Bush vs Gay Rights

Originally posted by Bout Time
We have laws covering discrimination. Blocking Gay marriage is discrimination. So there's no need to pass legislation in favor of because the mutual consideration litmus test fails.

Thats an opinion on a very slippery slope. I guess we'll have to see how the reality of it shakes out. I don't think it is discrimination or at least if it is, its discriminating against deviate behavior. Thats my opinion, like it or not. I don't apologize for it anymore than a gay person would apologize for his or her opinion on heterosexuality.

What blows my mind when I stop to think of it is that such a level of sexual deviance is now being discussed as dinner table conversation in household throughout the country and the world. I just hope 20 years down the road, we aren't discussing pediphile rights in the same casual manner but as with the human desire for deviance, once this form becomes accepted, it will no longer feed the need for something new and naughty and thus another step toward the outrageous will be taken.

I've read the arguments on here for and against NAMBLA and what disgust me more than the "fors" or "againsts" is that there is such an organization to begin with let alone a global message they carry. The problem is, political correctness has forced us all to accept what goes against nature and all morality for fear of being hit with a label. In this day, most of us fear being labled more than we fear being shot and tend to duck and cover accordingly. If you must resort to applying one of these lables to someone who disagrees with you to save face in an argument, there isn't much behind your POINT TO BEGIN WITH.

You know what, you may not agree with my point and I may not agree with yours. Its life, people. Get used to it.

Originally posted by jsobecky

KJ

Where do you get your facts when you state that gays want to dissolve the 18 year old barrier?

john

Well, I didn't say that gays in general want to. They are generally against it. Information from GLAAD.

GLAAD Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA

January 16, 1994

SAN DIEGO, CA -- January 16, 1994 --
"The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation deplores North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD."



I said that NAMBLA, which was just a passing example which has since blown out of proportion, was akin to the gay movement because of the men with young men idea.

As to where I got the information, I got it here:

NAMBLA Page

NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:

-building understanding and support for such relationships;
-educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
-cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
-supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.

Well, NAMBLA says it wants to break the 18 old barrier? Well, guess what? If the kid has the parents permission, it legal. So no need to try to "break" the 18 limit. In other words, unless the kids parents are idiots, he will probably not be a 6 year old, but a 16 or 17 year old.

Anyways, NAMBLA is still off topic, this is about gay marrige, not your thinking or opinion of what social decline is. Just remember, discrimination is illegal, and saying gays can't marry is discrimination.

Thanks for the insight James.

I was responding to a question someone asked me.

Anyway, not allowing people under 18 certain rights is discrimination.

Not allowing women in combat is discrimination.

Making sex offenders register is discrimination.

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by Bout Time
We have laws covering discrimination. Blocking Gay marriage is discrimination. So there's no need to pass legislation in favor of because the mutual consideration litmus test fails.

Thats an opinion on a very slippery slope. I guess we'll have to see how the reality of it shakes out. I don't think it is discrimination or at least if it is, its discriminating against deviate behavior. Thats my opinion, like it or not. I don't apologize for it anymore than a gay person would apologize for his or her opinion on heterosexuality.

What blows my mind when I stop to think of it is that such a level of sexual deviance is now being discussed as dinner table conversation in household throughout the country and the world.

As Law is blind, it's discrimnation. You can't have singled out members of society denied rights enjoyed by all of society.
Homosexual ( I won't use the co-opted word for happy) people don't view us hetrosexuals as practising sexual deviance, though the opposite is true for many like yourself. I have family & have worked with some great people - who happen to be homosexual.
I've explained to children whay homosexuality is in the broad ense. Sure, it was slightly uncomfortable and chaste, but it's not the unweaving of the American family that you're making it out to be & people who can't talk to their kids have bigger problems than a couple guys registering a china pattern, IMO!
It seemed a much muh larger offense for a Special Prosecutor to have details of blowjobs & dildos invade American living rooms & dinner table conversation, no?
Question: because I'm hetrosexual & practice "no holds barred" decathlon multi-entry love making besides the missionary position...am I deviant too?

I think sexually, we as humans are all deviant to a point. The question is, do we now have a group that has come up with a label to excuse their behavior. As if picking out China patterns is all homosexuality was about. Sure, thats what the media sells. The underlying truth is the basis of the pattern is purely and simply, sexual. Thats why middle America will never buy it. No matter how much televisions shows us male comradery, good decorating sense and fashion plates, the truth is still readlity on the minds of everyone watching. The sexually deviant act that ties it all together. I'm not saying heteros don't do it but all I'm saying is, its a level of deviant behavior no matter who does it and a label doesn't excuse nor exclude a group.




