Referencing a post on the Corner where Maggie Gallagher takes New York Times columnist Frank Rich to task for calling gay marriage opponents “bigots”, Glenn Reynolds echoes a point I’ve been making about the rhetoric of some gay marriage supporters:
Unlike Maggie Gallagher, I favor gay marriage. But it seems to me that in this — as in other areas — those pushing the “bigotry” meme are in fact more interested in calling others bigots than in accomplishing anything.
Emphasis added.
This goes to something Dale Carpenter has said about how gay activists see gay marriage as a “trophy in the cultural wars.” While gay activists see it as a trophy, liberal pundits use it as a club with which to attack social conservatives.
Why do so many refuse to acknowledge the legitimate objections some people have to state recognition of gay marriage and hesitate to challenge them on the level of ideas? Why do they resort to name-calling as a means of discourse?
Their preference for slurring gay marriage opponents parallels the way they and their peers respond to the Tea Parties. Instead of listening to their adversaries’ arguments and acknowledging the sincerity of their concerns, they treat them as a bully treats the defenseless kid on the playground.
They think they can get away with it because the MSM encourages their insults. And doesn’t hold them to account for their mean-spirited attempts to demean their adversaries.
Our society could gain by a serious discussion of gay marriage. Gay people in particular would benefit from such a conversation. Yet, the supposed advocates of this change would rather score points in some imaginary contest with conservatives than make a point about the social benefits of extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.
“Name Calling” is an easy defense mechanism that individuals utilize when they have not taken the time to develop a mature belief system. Native Americans (the indigenous population of the North American continent) are just as guilty of this as this as other “minority groups” in the general populace. It demonstrates the “exclusivity” of some gay individuals who use the gay/not gay dichotomy in social intercourse.
I very much appreciate your understanding of what discourse is about. i strongly do not support homosexual marriage. Yes i am a believer in what the bible says about homosexual behavior. But may i encourage the idea that behavior is not identity. Birth determines identity, and yes I believe that people are not born a homosexual but is a learned behavior, and if a learned behavior can be un-learned it is not sensical to put them side by side for how can you be un-born a man or woman.
And what would that be? Before you answer, please read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Bible-Really-About-Homosexuality/dp/188636009X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240258338&sr=8-1
Hint: The Bible doesn’t say, what you perhaps think it does.
We can agree on that. For heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, their orientation need not determine their behavior. For example, if a heterosexual rapes, or is a big adulterer or whatever, their heterosexual orientation did NOT make them do it. I really believe that and say it sincerely.
As our media become more decentralized and competitive and the public more directly involved with blogging, webcasts, and the like, our cultural noise is becoming increasingly deafening. In order to be seen/heard/read, some resort to attention-grabbing, inflammatory language in order to defend the niche they’re attempting to carve. They don’t have to be factually correct, intellectually honest, or personally ethical — and some may think that to take the time and energy to do so dulls their wit and doesn’t give them the ‘pop’, the meme, the sound byte, or the fundraising panache that caustic attack language does.
ilc says: “For heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, their orientation need not determine their behavior. For example, if a heterosexual rapes, or is a big adulterer or whatever, their heterosexual orientation did NOT make them do it. I really believe that and say it sincerely.”
what an absurd line of reasoning. first of all, i’m not sure why you are comparing rape to a consensual relationship. secondly, by your logic, i am “choosing” to breathe. while that comparison may be a bit hyperbolic, and i don’t mean to imply that having sex is as reflexive as breathing, the point remains. much as we need to breathe to stay alive, we need to love and “mate”, if you will, to be happy beings. implying that gay behavior is a choice is disingenuous at best, if not absurd. yes, a gay person could, in theory, remain celibate his whole life, but for what purpose? to appease those people who don’t understand homosexuality? i think we can all agree that loving and being in a loving relationship is one of the most human and gratifying experiences on earth.
and no, mike, people don’t “learn” to be homosexual. how exactly would that work, btw, considering the vast majority of gay people were raised by two heterosexuals and probably had very little contact with and/or exposure to gay people?
i think we can all agree that loving and being in a loving relationship is one of the most human and gratifying experiences on earth.
Pedophiles love children and have loving relationships with them. Bestialists love animals and have loving relationships with them. Incest practitioners love their blood relatives and have loving relationships with them. Furthermore, boob, even if you want to try to deny their “love”, you have stated that it is WRONG to deny people the sexual release that pleases them — aka you are denying people happiness if you don’t allow them to “mate” with whatever turns them on sexually.
The reason you make this line of argument is because it is typical of the spoiled child who, when confronted by the rules, whines and screams and tries to change definitions in order to avoid changing their own behavior. You and your fellow gay-sex liberals are unwilling to control your own promiscuous desires, so you insist that controlling them and taking responsibility for your behavior is wrong. Problem is, you can’t see past your own narcissistic rationalizations — or the impact that they have on society when you cheapen and trivialize “love” or when you make of sex an uncontrollable biological impulse.
beastiality and pedophilia aren’t consensual adult relationships. incest and polygamy are behaviors, not orientations.
done.
this is way too easy. could someone of a little more intelligence please try to continue NDT’s side of the argument? he’s clearly in over his head.
