Sickening...

Remove all ads!

I think it is a good thing that there are homosexuals.

 

@Rallymama
Lol. Wow. Yeah. Ok, let me explain what I meant then.

I freely recognize that there are lots of people out there that are happy and love each other outside of the traditional family unit of mom+dad+kids+close relatives. That being said, I would be happy if society as a whole were willing to get rid of them. Not meaning the people, but rather the concepts. I would be exstatic if all homosexuals everywhere were willing to give up homosexuality for healthy heterosexual relationships. But they aren't, so that remains a pipe dream.

P.S. because I know someone is going to bring it up, let me just address it here. That 'give up homosexuality for healthy heterosexual relationships' was not intended to mean that homosexuality is unhealthy (though I believe it is), but rather that them joining unhealthy heterosexual relationships is not better than them being in 'healthy' homosexual relationships.

@Drew:
I seem to remember trying drug addiction to address pedophelia at some point, but it just didn't work. I'm faced with using some kind of sexual aberation because they really are unique beasts as far as psychology goes. That is the big thing that pedophelia, homosexuality, some forms of rape, bestiality, and a wide variety of sexual fetishes most of you would just think of as weird have in common: the psychological aspect. The mechanic of how they got there from a normal human being (as homosexuality is not the majority of humanity, it is not the norm) is entirely unlike most anything else in human understanding.

@LNT:
Any particular reason?

 

No I don't. Morality is derived from religion and has no test in reality. I believe in ethics.

You've read the 10 commandments, I'm sure. They are quite cut and dry. Are you saying that you've never broken them? Just because you have difficulty toeing the line doesn't mean that you don't understand the doctrine.

Wrong again. As I stated before, I have rejected morality. Where you are wrong is in assuming that without religious morality (the difference between morality and ethics is that morality stems from religion), we'll have no strictures or ethical framework by which to live. This is simply not true. I reject the very idea of a dusty tome of questionable accuracy dictating the principles by which I live when I have a perfectly good head on my shoulders which is capable of doing the exact same thing....except without all the prejudice and misogyny strewn throughout the bible or any other "holy" book.

Whether or not I, or anyone else, accepts it is irrelevant. You can'tseriously be advocating taking someone's right to spiritually harm himself away, are you? The last time we allowed religion into politics we burned innocent people at the stake.

No. Just your right to dictate how they live and take away their civil rights. And they'd really appreciate it if you'd stop saying that they can't control their sexual desires. Like I said earlier, there's a huge difference between not seeing anything wrong with something and being unable to control it. I, for example, am heterosexual because I'm attracted to women and not men.....not because I can't control my gay urges. I don't have any gay urges.

Different subject. They are talking about sexual orientation, here. You don't choose who you find attractive. If being able to choose who you are attracted to is the benchmark for being able to control your sexual desires, then you can't control yours, either. And neither could Mother Theresa or John Paul II.

The purpose of law is to protect individual rights and safety. If you can't come up with an example of someone who's rights have been violated or has been otherwise endangered by something, then it can't be made illegal. It doesn't matter if we are talking about gay sex or gay marriage, or if we are talking about forcing hypocritical viewpoints down peoples throats. Unless rights are being violated or a quantifiable danger exists surrounding an action, no laws should be made with respect to it.

No. Just to admit that, in a free society, our government has no right to force your or anyone else's religious principles on them. As they say in the bill of rights: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It's clear that you have a right to state your opinion and state it loudly. On the other hand, if you can't come up with some non-religious rhetoric to support your ideas about gays, pre-marital sex, marriage, divorce, etc, then it's also crystal clear that the government has no business passing laws about it.

EDIT

Funny you should mention that. I did a little research and discovered that homosexuality is actually not considered a form of sexual deviancy or a mental disorder by either the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychoanalytic Association.

In 1973 the trustees of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) voted unanimously to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the Sexual Deviancy section of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-II. This decision was officially confirmed by a small majority (58%) of the general APA membership in 1974, who voted to replace the diagnosis with a milder category of "sexual orientation disturbance", which was then replaced in the DSM-III with "ego-dystonic homosexuality" which was deleted from the DSM-III-R. The APA has since stated that homosexuality "does not necessarily constitute a psychiatric disorder. The American Psychoanalytic Association made similar steps and began accepting openly homosexual men and women. [link]

I think you are also greatly over-simplifying sexuality in general. Take a look at this.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html

[ April 06, 2007, 16:50: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

@NOG

I think they express something joyful in the human condition---in this case, romantic love between two members of the same sex.

I'm not gay, but I think there is something quite romantic about gays falling in love. I mean, they are ostracized and often tormented as children, and then once they grow up, they face much of the same. Their very identity---who they are---is universally rejected. And then, just when a life of endless loneliness seems more than certain, that special someone enters their lives, and between the two of them, they find something that few other people will give them, love and understanding. And I imagine that bond has a certain strength and warmth that many of us non-homos don't quite understand.

It just makes me smile when the two geese find one another amongst a sea of ducks.


