Happy Atheist Forum

Have a look here: http://www.cathedralofhope.com/NetCommu ... px?pid=225 (http://www.cathedralofhope.com/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=225)

Quote from: "Tank"It's the old 'I'm not a racist but...' comment isn't it? As if adding so fatuous comment lets you get away with everything else you then go on to say. You could always counter with, 'I'm not a bigot, but I have to say that I have found that people who hold the same views you do have been some of the most prejudiced, bigoted and poorly educated I have ever met. I'm not saying you're like that just that what you are saying makes you sound that way. I'm sure you're not a prejudiced bigot. Are you?'

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies ... %20hominem (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem)

Yeah... I can see how you can win every argument with that one.  One could even call it a Homosexual agenda to marginalize everybody that is not in lockstep with said agenda.

You know... Like Hate Speak legislation and so on.

The same method appears to be working in the United Nations only it is about people not putting down Islam

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30567 (http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30567)

Put the phobia at the end of any word and get with the personal attacks until victory is achieved.

Freedom of speech =/= freedom from censure.  Quit whining.

Quote from: "freeservant"Yeah... I can see how you can win every argument with that one. One could even call it a Homosexual agenda to marginalize everybody that is not in lockstep with said agenda.

The point being made is that prejudice people cannot feign to be civil simply by claiming to be "tolerant" and speaking casually. I can call myself an elephant and make elphant noises. That doesn't make me an elephant.

This is a civil rights issue. Is it accurate to say those who opposed the Civil Rights Movement in MLK's day were racists? Why yes. Yes it is. Frankly though, this woman has gone far beyond merely opposing equal treatment toward them to defaming their very character with absolutely no evidence in support of her nonsense.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "freeservant"Yeah... I can see how you can win every argument with that one. One could even call it a Homosexual agenda to marginalize everybody that is not in lockstep with said agenda.

Quote from: "Sophus"The point being made is that prejudice people cannot feign to be civil simply by claiming to be "tolerant" and speaking casually.

I am sorry but does this also apply to activist LGBT's that want to force their views upon everybody by means of a culture war that includes the actions of activist judges?

Quote from: "Sophus"This is a civil rights issue. Is it accurate to say those who opposed the Civil Rights Movement in MLK's day were racists? Why yes. Yes it is. Frankly though, this woman has gone far beyond merely opposing equal treatment toward them to defaming their very character with absolutely no evidence in support of her nonsense.

[/quote]

This is a wonderful time for me to ask if you have any links to current federally recognized law that says a sexual orientation is a civil right currently?

I have studied this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

and I don't find a sexual orientation as a designated Civil Right.  I am not sure that any sexual orientation is protected based purely on the persons individual sexual orientation.

Oh and given that you mention tolerance is there any orientation that you think should not be protected?

So it is my understanding that orientation has not been given the same level of recognition as Race, Religion, or Gender so where is your evidence that gives you the ability to conflate MLK with what is currently not recognized as on the same level of Rights granted in the 1964 act?

You may have meant that you want it to be a civil right but other then a privacy right like in Lawrence v Texas where do get the idea that this is about civil rights?

Thanks for your help.

Quote from: "freeservant"I am sorry but does this also apply to activist LGBT's that want to force their views upon everybody by means of a culture war that includes the actions of activist judges?

Oh no...they want equal rights...how bigoted of them  

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "freeservant"I am sorry but does this also apply to activist LGBT's that want to force their views upon everybody by means of a culture war that includes the actions of activist judges?

Oh no...they want equal rights...how bigoted of them  

My point is that there is NO rights for ANY sexual orientation as it is not recognized as immutable or a question that equality can some how solve?

Again what sexual orientations to you think should be justifiably limited?  Or is it equality for all regardless of the problems you can easily foresee.

equality for all...what consenting adults do with each other is not of my concern nor does it have any problems that are "easily foreseen"

QuoteThis is a wonderful time for me to ask if you have any links to current federally recognized law that says a sexual orientation is a civil right currently?

You mean like when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a broad interpretation of the Constitution? Why absolutely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/mcculloch-v-maryland

Or how about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

QuoteThe Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"

Quote from: "Whitney"equality for all...what consenting adults do with each other is not of my concern nor does it have any problems that are "easily foreseen"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality)


This means that anything goes... Children or anything given time and the use of the same argumentation used by LGBT's now.