Well, I am NOT convinced that the meaning of marriage should be changed to include same sex. Can someone give me a very good reason that I should cast my vote for a change? It’s sure not in this thread or any thread I’ve seen on any blog. Until then, I SAY NO WAY!
because they know that name calling and demonization works. Demonize your opponents enough, and they will sacrifice each other and their principles in order to prove your accusations arent true
I am moderately confused about the use of the word “orientation.” I wonder if one could become “disoriented” from his “orientation.” I suppose that I missed the memo which settled the “born that way” debate.
bob, one of the top absurd things here is you. I did not make whatever comparison you imagine me to have made, towards whatever point you imagine me to have been pointing. I don’t even want to waste my time trying to untangle how you arrived at whatever you are now arguing with. Have fun arguing with your people of straw and let me know if you ever want to have a calm, adult conversation.
ilc, here is the full context of what mike said above, with which you ostensibly were agreeing in your original quote:
“But may i encourage the idea that behavior is not identity. Birth determines identity, and yes I believe that people are not born a homosexual but is a learned behavior, and if a learned behavior can be un-learned it is not sensical to put them side by side for how can you be un-born a man or woman.”
in other words, he’s saying being gay is a choice because, essentially, gay sexual acts are behavior, which is a choice. of course, he’s completely ignoring the fact that having a gay orientation is not a choice, and that gay people are not mentally or psychologically unstable and are fully capable of having healthy, consensual relationships. (he also, for the record, makes a completely false claim about “un-learning” homosexuality.)
you then went on to say you agreed with him, saying that someone’s orientation need not determine his behavior…using the example of a straight person’s heterosexuality not being the CAUSE of a rape. well duh. if you actually have a point, it’s quite silly. of course a person of a gay orientation doesn’t have to “act” on his orientation. he could be celibate his whole life or enter into a sham wedding. but do you really mean to affirm mike’s assertion that being gay is a learned behavior or choice? and why draw the analogy you did? we all know one can choose to be celibate, but why make an obvious point in an (apparent) attempt to legitimize what was obviously an ignorant comment by mike?
And into the trap boob walks.
stiality and pedophilia aren’t consensual adult relationships.
You didn’t say “consensual adult relationships”, boob; you said “loving relationships”. Please state for the record that you have no trouble whatsoever with the state defining what constitutes a “loving” relationship, and that merely stating that you “love” someone is not sufficient grounds for granting marriage.
incest and polygamy are behaviors, not orientations.
You yourself stated that stopping people from engaging in sexual behaviors for the purpose of “appeasing those people who don’t understand” is wrong, boob. Please state for the record that you now have no objection to people stopping the sexual behaviors of others and that doing so is not infringing on peoples’ “happiness”.
I suppose that I missed the memo which settled the “born that way†debate.
The “born that way” insistence comes from the gay-sex liberals like boob who use their sexual orientation as an excuse for their antisocial behavior.
After all, if you can argue that your promiscuity, need to take children to sex fairs, or demands that gay sex be taught to five year olds is due to an inborn characteristic rather than it being a choice, that absolves you of any responsibility for it — and also conveniently allows you to scream “homophobe” at anyone who would dare question it.
i didn’t make those qualifiers, NDT, because most people are bright enough to see the implicit nature of such qualifiers in what i was saying.
what you’re apparently too stupid to realize is that when we talk about treating PEOPLE equally under the law, we’re talking about PEOPLE, not behaviors. this is why your incessant need to bring up polygamy and incest is a specious argument. being gay is an orientation, and a perfectly healthy, consensual, adult one. and as for the other things you bring up, like pedophelia or beastiality, those things do not involve consenting adults. if you can’t understand the difference there, you should probably stop speaking in general.
what you’re apparently too stupid to realize is that when we talk about treating PEOPLE equally under the law, we’re talking about PEOPLE, not behaviors.
Ah, but you see, boob, that’s not what you demand.
You see, the law treats people equally already when it comes to marriage; everyone may marry an adult individual of the opposite sex who is not already married and who is not closely related to them with both parties’ consent. It says nothing about behaviors.
Now, you can try to go down that route and argue that that denies you equal treatment because you’re not allowed to marry that to which you’re sexually attracted and “love. But what you and your fellow gay-sex liberals don’t realize is that, by doing so, you make sexual attraction and “love”, both of which are behaviors, the sole requirements for marriage; thus, by denying pedophiles, bestialists, incest practitioners, and plural-marriage folks marriage to that to which they are sexually attracted and “love”, you are violating “equal protection”.
I think you’re projecting, bob.
As I said: Have fun arguing with your people of straw. If you ever want to have a calm, grownup conversation, let me know.
Yes! It happens every time I see a picture of Michael Moore or Al Franken for example.
What the heck is up with NDT?…He seems to think all Gay men are obsessed with sex and indulge in all kinds of weird, kinky sex. What a sad man that he thinks so little of his sexual orientation and thinks we are all big sluts.
What rock do you live under, Dave?
In the future liberal hetero world, gay marriage won’t ever be a problem. As science eventually will be able to determine if a human fetus will be homosexual and with abortion on demand, it will be bye, bye, baby, bye bye (aka clump of cells). Since they will strive to have that perfect ONE child, who would want that fag child?
