[quote]apbt55 wrote:
There is black and white, there is right and wrong. [/quote]
Prove it. : )
[quote]Antonio. B wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< The traditional family was our lifeblood. [/quote]Oh yes it was. Ya know what’s funny? The inescapable truth of this does not even require a self conscious theologically aware mind to be plainly comprehended. It is so manifestly obvious that once the history is known? One must intentionally delude themselves to escape it. The stable biblical family unit and the stable United States are absolutely synonymous. The country and the faithful family, consisting of one man and one woman for life and their children, inextricably rise or fall together.
OhhhhLEEEEnaaaa. Hello? I know you’re still out there. You never knew the God I know. Not for a second.
[/quote]
lol. Traditional American family values are laughable in light of the fact that we NEVER had “family values” the way countries such as China did. As you just said, when you think family, you think a man and a woman for life and their children. If you were in India or China or many other countries, you’d be considered a very sad, destitute case for only having a family consisting of that.
“Family”, in those and many other countries, consisted of at least three generations of relatives living in the same house. If you got married, your wife would come live with you in your parents house and you all worked together to raise kids. In fact, your grandparents arguably would have more rights to your kids than you did. Everything you did was for the honor of your family
In other countries, mothers followed their daughters into a new family and were a full parent to their daughters children. In still other countries, if you were a woman, all of your brothers would raise your kids. So it’s pretty uneducated to claim that America ever had “strong family values” in light of what a measly family that consisted of, in addition to the “do it yourself”, individualistic attitude the US has always promoted. It’s also ridiculous to claim that “a man and woman” are the best example of a strong family. I would much rather have 3 generations of relatives to go to, as a child, than just one man and one woman.
[/quote]
Very true… in general, there have almost never been real family values in the States or in Canada… only the values for free sex and making money… but it’s irrelevant to the government not accepting or accepting lesbian marriage…
[/quote]
If you look for possible functional reasons why societies have the policies they do (how does this help them out? What about this society (Iraq) makes first-cousin marriage such a grand idea? What environmental/economic/developmental factors are playing into policy changes?), instead of immediately slapping “moral” or “immoral” on an issue, then changes make far more sense and you can start predicting them. For example, scream and holler all you like, but we’re trudging along in Western Europe’s footsteps. It’s just a matter of progression. On the bright side, there are some benefits to becoming more like them.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
-
Some people oppose gay marriage on grounds other than “Gay = bad”. These people are not bigots.
-
Sometimes the minority (non-bigots who oppose gay marriage) are mislabled as the majority (bigots who oppose gay marriage). This is unfortunate, and undeserved, and should not happen.
-
But could we PLEASE stop acting like there is no connection between opposing gay marriage and being a bigot when the VAST, VAST majority of people who oppose gay marriage ALSO just “happen” to believe that homosexuality is wrong/immoral/sinful? Please?[/quote]
I cut your post because I feel that the first part might raise hackles before the second part is given fair consideration. I hope you don’t mind.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
It is contradictory in it’s nature because it happens to fall outside what would be termed “normal” behavior statistically. with around 2-3% of the population IDing as being so, it put is outside the confidence limit, close to the prevalence of other common psychological disorders.
So normal not to be confused with natural, which some people have a hard time with, just because something occurs in nature does not mean it is normal. Also just because something becomes pushed into the mainstream and forced acceptance does not mean it is not deprave and a detriment to society. [/quote]
I agree with this. However, homosexuality is not any more detrimental to society or deprave than interracial marriage or doggy-style sex.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Aw, Capped is still hurt that I have a gay friend whose existence and opinions defy Capped’s lazy worldview and forces him to have to actually justify his piss-poor arguments.
And, as if I needed a reason to think more lowly of your juvenile and uninformed rants, this comment - “(whose opinion only matters when it echoes)” - which is unsubstantiated and nothing more than a weak attempt at a personal attack, has delivered you back to the sandbox with the other trolls.[/quote]
I just think its funny that, when your gay friend disagrees with gay marriage, you want to trot his opinion out on the boards. Yet when the subject was a school banning any mention of homosexuality whatsoever (to the point that a teacher could be fired for so much as admitting that homosexuals exist) - and I suggested that you talk to him, your response was… to nitpick the fact that I used the word “feelings” instead of “thoughts” or “opinions”.