Let's face facts in that with enough effort anything can be classified as a sexual orientation.


I guess all things are permitted and as long as you can call one side bigoted then you can get what you want.

I hope you understand that equality is not really about full and unrelenting equality in all things as everyone has a moral compass and that means we all personally discriminate in some fashion or another.

what part of "consenting adults" did you not understand?

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Whitney"equality for all...what consenting adults do with each other is not of my concern nor does it have any problems that are "easily foreseen"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality)


This means that anything goes... Children or anything given time and the use of the same argumentation used by LGBT's now.

Let's face facts in that with enough effort anything can be classified as a sexual orientation.


I guess all things are permitted and as long as you can call one side bigoted then you can get what you want.

I hope you understand that equality is not really about full and unrelenting equality in all things as everyone has a moral compass and that means we all personally discriminate in some fashion or another.

  lol  OK...stop. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is innate. One is illegal, the other is not. Stop. Your. Bull. Shit.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Whitney"equality for all...what consenting adults do with each other is not of my concern nor does it have any problems that are "easily foreseen"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality)


This means that anything goes... Children or anything given time and the use of the same argumentation used by LGBT's now.

Let's face facts in that with enough effort anything can be classified as a sexual orientation.


I guess all things are permitted and as long as you can call one side bigoted then you can get what you want.

I hope you understand that equality is not really about full and unrelenting equality in all things as everyone has a moral compass and that means we all personally discriminate in some fashion or another.

  lol  OK...stop. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is innate. One is illegal, the other is not. Stop. Your. Bull. Shit.

nope not bovine excrement at all or in any way as the same arguments could be used and just ask NAMBLA.

QuoteNAMBLA's goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have mutually consensual relationships.

Go and look at the website and see how this oppressed group is hatefully discriminated against.  You don't want to discriminate and be a bigot do you?

And in no way is any one sexual orientation associated with the greater prevalence of Pedophilia.  I don't have a link to the study but be assured it is not so you can stop thinking that that is part of the debate.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"OK...stop. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is innate.

And even if both were mental disorders or both were not mental disorders Pedophilia still would never be legal because it involves minors who are unable to legally give consent to sexual encounter or marriage.  Same goes for animals...they can't give consent.  Same goes for women who don't want to be part of a harem, young women who don't want to marry old men, etc...they won't give consent. And consent is a huge part of marriage as it is meaningless without it.

It simply amazes me how much grasping of straws people will do to justify being bigoted towards homosexuals.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"lol  OK...stop. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is innate. One is illegal, the other is not. Stop. Your. Bull. Shit.

nope not bovine excrement at all or in any way as the same arguments could be used and just ask NAMBLA.

QuoteNAMBLA's goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have mutually consensual relationships.

Go and look at the website and see how this oppressed group is hatefully discriminated against.  You don't want to discriminate and be a bigot do you? :rant:

Do. Not. Start. With. Me. You will not win.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"OK...stop. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is innate.

And even if both were mental disorders or both were not mental disorders Pedophilia still would never be legal because it involves minors who are unable to legally give consent to sexual encounter or marriage.  Same goes for animals...they can't give consent.  Same goes for women who don't want to be part of a harem, young women who don't want to marry old men, etc...they won't give consent. And consent is a huge part of marriage as it is meaningless without it.

It simply amazes me how much grasping of straws people will do to justify being bigoted towards homosexuals.

... ...that is all.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"OK...stop. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is innate.

And even if both were mental disorders or both were not mental disorders Pedophilia still would never be legal because it involves minors who are unable to legally give consent to sexual encounter or marriage.

You forget that in the DSMIII homosexuality was a mental disorder and there was quite a battle to have it removed.  If one group can lobby and fight to have themselves de-classified as a mental disorder then that means others can too.  We all don't want to be bigots right?

Quote from: "Whitney"Same goes for animals...they can't give consent.

Sorry but once again this is not even an issue where consent even enters in.  Go to a hamburger joint and ask if the animals gave consent, go to a meat market and ask if the animals all gave their consent?  You can't make zoofilia an issue that requires the consent of an animal as we never worry about animal consent in other issues like our diets.

