Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

[premio53]

This issue confuses me.

I hold to traditional Catholic values (which are much like traditional Christian values). I also believe that gay marriage should be permitted by the government. And that's ultimately what I don't understand.

Most, if not all, traditional Christians in the U.S. would rail against a Muslim theocracy and yet they would propose a Christian theocracy in the United States. There is a distinct, clear difference between one's religion permitting gay marriage and one's government permitting gay marriage. While it may be bigoted to have a vocal intolerance of a particular religion, it is certainly not bigoted to be intolerant of that religion's imposing of its values on the government. Hell, it's American to be intolerant of a religion imposing its values through government!

I don't believe in a theocracy any more than you do. I oppose abortion and abhor Planned Parenthood and yet I am bound to obey the laws of the land because the Bible teaches that. I oppose homosexuals flaunting their lifestyle in my face but don't go around killing them because the Bible forbids it. It all goes back to moral absolutes!
Some governments permit genocide. Some governments permit cannibalism. Some governments practice gendercide. You can name just about anything you may find abhorrent and find some "government" somewhere that sanctions it.

I think of some on this forum who believe there is nothing immoral about adults lusting after children and in fact many homosexual groups and even so-called psychologists want to change the definition of pedophilia in order to accomodate these sick people. There are some people who desire sex with animals and many believe they have that right. President Obama recently legalized beastiality in the military. Many believe there is nothing wrong with lying so they cheat on their exams and even teachers are caught up in helping them to make their school districts look better.

We now live in a society that makes no distinction between good and evil. With no moral absolutes abortion, pornography, homosexuality, adultery, lying and stealing becomes accepted parts of a nation's culture. We are at that stage in America.

[thegreekdog]

We now live in a society that makes no distinction between good and evil. With no moral absolutes abortion, pornography, homosexuality, adultery, lying and stealing becomes accepted parts of a nation's culture. We are at that stage in America.

There are many things wrong with this paragraph.

(1) You've substituted "society" for "government" (although I disagree with the characterization of the government making a distinction between good and evil). But let's assume that our society may not make a distinction between good and evil.

(2) How does society's distinction between good and evil affect you? Let's say, for example, that you abhor the flaunting of homosexuality (it would be interesting to hear your definition of "flaunting"). I have a simple solution for you - don't watch the Bravo network, don't watch the gay pride parades, don't watch gay pornography, avert your eyes when two people of the same gender are holding hands.

(3) Do you watch pornography? What if pornography could be legally televised over daytime networks? Would you view it? If you wouldn't view it, then why do you care whether others can view it?

It occurs to me that you must be a weak individual or that you view other similarly situated religious people as being rather weak individuals beacuse you do not believe that people can determine on their own what is and is not moral; rather, they must rely upon the government or society to tell them what is and is not moral. I find that disturbing and repugnant. I do not need you, the government, or anyone else determining what my morality is or should be.

(4) The difference between homosexuality and abortion, adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, and the rest of the moral vagrancies you can think of is that homosexuality does not negatively affect anyone even remotely. Abortion negatively affects an unborn chid. Adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing negatively affect the victim. Homosexuality doesn't negatively affect you except that it makes you say "ew, that's gross."

(5) Further, when the society or government is telling me what my morality should be and bases their own morality on a particular religion or sect of religion, that is most certainly a theocracy. Unfortunately for you, we do live in the United States where the federal government was not meant to be a place where morality is legislated; instead, it was meant to be a place where citizens could exercise their own morality, as they saw fit, free from the encumbrance of others' views based upon religion.

[GreecePwns]

This issue confuses me.

I hold to traditional Catholic values (which are much like traditional Christian values). I also believe that gay marriage should be permitted by the government. And that's ultimately what I don't understand.

Most, if not all, traditional Christians in the U.S. would rail against a Muslim theocracy and yet they would propose a Christian theocracy in the United States. There is a distinct, clear difference between one's religion permitting gay marriage and one's government permitting gay marriage. While it may be bigoted to have a vocal intolerance of a particular religion, it is certainly not bigoted to be intolerant of that religion's imposing of its values on the government. Hell, it's American to be intolerant of a religion imposing its values through government!

