uhmump95 Wrote:

Fanatical Wrote:Wow, I haven't seen this much homophobia since the days of Endzone.

All we need is for someone to ask why black people need Ebonics and it will be exactly like the good old days.

[ez2]Ebonics is due to God cursing black people with weak and stupid brains.[/stupid racist idiot]

More on the genetic link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21309724/
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519

jh Wrote:

smn1256 Wrote:First of all, I'm not an evangelical anything. I'm an atheist who is also conservative. And yes, I despise the life style of gays and was much happier when they stayed in the closet.

I have to say I'm really intrigued. Your position is normally associated with the religious right. What is the moral standard that you use to judge the gay community?

While I'm an atheist these days, I was born and raised Catholic, as was my entire family. Back in the day a homosexual family member would have been described as "the uncle we don't talk about" by the immediate family. Just because I've drifted from religion doesn't mean I don't have morals. When something is wrong it's wrong.

Quote:The vast majority of child molesters are otherwise identified as heterosexual, not gay.

OK. You're probably right. But according to liberals homosexuality should be accepted because their born that way or it's some sort of free choice. Going back to my example of sex with a 16 year old, why would that be wrong if that's the way I was born? A lot of assumptions are being made by people who don't know the people involved. People are assuming a 16 year old can't make a good decision and the adult pays for it. How come the liberals aren't jumping all over that? Personally, I see sex with a minor and homosexuality as being deviant from the norm but somehow the gays managed to scream and yell their way into some type of acceptance. Will you still feel that way when people from the back woods of West Virginia lobby for the legalization of sex with minors?

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Marriage is a religious institution and should be left to religious organizations.

Everyone seems to have a different opinion of how the definition of marriage should be decided. California has a ballot measure aimed at making that definition and someone in this thread it shouldn't be decided by the voters or the government. The only option left is the religious opinion. People of the Christian and Muslim faiths, the two largest religious groups on the planet, have already weighed in: one condemns homosexuality and the other kills them.

I45owl Wrote:I have to wonder if you've shared these feelings and comparisons with your sister (pediophilia ~= homosexuality in your moral scale? really?). I suspect not.

Her sexuality was tough to handle. My family lives in NJ and I moved far, far away many years ago and had to find out from my first wife that my sister was gay. Phone calls were made and it was soon apparent this was being kept secret from me. I discovered my parents were devastated when they found out.

I don't approve of her life style and she knows it. If she doesn't rub her gayness in my face I'll ignore the fact that she is. This is my sister and I can't turn my back on her and walk away. If you had a family member who commited murder you might be upset or embarrassed and may come to accept the life sentence he got but eventually you'll put that aside and still recognize him as a member of your family.

For many of you who don't live in California you might not realize what a pain in the ass openly gay people can be. I have a 10 year old son and I do not want him to see gay men walking hand-in-hand and kissing and all that other gay sh!t. If any of you disagree with that then come to California, Palm Springs or San Francisco in particular, and let your 10 year old eyeball all the things you've spent a life time protecting him from. Until you've done that you might not know where I'm coming from.

smn1256 Wrote:

Quote:I have to say I'm really intrigued. Your position is normally associated with the religious right. What is the moral standard that you use to judge the gay community?

While I'm an atheist these days, I was born and raised Catholic, as was my entire family. Back in the day a homosexual family member would have been described as "the uncle we don't talk about" by the immediate family. Just because I've drifted from religion doesn't mean I don't have morals. When something is wrong it's wrong.

I understand that you don't have to believe in a religion to have morals (I'm also an atheist & consider myself to be a relatively moral person). What I'm asking is what makes it immoral, what makes it wrong? The only real justifications for oppositions to homosexuality I've ever heard have been religious in nature so I'm curious to see where you are coming from. Is it something in particular about homosexuality that makes it immoral, or is the attitude held over from your Catholic upbringing (opposition to abortion & premarital sex have been the hardest for me to let go of)?

Quote:Personally, I see sex with a minor and homosexuality as being deviant from the norm but somehow the gays managed to scream and yell their way into some type of acceptance. Will you still feel that way when people from the back woods of West Virginia lobby for the legalization of sex with minors?

Our entire system of government is based on the concept of the consent of the governed. Implicit in this concept is the idea of informed consent - the people must be in a position to understand & evaluate what they are consenting to. Age of consent laws are based on the belief that prior to a certain age people are unable to make an informed decision & therefore incapable of consenting. Unfortunately the law is a rather blunt instrument & can't be personalized to set the age of consent based on a person's actual maturity (the proper age is certainly something which should be reviewed). It is in cases like that where the police, prosecutors, and/or juries should decide whether the law should actually be enforced. There is no such conflict in the case of homosexual activities between consenting adults.

