| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/15/2005 10:56:34 AM · #751 |
My apologies, if this has already been discussed. This thread is soooo looong.
Understandably, many people find homosexual marriage repulsive. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. Consenting adults...etc.
Here's what repulses me: People who get married under false pretenses. I can make a long list of unsanctimonious marriages between heterosexuals, by any Christian standard. Imagine what would happen if the same scrutiny was placed on these marriages. If this nation is going to be in the business of telling people how to manage their personal relationships, we had better get busy working on the existing marriages where children are being sexually, emotionally and physically abused by their parents; and where spouses are being abused or deceived. //www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp
Even if every homosexual in this country got married today, the assault to the "sanctity" could not compare to atrocities already being committed by heterosexuals. Until as much focus is placed on the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, this argument means nothing more to me than an expression of fear by people who are overly interested in telling others how to live.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:56:58 AM · #752 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
Is this a fact or an exageration to help prove your point? :) |
No "thought" of something envisioned for 35 years in the future, could be "fact". Even if those envisioned laws were codified at present, until their effective dates occurred they could still be subject to "stays" or reversals to prevent their enforcement.
So, no, it's not a fact.
As to whether its an exagerration or not remains to be seen. It may seem to be an exaggeration NOW, but then, 35 years ago it would have been seen as an exaggeration if one were to predict that 35 years hence, sodomy would be legal. But...here we are. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 11:19:44 AM · #753 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
Arm waving and wild conjecture with zero basis in fact. How do YOU know? If we raise the speed limit to 65mph, does that mean that 35 years down the line it'll be 125mph?
The REAL result will be fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... the dead rising from the grave. ...human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria! LOL |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 11:36:22 AM · #754 |
Originally posted by RonB:
As to whether its an exagerration or not remains to be seen. It may seem to be an exaggeration NOW, but then, 35 years ago it would have been seen as an exaggeration if one were to predict that 35 years hence, sodomy would be legal. But...here we are. |
There's a critical difference here. My hyperbole aside, there has never been an underlying social acceptance of pedophilia in modern Western society. Homosexuality has operated on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis for centuries in the West.
While the age of consent has flexed over time, it's never been socially acceptable to force a minor into sexual relations for any Western culture.
Consent is the critical issue here. Either the parents consent to the relationship (arrainged marriage for example) or the child enters their legal majority and is able to consent for themselves. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 12:09:02 PM · #755 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Originally posted by RonB:
As to whether its an exagerration or not remains to be seen. It may seem to be an exaggeration NOW, but then, 35 years ago it would have been seen as an exaggeration if one were to predict that 35 years hence, sodomy would be legal. But...here we are. |
There's a critical difference here. My hyperbole aside, there has never been an underlying social acceptance of pedophilia in modern Western society. |
And, until recently, there was not a social acceptance of homosexuality in Western society, either.
Originally posted by blemt:
Homosexuality has operated on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis for centuries in the West. |
As has pedophilia. That's why abuse claims against the Catholic Church go back for decades.
Originally posted by blemt:
While the age of consent has flexed over time, it's never been socially acceptable to force a minor into sexual relations for any Western culture. |
It isn't socially acceptable to force an adult into sexual relations for any Western culture, either. But it still happens.
Originally posted by blemt:
Consent is the critical issue here. Either the parents consent to the relationship (arrainged marriage for example) or the child enters their legal majority and is able to consent for themselves. |
True. But the issue is where to draw the age of consent. The age at which a person can legally engage in consensual sex in Chile and Mexico is 12, Spain is 13, in many others, including Canada, Iceland, and the States of Iowa, Missouri, and South Carolina in the U.S. is 14. Organizations whose names I get in trouble for naming are constantly petitioning to have those ages lowered. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 12:20:18 PM · #756 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by blemt:
My hyperbole aside, there has never been an underlying social acceptance of pedophilia in modern Western society. |
And, until recently, there was not a social acceptance of homosexuality in Western society, either. |
That's simply not true; "Western" civilization began with the Greeks, and some of the Greek Poleis (city-states) openly practiced homosexuality.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 12:24:29 PM · #757 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And, until recently, there was not a social acceptance of homosexuality in Western society, either. |
You don't count ancient Greece, the birthplace of Democracy and Western Philosophy, as Western society?