Oh, and that calling Zeb a bigot was “bad faith arguing”. Because it makes sense to ignore the fact that Zeb supports the “ex-gay movement”, and that Zeb thinks homosexuals are mentally diseased, and that he considers a gay couple raising a child to be “child abuse”… its “bad faith” to assume that his opposition to gay marriage is part of an anti-gay agenda.
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
It is contradictory in it’s nature because it happens to fall outside what would be termed “normal” behavior statistically. with around 2-3% of the population IDing as being so, it put is outside the confidence limit, close to the prevalence of other common psychological disorders.
So normal not to be confused with natural, which some people have a hard time with, just because something occurs in nature does not mean it is normal. Also just because something becomes pushed into the mainstream and forced acceptance does not mean it is not deprave and a detriment to society. [/quote]
Hey dude, I’m nearly 6ft 6 & I rather like Cointreau…statistically speaking, I’m pretty odd!!!..do you think the men in white suits will be coming for me soon? [/quote]
no and I don’t think they should come for homosexuals, I just don’t think it is something that should celebrated and forced on the rest of us as normal behavior. We don’t lock people with mild depression, OCD, autism, or other disorders; unless they become a danger to themselves or others.
I tried to keep the explanation of normality very simplistic, but in terms of the pseudo science of psychiatry it is very complicated, and changes very easily based on political pressure (both internal and external). So in your example, you being taller is not itself a primary risk for causing a detriment to your mental or physical health.
And the thing that greatly upsets me is that I am robbed by the government, to pay for these agenda’s to be pushed on my children. To provide yet another horrible example of how to destroy the family and community.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
It is contradictory in it’s nature because it happens to fall outside what would be termed “normal” behavior statistically. with around 2-3% of the population IDing as being so, it put is outside the confidence limit, close to the prevalence of other common psychological disorders.
So normal not to be confused with natural, which some people have a hard time with, just because something occurs in nature does not mean it is normal. Also just because something becomes pushed into the mainstream and forced acceptance does not mean it is not deprave and a detriment to society. [/quote]
Hey dude, I’m nearly 6ft 6 & I rather like Cointreau…statistically speaking, I’m pretty odd!!!..do you think the men in white suits will be coming for me soon? [/quote]
no and I don’t think they should come for homosexuals, I just don’t think it is something that should celebrated and forced on the rest of us as normal behavior. We don’t lock people with mild depression, OCD, autism, or other disorders; unless they become a danger to themselves or others.
I tried to keep the explanation of normality very simplistic, but in terms of the pseudo science of psychiatry it is very complicated, and changes very easily based on political pressure (both internal and external). So in your example, you being taller is not itself a primary risk for causing a detriment to your mental or physical health.
And the thing that greatly upsets me is that I am robbed by the government, to pay for these agenda’s to be pushed on my children. To provide yet another horrible example of how to destroy the family and community. [/quote]
This is actually one very convoluted argument or actually two:
-
Individual rights are a matter of statistics. They only apply to those in a certain interval grouped around the middle.
-
You dont think anyone (or is it only you?) should be forced to pay for someone else’s socio political agenda.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
There is black and white, there is right and wrong. [/quote]
Prove it. : )[/quote]
Well the black and white is easy. they are of course colors.
As for the right and wrong, without right and wrong, there is nothing stopping me from putting a gun to your head and ending the debate. After all right and wrong don’t exist according to you.
Would it be right of me to persecute someone who is sexually immoral and displays abnormal tendencies, of a psycho-sexual nature, like homosexuality; no. But can I call the behavior for what it is; yes. Is it wrong of some politically active minority to to try to force us to redefine what is normal and acceptable behavior and use the violent extortion of the government to subsidize and force this movement on the rest of us yes. Is it wrong for them to think they should be able brainwash our children all under the guise of some anti-bullying scheme. Is wrong for them to force their ideas on our children; YES.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
It is contradictory in it’s nature because it happens to fall outside what would be termed “normal” behavior statistically. with around 2-3% of the population IDing as being so, it put is outside the confidence limit, close to the prevalence of other common psychological disorders.