Edit...

NOG, I think it is important to see that we may have a different idea of what it is to be a life-partner to someone. In a different thread, I remember you stating recently that romantic love was not an important part of being a life-partner. See, I must completely disagree with you.

I am going to be that old guy who at seventy walks around holding his seventy year-old wife's hand. Because if I did not have the romantic urge to hold her hand, then what we have is not a life-partnership, and I would not be in it. Do you see?

I think that if a man or a woman has those sorts of romantic urgres towards someone of the same sex, they are doing nothing wrong by expressing that love. In fact, I say, "go for it", because deep down it makes me happy to see someone else happy.

But I see what they are doing as being happy because, aside from the difference in gender between my partner and theirs, I would be happy to have the same. Do you understand?


Second Edit... (I'm fired up...)

@ Gnarf and NOG

The whole a paedophile = a homosexual thing...

Listen up. I am someone who was raped by a paedophile numerous times as a young child. It is a big part of why I keep as much distance between myself and my family as possible. My best buddy's older brother is gay. A few of the guys I work with are gay (I'm a waiter). When the two of you state that those decent and kind men, whom I know, are in some way equivalent to the absolute ****ING MONSTER with whom I had the misfortune of being related, you disrespect a large number of people, and invalidate the horror and tragedy that was my first few years of memory.

The two of you need to grow the **** up. Words and opinions have power. Act like an adult and respect the power you have with regard to the feelings of others.

[ April 07, 2007, 00:57: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

One would assume that the more devastating sins (rape, murder) would be easier to prevent. They represent a direct abandonment of the faith they've been taught. Further, these idiots (from the links in the original post), have professed that certain groups should be killed. That's either an abandonment or failure to understand the doctrine...

Okay I thought the words ethics and morality were interchangeable. But the problem, in terms you may accept, is that many even reject ethics, doing as they please with no regard for the welfare of others. Worldly ethical theories have gotten us into this problem by tearing down traditional ethics or morality. You'll understand why I have no faith in them to get us out of it...

But most people aren't that smart. Either that or they don't care. Without some over-riding source to teach the masses, we get chaos, which really isn't much different from what we have now...

When the great commandment of the law is Love the Lord thy God...and love thy neighbour as you love yourself. Where do you get Hatred? The areas that were destroyed in the Old Testament were destroyed were done so out of punishment for their sins...

But I can advocate that it not be publicly supported. Further, we reserve the right to defend what we consider sacred. You can't seriously advocate taking that right away from us...

Aren't you trying to do the same to me? Telling me that I can't stand up for what I believe in because you don't like it?

So it's like the N-word, only they are allowed to say it? Weak. Really week. Besides, I don't believe it, I'm just pointing out the similarities between their claims and those of another, more reprehensible group.

But it is fair to ask then to temper their sexual attraction to keep it within certain, societally accepted boundaries. Just like I have to keep attraction to a married woman hidden, so should those attracted to those of the same gender or those underage.

But that doesn't mean that the government has to pas laws encouraging it...

Government does that all the time. Even your tripe about harm and criminality is a form of enforcing someone else's principles on the masses. And just because it doesn't come from religion, doesn't make it any more palatable...

That was actually violated in the 1880's when they refused to the Mormons to continue the practice of Polygamy. Their religious practices were curtailed by law, establishing a precedent enabling the breaking of that law whenever they want to bring some minority group to heel. Sorry, no gay marriage for Americans...

So what gives you the right to try to censor what I believe in?

Deviancy is actually anything different from what is considered normal. If Heterosexuality is considered normal, then anything other than that is deviant...

LNT: Rape implies no concent. These pedophiles assume a degree of consent. I wasn't talking about rape here. You want to flame me, get your facts straight.

 

There is a section in the constitution that gives the government the right to act in a contradictory manner to that very same document. It pretty much says if the government deems it necessary for the protection and advancement of society. This is used very liberally by the leaders of the US, so it really comes down to their opinions, rather than the constitution a lot of the time.

Here comes the 'no-minor-can-consent-in-any-way' argument. This has truly gotten way too predictable, the exact same points made over and over with the exact same rebuttle... meh.

 

Citation needed.

Untrue on multiple levels. First, you assume that things are worse now than they were before (crime statistics do not support this). Second, you assume that people can't figure out right from wrong on their own. Behavioral scientists have proven that a monkey will starve to death before it hurts another monkey. You're saying that humans somehow lack the capacity to do what a monkey who has never read the bible or taken an ethics class can do?

My favorite ethical test is to explain an ethical conundrum to my 7 year old. Because of his innocence, he always seems to know the right answer. I find that children instinctively know more about the "right" thing to do in most situations than most grown-ups. If you don't believe me, tell a 3 year old where beef actually comes from and see if he'll eat it.

Actually, it isn't. In a free society, your freedom is only limited when it affects someone else's freedom. This is why New York is going to have a lot more laws than an island with only two people on it.