I still haven’t heard the arguement to convince me that I should support same sex marriage yet, nor abortion either.
Al Franken & Michael Moore would make a nice gay couple.
Then we’ll see the new versions of the Hilfswerk’s Mutter und Kind posters.
http://www.artsnotdead.com/German-WW-2-II-Military-Poster-Mutter-und-Kind-p/mg00030.htm
After all, liberals want to be “fanatical servers” of the health of the Germ…uh…American Volk…uh…people.
I am moderately confused about the use of the word “orientation.†I wonder if one could become “disoriented†from his “orientation.†I suppose that I missed the memo which settled the “born that way†debate.
Heliotrope, words sometimes have different meanings in different contexts. But since you brought it up, do you think that any time in your adult life you could have chosen to be gay? Yes, I know it’s hypothetical, but suppose some event occurred in which it became a sin to have heterosexual sex, and only homosexual sex was not sinful. Would that make you sexually attracted to men, and/or compel you to have sex with men?
Sure. Human sexuality is very complex, and any complex system is subject to change.
#26. Pat:
I hang around prisons and I am totally aware of how male inmates gratify their sexual appetites. I would not call that “orientation.” I would call it “behavior.”
Your hypothetical is somewhat like the gay version of the history of Sparta. I have no inclination in seeking a male for cuddling or advanced intimacy. But, maybe five years of isolation with a band of male pygmies might change my “orientation.” I have had the same wife for 45 years and I have never strayed in the least. My “orientation” is to sustain monogamy and fidelity. Again, if I had five years in isolation with a band of female pygmies, I might change my “orientation.”
#18 bob is “hoist with is own petard.”
bob argues that homosexuality, is not a behavior. It is a people. It is another classification of gender, apparently. Therefore, the other genders should have the same civil rights as males and females. How many other genders are there? And just what is a “transgender” people? Are pedophiles a gender? How about arsonists? Old maids? Compulsive neurotics? Liberals?
Okay, Heliotrope. If I understand what you are saying that under extreme circumstances, your inclination (orientation, or whatever you want to call it) wouldn’t change, but your behavior might. That’s fine, and I agree with you.
You’ve said that you have no inclination towards intimacy with another male. Now, maybe saying “born that way” is simplifying things. My point is that I’m fairly certain that you didn’t choose this inclination, but that is what is natural for you. Is that right?
I recall having a discussion on another blog where a few of the posters actually believed that orientation and behavior is the same thing. That what makes a man straight is by having sex with women. Period. They honestly have not heard of examples of male ministers who preach against homosexuality that were caught having sex with men until I provided a few links for them.
V the K, I agree with you that human sexuality is complex indeed. As such, sexual orientation could change. But all evidence I have seen is that any change does not happen by a conscious choice by someone (e.g., someone saying, “Gee, I think I now will only be attracted to persons of the opposite sex” and poof, the person is now only attracted to persons of the opposite sex). If that wasn’t the case, you would think that those who preach about the evils of homosexuality would never be caught sneaking around having sex with persons of the same sex.
Of course, behavior is another thing. A person sexually attracted to men may choose to only have sex with women.
One thing that I may disagree with Bob is regarding incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and multiple partners. There are people that may have these orientations (although I’m not sure about incest). The question is, should these behaviors be sanctioned by society like I believe consensual homosexuality amongst adults should be. I believe it’s clear that pedophilia and bestiality should not, as these types of relationships do not involve consenting adults on both parties. Incest could (only when the parties are consenting adults), but there are other good reasons why incest is not a good idea. As for multiple partners, I personally don’t think it’s a good idea. Even going from two persons to three persons triples the complexity of that type of relationship. But let them try to make the case why plural marriage should be a good idea, just as gay persons should make the case why same sex marriage is a good idea.
No, it wouldn’t. You came nearer the truth, heliotrope, with the preceding sentence:
Behavior isn’t orientation, just as you said. Lots of men have a certain capacity for homosexuality when they have no other choice, as you’ve noticed. That doesn’t make them gay. The gay person is the one who still wants the same sex, even when they have alternatives.
Pat, the medical literature “concludes” that there are “born that way” homosexuals and there are “experimenters” who switch hit. Among older gays are a number of people who were married, raised children and then paired off with a same sex partner later in life. This only serves to confuse the “conclusions.” Orientation v. behavior are probably not the two words that should frame the discussion. Since we talk of reorientation and disorientation, it is obvious that orientation is mutable.
Since gays have brought cross-dressers and transgendered people into the fold, they have lessened their authority to claim that theirs is an argument based on genetics.
#30 Pat: “…you would think that those who preach about the evils of homosexuality would never be caught sneaking around having sex with persons of the same sex.”
Hypocracy seems like it would be a sin as well. If homo sex is a sin it is a sin wheather the preacher does it or NOT.
We are all sinners and our punishment for our sin is death. We will all die for sure. It is after the death that completes your destiny.
