Campy Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I understand your point perfectly clear Campy....my point is...that the culture will become numb to all things immoral...and then there will be hate crime legislation against pedophiles. Having said that....do you think that is something you will never see happen? Legistlation to protect pedophiles? 121833[/snapback] I wouldn't expect to see pdophiles made a protected class anymore than a rapist, murderer or bank robber. Those people are guilty of criminal behavior, homosexuals merely fall in love with a person of the same gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Gay marriage should be allowed because homosexuals are a recognized minority group (hence their inclusion in hate-crime legislation), and therefore should be afforded all of the rights and privildges of heterosexual people. Period, end of debate. Don't confuse federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction. The federal government does not grant marriage rights. Read the Bill of Rights -- I don't think there is anything in there about marriage. Now, with regards to what is in the Bill of Rights, as far as I know gays are afforded every one of those rights without discrimination. Insofar as states rights afford freedom to marry between a man and a woman, gays have the same opportunity to enter into such a marriage as heterosexuals do. They just choose not to. So the issue is not discrimination, it is redefining marriage to include different types of relationships than intended by those who came before us. As people have said many times already, either stick with the definition we currently have or incorporate a definition that does not restrict anyone from their relationship of choice. But saying we are going to selectively continue a policy which you term discrimation on polygamists and family members while relaxing it for gays is just plain hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I will surely eat my own foot, OnTheRocks, is that what you're asking for? If our schools are in the business of sanctioning pedophiles, who take advantage of boys OR girls, then we're in real deep stevestojan. It's not going to happen, and any fantasy of such an occasion is pure paranoia. Your problem is that you're equating the acts of consensual adults with pedophiles, which is sickening. Funny how our country is particularly worried about man-boy pedophilia but turns a blind eye to "filthy teen slutz" or whatever (heterosexual) exploitation of young girls is going on, and has little problem with the "can't wait till she's 18" mentality proffered by so many around here. Color me disgusted. 121841[/snapback] I counsel teens weekly. please know...that there are people who do not turn a blind eye to the "filthy teen slut" mentality. I think...if you had asked your parents or grandparents back in the 40's if they thought there would ever be a day when there would be "gay pride"...gay recognition....gay parent day....whatever they want to call it in local schools...they would say the same thing to you that you just said to me in your first comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I prefer ethics, Arondale. I am a Christian Unitarian, and I don't really want to get into the finer details of that. Great figures of the Bible owned slaves. Early Americans justified their ownership of slaves, whether explicitly or in an implied manner, through or despite the Bible. I think there are so many contradictions in the Bible because even if it may be the Word Of God, it has been in the hands of man for centuries. Look at the gospels. One is more critical of Romans, the other of Jews. There are societal reasons for this. It is but one example. Re: translation I could go deep into it, but witness simply the myriad Greek words for what we define as "love" -- which we have but one word for. Is this not problematic? Translation is negotiation. There is always truth lost in translation. Morals to me are defined by a society at a specific moment. They do change. Ethics provide me with the more "live-and-let-live as long as it is not doing harm to others," and "strive to do what is best for others" code that I tend to live by (one I think most libertarians would appreciate). That is what Jesus was about for me. Not hellfire and brimstone and judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I wouldn't expect to see pdophiles made a protected class anymore than a rapist, murderer or bank robber. Those people are guilty of criminal behavior, homosexuals merely fall in love with a person of the same gender. 121849[/snapback] I can only hope you are right....but i guess i am a bit more cynical and i can see a day in the future where the peds. will be protected. I hope to God I am wrong....but in my opinion....I think it is coming and i think it will be more and more prevelant as time goes on. It has been fun discussing this. REALLY. It has...I mean that. I personally like to use the word "DEBATE" rather than argue....or fight....because i think that it is good to get these topics out in the open and make people aware of how the general public considers these issues. I am however going to do my best not to jump back out of this thread...as i think we have come to a place of having to agree to disagree. and when you push past that point...comments get nasty and unkind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Don't confuse federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction. The federal government does not grant marriage rights. Read the Bill of Rights -- I don't think there is anything in there about marriage. Now, with regards to what is in the Bill of Rights, as far as I know gays are afforded every one of those rights without discrimination. Insofar as states rights afford freedom to marry between a man and a woman, gays have the same opportunity to enter into such a marriage as heterosexuals do. They just choose not to. So the issue is not discrimination, it is redefining marriage to include different types of relationships than intended by those who came before us. As people have said many times already, either stick with the definition we currently have or incorporate a definition that does not restrict anyone from their relationship of choice. But saying we are going to selectively continue a policy which you term discrimation on polygamists and family members while relaxing it for gays is just plain hypocritical. 