Not at all. You can run your mouth all you want and I'll defend your right to do it, but in a free society, you have no right to limit someone else's freedom unless their freedom somehow interferes with yours. In other words, my rights stop at the point in which my hand is in danger of connecting with your face.

Punishment for their sins, my ass. The God of the old testament punished the children's children's children for the sins of their ancestors. If the god of the old testament is truly our creator, I'd sooner go to hell than worship him. He ordered his chosen people to commit genocide several times (and punished them horribly if they refused the grisly task), his servant praised a man as being pious and moral for offering his daughters (who I doubt wanted to be raped) up to a horny mob, killed David's child for David's sin.....and the list goes on.

True. However, making laws against gay marriage actually discourages it....which the government also isn't allowed to do.

Actually, they don't say it. They say that there is nothing wrong with their sexual orientation, and they believe that who they are attracted to is something they don't control. And they are right. No one controls who they find attractive. I don't, you don't, and neither does my cat. How well you "control your sexual desires" is a measure of how you react to them....not of how well you control who you find attractive and who you do not.

Defending polygamy, now? Granted, early mormon doctrine did state that, in order to get into heaven, a man must have at least three wives....

Joking aside, Gnarff, this is hardly a valid precedent. We allowed racism and bigotry to rule the day a lot more in the 1880's than we do now. And it isn't like the government has never made mistakes before (Brown vs The Board of Education, anyone?). Then again, all one needs to do is take a quick look at communities like Bountiful or Colorado City and how they live... forcing girls to marry against their wills at age of 13, keeping them out of school, marrying cousins, men having 3 and more "wives" who all draw welfare and food stamps (also called "bleeding the beast") because the man's "wives" are technically single mothers with no support and only the man works ..to see why outlawing polygamy was probably the right call....even if we did it for the wrong reasons.

All that said, marriage is actually a tax benefit provided by the government. The government is well within its right to set a number (2) of people who can receive the benefit, or the allowable level of kinship (public health), but not their gender(s), their religion, or their sexuality. Doing so would constitute discrimination according to our constitution....not to mention the UN human rights charter.

I don't have to advocate taking away your right to deny a fundamental right (marriage, in this case) to a group of people based solely on gender or sexual orientation. You never had it to begin with.

Wrong. Rape is illegal because raping me would be a violation of my rights. When defending my right to not be raped, I am not forcing my principles on anyone. I'm defending my rights. Tell me, Gnarff, how exactly does gay marriage or gay sex violate your rights. Oh, wait.....it doesn't.

Context is everything, my friend. I was speaking about the psychiatric community and their psychiartricl determination. If you have a problem with it, you can take it up with the American Psychiatric Association. They are the ones who made the determination that homosexuality is not a form of sexual deviancy. If you re-read my post you'll see I cited it quite nicely and even provided a direct link to an article.

I'm not trying to censor you. You can think anything you want about homosexuals. However, you also are going to have ignorant, bigoted statements which lump homosexuals in with criminals and sex addicts thrown back in your face. I have the right to do that.

So you are saying that sexually abusing a child through manipulation and emotional abuse isn't just as bad as raping an adult? I really hope you aren't saying that....

And just to clarify for those who aren't aware....you're only a pedophile if you are banging someone who hasn't hit puberty yet. We aren't talking about a 14 year old giving consent. We are talking about a 10 year old. Or younger.

[ April 08, 2007, 03:11: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

I've just read as much of this as I could cope with.

Two tribes go to war.

If you are attempting to sway by rational discourse the mindset of someone who operates from, and totally embraces, a faithbased belief system, you are wasting your time.

Because? because they already have the incontrovertible truth, and anything else is in error.

They fall back (when pressed) to the Knowledge of the Word. and the Word is law and all else (all other viewponts) are in error.

Surely you rationalists out there can see, that anyone who can embrace a faithbased belief system, cannot be argued around to changing their position.
FAITH based by definition means that it cannot, (and doesn't need to) be proven.

So essentially you rationalists out there are attempting to rationalise with people who can embrace (and know with absolute fanatical certainty and zealous enthusiasm) a Delivered Truth, that has and needs no connection to a provable reality.

My joke saying (brings tears to my eyes, not thru laughter but weeping) is
SUPERSTITION BRINGS BAD LUCK.

How much bad luck, that human creature had a questioning and pattern recognising brain before he had empirical tools to answer the Why? How? questions, and so asking How? Why? was left with no option than to adopt the faithbased belief system that the Sun is God. Oh mighty Ra!

It doesn't matter that most religions do seem to be a structure on which to hang and promulgate worthy humanist laws/outlooks attitudes.
Religions' ability as tools of delivery of laws of behaviour to human creatures is as effective and subtle and controlled as a chainsaw in a blindchild's hands.