Quote from: "Whitney"Same goes for women who don't want to be part of a harem, young women who don't want to marry old men, etc...they won't give consent. And consent is a huge part of marriage as it is meaningless without it.

Naw you are just trying to bring up a red-herring as we all know that marriage has to be about equality in all things? amiright  We don't want to be bigoted and want to set limits on who can be married do we?

Again if we take equality to its ultimate end then we can have limitations.  Or we would be nasty bigots amiright?

Quote from: "Whitney"It simply amazes me how much grasping of straws people will do to justify being bigoted towards homosexuals.

I simply amazes me how you don't see that the same argumentation and tactics currently used to brand everybody as haters can not be picked up and used by any small minority that wants to impose there view and force acceptance of there lifestyle on any bigots who want to dis them.

a little personal TMI but I have been on both sides of the street here in regard to this and can say it is not immutable or proven to be immutable regardless of how often this is repeated by any psychological association or any body else.

  these lips have been to and on many places so would you call me a bigot if I have my own personal experience and understanding?

Quote from: "freeservant"You forget that in the DSMIII homosexuality was a mental disorder and there was quite a battle to have it removed.  If one group can lobby and fight to have themselves de-classified as a mental disorder then that means others can too.  We all don't want to be bigots right?

Sorry but once again this is not even an issue where consent even enters in.  Go to a hamburger joint and ask if the animals gave consent, go to a meat market and ask if the animals all gave their consent?  You can't make zoofilia an issue that requires the consent of an animal as we never worry about animal consent in other issues like our diets.

Naw you are just trying to bring up a red-herring as we all know that marriage has to be about equality in all things? amiright  We don't want to be bigoted and want to set limits on who can be married do we?

Again if we take equality to its ultimate end then we can have limitations.  Or we would be nasty bigots amiright?

I simply amazes me how you don't see that the same argumentation and tactics currently used to brand everybody as haters can not be picked up and used by any small minority that wants to impose there view and force acceptance of there lifestyle on any bigots who want to dis them.

a little personal TMI but I have been on both sides of the street here in regard to this and can say it is not immutable or proven to be immutable regardless of how often this is repeated by any psychological association or any body else.

  these lips have been to and on many places so would you call me a bigot if I have my own personal experience and understanding?

Giving opinions is one thing, being willfully ignorant, and bordering on hurtful is another. I would absolutely call you a bigot. DSM-III was important, and the therapist concluded that homophobia is the true social problem. Homosexuality does not hurt anyone. Pedophilia, on the other hand, can, and often does, leave lasting scars on the children, resulting in years of therapy.

You argument for animals is absolutely, for lack of a better word, stupid. Cows, chickens and other animals are raised for use as food, or left alone to be appreciated in their natural habitat. They do not have legal standing, They cannot sign a contract.

Polygamous marriages have been outlawed for ages. Homosexuals are not disallowed to live, but they are not allowed, under current law, to marry the person they choose, unless that person is of the opposite sex, which in nine times out of ten is not going to happen.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"I am finding it very difficult to keep my cool with you. What you are talking about, whether NAMBLA is real or fake, are grown men either brainwashing young boys, or forcing them into sex. Do not get me going on that shit, you will lose. I know more about child molestation than I care to, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Why is it that people against gay marriage fall back on this argument? Why is it, sir or ma'am, that you cannot come up with a secular argument that does not include this subject? Especially considering that most studies (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... ation.html (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html) http://gaylife.about.com/b/2006/07/09/g ... r-fact.htm (http://gaylife.about.com/b/2006/07/09/gay-men-and-child-molestation-myth-or-fact.htm) http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm) to show a few sources, which you are, as yet, unable to do.) show that gay men are LESS LIKELY TO MOLEST CHILDREN!  

Do. Not. Start. With. Me. You will not win.

Considering the experience I had at thirteen years of age I have personal experience with why you would lose your cool but don't give me the high and mighty lecture as I understand the consequences of questioning your sexual orientation as a teen.

I have been there

I have done that


So regardless of how you may get angered my point is about methods and consequences if all is permitted by calling someone a prejudiced bigot as a means to get your way....  Or that we are limiting the rights of a small group.... and so on.