So normal not to be confused with natural, which some people have a hard time with, just because something occurs in nature does not mean it is normal. Also just because something becomes pushed into the mainstream and forced acceptance does not mean it is not deprave and a detriment to society. [/quote]
I agree with this. However, homosexuality is not any more detrimental to society or deprave than interracial marriage or doggy-style sex.[/quote]
When it is pushed as normative lifestyle, when children are forced to confront the topic at an age younger than they can truly grasp the ramifications, when it brings the bedroom to the public light it does. Sexual immorality is a slow creep, I know it may be hard to grasp, but these ideas open the boundaries, to a point where there is no more obligation to others, no obligation to vows, covenants, contracts. That there is no real right or wrong and it is one of the main problems of relativism.
I put all sexual immorality in the same class, but sorry doggy-style is not sexually immoral. but cheating on your partner, being a whore (male/female), pressuring the not completely willing. these are all signs of a bigger issue. Just like homosexuality being pushed on the populace as normal behavior. Should we teach people that hey there are people like this, yes, just like we do with other issues. But should we as a society set this behavior as model of good or normal behavior no (unless you are a big government progressive for the globalization of the world, and are using as depopulation tool).
I am not saying burn them at the stake, just call it for what it is.
We don’t force everyone else to study OCD and say hey maybe you want to be this way too, try it out.
And I also feel the same way for fathers who try to teach there sons to sleep with any girl that they convince to, The behaviors do not profit the individual or society.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
It is contradictory in it’s nature because it happens to fall outside what would be termed “normal” behavior statistically. with around 2-3% of the population IDing as being so, it put is outside the confidence limit, close to the prevalence of other common psychological disorders.
So normal not to be confused with natural, which some people have a hard time with, just because something occurs in nature does not mean it is normal. Also just because something becomes pushed into the mainstream and forced acceptance does not mean it is not deprave and a detriment to society. [/quote]
Hey dude, I’m nearly 6ft 6 & I rather like Cointreau…statistically speaking, I’m pretty odd!!!..do you think the men in white suits will be coming for me soon? [/quote]
no and I don’t think they should come for homosexuals, I just don’t think it is something that should celebrated and forced on the rest of us as normal behavior. We don’t lock people with mild depression, OCD, autism, or other disorders; unless they become a danger to themselves or others.
I tried to keep the explanation of normality very simplistic, but in terms of the pseudo science of psychiatry it is very complicated, and changes very easily based on political pressure (both internal and external). So in your example, you being taller is not itself a primary risk for causing a detriment to your mental or physical health.
And the thing that greatly upsets me is that I am robbed by the government, to pay for these agenda’s to be pushed on my children. To provide yet another horrible example of how to destroy the family and community. [/quote]
This is actually one very convoluted argument or actually two:
-
Individual rights are a matter of statistics. They only apply to those in a certain interval grouped around the middle.
-
You dont think anyone (or is it only you?) should be forced to pay for someone else’s socio political agenda. [/quote]
I am not arguing against rights of homosexuals, I am arguing that they are violating my rights by forcing me to believe the agenda they are pushing. You can be whoever or whatever you want, but don’t force it on me and my children. I mean I hear it all the time as a christian. So I try not to impose my christian beliefs on others. I am saying this from simply a scientific standpoint, that the behavior is of a similar classification as other psycho-sexual disorders and should not be celebrated as normal behavior and forced on others.
No I don’t think anyone should be forced to subsidize socio-political agenda’s. I don’t ask you to fund my church or teach my children morality at school. That is my role as their parent.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I just think its funny that, when your gay friend disagrees with gay marriage, you want to trot his opinion out on the boards. Yet when the subject was a school banning any mention of homosexuality whatsoever (to the point that a teacher could be fired for so much as admitting that homosexuals exist) - and I suggested that you talk to him, your response was… to nitpick the fact that I used the word “feelings” instead of “thoughts” or “opinions”.[/quote]
Show me the quote. I’m certainly not going to take your word for how the entire conversation went down.