I don't believe in a theocracy any more than you do. I oppose abortion and abhor Planned Parenthood and yet I am bound to obey the laws of the land because the Bible teaches that. I oppose homosexuals flaunting their lifestyle in my face but don't go around killing them because the Bible forbids it. It all goes back to moral absolutes!
Some governments permit genocide. Some governments permit cannibalism. Some governments practice gendercide. You can name just about anything you may find abhorrent and find some "government" somewhere that sanctions it.

I think of some on this forum who believe there is nothing immoral about adults lusting after children and in fact many homosexual groups and even so-called psychologists want to change the definition of pedophilia in order to accomodate these sick people. There are some people who desire sex with animals and many believe they have that right. President Obama recently legalized beastiality in the military. Many believe there is nothing wrong with lying so they cheat on their exams and even teachers are caught up in helping them to make their school districts look better.

We now live in a society that makes no distinction between good and evil. With no moral absolutes abortion, pornography, homosexuality, adultery, lying and stealing becomes accepted parts of a nation's culture. We are at that stage in America.

I read this as"I don't want a theocracy, I just want laws which enforce the religious morality of my choosing."

[AndyDufresne]

I do like his definition of "flaunting" as "living day-to-day-lives going about regular business, commerce, and social interaction like any other American."


--Andy

[Frigidus]

I do like his definition of "flaunting" as "living day-to-lives going about regular business, commerce, and social interaction like any other American."


--Andy

Those sick fucks.

[premio53]

We now live in a society that makes no distinction between good and evil. With no moral absolutes abortion, pornography, homosexuality, adultery, lying and stealing becomes accepted parts of a nation's culture. We are at that stage in America.

There are many things wrong with this paragraph.

(1) You've substituted "society" for "government" (although I disagree with the characterization of the government making a distinction between good and evil). But let's assume that our society may not make a distinction between good and evil.
Why would you want to assume that? We have laws based upon our common values. We don't allow cannabilism. We put people in prison who exercise their right to rape or kill.

(2) How does society's distinction between good and evil affect you? Let's say, for example, that you abhor the flaunting of homosexuality (it would be interesting to hear your definition of "flaunting"). I have a simple solution for you - don't watch the Bravo network, don't watch the gay pride parades, don't watch gay pornography, avert your eyes when two people of the same gender are holding hands.
The same could be said about people walking around nude. No problem when in the privacy of their own homes but not at McDonalds and other places. Many love to watch child pornography. If there is nothing immoral about lusting after children and someone wants to start a cable channel exclusively for that purpose, then just don't watch it. After all, it isn't hurting anyone for just looking at it.

(3) Do you watch pornography? What if pornography could be legally televised over daytime networks? Would you view it? If you wouldn't view it, then why do you care whether others can view it?
Ted Bundy, the serial killer executed in Florida in his final interview talked about how he was influenced by pornography. It can have a devasting effect especially on young minds.

“Once you become addicted to it – and I look at this as a kind of addiction – you look for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material,” he said. “Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder and gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far – that jumping off point where you begin to think maybe actually doing it will give you that which is just beyond reading about it and looking at it.”

It occurs to me that you must be a weak individual or that you view other similarly situated religious people as being rather weak individuals beacuse you do not believe that people can determine on their own what is and is not moral; rather, they must rely upon the government or society to tell them what is and is not moral. I find that disturbing and repugnant. I do not need you, the government, or anyone else determining what my morality is or should be.

That's why we have laws that govern gambling and other vices. Some things become a detriment to society and so laws are made to offset that. Another example would be limits of alcohol sales after a certain time or near schools.

(4) The difference between homosexuality and abortion, adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, and the rest of the moral vagrancies you can think of is that homosexuality does not negatively affect anyone even remotely. Abortion negatively affects an unborn chid. Adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing negatively affect the victim. Homosexuality doesn't negatively affect you except that it makes you say "ew, that's gross."

