Listen to what i am saying Faunus:
My arguement is not that i hate gays. I am saying it is mentally abnormal. I am also not comparing the ACTIONS of gays to the ACTIONS of a child molesters. I am comparing their mental abnormalities. Are you going to sit there and say that it is normal for a grown guy to be sexually attracted to a five year old, as long as they do not try anything with them? Of course gays are accepted because it is consensual; whereas, having sex with a child is not.
Surgical sex change is also accepted nowadays. Are you also going to say that this is perfectly natural? Sorry but it is not. No matter how much a man wants to be a woman, it will never happen, hence the reason why they will never be able to have kids by another man.
I am a firm believer that all children deserve to have a mother and a father, not two fathers, or two mothers.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66You know what else isn't natural? Condoms. And the pill. And a computer.
Listen to what i am saying Faunus:My arguement is not that i hate gays. I am saying it is mentally abnormal. I am also not comparing the ACTIONS of gays to the ACTIONS of a child molesters. I am comparing their mental abnormalities. Are you going to sit there and say that it is normal for a grown guy to be sexually attracted to a five year old, as long as they do not try anything with them? Of course gays are accepted because it is consensual; whereas, having sex with a child is not.
Surgical sex change is also accepted nowadays. Are you also going to say that this is perfectly natural? Sorry but it is not. No matter how much a man wants to be a woman, it will never happen, hence the reason why they will never be able to have kids by another man.
I am a firm believer that all children deserve to have a mother and a father, not two fathers, or two mothers.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66And you're using that as an excuse to say that they shouldn't be able to adopt kids.
Listen to what i am saying Faunus:My arguement is not that i hate gays. I am saying it is mentally abnormal.
I am also not comparing the ACTIONS of gays to the ACTIONS of a child molesters. I am comparing their mental abnormalities.Then the comparison itself is stupid and irrelevant. Einstein and Edison were mentally abnormal, too.
Are you going to sit there and say that it is normal for a grown guy to be sexually attracted to a five year old, as long as they do not try anything with them?It's abnormal because most people don't think that way, sure. That doesn't make what it is abnormal inherently bad.
Of course gays are accepted because it is consensual; whereas, having sex with a child is not.Then don't try to liken homosexuals to child molesters.
Surgical sex change is also accepted nowadays. Are you also going to say that this is perfectly natural? Sorry but it is not.Heart transplants are accepted nowadays. Guess they're taboo, too.
You seem to associate "natural" with good and "unnatural" with bad. It's a stupid line of thought, especially when your idea of what is natural is so poorly defined.
No matter how much a man wants to be a woman, it will never happen, hence the reason why they will never be able to have kids by another man.Uh, a former man was impregnated last year, so how exactly do you define "woman"?
I am a firm believer that all children deserve to have a mother and a father, not two fathers, or two mothers.I don't care what you think provided you don't try to tell a child that it is not okay for him to have to fathers, which is what you're advocating. The gender of the parent doesn't matter; it's what the parent is willing to do for the child that counts, and if a gay parent is as capable as a straight one of raising "good" kids, then let them have one. I don't see you trying to adopt the poor and homeless any time soon, so don't try to obstruct those who are willing to.
Originally posted by Publius IIYeah you are right. I think children should only be adopted by a woman and a man, and who are capable money wise. These kids deserve the best.
[B]And you're using that as an excuse to say that they shouldn't be able to adopt kids.
Then the comparison itself is stupid and irrelevant. Einstein and Edison were mentally abnormal, too.If i were to compare their actions, then yes. But i am not.
It's abnormal because most people don't think that way, sure. That doesn't make what it is abnormal inherently bad.See you are not getting it. Are you saying that having a sexual attraction to little kids is not being mentally mixed up?
Then don't try to liken homosexuals to child molesters.By their actions, i am not.
Heart transplants are accepted nowadays. Guess they're taboo, too.Ummm why do people get heart transplants? To replace a heart that is not funtioning properly, and because most of the time death is the other option. So yeah it is to save a life. Living with a bad heart is a bad thing. Can you say living as a male is a bad thing?
You seem to associate "natural" with good and "unnatural" with bad. It's a stupid line of thought, especially when your idea of what is natural is so poorly defined.So having a sexual attraction to a child is a good thing? As long as you don't act on those desires? They're not mixed up in the head to you?
You are all for gay right? Well if your line of thought is so right, then why isn't gay marriage legal? The majority is wrong, right?