BTW: some nations have 12 or 13 as the legal age of consent

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm (http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm)

So you bet I get hot when I think how NAMBLA can use this to get there nose under the tent.

Quote from: "freeservant"You forget that in the DSMIII homosexuality was a mental disorder and there was quite a battle to have it removed.  If one group can lobby and fight to have themselves de-classified as a mental disorder then that means others can too.  We all don't want to be bigots right?

You're point is? Also telling someone they forget something when you have no idea whether they had forgotten it is bad form.

Quote from: "freeservant"Sorry but once again this is not even an issue where consent even enters in.  Go to a hamburger joint and ask if the animals gave consent, go to a meat market and ask if the animals all gave their consent?  You can't make zoofilia an issue that requires the consent of an animal as we never worry about animal consent in other issues like our diets.

Yes we can actually, it depends on the criteria. And a further note you have no idea if the person you're talking to even eats animals. Assumptions are bad form.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Whitney"Same goes for women who don't want to be part of a harem, young women who don't want to marry old men, etc...they won't give consent. And consent is a huge part of marriage as it is meaningless without it.

Naw you are just trying to bring up a red-herring as we all know that marriage has to be about equality in all things? amiright  We don't want to be bigoted and want to set limits on who can be married do we?

It's not a red herring at all, it's relevant to the point being made, not only that but you tend to go off on many tangents so I see even less of a problem with someone covering as many bases as their point covers when responding to you.

Quote from: "freeservant"Again if we take equality to its ultimate end then we can have limitations.  Or we would be nasty bigots amiright?

Yes, the limit is that both people must be able to give consent as well as giving consent.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Whitney"It simply amazes me how much grasping of straws people will do to justify being bigoted towards homosexuals.

I simply amazes me how you don't see that the same argumentation and tactics currently used to brand everybody as haters can not be picked up and used by any small minority that wants to impose there view and force acceptance of there lifestyle on any bigots who want to dis them.

a little personal TMI but I have been on both sides of the street here in regard to this and can say it is not immutable or proven to be immutable regardless of how often this is repeated by any psychological association or any body else.

  these lips have been to and on many places so would you call me a bigot if I have my own personal experience and understanding?

Yes, you can still be a bigot.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"I am finding it very difficult to keep my cool with you. What you are talking about, whether NAMBLA is real or fake, are grown men either brainwashing young boys, or forcing them into sex. Do not get me going on that shit, you will lose. I know more about child molestation than I care to, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Why is it that people against gay marriage fall back on this argument? Why is it, sir or ma'am, that you cannot come up with a secular argument that does not include this subject? Especially considering that most studies (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... ation.html (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html) http://gaylife.about.com/b/2006/07/09/g ... r-fact.htm (http://gaylife.about.com/b/2006/07/09/gay-men-and-child-molestation-myth-or-fact.htm) http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm) to show a few sources, which you are, as yet, unable to do.) show that gay men are LESS LIKELY TO MOLEST CHILDREN!  

Do. Not. Start. With. Me. You will not win.

Considering the experience I had at thirteen years of age I have personal experience with why you would lose your cool but don't give me the high and mighty lecture as I understand the consequences of questioning your sexual orientation as a teen.

I have been there

I have done that


So regardless of how you may get angered my point is about methods and consequences if all is permitted by calling someone a prejudiced bigot as a means to get your way....  Or that we are limiting the rights of a small group.... and so on.

BTW: some nations have 12 or 13 as the legal age of consent

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm (http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm)

So you bet I get hot when I think how NAMBLA can use this to get there nose under the tent.

So you are going to ignore scientific studies because of your experience? I'll tell you what, I was raped and molested by my brother for seven years. I don't know about you, but I find losing years 6-13 pretty significant. I don't know your experiences, but I tend to study people that do this shit so I can understand why it would happen. Guess what, its power.

Other countries hold no water in this argument because we are talking about AMERICAN LAWS. Are there reprehensible laws in other countries? Absolutely. Is there anything that this country's government can do? No. I wish, but no. And, yes, I looked at that website, and yes, I was repulsed, but we are talking about this country, America. Oh, and you don't think I questioned my orientation? I did, alot. When I realized the truth about me being gay, I cried, but I came to accept it.