In any event, I mentioned my friend’s opinion to provide an example to you and others that the battle-lines for “bigotry!” don’t cut as cleanly and neatly as you need them to you for your lazy and half-educated worldview. That was the point in interjecting my friend’s opinion at all, then others asked for more information regarding his opinion (which I provided).
Sorry, Capped. You can’t unring the bell.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I just think its funny that, when your gay friend disagrees with gay marriage, you want to trot his opinion out on the boards. Yet when the subject was a school banning any mention of homosexuality whatsoever (to the point that a teacher could be fired for so much as admitting that homosexuals exist) - and I suggested that you talk to him, your response was… to nitpick the fact that I used the word “feelings” instead of “thoughts” or “opinions”.[/quote]
Show me the quote. I’m certainly not going to take your word for how the entire conversation went down.
In any event, I mentioned my friend’s opinion to provide an example to you and others that the battle-lines for “bigotry!” don’t cut as cleanly and neatly as you need them to you for your lazy and half-educated worldview. That was the point in interjecting my friend’s opinion at all, then others asked for more information regarding his opinion (which I provided).
Sorry, Capped. You can’t unring the bell. [/quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ask your gay friend how he feels about it.
thunderbolt23:
That’s completely irrelevant. The standard is not and has never been “what if this hurts someone somewhere’s feelings?”.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ask your gay friend how he feels about it.
thunderbolt23:
That’s completely irrelevant. The standard is not and has never been “what if this hurts someone somewhere’s feelings?”. [/quote]
Yep, exactly right - in the course of the discussion, that’s exactly right. What was relevant is what should/should not be taught in schools. My friend’s opinion (and isn’t) relevant to that discussion.
My friend also thinks we should add sexual discrimination to the list of classifications that get protection under federal law. His opinion is irrelevant were we to discuss that here as well, unless he chose to pipe in and provide it as part of the debate.
My friend’s opinion was (and is) relevant to the mission of refuting the “everyone who doesn’t support gay marriage is motivated by bigotry!!!” because his opinion acts as direct evidence that that ridiculous claim is not true. That’s the only reason I brought him up - he’s not an authority on whether gay marriage should or should not exist any more than the rest of sus - and then I fielded more questions because people asked questions about him.
Wise up. Or perhaps a better question: can you wise up? Or is this as good as it gets?
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I put all sexual immorality in the same class, but sorry doggy-style is not sexually immoral. but cheating on your partner, being a whore (male/female), pressuring the not completely willing. these are all signs of a bigger issue.
[/quote]
I actually agree with you that cheating on your partner and pressuring the not completely willing are terrible, immoral behaviors. However, what do those actions have to do with completely consensual sex between adults where both people derive pleasure and act in an ethical manner toward each other?
This is why I am putting gay sex on the same side as doggy style. 50 years ago, doggy sex was considered perverted and deprave. There was even a survey showing (you can find the info in “The Naked Ape”) that less than 10% of couples ever engaged in it. However, while it was considered immoral in a way, no one can prove that those engaging in it aren’t acting toward each other in an ethical manner. This could also be said about any sexual kink that others might find perverted (such as anal in general). You might be grossed out hearing about it, but you can’t assume anything about the people who do it and whether or not they care about each other, treat each other ethically, and both derive mutual pleasure and satisfaction from the situation. In many cases, gay people do care, are ethical, are extremely consenting, and are getting more sexual satisfaction than they possibly could in any other situation. They don’t judge you for your kink, why do you judge them?
I don’t judge them as people, only on the behavior. That is like saying why judge someone for eating themselves into obesity, there are consequences to the choices. We can take compassion on them and try to understand or help, but if they continually display that pattern of abnormal behavior there is an issue. There are consequences to every action we take. And we shouldn’t use this pattern of behavior to push as model of normal behavior.
My issue comes when there is policy put in place to cater to the special interest groups.