How much more bad luck, that the great and glistening organ the brain is by it's fundamental pattern recognition and questioning glory, so automatically disposed to, and capable of generating and accepting faithbased answers.
Then the poor dumb sad human creature demands that all others believe in exactly the same thing, because their individual faithbased belief is The One and Only Correct One. Can you not see they cannot even stand in a position to begin any real discourse for they are fully informed of the incontrovertible Truth before any discussion commences.

how much bad luck? that the world/universe is abig scary empty place, and the human creature is a self referencing small entity in comparison. Being able to see the stars, didn't necessarily bring comfort to the human race. It is much easier to accept a Delivered safety net of Religion than to stand alone saying "not quite sure what its all about, but it sure is big, and then you die."

Literal rationalists have to come from a default position, of the First Statement they must make in regards to the big questions. That statement being the preface..."I'm not sure but....

Anyone who states THEY KNOW The TRUTH!!! should be, by default, suspect.

While faithbased belief systems are the major safety net of the human creature, there is absolutely no chance of a peaceful world. There is absolutely no chance of unity, and there is absolutely no chance of even starting a conversation toward humanist rationalist behaviour being adopted as The Law by choice not by rule of force.

Religion divides

SUPERSTITION BRINGS BAD LUCK

PS to all you religion believers out there, understand that I am not saying you and your ilk are bad people, sad maybe. What, is I am saying that the capability/ability of unquestioningly embracing a faithbased belief system is not a real world survival trait for the human race.

And when the giant blue hand of god reaches down from the clouds to inscribe Unbeliever in flaming letters on my forehead, then I'll be asking him or her, just what the FLICK they were thinking with the random savage unjust suffering of the innocents on this beautiful and dismaying planet?

 

Perhaps we just hear more about it, but the dangers are more commonly reported. Is this supposed to make us feel safe in a "modern, enlightened society"?

Until I see proof of that, I'll believe that many either can't or simply don't care.

Is this proof that evolution is BS? Joking aside, Humans understand the concept of hurting others for gain. Humans also have the capacity to help each other, and to share. The last two aren't as common among animals. There needs to be something over the heads of humans to maintain order and perhaps even elevate them to what humanity can be. If "Secular Morality" can't or won't do it, then perhaps regligion really is needed after all...

I look at that as evidence of God's influence on children. By the teachings I believe, we lived with God before our birth, and were taught right from wrong. Up to the age of 8, we have the right to guidance from the Holy Spirit on matters of morality. After the age of 8, we are charged with learning for ourselves...

Your right to urinate extends so far as you don't do it on anything sacred to me. Hence the Civil Union vs Marriage debate. They both mean the same damned thing, but the difference in terms lets you Religion hating bigots give gays their rights while keeping our sacred ordinances pure from the stains of the world. Evidently you don't want that, but would rather take those things that we believe to be sacred and see them pissed on in public...

But where current laws don't allow for it, there is no actual imperative to change them...

That's the first point where our groups are going to disagree. And bigots like you want to use that to justify your hatred...

Their belief is correct, but not the whole truth. Because you have rejected God, therefore you don't believe in temptation. In this case, attraction to inappropriate partners is one such temptation. It is a very powerful temptation...

And is asking them to refrain from sexual relations with inappropriate partners too much to ask? The only differences between all the sexual sins are a) how deviant the target is, and b) the degree of harm. I consider both to be valid concerns...

First off, you mistake the "Fundamentalist Mormons" with the main branch of the Church. Second your understanding of the way polygamy operated in the 1800's makes me look knowledgeable about homosexual beliefs. In the main branch of the Church, to take an additional wife, the following had to be met:

First, your other wives had a veto. They didn't want you marrying a woman, you weren't marrying her.

Second, You had an interview with your Bishop. you had to be worthy. Marriage and family were sacred responsibilities, and you had to be worthy to be trusted with them. Also, you had to be able to support them (hence no welfare concerns). And making sure that the wife is eleigible for marriage (not related, of age, consenting).

The group you cite was excommunicated fromt he main branch of the church for refusing to abandon the practice when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve gave the order to do so. What they did since then is reprehensible. I never said there weren't freakish sects that have branched off from Christianity...

Once again, you mock what we Christians consider sacred. Could a Civil Union be designed for Gays and Aethiests that either don't want or qualify for the religious ordinance? If you are unwilling to work towards making peace then don't claim yourself better than us Christians...

The right to defend what I consider Sacred.

I was talking sociologically. I agree that homosexuality is not a mental illness. It is a choice to give in and accept an inappropriate partner.

You're also demonstrating bigotry quite well here. Showing hatred for anyone that tries to tell you that you may not be 100% right.

So what do you call an adult who has sex with partners who have had puberty, but not reached the age of consent? Pervert works for me...

Drew, You are a bigot and a hypocrite. You say you're better than us but really you have done little but preach hatred and belittling of Christian beliefs. You are more like the people in BA's videos than NOG or I am...

 

That doesn't even make sense, Gnarff. Just because you can't pass your moral beliefs into law doesn't mean that you can't defend them.

Monkeys can. Why isn't the fact that a lower life form can live cooperatively, work together in an orderly manner, and even possess the virtue of self sacrifice proof? What exactly would you need to see, Thomas?