Orientation is such a basic part of sexuality that I have a very hard time believing a choice occurs after a very early age if at all. In the long run, i.e. for adults, proving the existence of genetic predisposition is scientifically interesting and may have social consequences (how sexuality is taught, laws, etc.), but is merely an intellectual exercise for normal, sexually functioning adults. Orientation concerns what you think about when you masturbate.
I never expected to read on this site gat marriage made equivilant to bestiality or pedophilia and tgise of us who want to be able to marry the adult non blood relation of our choice that i am sexual liberal who is whiner that should live a celibate life.
People who were against civil rights for blacks were and are called bigots, same as those against interracial marriage whch people believed went against the teachings of the bible. So how is this diferrent?
Also in jesus time one man and one woman wasn’t the widely held definition of marriage
Heliotrope, besides what ILC said in 31…
Pat, the medical literature “concludes†that there are “born that way†homosexuals and there are “experimenters†who switch hit. Among older gays are a number of people who were married, raised children and then paired off with a same sex partner later in life. This only serves to confuse the “conclusions.â€
The thing is that most older people grew up with basically no option. You had to be heterosexual whether one was heterosexual or not. So people who were sexually attracted to the same sex still got married (heck, it still happens today), and tried their best to play the role. So now, a lot of these persons no longer wanted to hide their orientation, and/or saw that more and more people are openly gay, and have decided to come out. And then act on their orientation by dating persons of the same sex.
So under these circumstances, of course there is going to be confusion. Again the persons going through this may actually thought they were straight, because, hey, they actually were able to make themselves date women, marry, and have sex with women. Because it was only the sinners and/or heathens who would decide to have sex with persons of the same sex.
Since gays have brought cross-dressers and transgendered people into the fold, they have lessened their authority to claim that theirs is an argument based on genetics.
I don’t get your point here. Sexuality and sexual identity are complex issues. In terms of genetics, eye color and skin color are complex issues.
But what is your argument that you are straight? That you sincerely believe you chose it, or that this was something that was most likely determined (via genetics and/or environment) by puberty.
President Obama and Miss California’s stance on gay marriage is the exact same.
Hypocracy seems like it would be a sin as well. If homo sex is a sin it is a sin wheather the preacher does it or NOT.
Ed, I agree with you here. But my point was not whether homosexual sex is a sin or not. But that such preachers thought it was a sin. So that being the case, you would think that if one could choose one’s orientation, and one thought homosexual sex was sinful or evil, why choose to be oriented in that way.
Stealing is a sin and against the law. Despite that, I understand why people steal. If you don’t get caught, the payoff you have acquired more wealth. What payoff would one have by choosing to be gay, if you could just as easily choose to be straight?
We are all sinners and our punishment for our sin is death. We will all die for sure. It is after the death that completes your destiny.
Who’s punishing us when we die? We will die for sure whether or not we sin. As for the last sentence, I suppose we find out if you’re right when we die.
Orientation concerns what you think about when you masturbate.
When people feel free enough to act on their orientation, that is true. But in the past (and even today), many people were afraid to let themselves think about the same sex when they masturbated.
Cross-dressing that does not involve transgenderism is a behavior, and really just a sexual fetish. Transgenderism is… any one of several things, depending on the individual’s situation.
I disagree with heliotrope’s characterization of gays and lesbians as arguing that gayness is based on “genetics”. Some argue that. Others don’t, like myself. I carefully asset that sexual orientation is rotted in “biology”, a different statement. The evidence of brain-structure differences between gays and straights has gotten to be pretty significant. It’s very unlikely to be caused by one or a few clear-cut genes, like eye color or skin color. It may be caused by some very complex / hard-to-predict genetics, plus hormonal events in the womb (the evidence that younger brothers have a great likelihood of being gay). So I say “biological” as a broader and more humble term, i.e., not presuming that I would know it to be “genetic”.
I concede partial truth to heliotrope’s observation as follows: I believe that, by bringing cross-dressers, transgenders, etc. into the seemingly endless “LGBTQabcdef…” acronym, gays and lesbians have confused the issues and made their cause harder to explain.
Haha, typo – “rooted in biology”.
And, “the evidence that younger brothers have a great*ER* likelihood of being gay”. Not “a great likelihood.” Sorry for bad edits.
pat said: “One thing that I may disagree with Bob is regarding incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and multiple partners. There are people that may have these orientations (although I’m not sure about incest).”
the only one of those that may be an orientation is pedophelia, and i never said it wasn’t one. however, my point was that we can distinguish homosexual relationships from pedophelia (wow, can’t believe i have to actually spell this out) because one involves consenting adults and one, by definition, does not.
however, my point was that we can distinguish homosexual relationships from pedophelia (wow, can’t believe i have to actually spell this out) because one involves consenting adults and one, by definition, does not.
Bob, in case I didn’t make it clear above, I’m in agreement with your statement here. There is a hell of a difference between relationships between two consenting adults and relationships that involve one or fewer consenting adults. As such, the rights of both must be considered. The well-being of a child trumps the rights of an adult who wants to have sex with children. Yes, I know it’s hard to believe that this has to be spelled out.
It’s nice to see that North Dallas 30 is par for the course in this thread.
Like all gay-sex conservatives, he cannot even maintain fidelity to his own “partner,” yet he insists in deriding other monogamous gay couples at length.