Originally posted by RonB:
As has pedophilia. That's why abuse claims against the Catholic Church go back for decades. |
Homosexuality is not pedophilia.
Originally posted by RonB:
It isn't socially acceptable to force an adult into sexual relations for any Western culture, either. But it still happens. |
Openly and legally?
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 12:41:15. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 12:39:22 PM · #758 |
Originally posted by RonB:
..until recently, there was not a social acceptance of homosexuality in Western society |
The same was true of free blacks, interracial marriage and women voting. Now those things are accepted (as they should be). Are you speculating that bestaility will be accepted in the future or that an acceptance of homosexual marriage is the inevitable result of allowing interracial marriage?
Originally posted by blemt:
Homosexuality has operated on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis for centuries in the West. |
Originally posted by RonB:
As has pedophilia. |
Not true at all. Rape victims often don't come forward for years, but that doesn't mean it's a "don't ask, don't tell" basis. We're talking about consenting adults making their own decisions here.
Originally posted by blemt:
...it's never been socially acceptable to force a minor into sexual relations for any Western culture. |
Originally posted by RonB:
It isn't socially acceptable to force an adult into sexual relations for any Western culture, either. But it still happens. |
That doesn't mean it's legal. Murder still happens.
Originally posted by RonB:
Organizations whose names I get in trouble for naming are constantly petitioning to have those ages lowered. |
Like who? Consent ages are an issue of protecting minors, and lowering them is unlikely to gain widespread support. Organizations are constantly petitioning for white supremacy, too. They won't succeed because it would infringe upon the rights of blacks. Banning homosexual marriage ultimately won't succeed either because it infringes upon the rights of others while protecting no one. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 12:40:22 PM · #759 |
Ok this is a serious question I have been (really fatuous about this whole thread) but are you saying that it is ok for the government has the right to come into my home and tell me how I should live? I hope not, they can't even take care of their own business, sure don't want them in mine, as I don't want to be to someone else's. Homosexuality and Pedophilia is comparing oranges to apples, in my humble opinion.
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 12:41:25. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 12:55:54 PM · #760 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
...in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
Arm waving and wild conjecture with zero basis in fact. How do YOU know? If we raise the speed limit to 65mph, does that mean that 35 years down the line it'll be 125mph?
The REAL result will be fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... the dead rising from the grave. ...human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria! LOL |
and tomatoes will become vedgetables....... |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 12:57:56 PM · #761 |
Originally posted by mpemberton:
...and tomatoes will become vegetables... |
That's the result of the increasing lack of exercise in this country (a whole 'nother issue). |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 01:00:10 PM · #762 |
Originally posted by jsas:
Ok this is a serious question I have been (really fatuous about this whole thread) but are you saying that it is ok for the government has the right to come into my home and tell me how I should live? I hope not, they can't even take care of their own business, sure don't want them in mine, as I don't want to be to someone else's. Homosexuality and Pedophilia is comparing oranges to apples, in my humble opinion. |
The government is ALREADY in your home telling you how to live. The only question is where we draw the line, or indeed whether the government can even be STOPPED from expanding its control over your life.
R. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 01:06:46 PM · #763 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by jsas:
Ok this is a serious question I have been (really fatuous about this whole thread) but are you saying that it is ok for the government has the right to come into my home and tell me how I should live? I hope not, they can't even take care of their own business, sure don't want them in mine, as I don't want to be to someone else's. Homosexuality and Pedophilia is comparing oranges to apples, in my humble opinion. |
The government is ALREADY in your home telling you how to live. The only question is where we draw the line, or indeed whether the government can even be STOPPED from expanding its control over your life.