Oh and actually, the law that you refer to defines marriage.

[Edited on 26-2-2004 by astrocreep]

I think sexually, we as humans are all deviant to a point. The question is, do we now have a group that has come up with a label to excuse their behavior.

what behavior needs excusing, and by who? what is an acceptable amount of deviant behavior?

when you can answer those questions without a lot of long-winded BS maybe we'll be making some progress.

Ok, deviant behavoir. Is woman on top deviant behavoir? Is doggy deviant behavoir? Or wheelbarow? And why is it deviant behavoir? Because you don't like it? Because a religon that is known for raping little boys says it is deviant? Why is it deviant?

Anyways, to the person who told their kids about homosexuality, good job, you must have a good open relationship with them. It must be nice to have a parent to talk to who will listen, am happy for your kids.

Well, still think gay marrige is ok, and hell, talked about it in government today. The teacher is thankfully a democrat, so I was able to join in without worrying about being burnt at the stake or ridiculed because my daddy can't buy my way out of the draft/(Bush's daddy incase you didn't know)

Now, whoah. Don't tie me to the Catholics in fact, I think the Caholics are about as far from a moral religion as one can get. In my opinion I would say the practices of some of their preist rank right up there with the most deviant of behavior.

To determine any level of deviance from a norm, a norm must be established first right? Can you all put your hateful attacks aside long enough to agree on that one point? What we are seeing with the whole gay rights movement is a re-establishment of that norm to include anal/oral sex in that norm. I guess there once was a time when various forms of penis/vagina sex were considered deviant but I think we can all agree that baring violance and demeaning acts, its pretty much the norm as we know it..or at least it was.

My point is that once this re-establishment of the norm is made and after the dust has time to settle, what will those who still crave a taboo that once found it with homosexuality do? Thats right, Martha. They will take things one step further. Sexually, this is a pattern and not an event which is likely to reply itself everytime the norm is re-established.

My opinion is the trait we are seeing in this demograph of the population is not the draw of the same sex as much as the draw of the forbidden. Once it becomes accepted, what danger does it hold? On to the next level and if its something that repulses society, all the better.

I was gonna comment about liking this avatar better....& you changed it to it!!! I've been thinking about cheescake too; are you craving it!

You are getting off on a tangent & that is a different discussion - the origin of homosexuality in an individual ( I beleive it's a born trait ).
If oral/anal sex defines the deviant, I'm such a deviant!!!
Look, exclusion of universally accessible institutions is discrimination. We're further along as a society than to try & quote the mores of circa 1700.

I;m trying the Atkins diet. You're damn right I'm craving cheesecake!

Astro, glad to see you aren't like most people. "Well, it the catholic church, who cares if they rape little kids, they holy men." Thankfully, you don't believe that. Also, Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati...When all else fails, play dead. Go Red Green!

But why is same sex deviant? You say it is more attraction to soemthing that is different, not because they are in love, but as asked, you psychic? I wished I was able to read the mind of everyone.

BTW, I'm a man, I can change, if I have to, I guess.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Astro, glad to see you aren't like most people. "Well, it the catholic church, who cares if they rape little kids, they holy men." Thankfully, you don't believe that.

I would say that MOST people disagree with this. Hell, the Catholic church has lost a lot of members because of it. I say we should lock them up and let the convicts deal with them prison style.

But why is same sex deviant? You say it is more attraction to soemthing that is different, not because they are in love, but as asked, you psychic? I wished I was able to read the mind of everyone.

Same sex is devient in the fact that it only means "Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society." I think the term has taken a negative connotation and is used as such, but from a technical definition it's true.

BTW, I'm a man, I can change, if I have to, I guess.

I just read back a ways cause this topic is so over played and I haven't cared to keep up with it that much.

I just find it funny that someone can argue against the "gay not being natural" point with comparing us to apes. Maybe we should develope everything we do around ape society. What's natural for VERY FEW of them to do must be natural for us as human beings. So it's not fair for human beings to try and do what's natural for reproduction and the betterment of mankind because one or two apes like members of their own sex. Get real, that is so weak.