When "AIDS" first came out it was called "GRID" (Gay Related Immune Disorder). It was changed because of political correctness. Their depravity has spread the disease to other parts of society but still affects those who practice that lifestyle disproportionatly.

(5) Further, when the society or government is telling me what my morality should be and bases their own morality on a particular religion or sect of religion, that is most certainly a theocracy. Unfortunately for you, we do live in the United States where the federal government was not meant to be a place where morality is legislated; instead, it was meant to be a place where citizens could exercise their own morality, as they saw fit, free from the encumbrance of others' views based upon religion.

So you finally admit that there should be no moral absolutes upon which we base our laws. It's the law of the jungle and that is what we see happening.

[AndyDufresne]

Premio's definition of flaunting still seems to suggest any person engaging in any activity in public is deemed to be "flaunting."

Thus, we must stand up against these flaunters, like the dog walkers who walk their dogs in public. Flaunting their non-bestiality bestiality in the faces of all those who do not own dogs.


--Andy

[premio53]

Premio's definition of flaunting still seems to suggest any person engaging in any activity in public is deemed to be "flaunting."

Thus, we must stand up against these flaunters, like the dog walkers who walk their dogs in public. Flaunting their non-bestiality bestiality in the faces of all those who do not own dogs.


--Andy

If you are too stupid to know what beastiality is then please don't post.

[thegreekdog]

Premio's definition of flaunting still seems to suggest any person engaging in any activity in public is deemed to be "flaunting."

Thus, we must stand up against these flaunters, like the dog walkers who walk their dogs in public. Flaunting their non-bestiality bestiality in the faces of all those who do not own dogs.


--Andy

If you are too stupid to know what beastiality is then please don't post.

That's not very Christian of you, especially since you are too stupid to understand his post. Oh wait, that wasn't very Christian of me.

[premio53]

Premio's definition of flaunting still seems to suggest any person engaging in any activity in public is deemed to be "flaunting."

Thus, we must stand up against these flaunters, like the dog walkers who walk their dogs in public. Flaunting their non-bestiality bestiality in the faces of all those who do not own dogs.


--Andy

If you are too stupid to know what beastiality is then please don't post.

That's not very Christian of you, especially since you are too stupid to understand his post. Oh wait, that wasn't very Christian of me.

When someone compares walking their dogs to humans having sex with animals or men getting it on with other men, they don't have much of an argument. If using the word stupid hurt him I apologize. Maybe I shouldn't have used that word.

[thegreekdog]

Why would you want to assume that? We have laws based upon our common values. We don't allow cannabilism. We put people in prison who exercise their right to rape or kill.

You assumed that... here:

We now live in a society that makes no distinction between good and evil.

The same could be said about people walking around nude. No problem when in the privacy of their own homes but not at McDonalds and other places. Many love to watch child pornography. If there is nothing immoral about lusting after children and someone wants to start a cable channel exclusively for that purpose, then just don't watch it. After all, it isn't hurting anyone for just looking at it.

That doesn't answer my question. That is a long list of random examples of things that the government outlaws.

My question was "How does society's distinction between good and evil affect you?" Listing examples of things the government outlaws doesn't answer my question.

Ted Bundy, the serial killer executed in Florida in his final interview talked about how he was influenced by pornography. It can have a devasting effect especially on young minds.

“Once you become addicted to it – and I look at this as a kind of addiction – you look for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material,” he said. “Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder and gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far – that jumping off point where you begin to think maybe actually doing it will give you that which is just beyond reading about it and looking at it.”

Again, you haven't answered any of my questions save the one. I would be interested to know if you engage in the moral depravity of watching pornography (or if you would engage in the morally depraved act of lying by saying you do not watch pornography).

As to the question you answered, my response would be that Ted Bundy is not the creator of policy in the United States.

That's why we have laws that govern gambling and other vices. Some things become a detriment to society and so laws are made to offset that. Another example would be limits of alcohol sales after a certain time or near schools.