121851[/snapback] Federal law always has jurisdiction over state and local law. That IS in the Constitution. Federal law requires that gays can not be discriminated against. Yet there are states who are doing exactly that, by not allowing gays to enjoy the same rights as straight couples. It's really no different that if the people in question were black or Hispanic. Congress has made it illegal to discriminate against them. Are you implying that states have the right to prohibit blacks or Hispanics from marrying? Of course you aren't - but by not allowing gay marriages, it amounts to the same thing: Discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I prefer ethics, Arondale. I am a Christian Unitarian, and I don't really want to get into the finer details of that. Great figures of the Bible owned slaves. Early Americans justified their ownership of slaves, whether explicitly or in an implied manner, through or despite the Bible. I think there are so many contradictions in the Bible because even if it may be the Word Of God, it has been in the hands of man for centuries. Look at the gospels. One is more critical of Romans, the other of Jews. There are societal reasons for this. It is but one example. Re: translation I could go deep into it, but witness simply the myriad Greek words for what we define as "love" -- which we have but one word for. Is this not problematic? Translation is negotiation. There is always truth lost in translation. Morals to me are defined by a society at a specific moment. They do change. Ethics provide me with the more "live-and-let-live as long as it is not doing harm to others," and "strive to do what is best for others" code that I tend to live by (one I think most libertarians would appreciate). That is what Jesus was about for me. Not hellfire and brimstone and judgement. 121856[/snapback] you mention "contradictions" in the Bible....i don't know if you would have an interest in reading an article that refutes that...but here is a good one: http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q0403/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Any group of people born into a particular minority status, sure. Last time I checked there weren't any born adulterers, though. Of course, if all a$$holes got together to form a group seeking equal rights, we might find they are in the majority By the way, nice job calling someone out on defending someone else's question when you have yet to answer mine. 121813[/snapback] And there aren't any born homosexuals either. If there was credible, scientific proof that a person is genetically determined to be a homosexual, in the same way a person is genetically determined to be black, white, male or female then this discussion would not be happening. Period. Instead we are debating whether morals are absolute or relative and how to define a minority. If the scientific world could prove that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then this issue would be the same as slavery and women's rights. But they can't. Everyone here who supports gay marriage and equal rights can end this thread right now by giving myself and other irrefutable scientific proof that homosexuals have no choice. And I'm not talking about genetic tendencies. I'm not talking about a genetic trait that might make a man have homosexual tendencies. That is not an argument. People are born with tendencies towards different behaviors, but people can change and alter those tendencies. People can't do anything about their sex or race - you can't change that. There is no proof that places homosexuality in the same class as sex or race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I wouldn't expect to see pdophiles made a protected class anymore than a rapist, murderer or bank robber. Those people are guilty of criminal behavior, homosexuals merely fall in love with a person of the same gender. 121849[/snapback] http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/arguecase.html These people argue both that they are born pedophiles and also that having sex with children actually helps the children. I bet there is as much proof that pedophiles are born like that as there is proof that homosexuals are born gay. Anyone care to prove me wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 It has been fun discussing this. REALLY. It has...I mean that. I personally like to use the word "DEBATE" rather than argue....or fight....because i think that it is good to get these topics out in the open and make people aware of how the general public considers these issues. I am however going to do my best not to jump back out of this thread...as i think we have come to a place of having to agree to disagree. and when you push past that point...comments get nasty and unkind. 121857[/snapback] I understand. For what it's worth, until very recently I was very much against gay marriage. Perhaps it's my upbringing as the son of an Episcopal priest, but I felt that gay marriage cheapened the sanctity of the institution of marriage. But after looking at the issue from a less personal angle, or perhaps less emotionally involved, I realized that homosexuals were a protected class by law, and not allowing them to be married is a form of discrimination. Personally, I can't for the life of me understand how one would be passionately drawn toward a member of the same sex, but that's not my cross to bear. As I've said many times on the PPP board, I will always argue and debate that the rights of the citizen is protected, even if I dislike what he does with those rights (provided it's legal, of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 These people argue both that they are born pedophiles and also that having sex with children actually helps the children. 