Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

[Frigidus]

A statement by the group reads in part:

“Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people of the issue of child sexual abuse.”
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/08/24/gr ... edophilia/

Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with being attracted to children. You can't choose what turns you on. Child rape is what is immoral.

You're a sick individual. However, you have proved my point. Nothing is morally wrong if you deem it to be so in your own eyes!

So in your opinion it is possible to choose what turns you on?

Edit: Also, what other forms of thought crime do you think are immoral?

[premio53]

A statement by the group reads in part:

“Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people of the issue of child sexual abuse.”
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/08/24/gr ... edophilia/

Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with being attracted to children. You can't choose what turns you on. Child rape is what is immoral.

You're a sick individual. However, you have proved my point. Nothing is morally wrong if you deem it to be so in your own eyes!

So in your opinion it is possible to choose what turns you on?

Only someone who is mentally sick would believe it morally OK to lust after children. The next step is to change the definition of pedophilia in order to allow those sick individuals to fulfil their lust. That will happen.

[GreecePwns]

If you say so. I prefer to acknowledge Christians who follow Christ.

Me too.

Excellent- point out where you think Jesus objected to homosexuals.

Folks, Symmetry won the thread two pages ago. Why are people still going at it?

Ehh, the response to that is usually "something something lay with man something abomination" (Something X:Y). Then an argument over the meaning of that quote, then a change of subject and continued insistence that Christianity is morally superior to all other views, and all other people must follow Christian morality no matter their personal beliefs.

[Frigidus]

A statement by the group reads in part:

“Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people of the issue of child sexual abuse.”
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/08/24/gr ... edophilia/

Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with being attracted to children. You can't choose what turns you on. Child rape is what is immoral.

You're a sick individual. However, you have proved my point. Nothing is morally wrong if you deem it to be so in your own eyes!

So in your opinion it is possible to choose what turns you on?

Only someone who is mentally sick would believe it morally OK to lust after children. The next step is to change the definition of pedophilia in order to allow those sick individuals to fulfil their lust. That will happen.

No it won't. That is the pinnacle of delusion. Care to answer my question?'

So in your opinion it is possible to choose what turns you on?

[GreecePwns]

A statement by the group reads in part:

“Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people of the issue of child sexual abuse.”
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/08/24/gr ... edophilia/

Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with being attracted to children. You can't choose what turns you on. Child rape is what is immoral.

You're a sick individual. However, you have proved my point. Nothing is morally wrong if you deem it to be so in your own eyes!

So in your opinion it is possible to choose what turns you on?

Only someone who is mentally sick would believe it morally OK to lust after children. The next step is to change the definition of pedophilia in order to allow those sick individuals to fulfil their lust. That will happen.

Surely if you just prayed, they'll stop lusting after children.

It worked with homosexuals...right?

[premio53]

A statement by the group reads in part:

“Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people of the issue of child sexual abuse.”
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/08/24/gr ... edophilia/

Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with being attracted to children. You can't choose what turns you on. Child rape is what is immoral.

You're a sick individual. However, you have proved my point. Nothing is morally wrong if you deem it to be so in your own eyes!

So in your opinion it is possible to choose what turns you on?

Only someone who is mentally sick would believe it morally OK to lust after children. The next step is to change the definition of pedophilia in order to allow those sick individuals to fulfil their lust. That will happen.

No it won't. That is the pinnacle of delusion. Care to answer my question?'

So in your opinion it is possible to choose what turns you on?

Whatever lust one may have doesn't make those desires morally right. The fact that homosexual groups along with psychologists are wanting to change the definition of pedophilia shows that they believe there is nothing morally wrong with those desires.

[Metsfanmax]

If you say so. I prefer to acknowledge Christians who follow Christ.

Me too.

Excellent- point out where you think Jesus objected to homosexuals.

Folks, Symmetry won the thread two pages ago. Why are people still going at it?

A Christian doesn't only read red letters. The entire New Testament written by the apostles are what define Christian doctrine. Romans chapter 1 clearly defines the depravity of homosexual lust. But since you believe what Jesus teaches I'm sure you'll agree with him that "except ye repent" you will go to hell.

Of course I believe what Jesus teaches!



It's the rest of those tools in the New Testament that corrupted his word.

[Metsfanmax]

premio: do you stone people who work on the Sabbath? If not, why not?

[Frigidus]

Whatever lust one may have doesn't make those desires morally right. The fact that homosexual groups along with psychologists are wanting to change the definition of pedophilia shows that they believe there is nothing morally wrong with those desires.

