Trevorum Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 YellowHammer, I understand that you do not see the injustice. Do you understand that the people we're talking about DO see injustice in the way they are treated by society? That fact, in and of itself, should give one pause to reflect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Yellowhammer, Would your opinion be altered/softened if homosexuality can be demonstrated to be a genetic condition instead of a pure behavioral choice? There are those with documented genetic conditions like Downs Syndrome people who are deviant from the norm. However it is illegal to restrict their marriage, even if it benefits society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I love my mom but I can't marry her! I love my daughter but I can't marry her. Love has nothing to do with the legal concept of marriage. Serving in the military isn't a right. It's an option. If states start passing laws in favor of gay rights, what is the next lifestyle that will want special rights? Maybe beer drinkers? Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 "Only if they break discipline by opening their mouths about their preference. Most any other sexual deviant can have a successful military career if they are discreet. Serving in the military is not a right, as a matter of fact all members of the military agree to give up some of their constitutional rights to be a member." Unless they are outed by someone else. And just because you call a homosexual a sexual deviant doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you say it. However, it does definitely leave me with the impression that any civil discussion of this issue with you is impossible. "Just because there isn't a law against something doesn't mean there should be. I am certain that there is no such law in my state and yet homosexuals seem to be employed and living quite comfortably. " And in my state, despite such a law, homosexuals are being denied housing and employment opportunities by bigots. Now what was that about flawed logic equating to baloney? I see quite a lot of both among the "arguments" of the anti-gay crowd in my line of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Gern: "Would your opinion be altered/softened if homosexuality can be demonstrated to be a genetic condition instead of a pure behavioral choice?" Unfortunately, Gern, while some people will "accept" that the attraction to the same-sex (i.e. the orientation) may be genetic, they will argue with their last breath that actually expressing or acting on that attraction is a pure behavioral choice, and therefore, they shouldn't do it, at least, if they have any "self control", they should be able to "resist" those impulses. But if anyone ever suggested that they should never express/act on the love they felt for another consenting adult, they think that's different, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongHaul Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 No Ed, I think it will be pedophiles. Beer drinking is a choice but we are being beaten over the head with the concept that sexual orientation is not. Being attracted to children is no different than being attracted to one of the same sex. Pedophiles cant help being pedophiles, its in their genes. First we will be bombarded with the realization that pedophiles are not necessarily child molesters. Just because a person is attracted to children does not mean they have to act on that desire. Then we will go down the road of what constitutes a child, age distinction. Then we will get to age of consent and when is a person able to make decisions for themselves (children suing parents comes to mind). The barriers will be eroded like water flowing over a rock. For those who think THAT will never happen remember homosexuality was illegal in most states not that long ago. The one thing Im upset about is that no one is trying to fight for nudist rights. When will the naturists be allowed to express themselves without reprisal? LongHaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I don't rule out that pedophilia isn't a genetic defect like homosexuality. However, here is the distiction. Pedophiles cannot exercise their sexual instincts without harming children. Homosexuals can exercise their sexual instincts with other consenting adults. There are no innocent victims in homosexuality. No harm, no foul. Why can't homosexuals enjoy the same special rights you and your wife enjoy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 "Being attracted to children is no different than being attracted to one of the same sex." Well, other than one involves two consenting adults and the other involves a child legally not capable of consent who, by the strict definition of pedophile (target being a prepubescent youth), does not even realy have an understanding of what sex is. "Pedophiles cant help being pedophiles, its in their genes. First we will be bombarded with the realization that pedophiles are not necessarily child molesters. Just because a person is attracted to children does not mean they have to act on that desire." Well, lots of things that are not healthy are genetic. Diabetes is genetic. Schizophrenia is genetic. ADHD is genetic. Pedophilia may in fact, turn out to be genetic. However, whether or not homosexuality is one of those genetic traits that we should strive to suppress for the betterment of society is where opinions part ways. And while we can cast the reasons to allow or disallow homosexual behavior in the diguise of logic, all we are really doing is coming up with rationalizations for our personal opinions/morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorum Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 LongHaul, Egads, when will it stop? It all started you know when we gave rights to women. No, I take that back, it started when we gave rights to all males regardless of race. No, I take that back, it started when the Irish were recognized as worthy of human dignity. No, I take that back, it started when we decided that "All men are created equal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 the Irish were recognized as worthy of human dignity When did that one slip through? You mean I have to treat the Irish with respect now? WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorum Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 See what I mean? We start treating one minority group with respect and dignity and pretty soon they'll all want it. I tell ya, I makes me look fondly on Iran where old fashioned religious prejudice is a family value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I love fireworks! Oooooooh! Aaaaaaaah! I can't wait for the change in the legal definition of marriage to be "to someone you love." Bring on polygamy! Can't you just see some guys walking around with 5 or 6 wives! Or a woman walking around with group of men! I hope none get jealous - I think we have the possibilities of a tremendous jump in domestic violence. Talk about some fireworks! One question - if a gay man (Man A) marries several different men, will those men also be able to marry other men married to Man A? What about a group of women all married to the same man? Will they be able to marry the other wives of that man? Could they also be married to someone totally outside the group? This could get very confusing! The lawyers are going to make a fortune at divorces! Then it will be changed to "something you love." Imagine the social parties - "this is my wife, Lucy. She is a seal point siamese. Isn't she beautiful!" And talk about unintended consequences - with those large families, how are we ever going to get away from SUV's?? SUV's won't do - we are going to need buses! Look, more fireworks! Yeah!(This message has been edited by BrentAllen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellow_hammer Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 DanKroh said, "And just because you call a homosexual a sexual deviant doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you say it." The natural purpose of sex is for men and women to procreate and recreate as in men with women and women with mean. Anything else is clearly *deviation* from the natural and best purpose. The anus is clearly meant to be an exit port for body waste. Any other use is a *deviation* from the natural and best purpose. Your assertion that homosexuality is not a a sexual deviance is not based on reason but purely on your feelings on the matter and what you wish to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorum Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 heh, heh... YH, you really set yourself up with that one () but, this being a Scouting board, I won't go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fling1 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Well, Brent, We could very well be arguing all of this from a much different starting point, if Utah had taken a stand on this topic way back when. The polygamy practices that were somewhat common in the Utah territory were outlawed as part of Utah's bid for statehood. Somehow, they were led to believe that it would be easier to convince Congress to admit them to the Union if they dropped that particular aspect of their culture. If the good and principled Mormons of the day had taken a stand on this, and challenged the US to prove to them that their definition of marriage was incompatible with the US Constitution, polygamy might have gained a grudging acceptance as tolerable in the United States. (Probably, every other state would have promptly outlawed such, but that's what states are supposed to do -- reflect their local culture and make a best-fit situation for their citizens.) There are lots of viable family structures and marriage arrangements. My personal favorite is the "linear marriage" as described in Heinlein's _The_Moon_Is_A_Harsh_Mistress_ (highly recommended book, btw). These are fascinating topics of discussion when accompanied by frosty adult beverages :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now