Uh, a former man was impregnated last year, so how exactly do you define "woman"?Prove it. I also want the status of the baby.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Okay, I'll play.Morally:
1.) Nothing, 2.) It's traumatizing/dangerous, 3.) Nothing.
Sex with a minor is traumatizing? For whom? What if the minor was mature enough to consent to it, how would that be traumatizing?
There's nothing wrong with incest? You find nothing wrong with having sex with your own blood? You do know that you were created so you can procreate outside the family right?
Frankly there's something disgusting about all three, but on a moral standpoint, only #2 stands out.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66And if 80% of kids in need of adoption aren't being adopted, you shouldn't let the gay couples who will actually take care of them take them in?
Yeah you are right. I think children should only be adopted by a woman and a man, and who are capable money wise. These kids deserve the best.
Please, don't behind a facade of compassion. You're prejudiced, and you're willing to let kids rot in shitty foster systems if it means a gay couple won't get them. You sicken me.
If i were to compare their actions, then yes. But i am not.If you aren't comparing their actions, the comparison is useless.
See you are not getting it. Are you saying that having a sexual attraction to little kids is not being mentally mixed up?You just missed the point entirely. Someone being "mixed up" means they're different, it doesn't make them bad. Having a sexual attraction to children is indeed different,
By their actions, i am not.The very fact that you compared them directly to pedophiles means that you are trying to imply guilt by (nonexistent) association. I'm going to go ahead and compare gays ("mixed-up/abnormal"😉 to geniuses ("mixed-up/abnormal"😉 again. Address it this time.
Ummm why do people get heart transplants? To replace a heart that is not funtioning properly, and because most of the time death is the other option. So yeah it is to save a life. Living with a bad heart is a bad thing. Can you say living as a male is a bad thing?You're either actually incapable of understanding what I'm saying, which is difficult for me to accept, or you're simply trying to evade my points in a very pathetic attempt to gain ground.
This is still about what you consider natural and unnatural, and the stigma you apply to one or the other. Respond to this.
So having a sexual attraction to a child is a good thing? As long as you don't act on those desires? They're not mixed up in the head to you?See the above, and stop evading my points.
You are all for gay right? Well if your line of thought is so right, then why isn't gay marriage legal?Because people like you - primitive, dogmatic, dense, backwards - won't allow for the separation of church and state. Or the promotion of basic civil rights, for that matter. I don't buy into the words of the Bible, I won't live by them, and there's absolutely no reason everyone else should.
The majority is wrong, right?You really want to go there?
Originally posted by Darth SexyI don't use the word moral in a religious sense, I just like the term because it's a good synonym for "socially acceptable." There's no all-consuming sense of right or wrong to me.
Nothing is wrong with bestiality? So the concept of separating ourselves from animals is foreign to you I take it.Sex with a minor is traumatizing? For whom? What if the minor was mature enough to consent to it, how would that be traumatizing?
There's nothing wrong with incest? You find nothing wrong with having sex with your own blood? You do know that you were created so you can procreate outside the family right?
I think homosexuality is disgusting. Obviously not as much as
these 3 but all 4 have something in common. If we allow all 4, we would set dangerous precedents on or values, morals and actions. The sanctity of marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and it hasn't been changed for a reason,
whether it was beneficial for society or some other reason. Changing this and allowing same sex couples to get married opens up the door for other things, such as incest, bestiality, sex with a minor, etc. Unless you're going to sit here and pick and choose. But you have stated that least 1 of the 3 I've mentioned is bad, so that's a step in the right direction. Of course, I would think you're more of a logical person if you thought there's something wrong with all 3.
Personally I don't give a rat's ass about the ahem... feelings of others. If someone wants to f*ck their dog, go right ahead, just don't piss off the people (a.k.a. the majority) who don't like it. They hurt only themselves and the dog (maybe, unless the dog likes it) and I'm the type who doesn't care about the ahem... feelings of the dog.
Pedophiles who act out their fantasies risk traumatizing and scarring the child's mind and paradigm, not to mention their body. I care when adults take advantage of a child's naivety and innocence.
Incest is legal in an incestuous society. Our Judeo-Chrsitian heritage says it isn't, so we've all been raised to believe it isn't. It's genetically degenerative--there's my reason for thinking it disgusting. I don't give a f*ck about the individual's or the people's concept of right or wrong, but so long as how they apply that morality is practical and tangible, I won't argue.