I'd argue that there is nothing morally wrong with any thought, but only with actions. If I spend all day thinking about how much I' want to kill someone but never act on those thoughts am I doing anything immoral?

[Symmetry]

If you say so. I prefer to acknowledge Christians who follow Christ.

Me too.

Excellent- point out where you think Jesus objected to homosexuals.

Folks, Symmetry won the thread two pages ago. Why are people still going at it?

Thanks, things were getting a tad dumb.

[premio53]

Whatever lust one may have doesn't make those desires morally right. The fact that homosexual groups along with psychologists are wanting to change the definition of pedophilia shows that they believe there is nothing morally wrong with those desires.

I'd argue that there is nothing morally wrong with any thought, but only with actions. If I spend all day thinking about how much I' want to kill someone but never act on those thoughts am I doing anything immoral?

If you have no moral absolutes to judge your beliefs by, then you are correct. However, the apostle John wrote, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." (1 John 3:15)

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm surprised premio sincerely believes that genocide is not immoral.

[premio53]

I'm surprised premio sincerely believes that genocide is not immoral.

I'm not surprised that you are a liar either. You know you lied when you made this post.

[Frigidus]

Whatever lust one may have doesn't make those desires morally right. The fact that homosexual groups along with psychologists are wanting to change the definition of pedophilia shows that they believe there is nothing morally wrong with those desires.

I'd argue that there is nothing morally wrong with any thought, but only with actions. If I spend all day thinking about how much I' want to kill someone but never act on those thoughts am I doing anything immoral?

If you have no moral absolutes to judge your beliefs by, then you are correct. However, the apostle John wrote, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." (1 John 3:15)

Since hating people is tantamount to murder, should we put haters on trial for murder? Or is this just a turn of phrase more than anything else?

Also, what makes you think I don't believe in moral absolutes?

[Metsfanmax]

Whatever lust one may have doesn't make those desires morally right. The fact that homosexual groups along with psychologists are wanting to change the definition of pedophilia shows that they believe there is nothing morally wrong with those desires.

I'd argue that there is nothing morally wrong with any thought, but only with actions. If I spend all day thinking about how much I' want to kill someone but never act on those thoughts am I doing anything immoral?

If you have no moral absolutes to judge your beliefs by, then you are correct. However, the apostle John wrote, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." (1 John 3:15)

Since hating people is tantamount to murder, should we put haters on trial for murder?

No, because



Repeating this question here in case it got missed:

premio: do you stone people who work on the Sabbath? If not, why not?

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm surprised premio sincerely believes that genocide is not immoral.

I'm not surprised that you are a liar either. You know you lied when you made this post.

So I shouldn't be surprised that you believe that genocide is not immoral? Oh, you, sir, are vague.

I'm teasing out your stance by encouraging you to explicitly make a claim.

1. If you cannot determine if X is moral or immoral, (where X = extreme cases such as genocide),
2. and if you refuse to clearly answer questions,
3. and if you continue repeating your argument,

then three possibilities:
4. you lack the capability to engage in a rational discussion (e.g. using logic, reason, making your words coherent, etc.).
5. your argument has no standing--(and you know it but are afraid to risk admitting it)
6. something is psychologically wrong with you.

So, let's see if we can discover the soundness of #4, #5, and #6:

Weird- that was what you wanted to discuss.

What I am discussing is the fact that without any moral absolutes you have no right to judge the practice of cannabilism as practiced by many primitive tribes or genocide as practiced by Hitler or any other practice that other societies may deem moral. Period.

and

Wow what? If homosexuality is morally right, why is beastiality wrong? If Hitler can declare Jews as non persons, what is the difference between killing Jews and unborn babies in the womb? Wow! Where do you stop?

(and more posts!)


In other words,
1. "without any moral absolutes you have no right to judge [the morality of any action]". (False, using logic doesn't require a right to logic).
2. Without moral absolutes*, we have no other criteria for establishing the morality of any action. (False, we can use logic. Well, most of us can).
3. *(Implied caveat), premioc Christianity has access to specific moral absolutes. (Unknown, but if #3 = True, then why not reject genocide? Does premioc Christianity permit genocide?)
3a. #3 must be true because premio has explicitly made moral claims involving sexual desire, using eyeballs, and thought crimes.
4. "Nothing is morally wrong if you deem it to be so in your own eyes!" (Odd, using only our eyes is an insufficient standard in moral philosophy).