Not even remotely true. Lower life forms show self sacrifice and cooperation all the time. Do a little research, if you don't believe me. Here's a good place to start. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?ex=1332043200&en=84f902d5855a9173&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This argument was also used against womens suffrage and desegregation. And it's just as true about gay marriage now. Since when was there no imperative to change a law that forbids a behaviour that the government has no right to forbid? If a law is unconstitutional, it most certainly is imperative that it be changed.

When you get (got?) married, Gnarff, will it be by the church or will it be by a justice of the peace? Since marriage is sacred to you, I'm sure you'll be wed by the church. My wife and I had a spiritual wedding, too, but it was conducted by a humanist instead of a Christian church. And that marriage was sacred to me. I'm not mocking Christian marriage. My argument was that, from a government standpoint, marriage is just a tax benefit and legal arrangement. End of story. You ignored my context again and made another straw man argument.

I'm also fine with the Civil Union solution if the government only gives civil unions. Since marriage means different things to different people, no single definition can be imposed for it. If, to avoid heartache, we need to change the name to "Civil Union", then so be it. But it has to be across the board. People receiving a sacred union will already be doing so through their churches anyway, so this shouldn't be a big deal. At any rate, the government has no place administering a "sacred institution".

Think about it, Gnarff. Is it the government paperwork and legal benefits and protections provided by the government or the spiritual union and lifetime commitment made before god and a few witnesses that makes marriage sacred? I think we both know the answer to this one. I'm not saying that the government should do anything to impede religious marriage or impose incompatible principles of equality upon religious marriage. That isn't what government is for. My concern is for the paper, which the government doesadminister....and the government is not allowed to discriminate by gender or sexual orientation.

And that is why you need to pay attention to the context in which a statement is made. What you were talking about had nothing at all to do with my original statement.

Really? What part of what I said was bigoted, Gnarff? Calling a statement "ignorant" or" bigoted" doesn't constitute bigotry. It constitutes stating an opinion about a statement that was made. Right or wrong, an opinion about a statement or idea is not the same thing as an opinion about a person, is it? My whole argument is that we need to pay attention to what law is actually for and what it isn't for....and maybe (just maybe) not lump gays, or any other law abiding citizens in with criminals. I accept and agree with you that homosexuality goes against Christian morality (you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't), but you need to accept the fact that the law doesn't exist to enforce my, your, or anyone else's brand of morality....whether it comes from Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, or L Ron Hubbard. The law exists to protect individual liberties--yours, mine, and that Gay couple down the street that wants to be sure that no one can challenge their power of attorney or will and would really like to avoid losing half their stuff when one of them dies (the gay couple in my example is obviously wealthy enough to be subject to inheritance tax). When I was a devout (yeah, you heard it....I was devout) Catholic, I still believed that gay marriage should be legal because it isn't (and never was) the governments place to enforce any person or organization's moral judgments. That just isn't why laws are passed or what they are for.

I'm well enough aware of the fact that "Fundamentalist Mormons" aren't connected with the church, Gnarff. There's also no guarantee that polygamy within the Mormon faith would have stayed as it was early on (and its modern implementation would imply that it wouldn't have), but Polygamy in the early church wasn't the Cake walk you described, either. Men who weren't "devout enough" had their wives taken away, and women were often told that God had told their prospective husband that they needed to marry. Joseph Smith married many an underage woman in his fledgling church by telling them God said that she had to marry him. Like I said, we've never had polygamy without exploitation. That said, spiritual polygamous marriages are already legal, so the law needn't be changed. Remember, from a governmental standpoint, marriage is not about religion. At all. It's about taxes and power of attorney.

I actually respect Christian beliefs and people who make the necessary sacrifices to live by them. I don't think Christians are automatically stupid, bigoted or ignorant, and I don't think they should be killed. I think that Christians are like everyone else, which means that some of them are bigots (just like there are bigoted republicans, democrats, Muslims, and Janitors) and some are a credit to humanity (like Mother Theresa or Christopher Walken). I just don't think their beliefs should be passed into law. Now, if that's bigotry, then I'm guilty as charged.

[ April 09, 2007, 01:36: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

@Drew:

That's because of the definition of a mentaldisorder. In order to be considered a disorder, it has to meet certaincriteria, but there are plenty of recognized psychological abnormalities and distinct behaviors that are not disorders. As to the cause, we don't know, you're right. I was presenting one theory on the process, I should have made that more clear.

@LNT:

Thank you. I understand your reasoning very well.

No, what I said was that it wasn't enough on its own, and that it wasn't reliable as a continuous foundation of the relationship. God forbid anyone should get married (or form any other kind of sexual life-partnership) without love. I was just saying there had to be more, as well.

Ok, here it is you that needs to calm down, and maybe mature a little. Comparing one aspect of different people does not mean equating them in any way. Guess what, I'm betting that both your friends and the individual who raped you are male, too. That's meaningless for a comparison, though, because everything else about them is probably different. I could just as easily compare them to people that have such a 'thing' for blondes that they are only attracted to blondes. In fact, maybe I should have, but it's odd and didn't come to my mind at the time. It is the mechanics of sexual attraction that I was comparing, not the type of person or the other myriad of mental problems that are associated with pedophelial rape.