Wow. I've never had anyone admit they are a weak individual. I need to reset a little here. Based on what you've just typed, you're saying that but for the government, you and a whole lot of other Christians, would engage in wonton gay sex, pronographic viewing, pedophilia, etc. I can't agree with that at all.

When "AIDS" first came out it was called "GRID" (Gay Related Immune Disorder). It was changed because of political correctness. Their depravity has spread the disease to other parts of society but still affects those who practice that lifestyle disproportionatly.

Interesting. How did one get GRID (back when it was called GRID)? Unless one had gay sex, one couldn't possibly get GRID. So, premio, unless you were having gay sex, homosexuality doesn't negatively affect you, right?

By the way, did you know that gay sex is still legal in the United States?

So you finally admit that there should be no moral absolutes upon which we base our laws. It's the law of the jungle and that is what we see happening.

Woah, hold on there cowboy. There are moral absolutes upon which we base our laws and there should be. Things that directly affect others in a negative way should be legislated against. For example, stealing or murder. Things that do not negatively affect people, like homosexuality or gay marriage, should not be legislated against. Most certainly, things that do not negatively affect people should not be legislated against when the motivation for the legislation is only (only!) religious. Your objection to gay marriage is religious based; there is no other basis. You can say "morality" but your morality is based on your religion, so it's religious based. So, again, you're in favor of a theocracy.

[thegreekdog]

Premio's definition of flaunting still seems to suggest any person engaging in any activity in public is deemed to be "flaunting."

Thus, we must stand up against these flaunters, like the dog walkers who walk their dogs in public. Flaunting their non-bestiality bestiality in the faces of all those who do not own dogs.


--Andy

If you are too stupid to know what beastiality is then please don't post.

That's not very Christian of you, especially since you are too stupid to understand his post. Oh wait, that wasn't very Christian of me.

When someone compares walking their dogs to humans having sex with animals or men getting it on with other men, they don't have much of an argument. If using the word stupid hurt him I apologize. Maybe I shouldn't have used that word.

He's not. Read his post again. Then, read it a third time. Then, read it a fourth time, but slowly.

[Neoteny]

Is it because the homosexuals are flaunting bestially?

[Frigidus]

We now live in a society that makes no distinction between good and evil. With no moral absolutes abortion, pornography, homosexuality, adultery, lying and stealing becomes accepted parts of a nation's culture. We are at that stage in America.

There are many things wrong with this paragraph.

(1) You've substituted "society" for "government" (although I disagree with the characterization of the government making a distinction between good and evil). But let's assume that our society may not make a distinction between good and evil.
Why would you want to assume that? We have laws based upon our common values. We don't allow cannabilism. We put people in prison who exercise their right to rape or kill.

(2) How does society's distinction between good and evil affect you? Let's say, for example, that you abhor the flaunting of homosexuality (it would be interesting to hear your definition of "flaunting"). I have a simple solution for you - don't watch the Bravo network, don't watch the gay pride parades, don't watch gay pornography, avert your eyes when two people of the same gender are holding hands.
The same could be said about people walking around nude. No problem when in the privacy of their own homes but not at McDonalds and other places. Many love to watch child pornography. If there is nothing immoral about lusting after children and someone wants to start a cable channel exclusively for that purpose, then just don't watch it. After all, it isn't hurting anyone for just looking at it.

(3) Do you watch pornography? What if pornography could be legally televised over daytime networks? Would you view it? If you wouldn't view it, then why do you care whether others can view it?
Ted Bundy, the serial killer executed in Florida in his final interview talked about how he was influenced by pornography. It can have a devasting effect especially on young minds.

“Once you become addicted to it – and I look at this as a kind of addiction – you look for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material,” he said. “Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder and gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far – that jumping off point where you begin to think maybe actually doing it will give you that which is just beyond reading about it and looking at it.”

It occurs to me that you must be a weak individual or that you view other similarly situated religious people as being rather weak individuals beacuse you do not believe that people can determine on their own what is and is not moral; rather, they must rely upon the government or society to tell them what is and is not moral. I find that disturbing and repugnant. I do not need you, the government, or anyone else determining what my morality is or should be.