As an employer, if I don’t want to hire you because of an image I am trying portray, it should be my right to do so. As a parent if I don’t want a school trying to change the societal norm through indoctrination of my children, that is my right, and if I do not want my tax money going to support these agenda’s that should be my right.
Now if you want to start your own company and focus on this key issue in your hiring, that is your right. If you want to start a private school for the gender confused (and if that doesn’t scream mental disorder, I don’t know what does) that is your right, but you cannot force parents to send their children. And you want to fund your own agenda that is your right.
This brings us to another concept, gender roles. Even as recent as my studies neurophys and behavioralism, gender roles were an understood concept. The movement away from gender roles is another indication of the fall of our society.
Return to this idea in 5 yrs and tell me I was wrong.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I don’t judge them as people, only on the behavior. That is like saying why judge someone for eating themselves into obesity, there are consequences to the choices. We can take compassion on them and try to understand or help, but if they continually display that pattern of abnormal behavior there is an issue. There are consequences to every action we take. And we shouldn’t use this pattern of behavior to push as model of normal behavior.
[/quote]
This is exactly what I’m saying. Do you judge people with other sexual kinks based on their behavior? For example, anal sex. When you find out someone is having that, you do condemn this rare behavior in your head? Why or why not?
Also, how is gay sex like obesity? Are they changing airliner seats for the gay? Are you doing to be charged more to get married now that the gays are doing it? Do the gays die from sex with each other (excluding diseases, which is a risk to anyone who has sex)?
As for informing kids about sex in general, if you look at the countries where kids are informed at younger ages and with more consent from parents than in America, they have much lower pregnancy, abortion, and STD rates. So that is actually a benefit for your kid.
well from a statistical and scientific perspective, doggy style and gay sex are not on the same level.
gay sex cannot produce offspring and is unrepresentative of the gender model of our species.
Doggy style sex actually serves a reproductive purpose in placing the sperm closer the entrance of the cervix.
on a side note, if a women has a psycho-sexual disorder in which she needs to be beat to orgasm. Is this a behavior we should put in the forefront of our society as normal and acceptable behavior. It is consenting, she wants it. I am not saying we should deprive her of basic rights, just saying it should not be modeled as the basic model or standard for sexual behavior or the norm for the family unit.
And you can try to argue that homosexual and sexually deviant behavior is not detrimental to the individual or society ,or caused by some kind psychological issue, but history would show differently. And most studies up until 1990 would to, but it was at that time the corruption of the APA was effective and no more unbiased studies would be published.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
well from a statistical and scientific perspective, doggy style and gay sex are not on the same level.
gay sex cannot produce offspring and is unrepresentative of the gender model of our species.
Doggy style sex actually serves a reproductive purpose in placing the sperm closer the entrance of the cervix.
on a side note, if a women has a psycho-sexual disorder in which she needs to be beat to orgasm. Is this a behavior we should put in the forefront of our society as normal and acceptable behavior. It is consenting, she wants it. I am not saying we should deprive her of basic rights, just saying it should not be modeled as the basic model or standard for sexual behavior or the norm for the family unit.
And you can try to argue that homosexual and sexually deviant behavior is not detrimental to the individual or society ,or caused by some kind psychological issue, but history would show differently. And most studies up until 1990 would to, but it was at that time the corruption of the APA was effective and no more unbiased studies would be published. [/quote]
Anal sex between straight couples also doesn’t lead to children and is under-represented in the sexual behavior of the general population. Do you judge the behavior of anal sex between straight couples in the same way you do gay sex?
As for your “woman being beaten scenario”, it does sound deprave if you use the word “beaten”
without really thinking about it. However, most sex instruction books actually recommend some form of unpleasant sensation (read the Kama Sutra for more on that. lol) to enhance the pleasant sensation of sex. So not only is that woman not deprave, according to the oldest sex manual we have, she’s discovered a normal secret to getting off. Maybe you just aren’t very comfortable in sex in general.
As for what the books used to say about homosexuality, look back at the video I posted warning about homosexuals and tell me with a straight face that there were no biases floating around before 1990.