And finally, to everyone, is this becoming another gay rights topic?

 

I'm sure I could find plenty of valid comparisons to make between devout Christians and flaming bags of sh*t (just to compare one aspect, of course), but I imagine you'd be more than a little offended if I made such a comparison and actually expected you to take it seriously. Regardless of what you meant with your comparison of homosexuals and pedophiles, your comparison is very offensive. Also, pedophiles are considered to be among the worst humanity has to offer, and I have a lot of trouble imagining you aren't making that particular comparison as lightly as you say. The baggage of the invocation of the word "pedophile" is always going to speak more loudly than the comparison you are actually trying to make and I can't help but think that you actually *know* that. Like it or not, words mean things beyond their dictionary definitions, and you need to pay attention to the reactions people are going to have to the words you use. Otherwise, people who may otherwise listen to you are just going to write you off as an ignorant bigot and tune you out instead of hearing what you have to say. Bottom line, since you don't want people comparing you to hate groups or flaming bags of sh*t...even just to "compare one aspect"...you shouldn't be comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. And when you do make such a comparison, you reap what you sow.

Incidentally, I also challenged the fundamental point you made in your comparison. You argue that the common ground between homosexuals and pedophiles is that neither can control their sexual desires...but you provide absolutely no evidence to support the statement. Most of the time, pedophiles think what they are doing is wrong and do it anyway....so we can all agree that most pedophiles have trouble controlling their sexual desires. Most homosexuals, however, do not think what they are doing is wrong and see nothing wrong with what they are doing, so you have absolutely no factual basis upon which to state that they can't control their sexual desires....meaning that the comparison isn't valid, anyway.

 

I believe that the original thread referenced a specific group of people who spew out hate; hate of everything and everyone who aren't like them, who disagree with them.

Rather than IMO which we have covered many times before perhaps we could focus on the right of group such as this one to legal protection. These people do not represent the majority of religious people, christian or non-christian. But they are very vocal and get attention. They shame true Christians and to anti-religious they justify being anti-religious. Which (again IMO) makes me wonder if people stop to think and question the source of this hate mongering.

We need to learn to understand other people's points of view if we are ever to have a world where people can live in peace with one another. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them but compromise and acceptance/tolerance is (IMO) absolutely essential to living together as a family, a community or a world.

 

I'm not certain, but by pedophiles I think he may be referring to statuatory rapists... People having sex with 14-17 year olds, not actual pedophiles. I'm not sure though, it just seemed that the only way Gnarf's argument had any merit was if this was the case.

 

It seems as if you were using the Bill of Rights to take away my right to lobby for laws which operate in harmony with my religious beliefs because my beliefs are rooted in religious doctrine.

I was referring to humans there. Until I see proof that without instruction adults generally (not you specifically), will adopt such ethical standards. I believe that you are in a minority on such matters (and for that you do deserve kudos).

Your quote a) fails to address my claims against the human race, and b) does not show co-operation to make things better. Now from your article...

In increasing numbers, humanity is rejecting these things. It is logical that from the begining, these things have been rare in societies (Sodom and Gamorah represented a total rejection of these things). Further, Could primates in captivity have learned those behaviours from the humans that were in contqact with them who have not rejected these things?

After debate and deliberation, Women's Sufferage and desegregation were deemed good and necessary for making the nation better. I'm not sure that will occur in the case of Gay marriage. Some protections yes (like from active hate crimes), but full equality, I don't think so. As long as there is the moral stigma attached with what they do (and the understanding that it's not a mental illness), there will be resistance from those taht cannot endorse what they do.

The Government needs to reclarify it's stance on this matter. Redrafting marriage laws (and recognizing Marriage as religious or spiritual as opposed to civil) and specifically outside government control and that civil unions (which marriage would be recognized, but look at other situations, like common law or gays) would deal with the legal tax and the like. Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, render unto God, that which is God's...

Again, that's why I think the terms need to be differenciated. Let religious/spiritual leaders look after the religious or spiritual aspects while the government should look after the Government's area.

It's the Priesthood authority (whatever such authority is involved) and the spiritual context of the relationship that makes it sacred. It is the making and honouring of such sacred covenents in the presence of priesthood authority and beloved witnesses that makes the ordinance sacred. That's why I want the Government to stay out of it...

And that is a Civil Union. Civil union is the Government's responsibility, and such would be under different rules. Potentially some "marriages" might not qualify as Civil Unions...

But that does not mean that government is obligated to cast it aside summarily because of it's origin either. You would seek to deprive us political lobby because of the source of our beliefs. This is dangerous to Society on the whole as it creates a lower class of citizen...

I'm not saying that Government has no obligation there, but I am saying that I am not in favour of the way it's proposed to be handled. Civil Union laws would fix a lot of those problems...