That's why we have laws that govern gambling and other vices. Some things become a detriment to society and so laws are made to offset that. Another example would be limits of alcohol sales after a certain time or near schools.

(4) The difference between homosexuality and abortion, adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, and the rest of the moral vagrancies you can think of is that homosexuality does not negatively affect anyone even remotely. Abortion negatively affects an unborn chid. Adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing negatively affect the victim. Homosexuality doesn't negatively affect you except that it makes you say "ew, that's gross."

When "AIDS" first came out it was called "GRID" (Gay Related Immune Disorder). It was changed because of political correctness. Their depravity has spread the disease to other parts of society but still affects those who practice that lifestyle disproportionatly.

(5) Further, when the society or government is telling me what my morality should be and bases their own morality on a particular religion or sect of religion, that is most certainly a theocracy. Unfortunately for you, we do live in the United States where the federal government was not meant to be a place where morality is legislated; instead, it was meant to be a place where citizens could exercise their own morality, as they saw fit, free from the encumbrance of others' views based upon religion.

So you finally admit that there should be no moral absolutes upon which we base our laws. It's the law of the jungle and that is what we see happening.

I am always fascinated by people like premio. This sort of viewpoint can only crop up if you spend all of your time dealing with an insulated group. A question to the general forum: how can one be sure that you don't hold irrational viewpoints of your own? I mean, I'm sure that premio feels that his reasoning is just as sound as anyone else's.

[thegreekdog]

Is it because the homosexuals are flaunting bestially?

The dog-walkers are flaunting their non-beastiality.

I am always fascinated by people like premio. This sort of viewpoint can only crop up if you spend all of your time dealing with an insulated group. A question to the general forum: how can one be sure that you don't hold irrational viewpoints of your own? I mean, I'm sure that premio feels that his reasoning is just as sound as anyone else's.

For purposes of this discussion, I don't care about his viewpoint. What I care about is that on the one hand he doesn't want a theocracy and on the other hand he wants a theocracy. It's not his viewpoint that matters; it's that he wants to legislate his viewpoint, which is based on religion, which means he's in favor of a theocracy.

If he would just come out and say "I'm in favor of a theocracy" I would probably leave this thread (except to say "Good luck with that" and toss him a copy of the First Amendment).

[daddy1gringo]

This issue confuses me.

I hold to traditional Catholic values (which are much like traditional Christian values). I also believe that gay marriage should be permitted by the government. And that's ultimately what I don't understand.

Most, if not all, traditional Christians in the U.S. would rail against a Muslim theocracy and yet they would propose a Christian theocracy in the United States. There is a distinct, clear difference between one's religion permitting gay marriage and one's government permitting gay marriage. While it may be bigoted to have a vocal intolerance of a particular religion, it is certainly not bigoted to be intolerant of that religion's imposing of its values on the government. Hell, it's American to be intolerant of a religion imposing its values through government!

Because nobody is talking about making laws permitting or not permitting it, just about giving it certain legal recognition. You can disagree with their beliefs about what the consequences of that would be, but to keep switching it for the other is a deceptive attempt to maneuver the opposition into defending something they don't support.

For the record, I am not accusing you of being deceptive, but rather I am saying that your statement is a result of being a victim of the deception. By constantly changing the definitions in this way, they confuse and bully you into fearing that to follow up on your belief, it would be the injustice you described.

[Frigidus]

I am always fascinated by people like premio. This sort of viewpoint can only crop up if you spend all of your time dealing with an insulated group. A question to the general forum: how can one be sure that you don't hold irrational viewpoints of your own? I mean, I'm sure that premio feels that his reasoning is just as sound as anyone else's.

For purposes of this discussion, I don't care about his viewpoint. What I care about is that on the one hand he doesn't want a theocracy and on the other hand he wants a theocracy. It's not his viewpoint that matters; it's that he wants to legislate his viewpoint, which is based on religion, which means he's in favor of a theocracy.