121871[/snapback] They may argue that, but the fact is a child cannot make a reasonable choice about the issue. That's where the difference lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 They may argue that, but the fact is a child cannot make a reasonable choice about the issue. That's where the difference lies. 121878[/snapback] You still haven't proven to me that homosexuals are born that way. If they aren't, they cannot be considered a minority group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I prefer ethics, Arondale. I am a Christian Unitarian, and I don't really want to get into the finer details of that. Great figures of the Bible owned slaves. Early Americans justified their ownership of slaves, whether explicitly or in an implied manner, through or despite the Bible. I think there are so many contradictions in the Bible because even if it may be the Word Of God, it has been in the hands of man for centuries. Look at the gospels. One is more critical of Romans, the other of Jews. There are societal reasons for this. It is but one example. Re: translation I could go deep into it, but witness simply the myriad Greek words for what we define as "love" -- which we have but one word for. Is this not problematic? Translation is negotiation. There is always truth lost in translation. Morals to me are defined by a society at a specific moment. They do change. Ethics provide me with the more "live-and-let-live as long as it is not doing harm to others," and "strive to do what is best for others" code that I tend to live by (one I think most libertarians would appreciate). That is what Jesus was about for me. Not hellfire and brimstone and judgement. 121856[/snapback] But what are your ethics based on? If ethics change with society, who determines which ethics are acceptable? How do you know with certainty that you aren't discriminating against pedophiles? I know that issue is being harped on and getting old, but if ethics change and are different each moment, who are you to say that you know what is right? More importantly maybe, who are you to say that the majority is right? Just as you pointed out, the majority once believed in slavery and they were wrong. Who is to say that the majority is not wrong about the current state of gay marriage? Great figures of the Bible did own slaves and many also had multiple wives. Not everything the Bible says should be taken as a moral mandate. It is a historical document as much as it is God's Word. Just because the Bible contains historical accounts of slaves and polygamy does not mean that God is saying these are okay. Your translation issues are extremely general and I really can't address them without more details. I stand by my assertion that you will find no significant translational differences over the years. That is of course in reference to Bible translations that adhere to the original text, not these newer contemporary versions that want to be gender neutral and politically correct. Lunch break is over, which stinks because as others have said I am enjoying the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 You still haven't proven to me that homosexuals are born that way. If they aren't, they cannot be considered a minority group. 121882[/snapback] Whoa... They are a protected minority group because Congress passed legislation identifying them as such, and made it illegal to discriminate against them, same as they've done with blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Jews, Seniors, Muslims, the handicapped etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 and the arguement against what you are saying is like stating something to this effect: "hey....I am an adulterer....lets start a club and we can eventually become known as a 'minority people group'...then when we say we are being discriminated against...we can get a bunch of lawyers together and fight for our cause." Referring to homosexuals as a "minority group" is a TOTAL CROCK! 121752[/snapback] Is adultery genetic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Is adultery genetic? 121901[/snapback] figthing...... to stay...... out.....of this thread....... no....and neither is Homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 figthing...... to stay...... out.....of this thread.......no....and neither is Homosexuality. 121912[/snapback] Really? That's not what I've read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 But what are your ethics based on? 121887[/snapback] Basically, they're based on the teachings of great people, the successes and mistakes of history, learning from what went wrong and right before my time. Some of these are religious, but I think ethics are always (properly) up for debate and refined and re-understood to be timely (for cases like cloning, stem cell research, etc which i have honest questions about). My ethics are based on an inherent worth and dignity of every person, the opportunity for that person to be who they want to be within parameters that do not harm another, and a constant search for and re-definition of elusive truth, a need to understand others rather than define them and distance myself from them. This does not mean no sense of right or wrong, it means understanding why something is right or wrong, what makes it wrong. Words on a piece of paper, no matter how spiritually or historically significant it is, don't make something right or wrong. The impact an action has on another, and that other's ability to decide in the matter, make that action right or wrong to me. It's not the Ten Commandments that need to be in our schools, it's the Golden Rule. Best thing ever written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Is adultery genetic? 121901[/snapback] You could argue that it is in males, as many say that men are biologically/genetically configured to 'spread the seed' around as much as possible. Hence why marriage became so important. It acted as a civilizing influence on men while at the same time they could rest assured that the children his wife was having were his. Funny, when people argue that poor 'homosexuals' are born that way and can't help it, you could counter argue that men are born promiscuous but have repressed said promiscouity for the benefit of civilization (but of course, many fail at repressing it but then again they aren't out for special rights on it either). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 they have been an association for a long time. I actually heard about them 20 years ago. They are as wrong and outside the mainstream as they will ever be. Children are not consenting adults. What is your point, exactly? Edit: if you read your own link you would have seen that NAMBLA was founded 1978. Nice work, again. 121818[/snapback] Really? From what I understand, pedophilia was if not outright condoned then people looked the other way or 'lived and let lived' about it in Ancient Rome. I believe they had a saying 'Women are for procreation, little boys are for pleasure'. Those ancient Romans were sick fugs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts