Gay rights vs. religious beliefs

[DanKroh]

"We are not discussing lefties, blacks, orientals, handicapped, etc. They have no choice in their condition and no amount of discipline/fortitude/determination will change their condition. Bringing it up is a strawman argument meant to detour the conversation toward feelings instead of reason."

 

Yellow_hammer, what you dismiss as strawman arguments, I assert are simply different instances of equivalent "deviations", but which are considered socially acceptable to you, where homosexuality obviously isn't. No amount of discipline/fortitude/determination is going to change a person's sexual orientation, either. Or are you one of these people who believes that homosexuals can be "cured"?

 

The purpose of analogies to other groups that also happen to be a statistical minority is to try to show how silly your arguments/assertions about homosexuals are when your only reason for making them is that they are a statistical minority. If anything, I am trying to apply reason (such as an analogy), and not my feelings and opinions. You, on the other hand, are trying to pass your feelings/opinions/morals off as "facts" and "reason"; very intellectually disingenuous.

 

"But it is my nature to call something what it is without regard to politically correct speech requirements of the day. Homosexual sex is deviant. To me that is as plainly true as the sky is blue. That may hurt someone's *feelings* but it is no less true in my view."

 

So since you think I am trying to call you a bigot, if it hurts your feelings, does that make it any less true in my view? It is not my intention to call anyone a bigot. Do you feel that your views about homosexuals express bigotry?

 

Does the fact that you are calling me full of BS (say what you mean, after all) hurt my feelings? Not really. I just consider the source.

 

My mother, who was unfortunately raised to be very racist, used to go on quite adamantly how she couldn't be a racist because she had an acquaintance, after all, who was Black. She even had a boss who was Black who she actually respected! How could she be a racist?

 

"Why does everyone understand that?"

Do not truly not understand the difference between a consenting adult and a child/animal/inanimate object? Or are you just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse?

 

BrentAllen: "I suggest you read up on the former Governor of New Jersey. He is in his second marriage."

 

I followed this with interest when the story broke. And there is a reason both of those marriages failed. The former Governor was trying to be in love with people (women) in direct conflict with his sexual orientation. Unfortunately, many homosexuals feel societal pressure to enter into heterosexual marriages even though those relationships are not based on feelings that lead to successful marriages. That is why almost all of such marriges are destined to fail. I've had clients who were married in heterosexual relationships, some with full knowledge that they did not really love their spouses. But they felt it was what they were expected to do, and eventually, they could no longer live that lie and the marriage failed. Yes, this is a generalization, but it is one I have found to be true in an overwhelming percentage of these cases.

[BrentAllen]

I wonder if Dina McGreevey, wife of James McGreevey, considers herself a victim of homosexuality?

 

deviant - other than the norm. Are you now arguing that homosexuality is the norm? If not, it is deviant.

[DanKroh]

LongHaul: "Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children this does not mean they wish to engage in sex with them."

 

Actually, it does. The APA definition of pedophilia is:

"Pedophilia is defined as the act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children as the preferred or exclusive method of achieving sexual excitement."

 

No, not all pedophiles will actually act on those fantasies and become child molesters. But the condition (pedophilia) is still considered detrimental because it interfers with the pedophile's ability to form healthy relationships with other adults. One of the defining symptoms in diagnosing pedophilia is that "The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."

 

So yes, even a pedophile who does not become a child molester should still be treated as someone in need of help.

 

Of course, if you are talking about something else, then it isn't pedophilia, and now we are talking about changing the definition of pedophilia.

 

"Society believes that photographing a child is harmful. Its only harmful if we tell the child it is harmful, that its wrong, that its sick. Children that are raised to believe that nudity is acceptable dont have that view so it must not be natural but is in fact a learned response."

 

Whether photographing children in the nude is harmful/"sick" is entirely in the cirumstances. I'm sure I have some pictures of my sons somewhere from their first baths, etc., with full frontal nudity. Does that make me a deviant? No, because the purpose is not sexual. Children who are photographed for the "kiddie porn" industry are usually put into sexual situations. I have one client who was a kiddie-porn victim. No one had to tell her that the situations she was put in to be photographed were not "natural". They just felt wrong to her.

 

Pedophiles are not interested in looking at innocent bath photographs of children. They want them in situations that are going to feed their sexual fantasies. And yes, creating those types of photographs is harmful to the children.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I wonder if Dina McGreevey, wife of James McGreevey, considers herself a victim of homosexuality?

 

I wonder if she considers herself a victim of no-gay-marriage; after all, if James McGreevey could have married a man in a society that accepts gay marriage, he wouldn't have entered into a sham marriage with her, something that quite a few "defenders of marriage" seem to think is just fine (whenever they point out that gays CAN get married, as long as it's to someone of the opposite sex).

[DanKroh]

"I wonder if Dina McGreevey, wife of James McGreevey, considers herself a victim of homosexuality?"

 

I wonder if the myriad of heterosexuals who get divorced consider themselves to be victims of heterosexuality? Or maybe they are victims of marriage?

[BrentAllen]

Oh, that is priceless, Merlyn! You are going to argue that McGreevey wanted to be MARRIED so badly, that he was willing to marry a woman, even though he didn't love her. In fact, he was so enamoured with MARRIAGE that he entered into marriage contracts twice, even though he was only interested in men, and didn't love the women at all (and had children with both women). Is that why he was in sham marriages - he just loved the married life so much?

 

If not, then why didn't he just live with another man, as do most other homosexual couples?

 

That is just too cute - McGreevey married a woman because he couldn't marry a man! ROFLMAO!

[Novice_Cubmaster]

Say, Ed -

 

"So apparently homosexuals want special rights!

...

Does anyone have proof homosexuality is nothing more than a lifestyle?"

 

Religious Beliefs are lifestyle choices, yet they are afforded constitutional protection.

 

Whether it's lifestyle or innate behavior, allowing someone to follow their own sexual orientation would be as important as following their own religious beliefs.

[DanKroh]

"You are going to argue that McGreevey wanted to be MARRIED so badly, that he was willing to marry a woman, even though he didn't love her. In fact, he was so enamoured with MARRIAGE that he entered into marriage contracts twice, even though he was only interested in men, and didn't love the women at all (and had children with both women). Is that why he was in sham marriages - he just loved the married life so much?"

 

Well, I'm not Merlyn, but yes, I would be willing to argue that. Or at least that, since I haven't spoken to Mr. McGreevey to determine his mental processes, that such things definitely DO happen.

 

Why? Because it is what society (and usually specific influential people in their lives, parents expecially) expects of them.

 

"If not, then why didn't he just live with another man, as do most other homosexual couples?"

 

Because society (and perhaps people in his life whose opinion mattered greatly to him) found that to be unacceptable, or at least, not as socially advantageous as being in a heterosexual marriage. To some people, acceptability matters more than being true to themselves. Sad, but true.

[LongHaul]

Hunt, you make my point for me. The truth here is that some people think that homosexuality is not only a bad sin, but a sin that has the capacity to poison society. As a result, these folks think that it is appropriate for society to use laws to restrict homosexuality. Then attack THEM in the courts not the BSA. BSA has never accepted membership of females under the age of 14 yet no one has sought to restrict BSA access or privilege because of this position. BSA does not restrict homosexuals from marriage or housing or anything except membership in the BSA. Live and let live? Why should those who believe homosexuality to be abhorrent not use the same means to fight it that homosexual advocates use to punish those whos only offense is none acceptance? Mention Dr. King at your peril in trying to make this argument, anyone who had the privilege or honor to actually meet the man know that he treated those he opposed with respect and dignity deserved of others. Dr. King was first and foremost a man of peace. He would never have sought the whip hand, he never wanted his day on top. How will stopping the BSA from helping youth help the cause of homosexuals? We are an easy target. We offer publicity. If harm comes to an otherwise beneficial organization tough take care of number 1. These actions do not make me want to advocate the gay cause.

DanKroh think about what youve written. "Pedophilia is defined as the act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children as the preferred or exclusive method of achieving sexual excitement." No, not all pedophiles will actually act on those fantasies and become child molesters. But the condition (pedophilia) is still considered detrimental because it interfers with the pedophile's ability to form healthy relationships with other adults. One of the defining symptoms in diagnosing pedophilia is that "The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." First you admit that you, and apparently the APA, cant separate the fantasy from the act so not only is it illegal to do it its illegal to fantasize about it! In the second part you say the condition is considered detrimental because it interferes with the persons ability to form healthy relationships with other adults. Kind of like homosexuality in the 50s huh? Was kinds tough rubbing elbows with the Mens Club or the Rotarians after you told them you were gay. If we accept pedophilia as a condition and stop stigmatizing it they wont have to hide it and then the social problem will go away. We can start treating them alike drug users who cant relate or alcoholics who can't form relationships or any of the other thousand people with diminished social skills, but when you say relationship you really mean sexual relationship with other adults. I thought we were supposed to keep our noses out of other peoples bedrooms isn't that part of the whole acceptance thing?. You say Children who are photographed for the "kiddie porn" industry are usually put into sexual situations. I have one client who was a kiddie-porn victim. No one had to tell her that the situations she was put in to be photographed were not "natural". They just felt wrong to her. Again its because she was taught cetain things were wrong not because she felt it all on her own. What was happening to her had been stigmatized by society just as homosexuality had been. How many young children were traumatized because they had feelings for members of the same sex and society told them it was wrong? Where is the difference? When we embrace pedophilia as an alternate lifestyle and stop traumatizing children with old fashioned stereotypes the pain and suffering will end. Go back and read fgoodwins original post its when we open the flood gates that the tide overtakes us. In for a penny in for a pound. Why is one orientation acceptable and another not, because society says it is thats why. In the 50s homosexuality was wrong, today not so much. Why should pedophilias not have the same right as long as it remains a fantasy and society stops harming the children by telling them it is not natural? Its all or nothing and that is the point of the original post and one of the backlashes of the law suits. You will argue for gays and against pedophiles and use the same arguments "they" used agaist gays but not see the error becasue you don't accept pedophilia as being acceptable even if it is not a choice. Well there are many people who still don't feel being gay is acceptable either. They feel gays can't form healthy relationships with other adults. "The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Kind sounds like the position society is putting gays in. Fear of reprisal, denial of benifitis and rights, rejection and ridicule how can gays function without some distress or impairment? Once you let the camel get his nose in the tent you will soon be outside and he will be inside.