If he would just come out and say "I'm in favor of a theocracy" I would probably leave this thread (except to say "Good luck with that" and toss him a copy of the First Amendment).

I'm guessing the reason he'll never admit that is that he doesn't recognize the possibility of a moral system outside of a religion. You saying "keep religion separate from government" translates to him as "keep decency separate from government". That's why his perception of people that aren't from his particular sect is so astoundingly low.

[premio53]

We now live in a society that makes no distinction between good and evil. With no moral absolutes abortion, pornography, homosexuality, adultery, lying and stealing becomes accepted parts of a nation's culture. We are at that stage in America.

There are many things wrong with this paragraph.

(1) You've substituted "society" for "government" (although I disagree with the characterization of the government making a distinction between good and evil). But let's assume that our society may not make a distinction between good and evil.
Why would you want to assume that? We have laws based upon our common values. We don't allow cannabilism. We put people in prison who exercise their right to rape or kill.

(2) How does society's distinction between good and evil affect you? Let's say, for example, that you abhor the flaunting of homosexuality (it would be interesting to hear your definition of "flaunting"). I have a simple solution for you - don't watch the Bravo network, don't watch the gay pride parades, don't watch gay pornography, avert your eyes when two people of the same gender are holding hands.
The same could be said about people walking around nude. No problem when in the privacy of their own homes but not at McDonalds and other places. Many love to watch child pornography. If there is nothing immoral about lusting after children and someone wants to start a cable channel exclusively for that purpose, then just don't watch it. After all, it isn't hurting anyone for just looking at it.

(3) Do you watch pornography? What if pornography could be legally televised over daytime networks? Would you view it? If you wouldn't view it, then why do you care whether others can view it?
Ted Bundy, the serial killer executed in Florida in his final interview talked about how he was influenced by pornography. It can have a devasting effect especially on young minds.

“Once you become addicted to it – and I look at this as a kind of addiction – you look for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material,” he said. “Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder and gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far – that jumping off point where you begin to think maybe actually doing it will give you that which is just beyond reading about it and looking at it.”

It occurs to me that you must be a weak individual or that you view other similarly situated religious people as being rather weak individuals beacuse you do not believe that people can determine on their own what is and is not moral; rather, they must rely upon the government or society to tell them what is and is not moral. I find that disturbing and repugnant. I do not need you, the government, or anyone else determining what my morality is or should be.

That's why we have laws that govern gambling and other vices. Some things become a detriment to society and so laws are made to offset that. Another example would be limits of alcohol sales after a certain time or near schools.

(4) The difference between homosexuality and abortion, adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, and the rest of the moral vagrancies you can think of is that homosexuality does not negatively affect anyone even remotely. Abortion negatively affects an unborn chid. Adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing negatively affect the victim. Homosexuality doesn't negatively affect you except that it makes you say "ew, that's gross."

When "AIDS" first came out it was called "GRID" (Gay Related Immune Disorder). It was changed because of political correctness. Their depravity has spread the disease to other parts of society but still affects those who practice that lifestyle disproportionatly.

(5) Further, when the society or government is telling me what my morality should be and bases their own morality on a particular religion or sect of religion, that is most certainly a theocracy. Unfortunately for you, we do live in the United States where the federal government was not meant to be a place where morality is legislated; instead, it was meant to be a place where citizens could exercise their own morality, as they saw fit, free from the encumbrance of others' views based upon religion.

So you finally admit that there should be no moral absolutes upon which we base our laws. It's the law of the jungle and that is what we see happening.

I am always fascinated by people like premio. This sort of viewpoint can only crop up if you spend all of your time dealing with an insulated group. A question to the general forum: how can one be sure that you don't hold irrational viewpoints of your own? I mean, I'm sure that premio feels that his reasoning is just as sound as anyone else's.

You mean people like you who believe pedophilia is no different than any other form of sexual excitement someone may engage in? And certainly don't call it immoral!

[BigBallinStalin]

All flaunters shall be fleeced and flogged.

And this just in: Frigidus believes that there is no difference in sexual excitement between pedophilia and all other forms of sexual activity and foreplay!

Premio has spoken. His Will be dumb.

[Frigidus]

I am always fascinated by people like premio. This sort of viewpoint can only crop up if you spend all of your time dealing with an insulated group. A question to the general forum: how can one be sure that you don't hold irrational viewpoints of your own? I mean, I'm sure that premio feels that his reasoning is just as sound as anyone else's.

You mean people like you who believe pedophilia is no different than any other form of sexual excitement someone may engage in? And certainly don't call it immoral!

Let me ask you something, premio. What sort of woman do you find attractive. Blondes? Brunettes? Red heads? Do you think glasses are sexy? Are you a boobs or a butt man? Do you have a preference when it comes to race? Does height play any factor?

Having sex with children is obviously immoral (to put it lightly), and despite your hand wringing child molestation will remain very illegal. Having a sexual attraction to children is certainly not desirable, but people can not choose what they are attracted to. Pedophiles need to find ways to deal with their issues, and most would probably benefit from seeking psychological help. Telling them that they are sick freaks that should be locked up makes them much more likely to NOT get help, which would in turn make them MUCH more likely to act on their urges. Your attitude only makes the situation worse.

[AndyDufresne]

Premio's definition of flaunting still seems to suggest any person engaging in any activity in public is deemed to be "flaunting."

Thus, we must stand up against these flaunters, like the dog walkers who walk their dogs in public. Flaunting their non-bestiality bestiality in the faces of all those who do not own dogs.


--Andy

If you are too stupid to know what beastiality is then please don't post.

#1. It's spelled bestiality, but please continue to post.
#2. And bestiality also has a few other primary definitions, one of which I'll direct you to for reasons I cannot imagine:

"The nature or qualities of a beast; want of intelligence."

As in, Chaucer Troilus & Criseyde i. 735 (circa 1374): For that he [an ass] So dul is in his bestialite.


--Andy

[crispybits]

This issue confuses me.

I hold to traditional Catholic values (which are much like traditional Christian values). I also believe that gay marriage should be permitted by the government. And that's ultimately what I don't understand.

Most, if not all, traditional Christians in the U.S. would rail against a Muslim theocracy and yet they would propose a Christian theocracy in the United States. There is a distinct, clear difference between one's religion permitting gay marriage and one's government permitting gay marriage. While it may be bigoted to have a vocal intolerance of a particular religion, it is certainly not bigoted to be intolerant of that religion's imposing of its values on the government. Hell, it's American to be intolerant of a religion imposing its values through government!

Because nobody is talking about making laws permitting or not permitting it, just about giving it certain legal recognition. You can disagree with their beliefs about what the consequences of that would be, but to keep switching it for the other is a deceptive attempt to maneuver the opposition into defending something they don't support.

For the record, I am not accusing you of being deceptive, but rather I am saying that your statement is a result of being a victim of the deception. By constantly changing the definitions in this way, they confuse and bully you into fearing that to follow up on your belief, it would be the injustice you described.

Can you give any other example, from any sphere of life, where the government permits something to the entire population, but only recognises that something for a percentage of the population?

It's almost like saying that, for example, Michigan based companies can make contracts with companies from any other US state, but the government will only recongise that contract as legally binding for 48 of the other states, and any contracts made between Michigan based companies and California based companies are permitted, but they won't be recognised as legally binding. Effectively this would prevent any meaningful business being done between Michigan and California, and be a form of restraint of freedom to trade with proper protection.

If the government permits a (largely) standardised legal contract (like marriage) to be entered into by any two adult individuals of sound mind, then it has to recognise all of those contracts and give them all the same legal standing. To do one without the other is exactly the kind of discrimination that causes the problems they gay community (and before them the black community and others) have been trying to overcome. And to dress up an objection in the terms of "permitted vs recognised" is possibly the most insidious and deceptive way of dressing up bigotry (not that you're being deceptive, but I believe you are the victim of deception by bigots who use these kind of word games to hide the reality of their religiously induced hatred for things their magic books say isn't allowed - don't look at the definitions, look at the consequences, and if the consequences of word play is bigotry being excused then it doesn't matter what words are used, it's still bigotry)

[thegreekdog]

This issue confuses me.