Homosexuality---so what? It's an individual and personal choice/situation. It affects only you. If you meet people like that then you can live your life however. Just don't rape, kill, or spread STDs on purpose---straight people are subject to the same laws.
I.e. when your lifestyle choice negatively affects others in a direct fashion, I've got a problem with you.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't use the word moral in a religious sense, I just like the term because it's a good synonym for "socially acceptable." There's no all-consuming sense of right or wrong to me.Personally I don't give a rat's ass about the ahem... feelings of others. If someone wants to f*ck their dog, go right ahead, just don't piss off the people (a.k.a. the majority) who don't like it. They hurt only themselves and the dog (maybe, unless the dog likes it) and I'm the type who doesn't care about the ahem... feelings of the dog.
Pedophiles who act out their fantasies risk traumatizing and scarring the child's mind and paradigm, not to mention their body. I care when adults take advantage of a child's naivety and innocence.
Incest is legal in an incestuous society. Our Judeo-Chrsitian heritage says it isn't, so we've all been raised to believe it isn't. It's genetically degenerative--there's my reason for thinking it disgusting. I don't give a f*ck about the individual's or the people's concept of right or wrong, but so long as how they apply that morality is practical and tangible, I won't argue.
Homosexuality---so what? It's an individual and personal choice/situation. It affects only you. If you meet people like that then you can live your life however. Just don't rape, kill, or spread STDs on purpose---straight people are subject to the same laws.
I.e. when your lifestyle choice negatively affects others in a direct fashion, I've got a problem with you.
See this is the thing. Certain behavior opens the door for other behavior, which opens the door for other stuff. When are you prepared to draw the line? I think homosexuality is religiously and morally wrong and while I'm not out there gay bashing, I hardly think they should given certain rights, such as the sanctity of marriage.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66Live under a rock, much?
Prove it. I also want the status of the baby.
Originally posted by Darth SexyThat's bull, especially when one takes an actual look at the ridiculous disparity between requesting the right to same-sex marriage and actually being a child molester. The former doesn't require the legalization of rape.
See this is the thing. Certain behavior opens the door for other behavior, which opens the door for other stuff.
When are you prepared to draw the line? I think homosexuality is religiously and morally wrongYou don't find it arrogant to have everyone else live by the rules of your religion at the expense of their own happiness?
and while I'm not out there gay bashing, I hardly think they should given certain rights, such as the sanctity of marriage.Which is unjustified prejudice.
OK, so going back for another (set of infinity) round(s) with DS doesn't sound like much fun at all. I will instead outline my personal position on homosexuals and why I think that they should be allowed to adopt. Next, I will discuss homosexuality in society and history. Finally, I (being fluent in tool) will try to explain to Sids exactly where he went wrong.
Homosexuals
Homosexuality is not a bad thing. Homosexual individuals are generally just as productive as straight workers, just as law abiding, and similar in every significant category to 'straight' individuals. The only difference is in the nature of their physical attractions. For simplicity's sake I will only refer to 'gay' individuals, but my arguments apply to transgendered or bisexual individuals also.
The contributions made to society by gay individuals are largely indistinguishable from those made by others. They contribute to the economy, volunteer, vote, and (again, most) are fully functioning members of society. There is no valid reason to discriminate against them.
Homosexuality is not a choice. While I cannot (at this moment) point to a study that explicitly says, "Gay Gene Found" there are certain logical pathways (one, really) that we can follow to reach this comclusion. Note that while I describe homosexuals as different than I am, I will not describe them as inferior.
Duality of 'choice'
Put simply, if sexual orientation is a 'choice' then it should work both ways. If an individual chooses to be a homosexual then an individual also chooses to be heterosexual. This is not the case. I could not choose to be gay, and a homosexual could not choose to be straight. I know that I never made that choice, and if you think that you could then you are probably lying to yourself about your own orientation.
Objections to Homosexuality
In my experience, the only objections to homosexuals are on either religious or logically shaky grounds. These include equating gays with pedophiles or citing a holy book to maky one's point for them. Neither route will work, especially on a national (US) level.