ND30, you are as typical in your intimate behaviors as all gay-sex conservatives: seductive bathroom foot-tapping, meth-fueled sex fests in cheap hotels with megachurch pastors, Craiglist hook-ups, and smarmy emails to interns/congressional pages.
You, like all gay-sex conservatives, are a hypocrite. At least, however, your and your “partner” were erudite enough to select the gay-sex haven that is San Fran for your life locus. So many more opportunities for thirds and fourths in the bedroom, no?
Finally, ND30, since you consistently refer others to knowledge of your “partner” and since you frequently elucidate your negative views of same-sex unions/governmental sanction, I will safely assume that you and your partner are *not* to be found in the listing that is California’s Domestic Partner Registry.
I’ll also assume that *when* full marriage equality is achieved in “The Golden State,” you and your “partner” will neither seek unioned status nor adopt children. I will further assume that you’ll smile gleefully should you or your “partner” ever receive terminated employment merely for reasons of sexual orientation.
I’ll safely assume these things — because for me to assume otherwise about *you* would only make *you* a hypocrite (which is, natch, a synonym for gay-sex conservative).
#35 Ousslander: “I never expected to read on this site gat marriage made equivilant to bestiality or pedophilia…”
I can’t believe that natural sex (aka mission position, vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman) is brought to the level of anal, oral, bestiality, pedophilia, and threesomes as well as whips & chains & other objects BY BOTH HETERO & HOMO SEXUALS. BUT THAT IS WHERE WE ARE.
Sexual intercourse is a blessing and marriage is devine authority to partake.
Can someone convince me to support same sex marriage? I seriously doubt it.
#38 Pat: “…my point was not whether homosexual sex is a sin or not. But that such preachers thought it was a sin.
When a sinner commits a sin, I will assert that he knows it is a sin. We know when we have lied, cheated or stolen and we know it is wrong but we do it anyway. The Preacher who has homo sex yet rails against it is no better than the liar, cheater, or thief.
Still human, still a sinner & still will die because of his sin.
Pat, I am a stickler for what words mean and for definitions being specific. Those who consider the “reason” for being gay are in need of more specific terminology. “Orientation” is not the word. I offered “genetic” and ILC points out the problems with that concept.
The debate between “behavior” and “born that way” seems to be on going. Perhaps there is no single word to replace “born that way.”
In answer to your question, I was born heterosexual. I never had an interest, inclination, curiosity, etc. in same sex relationships.
Does “name calling” include me calling an angry Leftist a “moron” ?
Just askin’
Bruce #48 – Yes it does… BUT. With GPW, you are the host here. You are the one paying the bills. When someone tracks enough mud into your house, you get to call him a moron. It’s not ideal behavior, but if anyone doesn’t like it for any reason, they can leave. That’s different than if (say) I were to call someone a moron, or if another one of your guests were to. When one of your guests insults another, they over-step their bounds and implicitly insult your taste in guests. I’m drawing a distinction between your prerogatives as host vs. your guests’ obligations (to be civil to you and each other) as guests.
however, my point was that we can distinguish homosexual relationships from pedophelia (wow, can’t believe i have to actually spell this out) because one involves consenting adults and one, by definition, does not.
Unfortunately, silly boob, to paraphrase your statement from above:
much as we need to breathe to stay alive, we need to love and “mateâ€, if you will, to be happy beings. implying that pedophile behavior is a choice is disingenuous at best, if not absurd. yes, a pedophile could, in theory, remain celibate his whole life, but for what purpose? to appease those people who don’t understand pedophilia? i think we can all agree that loving and being in a loving relationship is one of the most human and gratifying experiences on earth.
It amuses me to no end that people like boob who will throw out one of the most clear distinctions that can be made — gender — in favor of sexual gratification will then argue that other arbitrary distinctions hold any water.
It’s nice to see that North Dallas 30 is par for the course in this thread.
And it’s nice to have it demonstrated how the gay community makes foolish comments, has them exposed as such, and then tries to come back and make similar comments.
I will further assume that you’ll smile gleefully should you or your “partner†ever receive terminated employment merely for reasons of sexual orientation.
I really fail to understand why this is a problem for gay-sex liberals and Obama Party members like JR. Maybe because, unlike them, I don’t try to argue that people who object to their promiscuous sex and sexual harassment in the workplace are acting out of “homophobia and sexism”.
I can’t believe that natural sex (aka mission position, vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman) is brought to the level of anal, oral, bestiality, pedophilia, and threesomes as well as whips & chains & other objects BY BOTH HETERO & HOMO SEXUALS. BUT THAT IS WHERE WE ARE.
So, Ed, if I understand you right, you’re lumping consensual monogamous sex between two persons of the same sex with bestiality, pedophilia, etc. Heck, it appears you’re lumping oral sex between two monogamous opposite sex couples with bestiality, etc., as well.
Sexual intercourse is a blessing and marriage is devine authority to partake.
I agree, for same sex couples as well as opposite sex couples.
Can someone convince me to support same sex marriage? I seriously doubt it.
That’s okay. No one can convince me to not support same sex marriage.
