Another Republican and Lewd Bahavior in a Men's Restroom

[Gilding the Lily]

This discussion is about consenting adults, not children. Your analogy is flawed. Society has placed many restrictions on their rights and activities.

Perhaps you should read the post to which I responded.

That is the darn point man... society has placed restrictions on their rights... And that is exactly what some people here are advocating: the restriction on homosexuals' right to marry someone of the same sex.

You think the analogy is flawed because your head -- and your moral compass -- tells you that grown-ups should not be able to marry children. Most people's moral compass would agree. Well, some people on this board have a moral compass that is telling them that 2 men should not be able to marry each other. It is a 'where do you draw the line' scenario for many people... and they draw the line in a different place than you. Saying simply that "because they love each other" (which the poster did) is not good enough, hence my original response.

So, to show you again, here we go. Jim and Sally love each other and want to marry. According to some, they should be able to marry because they love each other. What if Jim and Sally are brother and sister, and two consenting adults. They cannot marry in the U.S.! Why are their rights being restricted? They love each other and they are consenting adults??? Do you see the faulty logic and slippery slope now? Most people would agree that siblings should not marry... again its a philisophical and practical question. Now, of course, there are various reasons why siblings should not marry, many dealing with messed-up offspring. But many of these notions are taken from Jewish religious scripts, which Dell was referring to. So, there are much better arguments in your favor than love and consent.

One of those arguments in your favor is: If anti-same-sex marriage laws are so rooted in jurisprudence history, then why is it that the U.S., and many states, did not have any anti-same-sex marriage laws in the books since the start? Why is it that only now these laws, referrendums, and amendments are being brought up?

In other words, just because 2 people love each other, it doesn't neccesarily follow that they should be able to marry. That is exactly what a poster has suggested. I simply pointed out that this should not be the case, and used the example of Jim and Frank, and Jim and Sally to show why.

 

[KCFlyer]

This discussion is about consenting adults, not children. Your analogy is flawed. Society has placed many restrictions on their rights and activities.

Comparison to animals??? That is flame baiting of the worst kind.

He was responding to another poster. But...flame baiting though it be - THAT is what the "gay marriage ban" proponents in Kansas were using...except it was a horse, not a dog.

 

[Garfield1966]

Lilly,

A very interesting perspective and I see your point, but I think It may be flawed on a different point.

An Anti-gay marriage ban only affects one group of people where as a law stating that an adult cannot marry a minor affects all adults and all minors. If justice is blind, then the former would not be legal where as the later would be right? Now I know one can argue that the age limit is arbitrary but that is a separate issue. At least that law applies to all people. Right?

My argument is that any two people should be allowed to do what any other two people are allowed to do and that any law that prevents an action must apply to all members of the group. The same reason the law preventing inter racial marriages in the south was wrong is the same reason that preventing gays from marrying is wrong.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Lilly,

A point about a small area of your last post(with regard to some peoples MORAL Compass)(Grown ups marrying "children")

Once a young woman "became of age"/Native Americans, they raised well adjusted kids for thousands of years.

So, so much for some peoples "MORAL" compass.

 

[Garfield1966]

Bear,

I think that is the point that Lily is making. You, me, 700, Local are all using our own moral compass to draw a line in the sand and say, this is what we should not cross. Just happens that we are all using a different compass. Some of us have lines that are very close to each other, others are far away from our own point of view.

What may work for one society may not work for another.

My only contention is that a law banning same sex marriage is directed at one segment of society instead of applying to all. I cannot think of any law that limits one segment of society (I'm sure someone will come up with one) like the gay marriage ban would.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Apparently, Senator Craig is coming back for more. He is reconsidering decision to resign.

"Sen. Larry Craig is reconsidering his decision to resign after his arrest in a Minnesota airport sex sting and may still fight for his Senate seat, his spokesman said Tuesday evening. "It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign," said Sidney Smith, Craig's spokesman in Idaho's capital."

 

[UAL_TECH]

Hadden Bio.
For Hadden, homosexuality was an "experientially determined and treatable condition." His greatest professional interest being group psychotherapy, Hadden was the first psychiatrist to use this method of treatment with exclusive male homosexual groups. Although compassionate in his approach, his professional and personal outlook remained consistent even after homosexuality was taken off the DSMIII list of diseases. Although his views on homosexuality are controversial at best, Hadden was highly respected in his field for his contribution to the development of group psychotherapy.
When did you choose to be straight?
Edit:

Can someone please explain to e why someone would choose a life style that will ostracize them from society, cut them of from family members, deprive them of rights afforded to every other citizen, segregated in society, place them at higher risk of suicide because of the afore mentioned problems. I know there are the individuals out there in society who like to buck the trend but that is the exception in my opinion. I have asked my gay friends if they chose their path or if it was something that chose them. The later was always the answer.

Pederasty and Homosexuality

Same argument, different 'twist'
Is this 'also' acceptable?
Is 'deviant behavior' normal or is 'normal behavior' deviant?
If my 'path' led me to be a pedophile, are you OK with that?

I think (hope) not. Just because a group of deviants has the 'political' ear does not make it acceptable.
Homosexuality is the gateway to further 'accepted' deviant behavior.

B) UT

 

[UAL_TECH]

Perhaps you should read the post to which I responded.

That is the darn point man... society has placed restrictions on their rights... And that is exactly what some people here are advocating: the restriction on homosexuals' right to marry someone of the same sex.