Finally, what is wrong with deviating from the norm? Many of our greatest advances have come from those who deviated from the norm. I read A Short History of Nearly Everything not too long ago & was struck by how many of our most brilliant minds were misfits, oddballs, & freaks.

jh Wrote:I understand that you don't have to believe in a religion to have morals (I'm also an atheist & consider myself to be a relatively moral person). What I'm asking is what makes it immoral, what makes it wrong? The only real justifications for oppositions to homosexuality I've ever heard have been religious in nature so I'm curious to see where you are coming from. Is it something in particular about homosexuality that makes it immoral, or is the attitude held over from your Catholic upbringing (opposition to abortion & premarital sex have been the hardest for me to let go of)?

My feelings towards homosexuality most likely comes from my Catholic upbringing, the way I was raised, etc...but recently, it's the gay folks from San Francisco and Palm Springs who openly display their sexuality and demand that me and my family accept a behaviour we were taught as being deviant.

Quote:Personally, I see sex with a minor and homosexuality as being deviant from the norm but somehow the gays managed to scream and yell their way into some type of acceptance. Will you still feel that way when people from the back woods of West Virginia lobby for the legalization of sex with minors?

Our entire system of government is based on the concept of the consent of the governed. Implicit in this concept is the idea of informed consent - the people must be in a position to understand & evaluate what they are consenting to. Age of consent laws are based on the belief that prior to a certain age people are unable to make an informed decision & therefore incapable of consenting. Unfortunately the law is a rather blunt instrument & can't be personalized to set the age of consent based on a person's actual maturity (the proper age is certainly something which should be reviewed). It is in cases like that where the police, prosecutors, and/or juries should decide whether the law should actually be enforced. There is no such conflict in the case of homosexual activities between consenting adults.

Finally, what is wrong with deviating from the norm? Many of our greatest advances have come from those who deviated from the norm. I read A Short History of Nearly Everything not too long ago & was struck by how many of our most brilliant minds were misfits, oddballs, & freaks.
[/quote]
I agree with you that age of consent laws are needed (although greatly ignored when I was a teenager) but what I'm arguing is that somebody some where decided a particular age a person can legally do something, essentially imposing their own morals on them, and the left says nothing. For the most part, an age limit is an arbitrary date that can, in actuallity, swing two or three years in each direction. While I feel these laws are needed, the left says nothing about decisions being made for people regardless of their own unique abilities.

smn1256 Wrote:I don't approve of her life style and she knows it. If she doesn't rub her gayness in my face I'll ignore the fact that she is. This is my sister and I can't turn my back on her and walk away. If you had a family member who commited murder you might be upset or embarrassed and may come to accept the life sentence he got but eventually you'll put that aside and still recognize him as a member of your family.

Holy freaking homophobe batman!

It was utterly ridiculous when you tried to equate homosexuality to pedophelia, but did you really just try to equate it to ******* MURDER??? Two adults having consexual sex is equivalent to ******* killing someone?

smn1256 Wrote:I agree with you that age of consent laws are needed (although greatly ignored when I was a teenager) but what I'm arguing is that somebody some where decided a particular age a person can legally do something, essentially imposing their own morals on them

Consent laws, unlike your drivel, are based on actual science. The science behind it is both observational and based on actual development of the brain synapses, etc.

Artifice Wrote:

smn1256 Wrote:I don't approve of her life style and she knows it. If she doesn't rub her gayness in my face I'll ignore the fact that she is. This is my sister and I can't turn my back on her and walk away. If you had a family member who commited murder you might be upset or embarrassed and may come to accept the life sentence he got but eventually you'll put that aside and still recognize him as a member of your family.

Holy freaking homophobe batman!

It was utterly ridiculous when you tried to equate homosexuality to pedophelia, but did you really just try to equate it to ******* MURDER??? Two adults having consexual sex is equivalent to ******* killing someone?

I was trying to show a sliding scale of morality where some things are considered OK and others not, yet for folks like me all of them are wrong.

Artifice Wrote:

smn1256 Wrote:I agree with you that age of consent laws are needed (although greatly ignored when I was a teenager) but what I'm arguing is that somebody some where decided a particular age a person can legally do something, essentially imposing their own morals on them

Consent laws, unlike your drivel, are based on actual science. The science behind it is both observational and based on actual development of the brain synapses, etc.

Really? Then perhaps you have the intelligence to explain why consent laws differ from state to state, country to country and religion to religion?

I'm done in this thread. It would seem gays have the right to express themselves and I'm condemned when I do. It just shows us once again how the left values free speech only when it agrees with their agenda. Most organized religions are anti-gay, only 2 states recognize gay unions and being gay will get you killed in certain countries and when I happen to agree with most of those religions, states and countries you say I'm wrong. You lefty's are all a bunch of hypocrites.

smn1256 Wrote:I'm done in this thread. It would seem gays have the right to express themselves and I'm condemned when I do. It just shows us once again how the left values free speech only when it agrees with their agenda. Most organized religions are anti-gay, only 2 states recognize gay unions and being gay will get you killed in certain countries and when I happen to agree with most of those religions, states and countries you say I'm wrong. You lefty's are all a bunch of hypocrites.

The group that doesn't like labels, labeled you a homophobe because you didn't agree with them. Funny eh!

smn1256 Wrote:Really? Then perhaps you have the intelligence to explain why consent laws differ from state to state, country to country and religion to religion?