Logic
We'll start with the one that I don't have to handle quite as carefully. The analogy of gay to pedo is one of the weakest rhetorical maneuvers I've ever seen. Homosexual relations occur between two consenting (human) adults. It is not rape and it does not cause lasting damage to a developing psyche. In both pedophilia and bestiality (two examples used here) no consent can be given. As I have said, obviously on the part of the animal, and reasonably on the part of the child. In general, children are not able to make good rational decisions, which is why they are not able to give consent. Not only are their brains not fully formed yet, for any primate to say 'no' to someone older (which equates to an authority position in most cultures) is incredibly difficult. Children aren't able to give consent to adults for this and other (physiological) reasons. (Their bodies can't handle a relationship (
Spoiler:) anyway.) So we have two cases where consent can not be given. Pedophilia =/= Homosexuality
sex
Religion
This is harder. For obvious reasons the ultimate decision about the validity of these positions is not for me to decide (I don't set religious policy) but the arguments that I've seen generally boil down to a quote from Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman."(Leviticus 18:22) The problem here is that Leviticus also states "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27) When we start picking and choosing passages to follow [insert age related joke about you shaving] we lose the divine mandate: how do you know that this passage is outdated while that passage is not?
So that covers the positions (I've seen here) against homosexuality. I don't see anything wrong with gay behavior.
RE: Adoption
Faunus got this already- if there are children stuck in the system and there are homes open, why not? Sexy, you have yet to link to any sort of data that suggests gay homes are unfit, while I have (two maybe.. at least) sources that suggest they have the same potential for loving care as any other home. On top of this, if Homosexuality isn't a choice (it isn't) then we can no more discriminate against gays (something over which they have no control) than we can against blacks (again, something over which they have no control).
Re the rest... Screw it. I said what I wanted to, and Faunus already dealt with Sidious. There's a reason he's on ignore and it would be too much effort to cut'n paste or open another window...
You got the gist of it.
[EDIT]DS, lay off of the Slippery slope arguments. They're weak.
Originally posted by Publius II
That's bull, especially when one takes an actual look at the ridiculous disparity between requesting the right to same-sex marriage and actually being a child molester. The former doesn't require the legalization of rape.
You don't find it arrogant to have everyone else live by the rules of your religion at the expense of their own happiness?
Which is unjustified prejudice.
I want to have sex with a 15 year old who consents to it, I should be allowed to because it makes me happy.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Homosexuals
Homosexuality is not a bad thing. Homosexual individuals are generally just as productive as straight workers, just as law abiding, and similar in every significant category to 'straight' individuals. The only difference is in the nature of their physical attractions. For simplicity's sake I will only refer to 'gay' individuals, but my arguments apply to transgendered or bisexual individuals also.
The contributions made to society by gay individuals are largely indistinguishable from those made by others. They contribute to the economy, volunteer, vote, and (again, most) are fully functioning members of society. There is no valid reason to discriminate against them.
Homosexuality is not a choice. While I cannot (at this moment) point to a study that explicitly says, "Gay Gene Found" there are certain logical pathways (one, really) that we can follow to reach this comclusion. Note that while I describe homosexuals as different than I am, I will not describe them as inferior.
Duality of 'choice'
Put simply, if sexual orientation is a 'choice' then it should work both ways. If an individual chooses to be a homosexual then an individual also chooses to be heterosexual. This is not the case. I could not choose to be gay, and a homosexual could not choose to be straight. I know that I never made that choice, and if you think that you could then you are probably lying to yourself about your own orientation.[/quote]
Go back to the bisexual argument.
Objections to Homosexuality
In my experience, the only objections to homosexuals are on either religious or logically shaky grounds. These include equating gays with pedophiles or citing a holy book to maky one's point for them. Neither route will work, especially on a national (US) level.
We'll start with the one that I don't have to handle quite as carefully. The analogy of gay to pedo is one of the weakest rhetorical maneuvers I've ever seen. Homosexual relations occur between two consenting (human) adults. It is not rape and it does not cause lasting damage to a developing psyche. In both pedophilia and bestiality (two examples used here) no consent can be given. As I have said, obviously on the part of the animal, and reasonably on the part of the child. In general, children are not able to make good rational decisions, which is why they are not able to give consent. Not only are their brains not fully formed yet, for any primate to say 'no' to someone older (which equates to an authority position in most cultures) is incredibly difficult. Children aren't able to give consent to adults for this and other (physiological) reasons. (Their bodies can't handle a relationship (Spoiler:) anyway.) So we have two cases where consent can not be given. Pedophilia =/= Homosexuality
sex
Religion
This is harder. For obvious reasons the ultimate decision about the validity of these positions is not for me to decide (I don't set religious policy) but the arguments that I've seen generally boil down to a quote from Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman."(Leviticus 18:22) The problem here is that Leviticus also states "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27) When we start picking and choosing passages to follow [insert age related joke about you shaving] we lose the divine mandate: how do you know that this passage is outdated while that passage is not?