You think the analogy is flawed because your head -- and your moral compass -- tells you that grown-ups should not be able to marry children. Most people's moral compass would agree. Well, some people on this board have a moral compass that is telling them that 2 men should not be able to marry each other. It is a 'where do you draw the line' scenario for many people... and they draw the line in a different place than you. Saying simply that "because they love each other" (which the poster did) is not good enough, hence my original response.

So, to show you again, here we go. Jim and Sally love each other and want to marry. According to some, they should be able to marry because they love each other. What if Jim and Sally are brother and sister, and two consenting adults. They cannot marry in the U.S.! Why are their rights being restricted? They love each other and they are consenting adults??? Do you see the faulty logic and slippery slope now? Most people would agree that siblings should not marry... again its a philisophical and practical question. Now, of course, there are various reasons why siblings should not marry, many dealing with messed-up offspring. But many of these notions are taken from Jewish religious scripts, which Dell was referring to. So, there are much better arguments in your favor than love and consent.

One of those arguments in your favor is: If anti-same-sex marriage laws are so rooted in jurisprudence history, then why is it that the U.S., and many states, did not have any anti-same-sex marriage laws in the books since the start? Why is it that only now these laws, referrendums, and amendments are being brought up?

In other words, just because 2 people love each other, it doesn't neccesarily follow that they should be able to marry. That is exactly what a poster has suggested. I simply pointed out that this should not be the case, and used the example of Jim and Frank, and Jim and Sally to show why.

Thank You, very well stated...
Take Care,
B) UT

 

[delldude]

Apparently, Senator Craig is coming back for more. He is reconsidering decision to resign.

"Sen. Larry Craig is reconsidering his decision to resign after his arrest in a Minnesota airport sex sting and may still fight for his Senate seat, his spokesman said Tuesday evening. "It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign," said Sidney Smith, Craig's spokesman in Idaho's capital."

I heard Sen Craig has been talking to Barney Frank.....Frank told him to sit tight...this issue will blow over soon.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I heard Sen Craig has been talking to Barney Frank.....Frank told him to sit tight...this issue will blow over soon.

Well someone has come out in his defense.

Senator's voice mail.

 

[Garfield1966]

Pederasty and Homosexuality

Same argument, different 'twist'
Is this 'also' acceptable?
Is 'deviant behavior' normal or is 'normal behavior' deviant?
If my 'path' led me to be a pedophile, are you OK with that?

I think (hope) not. Just because a group of deviants has the 'political' ear does not make it acceptable.
Homosexuality is the gateway to further 'accepted' deviant behavior.

B) UT

If you cannot see the problem with your argument much less the difference in the situations then I feel quite sorry for you.

I'll give you a hint, one of the differences it what our society calls consent. You are aware that Mr. Thorstad is a co-founder of NAMBA and not exactly a un-biased source much less representative of the gay community.

The fact that you label homosexuality as 'deviant' show that you have a prejudiced. Exactly what proof do you have that the gay life style will lead to other 'deviant' behavior?


Edit:

Try this. It actually has information from real doctors from respected establishments. One is from UC Davis.


Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

 

[local 12 proud]

The fact that you label homosexuality as 'deviant' show that you have a prejudiced.

Well then what does that make one of your own supporters?

My religion does not support homosexuality, but I do. I was asked why I was supporting and marching with the homosexuals in parades, when according to the church, homosexuality is a sin. I responded that God gave people free will. God gave people the right to choose - even to choose sin. That's why there is a heaven and a hell. So I will fight for people to have the right to go to hell if that's what they choose. I'm not here to judge. I was placed here to fight for justice for all people. ~ Rev. Al Sharpton

 

[Garfield1966]

It makes him a judgmental dumb ass just like numerous others on this planet. His one redeeming trait is that he is supporting their right to make their own choices.

 

[UAL_TECH]

If you cannot see the problem with your argument much less the difference in the situations then I feel quite sorry for you.

Don’t feel sorry for me. I’m quite comfortable with the argument.

I'll give you a hint, one of the differences it what our society calls consent. You are aware that Mr. Thorstad is a co-founder of NAMBA and not exactly a un-biased source much less representative of the gay community.

The fact that you label homosexuality as 'deviant' show that you have a prejudiced. Exactly what proof do you have that the gay life style will lead to other 'deviant' behavior?

BTW, that’s NAMBLA. Regardless, it is deviant behavior. With the onslaught of AIDS all gay bath house’s were closed in SF (you do know what a gay bath house is don’t you Garffy?). Now that there is some AIDS cocktail that will help (but not cure), the bath houses are opening up again (normal behavior?). How soon will it be before AIDS II comes up? Will it be ‘dealt with’ as effectively, or will it be the next incurable strain?

If you want to see ‘normal' behavior, come to the next SF Gay Pride parade and see the ‘normal’ people first hand.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Fact: Eggs were bad, now OK.
You can find hundreds of ‘credible’ sources that contradict each other, this one is no different.

 

[Garfield1966]

You can find hundreds of ‘credible’ sources that contradict each other, this one is no different.

David Thorstad who does not even have a medical degree much less a degree in anything else it seems as opposed to several degreed professionals from UC David. Yea, I can see how you can equate those two sources as both being credible.

Your responses did not address the questions posed but that seems to be par for the course.

The bottom line is it is their life, and you nor anyone else for that matter have any right to tell them what they may or may not do when it does not infringe on your personal rights.