R. |
In the US you can. :-) Well, at least, some one in the past said you could. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 01:10:44 PM · #764 |
Originally posted by mpemberton:
Originally posted by bear_music:
The government is ALREADY in your home telling you how to live. The only question is where we draw the line, or indeed whether the government can even be STOPPED from expanding its control over your life.
R. |
In the US you can. :-) Well, at least, some one in the past said you could. |
I'm not sure; we may have critical mass here, governmentally-speaking...
R.
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 13:11:25. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 01:17:39 PM · #765 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
Is this a fact or an exageration to help prove your point? :) |
No "thought" of something envisioned for 35 years in the future, could be "fact". Even if those envisioned laws were codified at present, until their effective dates occurred they could still be subject to "stays" or reversals to prevent their enforcement.
So, no, it's not a fact.
As to whether its an exagerration or not remains to be seen. It may seem to be an exaggeration NOW, but then, 35 years ago it would have been seen as an exaggeration if one were to predict that 35 years hence, sodomy would be legal. But...here we are. |
So then the pro gay marriage crowd can say, ban gay marriage today, and in 35 years they'll ban people from getting married that are under 30, without a college education, or aren't a virgin. Not facts, and may not be an exageration.
Arguments work much better when you just stick to facts.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 01:18:20 PM · #766 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by jsas:
Ok this is a serious question I have been (really fatuous about this whole thread) but are you saying that it is ok for the government has the right to come into my home and tell me how I should live? I hope not, they can't even take care of their own business, sure don't want them in mine, as I don't want to be to someone else's. Homosexuality and Pedophilia is comparing oranges to apples, in my humble opinion. |
The government is ALREADY in your home telling you how to live. The only question is where we draw the line, or indeed whether the government can even be STOPPED from expanding its control over your life.
R. |
There is no stopping a monster! Greed and hypocrisy really runs this nation. They can tell me how to live, but, I can choose not to listen. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 02:10:53 PM · #767 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
Is this a fact or an exageration to help prove your point? :) |
No "thought" of something envisioned for 35 years in the future, could be "fact". Even if those envisioned laws were codified at present, until their effective dates occurred they could still be subject to "stays" or reversals to prevent their enforcement.
So, no, it's not a fact.
As to whether its an exagerration or not remains to be seen. It may seem to be an exaggeration NOW, but then, 35 years ago it would have been seen as an exaggeration if one were to predict that 35 years hence, sodomy would be legal. But...here we are. |
So then the pro gay marriage crowd can say, ban gay marriage today, and in 35 years they'll ban people from getting married that are under 30, without a college education, or aren't a virgin. Not facts, and may not be an exageration.
Arguments work much better when you just stick to facts. |
My prediction is a logical extension of a direction already in evidence - to wit: the progressive expansion of sociological acceptance of sexual practices once unacceptable.
The hypothetical scenario you paint is not an extension of a direction already in evidence, since banning gay marriage would be the starting point, not the mid point in an extended progression. If you think otherwise, then what is the earlier point in the progression? |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 02:54:47 PM · #768 |
Originally posted by RonB:
[My prediction is a logical extension of a direction already in evidence - to wit: the progressive expansion of sociological acceptance of sexual practices once unacceptable.
|
I am very much afraid Ron that the gist of your argument in this instance would not stand the test of time. Gay relationships have long been in a fact of life and were and continue to be readily tolerated in a several societies. Sociological acceptances vary with time, as does Church doctrine.
Considering some of the unbelievable comments you have made regarding bestiality and pedophiles... I would suggest you reconsider some of these remarks before suggesting that your predictions are a logical extension of the direction society is currently embarked upon.