I hold to traditional Catholic values (which are much like traditional Christian values). I also believe that gay marriage should be permitted by the government. And that's ultimately what I don't understand.

Most, if not all, traditional Christians in the U.S. would rail against a Muslim theocracy and yet they would propose a Christian theocracy in the United States. There is a distinct, clear difference between one's religion permitting gay marriage and one's government permitting gay marriage. While it may be bigoted to have a vocal intolerance of a particular religion, it is certainly not bigoted to be intolerant of that religion's imposing of its values on the government. Hell, it's American to be intolerant of a religion imposing its values through government!

Because nobody is talking about making laws permitting or not permitting it, just about giving it certain legal recognition. You can disagree with their beliefs about what the consequences of that would be, but to keep switching it for the other is a deceptive attempt to maneuver the opposition into defending something they don't support.

For the record, I am not accusing you of being deceptive, but rather I am saying that your statement is a result of being a victim of the deception. By constantly changing the definitions in this way, they confuse and bully you into fearing that to follow up on your belief, it would be the injustice you described.

Ah HA! I'm well aware of the deception (although I wouldn't call it that). I want there to be no legal recognition of any marriages.

But if there is to be legal recognition of marriage, the refusal to recognize gay marriage is theocratical in nature. Is theocractical a word? If it's not, then patent pending.

[thegreekdog]

I am always fascinated by people like premio. This sort of viewpoint can only crop up if you spend all of your time dealing with an insulated group. A question to the general forum: how can one be sure that you don't hold irrational viewpoints of your own? I mean, I'm sure that premio feels that his reasoning is just as sound as anyone else's.

For purposes of this discussion, I don't care about his viewpoint. What I care about is that on the one hand he doesn't want a theocracy and on the other hand he wants a theocracy. It's not his viewpoint that matters; it's that he wants to legislate his viewpoint, which is based on religion, which means he's in favor of a theocracy.

If he would just come out and say "I'm in favor of a theocracy" I would probably leave this thread (except to say "Good luck with that" and toss him a copy of the First Amendment).

I'm guessing the reason he'll never admit that is that he doesn't recognize the possibility of a moral system outside of a religion. You saying "keep religion separate from government" translates to him as "keep decency separate from government". That's why his perception of people that aren't from his particular sect is so astoundingly low.

I don't disagree, but he seems like an intelligent individual, which is why I mentioned theocracy in the first place. I'm sure he finds Muslim theocracies intolerant (and intolerable) merely because it is a theocracy (and not because of the morality that a Muslim theocracy would impose), so why is his theocracy better?

[thegreekdog]

I am always fascinated by people like premio. This sort of viewpoint can only crop up if you spend all of your time dealing with an insulated group. A question to the general forum: how can one be sure that you don't hold irrational viewpoints of your own? I mean, I'm sure that premio feels that his reasoning is just as sound as anyone else's.

You mean people like you who believe pedophilia is no different than any other form of sexual excitement someone may engage in? And certainly don't call it immoral!

Let me ask you something, premio. What sort of woman do you find attractive. Blondes? Brunettes? Red heads? Do you think glasses are sexy? Are you a boobs or a butt man? Do you have a preference when it comes to race? Does height play any factor?

Having sex with children is obviously immoral (to put it lightly), and despite your hand wringing child molestation will remain very illegal. Having a sexual attraction to children is certainly not desirable, but people can not choose what they are attracted to. Pedophiles need to find ways to deal with their issues, and most would probably benefit from seeking psychological help. Telling them that they are sick freaks that should be locked up makes them much more likely to NOT get help, which would in turn make them MUCH more likely to act on their urges. Your attitude only makes the situation worse.

There's that and there's the notion that minors are not able to consent and thus pedophilia negatively affects someone else. To my knowledge, sex between two men or two women doesn't negatively affect anyone.