You made mistakes. Bad things happened to you. I accept that, and I'm sorry for any pain you went through.

But. You. Have. No. Right. To. Blame. All. Gay. People. For. Your. Suffering. Got it?

Grow up. See a counselor.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Giving opinions is one thing, being willfully ignorant, and bordering on hurtful is another. I would absolutely call you a bigot. DSM-III was important, and the therapist concluded that homophobia is the true social problem. Homosexuality does not hurt anyone. Pedophilia, on the other hand, can, and often does, leave lasting scars on the children, resulting in years of therapy.

You argument for animals is absolutely, for lack of a better word, stupid. Cows, chickens and other animals are raised for use as food, or left alone to be appreciated in their natural habitat. They do not have legal standing, They cannot sign a contract.

Polygamous marriages have been outlawed for ages. Homosexuals are not disallowed to live, but they are not allowed, under current law, to marry the person they choose, unless that person is of the opposite sex, which in nine times out of ten is not going to happen.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

You don't know me so you can pile on the ad-hominem  and call be ignorant and bigoted all you like.  We may have much in common but you know why I am debating this and you know the methods used by the LGBT's activists so you can say what you like and I can tell you that it will get nowhere with me.

You don't get off thinking I am ignorant as I am not.  But go on and press your agenda.  I know what it is you want to accomplish by it.  

Quote from: "freeservant"BTW: some nations have 12 or 13 as the legal age of consent

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm (http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm)

So? Some cultures are different. The point is that there is consent. This is ultimately irrelevant to American law.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Giving opinions is one thing, being willfully ignorant, and bordering on hurtful is another. I would absolutely call you a bigot. DSM-III was important, and the therapist concluded that homophobia is the true social problem. Homosexuality does not hurt anyone. Pedophilia, on the other hand, can, and often does, leave lasting scars on the children, resulting in years of therapy.

You argument for animals is absolutely, for lack of a better word, stupid. Cows, chickens and other animals are raised for use as food, or left alone to be appreciated in their natural habitat. They do not have legal standing, They cannot sign a contract.

Polygamous marriages have been outlawed for ages. Homosexuals are not disallowed to live, but they are not allowed, under current law, to marry the person they choose, unless that person is of the opposite sex, which in nine times out of ten is not going to happen.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

You don't know me so you can pile on the ad-hominem  and call be ignorant and bigoted all you like.  We may have much in common but you know why I am debating this and you know the methods used by the LGBT's activists so you can say what you like and I can tell you that it will get nowhere with me.

You don't get off thinking I am ignorant as I am not.  But go on and press your agenda.  I know what it is you want to accomplish by it.  

Yes I know the methods we use. Legal, secular, honest methods. And if you know what we want to accomplish, then why are you against us having the same, legal, binding rights that you do?

Quote from: "GAYtheist"So you are going to ignore scientific studies because of your experience? I'll tell you what, I was raped and molested by my brother for seven years. I don't know about you, but I find losing years 6-13 pretty significant. I don't know your experiences, but I tend to study people that do this shit so I can understand why it would happen. Guess what, its power.

It was my step-brother but I did not have to suffer the years that you did.  And I welcome any unbiased scientific study that does not have an agenda but I still believe what I believe as a result of personal experience.

And regardless of how much I understand and want public acceptance of the Homosexual lifestyle there has to be a context where it can be done so as not to force it upon a nation that still sees problems with that lifestyle.  In fact I pray for more acceptance so that some of the aspects of that lifestyle can be justifiably condemned with out the prejudice-card always getting played.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Other countries hold no water in this argument because we are talking about AMERICAN LAWS. Are there reprehensible laws in other countries? Absolutely. Is there anything that this country's government can do? No. I wish, but no. And, yes, I looked at that website, and yes, I was repulsed, but we are talking about this country, America. Oh, and you don't think I questioned my orientation? I did, alot. When I realized the truth about me being gay, I cried, but I came to accept it.

I have to point out that when more SCOTUS Judges get on the Court like Kagen and how she views the laws of other countries in factoring how to interpret law then the other countries issue holds more water then you think.