When a sinner commits a sin, I will assert that he knows it is a sin. We know when we have lied, cheated or stolen and we know it is wrong but we do it anyway. The Preacher who has homo sex yet rails against it is no better than the liar, cheater, or thief.
Not sure about your first assertion. For example, I don’t believe that my having sex with my partner is a sin. However, I could be wrong. Heck, I don’t think anyone knows for sure exactly what the complete list of sins are. We just make our best guesses on that.
Anyway, my point was that when we do intentionally commit a sin, there is some reward for doing it, in addition to the bad we did. So why does a married preacher spews anti-gay hate decide to secretly have sex with a man? Because he’s really attracted to men and enjoys being intimate with men. That’s the reward for his sin of adultery. If this preacher could easily choose his sexual orientation, why on earth would he choose to be attracted to men?
Pat, I am a stickler for what words mean and for definitions being specific. Those who consider the “reason†for being gay are in need of more specific terminology. “Orientation†is not the word. I offered “genetic†and ILC points out the problems with that concept.
Heliotrope, perhaps because of the complexity surrounding the issue, it’s tough to come up with a word. Maybe we’ll simply need a totally new word to describe it. But whatever it is, it seems like the word would also cover “the ‘reason’ for being straight.” Are we in agreement there?
In answer to your question, I was born heterosexual. I never had an interest, inclination, curiosity, etc. in same sex relationships.
Thanks. And as far as I can recall, I was born homosexual. I hardly ever had an interest, inclination, curiosity, etc. in opposite sex relationships. And in the rare times I did, it was usually because of my perception of societal expectations at those times.
It amuses me to no end that people like boob who will throw out one of the most clear distinctions that can be made — gender — in favor of sexual gratification will then argue that other arbitrary distinctions hold any water.
NDT, I am in agreement with the reference of Bob’s you modified (before the changes you made). You’re missing the point. I’d like to think the three of us are in agreement that consensual sex between two unrelated adults of the same sex is okay, but sex between an adult and a child is not okay. So what Bob (and I) are saying is that it is not necessary for a homosexual adult to remain celibate (unless one wants to), while one who is attracted to children should NOT act on that attraction. What’s the distinction? The latter is harmful to children.
And it’s nice to have it demonstrated how the gay community makes foolish comments, has them exposed as such, and then tries to come back and make similar comments.
The gay community????
Um, NDT, have you considered the possibility that JR is purposely making foolish comments in response to what he thinks are foolish comments on your part? For example, when he uses the term “gay sex conservative” in response to your use of “gay sex liberal.” I’ve noticed you’re the only one who uses the silly phrase “gay sex liberal” and JR only uses the silly phrase “gay sex conservative” to you.
If your point is that he’s not justified in using it, but somehow you are, you’re sadly mistaken.
Ditto to that.
Not morally necessary, I think you mean. Where it is morally necessary for a pedophile to remain celibate. I think NDT has kind of a point, though, that bob’s argument structure does not allow for that distinction to be made or held with any integrity. bob says:
Thus, although bob elsewhere denies explicitly that mating is as much of a need as breathing, bob goes on there to suggest that… mating is as much of a need as breathing. Self-contradictions, anyone? I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with bob’s argument just because of that right alone: the fact that he makes contradictory claims, seemingly oblivious to the contradiction or perhaps even believing that it somehow makes him smart or something. But NDT, for better or worse, has chosen to take it on, concentrating on the part where bob does imply that mating is as much a need as breathing. Which, as arguments go, (1) is rubbish and (2) is something whose logical tendency is to weaken what should be strong and rightful arguments against pedophilia.
ILC, I’m not sure that’s the point NDT is making. If he wishes, NDT can explain exactly what he meant, so there is no confusion.
Not morally necessary, I think you mean. Where it is morally necessary for a pedophile to remain celibate. I think NDT has kind of a point, though, that bob’s argument structure does not allow for that distinction to be made or held with any integrity. bob says:
Yes, thanks. Adding “morally” makes clearer what I meant to say. And maybe you’re right about Bob’s structure. It seemed obvious to me that Bob was making that distinction. If it wasn’t, I guess the tack I would have taken was to just ask, “Bob, do you think that, even though loving and mating is important, pedophiles shouldn’t act on their attraction.”
OK, Pat, well then maybe I should just make my own points here. The argument that a self-gratifying behavior (homosexuality or whatever) is OK because the person allegedly “needs” it is a subjectivist argument that anyone – such as pedophiles – can use to justify doing anything. It’s a terrible argument, on several levels. Ordinary homosexual behavior among consenting adults is morally justifiable for a different reason: simply because, or when, it is not morally *unjustified*. That sounds circular, the way I phrased it, but it’s not; it’s only my phrasing that is poor. There is a real reason why sex with the under-aged is immoral: because one of the parties can’t meaningfully give consent, no matter how much they may believe they can, and that party deserves the strongest possible protection from any and all sexual contact that is not from within their age-peer group. By contrast, there is no valid reason why homosexual acts per se are immoral. Some people think there is – say, mike citing the Bible at #2, where we started all this – but they are mistaken. Specific acts of homosexuality may be immoral – such as rape, adultery/cheating, etc. – but the same is true of heterosexuality, as I started to touch upon at #4. There is nothing inherently immoral about all homosexual behavior, as a category, and same with heterosexuality. I already understand that you probably agree with these points, I just wanted to express them in a direct fashion (or speaking for myself).