5. " The entire New Testament written by the apostles are what define Christian doctrine." (Unknown, but the implications of accepting #5 will lead to contradictory/wrong positions--e.g. stoning people not with marijuana).
6. "Only someone who is mentally sick would believe it morally OK to lust after children." (False, other mentally sick people might not believe it morally okay to lust after children).
7. "Whatever lust one may have doesn't make those desires morally right." (True, determining the morality of an action requires substitutes, e.g. logic).

Well, there's plenty of problems with your stance.
My #4 seems sound. My #5 is unknown but could likely be true. My #6 is unknown--but you'll well on your way of providing further support of its truthfulness.

[tzor]

Are they operating with two implicit assumptions:

(1) being gay is bad, and
(2) that "teh gayness" will spread to the same-sex couple's children, which is bad

No and No. I believe my original point was that they believe that the child should have at least a role model of their own gender and the opposite gender. What those role models do or don't do in the bedroom isn't a factor.

The Catholic Church has always said that gayness (that is a homosexual tendency) is not "bad" but since all are encouraged to like a life of chastity and since the purpose of sex is dedicated to procreation, then all homosexual acts are an offense to chastity (but then a lot of people make heterosexual offenses to chastity all the time).

[BigBallinStalin]

Are they operating with two implicit assumptions:

(1) being gay is bad, and
(2) that "teh gayness" will spread to the same-sex couple's children, which is bad

No and No. I believe my original point was that they believe that the child should have at least a role model of their own gender and the opposite gender. What those role models do or don't do in the bedroom isn't a factor.

Well, aside from showing evidence that this is true (problem 1), they forget that kids can seek complementary role models (problem 2)--i.e. in addition to their parents (if they are actual role models), the kids can find other role models other than their parents.

[tzor]

BBS you are confusing apples and oranges or rather beliefs with facts. I merely stated what they believe; whether or not it is true is another issue. Their belief leads to their conclusion.

The facts are vague at best; the fact you want to force your facts on them even strengthens their belief.

[BigBallinStalin]

"force my facts on them"?

I'm just highlighting the problems of their argument. My main point here is that they can believe whatever they like--I can't really stop that. Nevertheless, if they can't provide enough evidence for each claim, then we can reject their argument.

[tzor]

"force my facts on them"?

If they believe that certain conditions make the ideal family and you through a court of law force them to accept people who do not fit that criteria, you are in effect "forcing your facts on them."

[crispybits]

If anyone is going to have anything forced on them, then isn't it better that it be something fact-based rather than something belief-based? If we have 2 sets of beliefs, A nd B, and they are inherently contradictory, isn't the only sensible option to side with the one where the facts back up any infringement on the freedom to exercise either belief A or belief B in real-world situations? (note - not to hold the belief, but to actually put it into practice)

[BigBallinStalin]

"force my facts on them"?

If they believe that certain conditions make the ideal family and you through a court of law force them to accept people who do not fit that criteria, you are in effect "forcing your facts on them."

(1) Well, the state--and its various parts--are doing that, not me. For example, suppose there was a fully, self-governing town which required explicit consent given through a REAL social contract that precluded gays from being married in that town. In my opinion, so be it. They are free to discriminate, and I don't approve nor will I support them in any of their exchanges (voluntary boycott). In this sense, I'm not "forcing my facts" on them.

(2) Besides, they have been "forcing their facts" on others by supporting the prohibition on gay marriage through the state's coercive powers. That's been an ongoing ordeal for centuries, and now some of them are upset because they're losing their perceived legitimacy of that prohibition. My opinion: Too bad.

(3) Sure, there's the problem of having the autonomy to choose who you want to provide your goods to, and sure, the government may infringe upon that autonomy or support it (a la Boy Scouts, Hooters, etc.). Nevertheless, it boils down to individual rights, civil liberties, and equality before the law (within defined jurisdictions on a voluntary basis). I support those while they apparently don't, which places them in an morally impermissible position.

+1 crispybits, but often times, facts hardly matter in the political process and other realms (e.g. here we are dealing with the prohibitionists' crappy arguments---not specifically you, tzor, to be clear).

[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!

[AndyDufresne]

"force my facts on them"?

If they believe that certain conditions make the ideal family and you through a court of law force them to accept people who do not fit that criteria, you are in effect "forcing your facts on them."

I think I'm going to need to hop into the Chamber of Understanding.




--Andy