The fact is that they are one "limited faction", just as the people in BA's original post were one "limited faction". Please don't judge the whole of Chritians by the original group, or Mormons by that fringe group.

The rules were clear...

Charge #1: In direct violation of scriptural commandment (speaker was Christ, I believe) that "What God hath joined, let no man put asunder". The Church reserves NO RIGHT or OBLIGATION to force the end of a union.

Charge #2: Contradicts the doctrine of Free Agency. We are free to choose our mates. Many singles, like me, may, in jest or otherwise, lament the fact that priesthood authority does no speak up, but for such a union to work, we have to find our spouse and work to become the people they want to spend eternity with, thus making the marriage as sacred as we claim it to be.

Citation needed or else I will consider it backup for my claims of bigotry. Further, the source of that claim will be scrutinized. I will NOT accept information from "anti-Mormon" groups as valid on this manner.

Those sacrifices may be greater than you imagine. We are called to follow the example of Christ and His Prophets. Many of them faced persecution for preaching things that, while they were of God, were not to the liking of the sinners they were called to preach to. Jesus Christ was crucified because the Scribes and Pharisees did not like His teachings in regards to the Law of Moses that they were to preserve and enforce, so they used such laws to have him killed. John the Baptist was imprisoned for 2 years before his ultimate execution. In the Book of Mormon, Abinidai was burned at the stake for teaching the ten commandments to a portion of the populace had fallen away from the church. Even in the Latter Days, Joseph Smith and his brother were murdered in a jail in Illinois by an armes mob that did not like what the church was teaching. While I am not likely to be killed for what I say here, I am fully aware that there will be people that are offended and even pissed off by what I say, but that does not mean I have no obligation to preach it. Perhaps a reputation here may be one of those sacrifices that the Doctrine requires...

But you hold your humanistic views in higher esteem than our views because you have no belief in God. You also seem offended when I express a lack of faith in humanity in general.

I've seen my share. Some christian groups even exclude Mormons from the umbrella of Christianity, and even preach against us...

That is the main focus of the New Testament. The Old testament taught the Law, the "Thou Shalt Not" of Christianity, the New Testament is the next course on how to be true followers of Christ.

A kinder gentler form of bigotry. By outright rejecting our beliefs to law without debate, you seek to reduce us to second class citizens for our faith. You are fostering and advocating a social inequity against us, much like segregation or apartheid. You aren't proteting a religious gathering preaching hatred against us, but you are advocating that our faith be reduced in the eyes of the public. That's bigotry...

Pointing out similarities in their rhetoric and status with regards to Christianity or society in general is not making them equal, it's worrying that they will want the same rights. Gays have the right to gay porn, pedophiles will want the right to have child porn (there have been some legal challenges). When you introduce the concept of harm, they will demand proof of harm, and will try to brush it off when you make your arguements. If Pedophiles offend you, then perhaps you know how we feel about homosexuals...

I believe that Drew mentioned Freedom of Speech, Peaceful assembly and Religion (regardless what they believe or how clost to the source material it is). But if a biker gang wants to have a tailgate party where they want to set up their protest, they have to assemble somewhere else, preferably further away from what they protest in the first place. I don't know that religious status can be taken away from them...

That's what really scares me about this group. They paint Christianity in a negative light, providing ammunition for those that oppose our beliefs and ends.

I'm not so sure about that. I don't know if some view points are even possible to understand. For those that cannot/will not believe in God, my Christian faith may be difficult if not impossible for them to understand. Likewise, I don't think I can truly understand Aetheism because of my faith.

Again, I'm not sure. Some more extreme views (on both sides) that preclude coexistence probably can't/shouldn't be accepted or tolerated...

Primarily yes, but I still consider them perverts. Even 14 to 17 year olds are at risk of harm by having sex too early in today's society. I remember from some Psychological cources I took in College that our personalities are not solidified until early adulthood. Further, in cases of pregnancy, it will disrupt the education of the mother (and potentially the father). I just don't want to make a distinction to make one group more palatable than another...

 

A pedophile is someone who has sex with pre-pubescent children through manipulation or force. A homosexual is someone who engages in consensual sex with someone of the same sex. NAMBLA, the largest lobby for pedophilia, only has about 1000 members. You are grossly overstating their strength.

I understand that, when you say "pedophile", you are talking about a grown person having sex with someone in their teens (14-17). The problem, Gnarff, is that isn't what pedophile means. To describe the people you are talking about you need to use a differnt word The term you are looking for is "statutory rapist" or, perhaps, ephebophile (ephebophilia is the condition in which you are attracted to post-pubescent teens to the exclusion of adults). By using the word "pedophile", you are comparing homosexuals to people who manipulate or force pre-pubescent children into having sex with them. I'm sure that, now that you know what a pedophile is and what a pedophile isn't, you'll understand why you shouldn't make such a comparison so lightly and won't do so again.