I normally don't have a problem with most of the issues you raise (albeit I have and continue to find your arguments circular), but you have truly crossed the line with these inflammatory and totally unsubstantiated charges.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 03:26:04 PM · #769 |
Originally posted by RonB:
My prediction is a logical extension of a direction already in evidence - to wit: the progressive expansion of sociological acceptance of sexual practices once unacceptable.
The hypothetical scenario you paint is not an extension of a direction already in evidence, since banning gay marriage would be the starting point, not the mid point in an extended progression. If you think otherwise, then what is the earlier point in the progression? |
Are you kidding? Do you really believe legalization of raping kids and horses is a logical extension of allowing gay marriage?
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 15:26:45.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 04:12:14 PM · #770 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
My prediction is a logical extension of a direction already in evidence - to wit: the progressive expansion of sociological acceptance of sexual practices once unacceptable.
The hypothetical scenario you paint is not an extension of a direction already in evidence, since banning gay marriage would be the starting point, not the mid point in an extended progression. If you think otherwise, then what is the earlier point in the progression? |
Are you kidding? Do you really believe legalization of raping kids and horses is a logical extension of allowing gay marriage? |
The better question is are YOU kidding?
Where, in any of my posts have I even implied that rape would ever be legal? Even in my original post I used the word consenting, or did you not see that or comprehend its meaning?
Why is it that so many of you continue to make quantum leaps from what I actually write to what you wish that I wrote, just so that you can castigate me and paint me in the worst possible light?
I can understand that what I write may strike an emotional chord with you, but really, is it too much to ask that you try to limit yourselves to responding to what is actually written?
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 16:13:02. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 04:23:38 PM · #771 |
RonB --
everyone is leaping all over this slippery slope argument you seem to adore making, stating that once we start.... first it was interracial marriage, and now GAY marriage... wow, next comes marriage between people and animals or SEX (yes, this is the word you used) between a 9yr old and a 40yr old.
You say it is all a logical line. I can't see how! Just because one thing follows another IN TIME, doesn't mean they are linked in anyway.
I argue that the "progression" from homogeneous (that means same, and I mean it in the way of same race here) marriage to interracial marriage and now homosexual (this means same as in sex) marriage is all about consenting adults ruling their own relationships and having some legal rights accorded to them. This is NOT on the same line as marriage or sex between animals and humans or children and adults. It is not, and there is no way to say they are the same except that you seem to assert that all sex is on the same line.
It was repugnant for you to compare the loving relationships of people from different racial or cultural backgrounds or people of the same sex with the abuse of animals or sex with children (who by law and by any standard applied in history cannot consent to sex).
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 04:23:52 PM · #772 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...in my original post I used the word consenting, or did you not see that or comprehend its meaning? |
We saw it, but I think even the 9 year old could figure out that a horse (or a kid) can't be consenting, thus it's reasonable to assume that rape is your implication. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 04:32:53 PM · #773 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
My prediction is a logical extension of a direction already in evidence - to wit: the progressive expansion of sociological acceptance of sexual practices once unacceptable.
The hypothetical scenario you paint is not an extension of a direction already in evidence, since banning gay marriage would be the starting point, not the mid point in an extended progression. If you think otherwise, then what is the earlier point in the progression? |
Are you kidding? Do you really believe legalization of raping kids and horses is a logical extension of allowing gay marriage? |
Since some people really can't tell the difference, let me be explicit so that no one may ever falsely accuse me again.
NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT LEGALIZATION OF RAPING KIDS AND HORSES IS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE!
IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH? |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 04:36:24 PM · #774 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Since some people really can't tell the difference, let me be explicit so that no one may ever falsely accuse me again.
NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT LEGALIZATION OF RAPING KIDS AND HORSES IS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE!
IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH? |
Do you believe that horses can consent to and enter legally binding contracts? |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 04:43:01 PM · #775 |
| Where in the world did horses come into this debate? Big and Rich have a song "Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy!" LOL the twists and turns of a thread such as this always comes full circle. |
|