...because of traditions, religious influence, and differing opinions on the science? You know, kinda like just about every other law on the books?

Do you have a point here? Are you trying to say that 1 or 2 year variances in consent laws somehow justifices your attempts to equate same sex intercourse with killing someone?

Since you are either trying to obfuscate or cannot comprehend the obvious:

Sex between two adults - consensual or its rape
Sex between an adult and a child - nonconsensual/rape
Killing someone - nonconsensual/murder

Is it really that hard, or are you just trying to be obtuse?

GrayBeard Wrote:The group that doesn't like labels, labeled you a homophobe because you didn't agree with them. Funny eh!

I'm the one that called him a homophobe.

You're taking me to task based on things you assumed??? With a straight face?

**** off. Really.

Artifice Wrote:

smn1256 Wrote:Really? Then perhaps you have the intelligence to explain why consent laws differ from state to state, country to country and religion to religion?

...because of traditions, religious influence, and differing opinions on the science? You know, kinda like just about every other law on the books?

Do you have a point here? Are you trying to say that 1 or 2 year variances in consent laws somehow justifices your attempts to equate same sex intercourse with killing someone?

Since you are either trying to obfuscate or cannot comprehend the obvious:

Sex between two adults - consensual or its rape
Sex between an adult and a child - nonconsensual/rape
Killing someone - nonconsensual/murder

Is it really that hard, or are you just trying to be obtuse?

GrayBeard Wrote:The group that doesn't like labels, labeled you a homophobe because you didn't agree with them. Funny eh!

Assume much? I'm the one that called him a homophobe, and I'll do it again. But you're taking me to task based on things you assumed??? With a straight face?

**** off. Really.

Do you honestly think that he equated murder with homosexuality? Or, do you think he was showing an extreme example of loving somebody even though you do not agree with something they have done?

Grow up!

GrayBeard Wrote:Do you honestly think that he equated murder with homosexuality?

He did. he said homosexuality is something you'd have to forgive them for, like murder.

Quote:I don't approve of her life style and she knows it. If she doesn't rub her gayness in my face I'll ignore the fact that she is. This is my sister and I can't turn my back on her and walk away. If you had a family member who commited murder you might be upset or embarrassed and may come to accept the life sentence he got but eventually you'll put that aside and still recognize him as a member of your family.

Brother marrying Sister = consent
Father marrying daughter = consent
Mother marrying Son = consent
Father marrying Son = consent

1 man marrying multiple wives = consent

anything goes under this logic, starting with the foundation of Western Civilization and all the progress that has come with it.

The definition of consenting adult can change, just like the Definition of marriage is being attempted to be changed. "Consenting adult" would also include the marriage of sister and brother, mother and daughter, father and daughter, father and son, and any other combination you don't want to think about.....oh wait, at the moment we'd draw the line there, which is were our Evolving Standards haven't taken us...yet.

No one right now proposes marrying animals or children like no one thrity years ago thought there would be any consideration of homosexual marriages today. Things change/evolve under postmodern thought, gradually. It's taken thousands of years to get to the point of trying to redefine marriage, and its only coming now in the Western World because Fixed morality has been replaced with Evolving Morality(i.e. Humanism) by the Postmoderns. Nambla has already been arguing in Journals that Pedopholia should be legal because the Adult and the Child "Love each other".

SCOTUS has already dealt once with Polygomy in our country in Davis v. Beason (1890), after the definiton is changed it'll make a comeback though and be challenged.

Notice what is referenced by the decision:

Quote:Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their . . . advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise, and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling are themselves criminal, and proper subjects of punishment, as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases.

If homosexual marriage is based by an evolving nature of the institution of marriage and the free-will consent of adults, then what arguments will be used against bigamy and polygamy? Or changing the age of consent to say....6 years old like one of Muhammed's wives, who he later had sex with at 9 years of age as Sharia takes hold in the west? Which in Saudi Arabia it is cited as an example to follow...

Nobody constructs an argument on bigger mountains of false assumptions and selective data better than GGNiner.

That first post there is an amazing series of logical leaps constructed on an Everest of bullcrap. It's awe inspiring.

If you want to debunk its idiocy, you have to spend a ridiculous amount of type just attacking the foundation, before you even begin to tackle the faulty logic.

It's an absolutely superb tactic. There's no way anyone cares enough to bother.

Artifice Wrote:Holy freaking homophobe batman!

If I'm a homophobe then so be it. But then so would most Christians, Muslims, Republicans, the folks who put a measure on California's fall election to define marriage as union between a man and a woman and on and on. When looked at in that light I proudly find myself in good company. Are you going to attack Christians and Muslims now? Face it dude, you're in the minority and as is typical of liberals you're going to scream and holler until I can't be heard and then you'll call that a victory.

I just checked Obama's web site and couldn't find where he stands on gay unions, but when asked I believe he dodged the question by answering it's a state issue. How does it feel to be left of Obama?