I accept why you have a burden as result of your orientation and that you were hurt so deeply.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"You made mistakes. Bad things happened to you. I accept that, and I'm sorry for any pain you went through.

But. You. Have. No. Right. To. Blame. All. Gay. People. For. Your. Suffering. Got it?

Grow up. See a counselor.

I have seen a counselor but I still have my own personal take about this culture war and what is being done right and what is wrong about it.  I should be honest and point out that I am a heterosexual.  Yet that does not mean I am invested in this issue for reasons of my own orientation (that I think has no civil right at this time) or that I have any directed prejudice or hatred.  I am seeking to do God's will and yes part of that is to grow up and put away some of the old ways of my past.

My position my be too nuanced for you to understand my objections but I will tend to express my view in ways that others don't get.  Give me long enough and you should come to see my point even if you agree to dis-agree.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Yes I know the methods we use. Legal, secular, honest methods. And if you know what we want to accomplish, then why are you against us having the same, legal, binding rights that you do?

I do debate that the methods are honest but you have to give time for what you want to accomplish and It is my view that it will happen as life time monogamous relationships are important.  

But I ask if you feel the will of the voters is important to giving this time?  Do you know that in the 31 states where this has been up for a vote of the people it has been about protection of Marriage as between a Man and a Women.  Regardless of the ballot initiatives there has been only one state that I know of where same sex marriage has been properly legislated and signed into law.  There is a proper way to get this done.  But the rush to force this on America is the wrong way to go about it.  I also fear that there is an anti-religious effort built into some of the less then honest methods I am talking of.

Women would no have the vote if they had not 'rushed to force it on the people who didn't want it'. An oppressed minority normally have to shout out or they are ignored as societies rarely, if ever, have an inclusive process of change. The status quo is what people like because it makes them feel secure and it doesn't challenge their world view, they don't have to think and if there is something the vast majority of people hate it's having to think, it's far too much like hard work. So this leaves societies, particularly democracies, potentially at the mercy of charismatic idiots like Ronald Regan and Arnold Schwarzenegger! When was the last time a politician got voted into office because they were qualified to be a politician?

The status quo is the tyranny of the majority and as we are all unique we all suffer to a degree from this problem. How much one suffers is dependent on how far away from the norm one's views are and as America has such a vociferous Christian voice, Christian values tend to be seen as the norm from what I see on TV in the UK. America looks more like a theocracy every day.

Quote from: "freeservant"It was my step-brother but I did not have to suffer the years that you did.  And I welcome any unbiased scientific study that does not have an agenda but I still believe what I believe as a result of personal experience.

And regardless of how much I understand and want public acceptance of the Homosexual lifestyle there has to be a context where it can be done so as not to force it upon a nation that still sees problems with that lifestyle.  In fact I pray for more acceptance so that some of the aspects of that lifestyle can be justifiably condemned with out the prejudice-card always getting played.



I have to point out that when more SCOTUS Judges get on the Court like Kagen and how she views the laws of other countries in factoring how to interpret law then the other countries issue holds more water then you think.

I accept why you have a burden as result of your orientation and that you were hurt so deeply.


I have seen a counselor but I still have my own personal take about this culture war and what is being done right and what is wrong about it.  I should be honest and point out that I am a heterosexual.  Yet that does not mean I am invested in this issue for reasons of my own orientation (that I think has no civil right at this time) or that I have any directed prejudice or hatred.  I am seeking to do God's will and yes part of that is to grow up and put away some of the old ways of my past.

My position my be too nuanced for you to understand my objections but I will tend to express my view in ways that others don't get.  Give me long enough and you should come to see my point even if you agree to dis-agree.

I do debate that the methods are honest but you have to give time for what you want to accomplish and It is my view that it will happen as life time monogamous relationships are important.  

But I ask if you feel the will of the voters is important to giving this time?  Do you know that in the 31 states where this has been up for a vote of the people it has been about protection of Marriage as between a Man and a Women.  Regardless of the ballot initiatives there has been only one state that I know of where same sex marriage has been properly legislated and signed into law.  There is a proper way to get this done.  But the rush to force this on America is the wrong way to go about it.  I also fear that there is an anti-religious effort built into some of the less then honest methods I am talking of.