How many pro-Mormon groups are going to readily point out that many of Joseph Smiths wives were only 14 when he married them, Gnarff? Anyway, Smith married Fanny Alger when she was 16. He married Helen Mar Kimball when she was 14. Helen didn't agree to the marriage until the prophet explained to her that "God had commanded her to become his plural wife". To quote Helen, herself, "I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it." Lucy Walker was coerced in the same manner when she was 17. Nancy Winchester was only 14 when she married Joseph Smith in 1843. These obviously weren't the only plural wives Smith Took. Also of interest is that none of the plural wives taken by Joseph Smith were taken with the consent of his first wife.

As to where you can look for this information, you can read "No Man Knows My History; In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith" by Todd Compton (a book praised for its "balanced analysis" by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), "Mormon Polygamy: A history" by Richard S Von Wagoner, or "Mormonism Unveiled; or The Life and Confessions of The Late Mormon Bishop, John D Lee". Under the "Banner of Heaven" by John Krakauer also offers a well cited reporting of some of Smith's plural wives....but since its focus is not on Smith it doesn't go into a lot of detail.

Regarding links..... here is a good one. You will notice that the Church of Latter Day Saints has actually praises the "balanced analysis" of the book which was the site's primary source. Also of notice is that quite a few of the women that Smith Married were already married to other husbands when Smith married them. Smith practiced not only polygamy, but polyandry, as well. The information presented is heavily cited, so have a ball.

You just don't understand anything I've said at all, do you? This will be my last attempt at making you understand. I am unperturbed by your religious beliefs. I don't want to challenge them. I don't want to change them. I don't want the government to infringe in any way on your right to live your life and practice your faith in the way that you see fit. You need to see, though, that there are many different ideas of morality out there. If you impose one, you ban another. Further, if you allow such a thing, you allow people of all moral standpoints to lobby to have their views passed into law. There is no guarantee that it will be your beliefs passed into law. By allowing no one to impose their moral standpoints on the entire populace, we are actually protecting your own right to live by your faith and follow your heart, as well.

The reason our founders were so adamant about separation of church and state was because most of the people in the US came over here due to religious persecution to begin with. Spitting on the separation of church and state by passing religious edicts into law is the first step of the slippery slope back to the religious tyranny we came here to escape. As a Mormon, you should know enough about your own history to understand exactly how terrible religious tyranny can be and why it should be fought at all costs. Early Mormons were subjected to horrible mistreatment for their faith. They were mocked, ridiculed, killed for their faith. Coming from that kind of history, you should be at the forefront of the push to keep church out of government, not fighting for the church's entry into it. Remember where you came from.

I don't want to challenge your faith. I don't want you to change your beliefs. I want you to have the freedom to introduce others to your faith without fear and I want you to be free to follow your heart and live your values. Give me, and everyone else who sees the world differently than you, the freedom to do the same, Gnarff. That's all I ask.

EDIT: @Montressor: Thank you.

[ April 09, 2007, 10:44: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

He had multiple husbands as well

I think it's worth noting that when (or even if) the marriages were consumated is debatable in some circumstances. I think I read somewhere that many of the polygamist marriages were non-sexual. I'd rather not be quoted on this, since I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly.

..(')>
/(( ))\ <--- That's the off topic bird- it's supposed to be a penguin.
..+ +

 

Seperation of church and state does not mean that the state has to be in opposition to the various churches...

But can there be co-operation? What if something in religion really is best for the nation. Must the State insist on figuring it out for themselves?

And those lobbies deserve to be heard. It almost seems that some people here want certain views discarded for their source...

That's happenned within my faith. We were a minority told to sit down and shut up. Now that the show is on a different foot, we feel justified in asking the government to tell another minority to sit down and shut up...

Under Normal circumstances, I would believe that an adult with a partner under the age of 18 would be viewed with some suspicion. I see nothing wrong with tarring them all with the same brush...

The official site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is www.lds.org. The site you show has links to sites that are linked to anti-Mormon groups. These groups exist mainly of members who have left the church and seek to convince others to do the same. They take comments out of context (like you have accused me of doing in places) to cast doubt about the church in the minds of members and those looking into the church.

That's the problem. And some of these ideas are mutually exclusive...

If you get it right, that's not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, some of this is already in place. Some states have passed laws that restrict religious doctrine, and the "extermination order" in Missouri was technically on the books until the 1980's...

But no law is passed without sufficient debate (or at least that's the way it's supposed to work). As these things are lobbied, they are debated. If it is believed to be the desire of the nation, and in the best interest of said nation, then and only then ought it be law.

But this does not mean that religious groups are dismissed because they are religious. That takes away that voice and does not allow proper representation of the populace...

I'm not demanding blind, sweeping imposition of my beliefs, but I do think that neglecting them based on source denies preoper representation of the faithful...

How much of this may have had to do with local ministers abusing their authority in the community to drive out a rival? Our way of life was so radically different that we scared the masses in some communities. Even the Word of Wisdom (forbiddance of alcohol and tobacco) and prohibitions against gambling were viewed as dangerous to the current society...

I'm not reaching into your personal life to force change, but I don't want the government to allow what I consider sacred to be disgraced and defiled either...