(P.S. And finally, since there is nothing categorically immoral about homosexual behavior in the first place, then homosexuality *need not* be justified with such foolish / terrible / mistaken arguments as “the person needs it”, and *should not* be justified with them. Let’s not advance a terrible argument to justify something that doesn’t require justification to begin with.)
Morality is a determination of the majority. The emphasis of the Judeo-Christian ethic in the morality of our majority is clear. The particulars of morality wax and wane with the times. It is like a hem-lines sort of thing. But the constants of our morality remain the same.
Marriage between one man and one woman has a long moral tradition with Henry the VIII and Catholics like Kennedy and Kerry demonstrating how to manipulate the system.
For whatever reason, many gays have decided that marriage should be divorced from morality and made a purely administrative activity to be consummated in some sort of DMV-like protocol.
Unfortunately, the respect and appreciation of the general society will not be altered in the least by a GED-like affirmation of marriage by the Bureau of Marriage Certificates.
The morality issues of homosexuality will still be alive and well among the majority.
Gay men trolling by the restrooms in the public park will always be on the outs with general society. General society does not value or encourage gay relationships. It merely accepts them with varying degrees of grace and indifference.
Why would be calling the anti-gay [marriage] crowd a bigot is considered a wrong stance? Do we not label the racial segregationists of pre-Civil Right era bigot? Some people look at the gay marriage in the context of yet-another-innocuous “opinion,” which I may say, “No kidding!” It’s an opinion but a bigoted one in every possible respect. You can believe that Jews and blacks must be deported from the US, but that’s as far as the implementation of such ideology should take you — a thought and a free expression of one’s disturbing reflection of reality. Same with gay marriage; you can, for whatever reason, be against the gay marriage but this belief should not stymie the realization of their civil right.
This is not the matter of democratic majority to vote on but rather a constitutional right that grants such prerogative to the individuals. This whole notion that somehow an extension of conversational debate with the opponents would advance the gay marriage cause is a futile one. The monolithic religion clearly teaches against such “behavior” (as they define as such — a behavior which can be equally be critiqued and censured) and since these religions are strictly dogmatic, they are, inherently, incapable of change. With these people, the issue is not about the marriage but rather the validity of one’s existential right to “be” — in this case the homosexuals. This is a deep seated issue with the anti-gay marriage spiel that for many, a gay “life style,” if you will, is the core of the problem as it is evidence in the on going discussion in this particular thread rather the marriage in its singularity of dogma.
Bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. A State marriage license is a privilege that the People choose to extend to those who qualify, not a universal human right. In other words: It is indeed a matter for the People to vote on.
And before you bring up Loving v. Virginia: That decision found only, and correctly, that race could not be used as one of the qualifications or disqualifications in who gets the license. It did not void the idea of the People setting other (non-racial) qualifications.
If you mean that as a practical political matter, OK. If, instead, you mean it literally, then you are quite mistaken. Morality (what is right and wrong) is objective, not determined by majority opinion.
Speaking as a gay marriage supporter: No, I haven’t decided that. Not at all. With reference to another recent post of GPW’s: Please take the time to understand my arguments and represent them fairly, if you want to go on to refute them.
…And are not the gay relationships we’re talking about here, if indeed they – or heterosexual trolling for that matter – can be called “relationships”.
What payoff would one have by choosing to be gay, if you could just as easily choose to be straight?
A lot more sex than you would get with a woman? And without having to worry about getting anyone pregnant?
It’s very unlikely to be caused by one or a few clear-cut genes, like eye color or skin color. It may be caused by some very complex / hard-to-predict genetics, plus hormonal events in the womb
Ahh…then such hormonal events could be ‘righted’. Just as sexual identity confusion could be if caught early?
Re 63: Same with gay marriage; you can, for whatever reason, be against the gay marriage but this belief should not stymie the realization of their civil right.
I think the problem here is the idea of marriage as a *civil* right. The term civil basically distinguishes the issue as it relating to the state – a definition of the word specifically distinguishes it as separate from military and ecclesiastical life and affairs.
Many (I would dare say most) religions don’t treat marriage as a secular or *civil* issue. In my religion, marriage is viewed as a sacred covenant between a man, a woman and God. The constitution specifically forbids Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. If referring to a ceremony marking a sacred covenant as a *civil* right is all that it takes for the government to be able to mandate that the same ceremony be available to all people, government could start mandating that bar mitzvahs are a civil right and rabbis would have to do them for all people regardless of whether they meet the religious qualifications for that ceremony. This could be used to extend to any ceremony that has religiously imposed qualifications that must be met in order to receive it.
I would agree, and presume that most reasonable people would agree that homosexuals should be given the same civil rights that are provided married people, but the government really has no place making legislation that allows persons or government officials to tear down the separation of church and state. That would mean that civil unions providing the same rights but specifically distinguishing those rights as secular and not religious, would be a reasonable means of making sure that homosexuals were given the same civil rights as married people, while allowing religions to continue to practice their respective doctrines, and preserve the civil and religious rights of people who don’t endorse homosexuality.