RE: Adoption
Faunus got this already- if there are children stuck in the system and there are homes open, why not? Sexy, you have yet to link to any sort of data that suggests gay homes are unfit, while I have (two maybe.. at least) sources that suggest they have the same potential for loving care as any other home. On top of this, if Homosexuality isn't a choice (it isn't) then we can no more discriminate against gays (something over which they have no control) than we can against blacks (again, something over which they have no control).
[EDIT]DS, lay off of the Slippery slope arguments. They're weak. [/B]
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Except that it will cause her incalculable harm. And if you want to make an argument about lowering the age of consent, remember that
a). Brains aren't fully formed until one's twenties
-and-
b). Children are in a submissive situation- adults have authority over them that makes it difficult for them to refuse (anything).
What harm? Please do share
A. What is your point? That doesn't say much about maturity levels. I just turned 25 and I'm less mature than most 18 year olds. Everyone matures differently and that hardly has to do with brain formation.
B. If a child is mature enough to make a rational decision or thinks he/she is, then by definition they are NOT in a submissive situation. You're making terrible excuses because your argument is unfounded.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I guess bestiality isn't a bad thing either. People that bang animals I'm sure are just as productive as anybody else. Same with adults who have consensual sex with minors. We should allow them all then right?So do various crafty drug dealers, guess we shouldn't discriminate against them either.
Drug dealers harm society by committing crimes/being evil etc. (Joke. Don't jump on me.) We aren't discriminating against them (or we shouldn't) we are enforcing the law.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
This is bullshit. I give you a bisexual human being. He is experiencing both sides, and if he should choose one side, then it's NOT a choice? Or is it NOT a choice if he chooses homosexuality, but it IS a choice if he chooses heterosexuality? I love the consistency here.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
[stuff I said]
Go back to the bisexual argument.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Except both works, seeing as how the United States was founded by White Anglo Saxon Protestants, and is a Judeo-Christian country.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
This is a ridiculosu argument. I have EXPLICITLY stated cases in which there is consent. I have NOT included cases of rape. Please learn to read before you continue. By saying there's nothing wrong with consensual same sex intercourse, you're also saying there's nothing wrong with sex with a consenting minor. You can't tell me that a child has no business giving consent. What if the child is 16-17, or feels he/she is mature? I've seen 17 year olds make better rational decisions than most grown people, so what's your point? IF you are going to go with the "who are you to.." argument, then I'm going with the "Who are you to state when a child is able to make rational decisions?"
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Nobody is picking and choosing. Neither passage is outdated. What you have to understand is that there are G-d's laws, and rabbinical laws, and while we are bound to both, there is more leeway for rabbinical laws. Furthermore, I follow all of what you just said. And if I didn't, I would be picking and choosing, which would be wrong anyways.
"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I have no real comment on adoption as I haven't formulated my opinions entirely yet. I'll let you know when I do.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Liberals love this double standard justification. When it comes to homosexuality, it's a slippery slope. But when it comes to something as in war on Iraq, it's pretty clear cut huh? Nice double standards, really.
A leads to B.
B leads to C.
C leads to D.
...
Z leads to HELL.
We don't want to go to HELL.
So, don't take that first step A.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
What harm? Please do share
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/effects.html
"But the negative effects of child sexual abuse can affect the victim for many years and into adulthood. Adults who were sexually abused as children commonly experience depression. Additionally, high levels of anxiety in these adults can result in self-destructive behaviors, such as alcoholism or drug abuse, anxiety attacks, situation-specific anxiety disorders, and insomnia. Many victims also encounter problems in their adult relationships and in their adult sexual functioning. "
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
A. What is your point? That doesn't say much about maturity levels. I just turned 25 and I'm less mature than most 18 year olds. Everyone matures differently and that hardly has to do with brain formation.
Brain formation matters because rational decisions are hampered before full growth.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
B. If a child is mature enough to make a rational decision or thinks he/she is, then by definition they are NOT in a submissive situation. You're making terrible excuses because your argument is unfounded.