LongHaul

I wonder how the APA defined homosexuality back in the 50's?(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[jmenand]

No one's mentioned the possible solution of removing the instution of "marriage" entirely from the functions of the government. I still wonder why the government endorses the concept at all. If you want to enter inter a legal contract with another person that has similar benifits/obligations as the current marriage has, that's fine and dandy.

 

People who argue that there is a potential slippery slope where people will want to marry children and inanimate objects are sort of right, except that really what should be done is to leave the spiritual, emotional, and societally binding concept of marriage to the private and religious sphere, and the leave the legal arrangements that marriage typically brings to the government/courts.

 

Pretty simple answer if you ask me. Unfortunately the argument that "marriage has been around forever and every other society has something like it and blah blah blah" continues to 'count' as a rational for keeping government marriages. I could easially evoke the, "if every other society jumped off a bridge, would you?" argument that my mother was fond of using on me when I was young, but for some reason I think it would go in one ear and out the other of most people.

[jmenand]

I apologise for all the typos in my post... Let this be a lesson to all: if you wake up and can't sleep in the middle of the night, don't go posting things on online message boards!

[packsaddle]

jmenand, I think my wife would agree. She has often expressed regret that marriage wasn't something like a 5-year-renewable contract (usually followed by muttering, "5 years were already too many..." or something to that effect. But she's stuck... you know, a Catholic thing.

 

She sent me one of those email jokes recently:

A woman visited a fortune teller,

The fortune teller whispered that she had tragic news,

The woman's husband was going to die a horrible, violent death.

The woman was quiet for a while and then she spoke,

She asked the fortune teller,

"Tell me, I have to know...will I be acquitted?"

 

A few years ago, I fainted while on a business trip. I called her from a hospital: her first words, "...so are you going to die or what?"

Where did it all go I wonder?

 

So I guess I struck out with my real-life situation back on page 3. More fun to bat conjectures back and forth.

[GernBlansten]

I can only hope that someday, we will have the means to prove that due to a chemical imbalance or defective gene, homosexuality will be declared a condition not a choice. Until then, those mean spirited individuals who want to demonize these people will continue. There is no discussion with these people, their minds are set. I had thought that we as a society had moved beyond the view that homosexuality as equal to a criminal offense. So sad.

[Trevorum]

Appearances to the contrary, I actually think we've made progress here in reaching common ground. We have seemed to moved beyond condemning homosexuality on purely religious grounds.

 

I, for one, can accept arguments for or against something based on empiricism. Evidence, conjecture, hypotheses. All good stuff. Eventually we will learn the truth, one way or another, based on medical and scientific research and public opinion will follow. What is problematic are arguments for or against something based on supernaturalism, ie. "my religion says so". Anyone is entitled to believe anything their religion says of course, but it is impossible to have a meaningful debate on those issues.

 

Many people who believe that homosexuality is wrong are firm in their conviction, cemented by by an emotional revulsion. Others, while completely mystified by the phenomenon of same-sex attaction, are willing to listen. Maybe examine their own suppositions.

 

Then there are those who suspect that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that characterizes all human populations at all times and places (I'm in this group).

 

Finally there are homosexuals themselves, sometimes deeply repressed, sometimes vocal, but always destined to be in the minority and at the mercy of society.

[packsaddle]

OK, I will be direct. To Yellowhammer and those of similar thought processes:

Gays are already in scouting. I know this as a fact in a real-life situation. In this case, at least, they will not leave. They pose no risk whatsoever to the boys. Your arguments are yesterday's news. Tough luck.