Amendment 14 of the United States Constitution. "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The vote to remove or deny rights of a minority is unconstitutional. Prejudice has consistently played a part in this "culture war". Stonewall Inn, where police attacked and arrested people for no reason other than them being gay, causing the Stonewall Riots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots)

I, myself, am all for forcing this on the will of the people. SCOTUS did for the Black Community to get them their marriage rights, and if it comes down to it, I say its our turn. We are persecuted on a daily basis. People are killed for it. In fact, did you know that a Christian organization went to Uganda, espousing the "evils of homosexuality" leading to the bill that passed, labeling homosexuality as a crime punishable by death there? American people did this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Ant ... ality_Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill)

And you don't need to tell me about the thirty-one states. I fought to keep gay marriage alive in Maine when I lived there, I saw the ads they played. I'll tell you what, they used lies, and fear mongering. Every single commercial that No on 1 had to support gay marriage contained real Mainers. Yes on 1, lead by NOM, used lies about teaching about gay marriage in school, used an ad from Prop 8, decrying a book that MENTIONED, it did not go on at length about families with 2 moms or 2 dads, it mentioned them, a total of two pages a piece. I wish I could find it for you. They led a fear campaign. I was there. I cried for nearly a week because justice had failed.

Tell me this, how will gay marriage affect your life AT ALL? Bigotry affects me everyday, especially in the ways I have explained. Oh, and my lifestyle? I wake up, take a shower, brush my teeth, brush my hair, eat breakfast, clean the house, watch a movie, watch my partner head to school, look into schools for myself so I can get a certificate as a CNA or Phlebotomist, and check the forums. Twice a week I see a counselor, and on Tuesdays I volunteer at a local soup kitchen. That is a gay lifestyle.

Quote from: "Tank"The status quo is the tyranny of the majority and as we are all unique we all suffer to a degree from this problem. How much one suffers is dependent on how far away from the norm one's views are and as America has such a vociferous Christian voice, Christian values tend to be seen as the norm from what I see on TV in the UK. America looks more like a theocracy every day.

Define normal. But before you do, go through all the cultures in this country, and ask each and everyone of them what normal is to them, then find the average.

Quote from: "freeservant"My position my be too nuanced for you to understand my objections but I will tend to express my view in ways that others don't get.  Give me long enough and you should come to see my point even if you agree to dis-agree.

Nuanced???

Having read through all of your posts on this thread I can't see any nuances in evidence. Your position is clear: You think that the laws of your country should be in accordance with your religion, which condemns homosexuality. You've deployed a rather silly slippery-slope argument to support your position, and thats about it. Frankly, its difficult to take you seriously.

And yes, you are a bigot. Your experience of abuse has no bearing on this one way or the other.

Wow. :P ) when it's between two (heck, or more) consenting adults.  I hope they all are enjoying one of the greatest parts of being alive.  

If proponents of anti-gay legislation took all the time and energy they spend trying to stop gays from loving each other and devoted it to learning how to rock their partners' sexual worlds, the world would be a happier, more peaceful place.

Quote from: "freeservant"You forget that in the DSMIII homosexuality was a mental disorder and there was quite a battle to have it removed.  

Actually..no I did not forget nor does it matter...as with the rest of this post you are not understanding the intent and point of my post.  Modern marriage is based on consent between legal adults...this takes away all your wild slippery slope what ifs.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "freeservant"You forget that in the DSMIII homosexuality was a mental disorder and there was quite a battle to have it removed.  

Actually..no I did not forget nor does it matter...as with the rest of this post you are not understanding the intent and point of my post.  Modern marriage is based on consent between legal adults...this takes away all your wild slippery slope what ifs.

http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-3-1a-2.html (http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-3-1a-2.html)

Actually, reading FS' posts, he exemplifies the topic of Civil Bigotry, doesn't he? He is staying cool and collected, while some of us, at some point, would like nothing more than to tear his lips off...just saying. The only thing he hasn't done is provide non-biased sources. I propose we take off the "Anti-LGBT Detrail" addition to the name, only because he showcases precisely what the topic is about.  Just my opinion.

Edited by author for spelling error