drain on out resources, stalking, sexual harrassment in the workplace, Lifetime movies, and a general lack of morality in our society.
That settles it. Ban all sexuality! Its ruining lives and it's killing people. [:D]
kyle_soule
Jul8-03, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
One might note something that is hidden in those sources - there are far far more diseases associated with heterosexuality, most because of the greater prevalence of it's practice. And that parts of the documents are complete lies. Eg. "AIDS - 5000 times" seems behind on the fact that Aids is now a disease primarily of heterosexuals, as gay men have learnt to be more careful in their relations. It utterly ignores the major point - that these diseases are connected not to specific sexuality, but sexual ignorance and being exempted from the advice of the health system. Is it any surprise that a group forced underground should make mistakes. This is analogous to saying that alcohol must be continue to be banned due to the actions of smugglers and gangster during the prohibition. The right approach is not to hide, but to advance.
I never thought of this. I suppose you are correct, I just threw those out, I didn't check their stats because, frankly, I didn't care what their stats were, the idea of diseases in gays was all I wanted to throw out.
Would you be happier then if he commited suicide because you refused to accept him for his beliefs? Recognise that the choice lies in the individual, please, and that the comparison with suicide is entirely vacuous. Homosexuality does not prevent you from making friends, from having a good career, from living a life.
Irrelevant to the idea of my post.
Then your belief is wrong the moment you try to enforce it on others. In the same way the homosexuals would be wrong if they tried to discriminate against non-homosexuals etc etc.
Again, I'm only discussing, I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anybody. Just raising questions, and discussing, hearing others views (except for Zero because he is nothing but insulting, what a great Mentor, ay?).
Are we banning smoking then? Notice how smoking will probably always be allowed in private surroundings - it is not anyone's business except for passive smoking which inherently is harmful to others. And homosexuality is in no way comparable, because the diseases are not inherent in this case.
Well, see, this was based on the idea that there is (as I still believe there is) a case in diseases in homosexuality.
Zero, I did not check the sources, although I must ask you, why must a Christian source always be wrong? Are Christians unable to do research correctly? You mentioned NOTHING of the information, you simply insulted me (which was entirely uncalled for, even more so in light of the ABSENSE of ANY contribution to the topic) and insulted the source because it was Christian.
This guy is a MENTOR, too! You insult people more than any other person (currently) at PF!
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I won't disagree with that! [;)]
So cut off your penis, and butt out of our lives, buddy!
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Zero, I did not check the sources, although I must ask you, why must a Christian source always be wrong? Are Christians unable to do research correctly? You mentioned NOTHING of the information, you simply insulted me (which was entirely uncalled for, even more so in light of the ABSENSE of ANY contribution to the topic) and insulted the source because it was Christian.
This guy is a MENTOR, too! You insult people more than any other person (currently) at PF!
LOL...and, well...LOL again! All of your comparisons HAVE been wrong, unless you can show that consentual sex is inherently harmful. Until you do, comparing it to murder or alcoholism is not adding much to the discussion.
As far as your links. Christians can obviously do good research. Fundamentalists who begin their research with the specific goal of confirming what they have already decide to be a 'fact' cannot do proper research. The point is, a scientist has to be a scientist FIRST and ONLY when considering research. People doing 'research' to support a religious agenda cannot be impartial.
schwarzchildradius
Jul19-03, 08:05 AM
Do you think that ____sexuality is morally wrong, or is it just a big waste of time and money to mess with people doing private stuff in their private places? I tend to concur with the latter, because as an American, I like to feel that I can represent myself conservatively.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.