If gays can marry than we will open up so many other cans of worms that we wont even have any structure to our society whatsoever. It's as simple as that. So can I marry my pet male ape since I know he is into other male apes? I wanna marry animals now since you can compare one or two apes being gay to humans being gay. There, why not start letting it be legal for people to marry animals. I'm sure my pets will show no objection. My pet cat is only 5 but hell, in cat years that's like 35 or so. We are two consenting adults and what we say should over rule what everyone else thinks. Then we will shove it in everyones face and force them to not only except it but to fall in love with the idea since it's all about forcing our beliefs onto everyone else. See, now that is the foolish logic being used witht he ape story everyone likes to use.

First it's one thing that most people object to. Then it will be another. So where does it all end? Why don't we have no laws or restrictions as long as it makes the consenting adults involved happy. Let's set no limitations and see how long our society will last. We will decay from within and lose our identity.

It's important to have an open mind but that doesn't mean you have to make everything acceptable. It doesn't mean you have to keep .00000001% of people happy at the expense of society. Really, I just fear where this will lead to. What is the next step going to be, and the next and the next. Liberal Judges are a stinking joke. They don't go by the constitution at all. They go by their beliefs and this is not what they are to do.

Surveying the research (primarily regarding lesbians) in an American Sociological Review article in 2001, they found that:

· Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms.

· Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior.

· Daughters of lesbians are "more sexually adventurous and less chaste."

· Lesbian "co-parent relationships" are more likely to end than heterosexual ones.

A 1996 study by an Australian sociologist compared children raised by heterosexual married couples, heterosexual cohabiting couples, and homosexual cohabiting couples. It found that the children of heterosexual married couples did the best, and children of homosexual couples the worst, in nine of the thirteen academic and social categories measured.

We need to end this now.

Originally posted by Mandalorianwarrior
It doesn't mean you have to keep .00000001% of people happy at the expense of society.

Word to Big Bird. I don't see how an issue surrounding such a minute amount of Americans has gotten the world's attention like so.

From the begining of time, since the earth was an acorn, gay marriage or even unions have not been recognized. Now, in the year 2004, it's an issue?

I too fear what this could lead to.

The Catholic Church situation is much worse than the gay marriage thing. At least it is two consenting adults, even if it will harm society. The priests raping children is so much worse. A child who has no say in the matter having to face one of the most evil things a person could ever have to endure, that being rape. Heck, rape could be worse than murder since the person raped has to live with what happened. Just more of the same logic being used. Someone assuming that since we are against gay marriage that we are for Catholic preists raping children. Wow!!! I'm staying out of this debate cause it's going to go around in circles and nothing will be proved one way or another. The only thing that will happen is people will compare some people being gay to apes being gay and then assuming that people against gay marriage must be for child rape. Not worth anyones time. I'll have to go along with whatever the court decides like everyone else will.

Of course I was being sarcastic with the % but you hit the nail on the head. It's not about the actual number, it's the fact that such a minute amount of Americans can capture all the spotlight.

Kramtronix, it sounds as if you share the same concerns as I do. Why must this be forced on all of us when it has never been forced on us before. Were we wrong for all the years prior to this debate?

Now everyone is gonna think I really wanna marry an ape or something This will lead to some new and crazy argument for gay marriage be legal. I hope our country can stop the wheels from falling off.

Allow me to throw a quote out there. I'll post up it's writer later. I don't wanna scare anyone.

"Gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is a mockery of marriage by radical homosexuals who wish to destroy one of the last cornerstones of our culture. Those who have studied the communist agenda understand very well that Karl Marx himself derided marriage and family.


He wrote, 'The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting' (Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto)


As part of their class warfare the communists sought to abolish property in general and they considered family to be property. In order to abolish the State they had to first abolish the culture; step by step, institution by institution, tradition by tradition, which is why marriage between man and a woman is such an important battle."

of course it makes sense to compare humans (just another animal on this planet) to apes and other animals to show homosexuality is NOT a choice made by people but a natural phenomenon that's found throughout nature.

and enough with this "if we let gay people get married then people will want to marry dogs and little kids". i know it's difficult when you lack any real argument against gay marriage but really, try to stick to the topic at hand...two consenting adults of the same sex getting married.

studies have shown 10% of the population of america is gay,,,even if we low ball that at 5% thats still about 12.5 million people...these people make up all walks of life, doctors, military, construction workers, etc. and i think it's absurd to let these people contribute to society while not giving them the right to marry whoever they choose.

as far as the population issue, with the world currently way over populated to the point that we can't sustain all the life we currently have on this planet, i'd say the time for worrying about having enough babies to make sure humans survive is about over.