Elvlun, why do some gays equate this issue with the past discrimination against blacks?
No, because they result in developmental differences, which show up in the studies as significant adult brain differences. Not sure you really read/understood my whole comment.
obviously i don’t think pedophiles should act on their urges. the distinction is obvious, and it’s ridiculous that we even need to make the distinction. ilc…i said in the line after the breathing part that i was being hyperbolic. but the point i was making was in reference to the idea that gays could “choose” to not have gay sex, and thus don’t have to be actively gay (for lack of a better phrase). i actually have some sympathy for people with pedophile tendencies because they will never have a satisfying relationship, but of course i STRONGLY oppose them EVER acting on those impulses because they are destructive to the other party. obviously there is no reason for gays to refrain from acting on their impulse to love someone who happens to have the same genitals (assuming we’re talking about consensual relationships).
and pat: i know we’re in agreement. i just wanted to make sure one thing i said wasn’t being misinterpreted, which i think it was. you’re one of the few level-headed ppl on this blog…
i actually have some sympathy for people with pedophile tendencies because they will never have a satisfying relationship
Which is an illegal infringement on their happiness and a violation of “equal protection”, according to the screaming gay left.
Um, NDT, have you considered the possibility that JR is purposely making foolish comments in response to what he thinks are foolish comments on your part?
Ah, yes, the classic gay liberal response; it’s not their fault for lying through their teeth, it’s your fault for “provoking” them.
ILC, I have never heard the argument that morality is objective. Strangely, you can find a nearly uniform core throughout the societies of the world, but if you leave intelligent design out of the equation, what is the “objective” source of it?
Human lusts and vanities seem to be fairly constant across societies. Anthropologists have worn themselves out trying to find vast exceptions to the rule.
The ethos is rather easily manipulated in turbulent times, but morality tends to remain fairly constant. However, morality depends upon adherence by the majority. When you add a strong religious belief system or the tacit understandings of such a system, morality is even more immutable. But it morality is not a universal truth or constant.
ILC, I agree with pretty much everything you say in #60. But the point is, which I agree with Bob, is I really don’t think it’s necessary on this blog to say something that I hope that we would all agree. That an adult gay male, when choosing a sexual partner should choose an adult male who consents. And that no adult chooses a child, whether or not they think the child consents. However, I’m always willing to clarify that point if there is any confusion. Anyway, you made the argument clearer than I did.
you’re one of the few level-headed ppl on this blog…
Bob, I’m level-headed? jThanks, but I don’t know if I can agree with that.
Which is an illegal infringement on their happiness and a violation of “equal protectionâ€, according to the screaming gay left.
NDT, whoever this “screaming gay left” is, they’re wrong. I know of no one here that supports pedophilia, so I can’t figure out why that is an issue here.
Ah, yes, the classic gay liberal response; it’s not their fault for lying through their teeth, it’s your fault for “provoking†them.
Ugh! Okay, but here’s the thing. I avoided casting blame to both you and JR, so fault me for not laying into both of you guys. You, for either lying through your teeth or being extremely careless in the first place, and for the unnecessary “gay sex liberal” stuff. And JR for playing in kind. Okay, better?
NorthDallasThirty, you’re talking to a bunch of gay CONSERVATIVES. We don’t do that stuff. We don’t believe in gay sex ed for kids, books about having two mommies or two daddies, nor do we toss about the word “homophobe” the way you claim. Chill out, man. We’re on YOUR SIDE.
The facts of reality. Morality is only needed by, and moral choices are only possible to, beings that face real choices in life, i.e., that meet the following conditions:
1) They have free will.
2) Their choices seriously do affect their chances of surviving, flourishing, and reproducing (whether their genetics, or their abstract values) into the next generation.
3) They know it. (i.e., they have minds capable of reflecting on (1) and (2))
Human beings are the beings on this planet that meet the above conditions. If reality is objective – and it is, post-modern and other subjective teachings to the contrary – then so is morality. Morality is the set of principles (not rules) that will guide a person to the best choices to be made in life. Humans lack omniscience and have a lot of opinions and confusion, making those principles arguable or difficult to discern – but just because something is difficult and arguable, does not make it subjective (or non-objective). God may be the ultimate author of morality, as He is the ultimate author of all reality; but, as morality arises naturally from reality, God is not logically necessary as a direct author or “revealer” of morality; morality does *not* collapse if you argue the principles from logic and reality, ignoring the God of the local religion.
No. It only takes one person to be moral (or not).
Yes it is, in the sense that it remains true (or its principles remain what they are), whether or not anyone is following them.
ILC, thanks for helping me understand your point of reference.
You, for either lying through your teeth or being extremely careless in the first place, and for the unnecessary “gay sex liberal†stuff. And JR for playing in kind. Okay, better?
Sorry, Pat, but you’ll have to actually demonstrate that I was lying in order to accuse me of it, like I demonstrated with JR.
Then again, your point here is to try to explain why you’re making excuses for JR,. so I suppose accusing me of lying is the only way you have of doing it.