Discussion:
U.S. sodomy lobby attacks Pope Benedict XVI
(too old to reply)
RoB WAde
2005-04-28 20:59:09 UTC
Permalink
U.S. sodomy lobby attacks Pope Benedict XVI
WorldNetDaily
Les Kinsolving





New York's Gov. Al Smith not only opposed Prohibition, but in 1928 he
became the first Roman Catholic ever nominated by a major party to be
president.

This resulted in some of America's worst anti-Catholic expressions of
bigotry - including a rumor that Gov. Smith was planning to invite
the pope to make an extended visit in order to supervise the conversion
of this nation to a Roman Catholic country.

When Gov. Smith lost to Herbert Hoover by 444 to 87 electoral votes, he
had the good sense of humor and sportsmanship to announce that he had
just sent a one-word cable to the pope: "Unpack."

Now, within hours of the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the
new Pope Benedict XVI, this new pope has been attacked by at least four
of America's Sodomy Lobby:

* The "Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbian And Gays (PFLAG) stated
that the new pope does not represent a hopeful vision of the future ...
He authored a Vatican document condemning marriage and adoption by gay
men and lesbians in July 2003."

The Washington Blade (a Washington, D.C., homosexual newspaper)
described the document as "a battle plan for Catholic politicians".
(Think of that - a "battle plan"! Will the new pontiff come to the
United States - as rumored in 1928 - to help Catholic politicians
like Sen. Kerry win the battle?)

* The Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation "is calling on the
nation's media to examine Ratzinger's documented rhetoric and writings
related to gays and lesbians ... In documents dating back to the
1980's, Ratzinger has branded gays and lesbians as 'objectively
disordered' and being gay as a 'moral disorder' requiring a 'conversion
from evil.' He has accused gay and lesbian parents of 'doing violence
to their children' and he has denounced laws protecting same-sex
couples and families as 'the approval or legalization of evil.'"

(Question: Did GLAAD learn all this in the two days since Cardinal
Ratzinger's election? Or isn't it far more probable that they have been
researching him - as the enemy - for years, in order to produce an
extensive documentary of denunciation even before he is installed?)

* The deceptively titled "Human Rights Campaign" (which really ought to
be honest enough to change that title to "Sodomy Rights Campaign")
stated the following: "We hope Pope Benedict XVI will follow the
biblical tradition of expressing love and compassion for all."

Where in the Holy Bible is there any verse expressing approval of the
act of sodomy? In the New Testament, Jesus Christ, speaking to those
who offend little children (and what is more offensive than child
molesting?) said: "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged
about his neck and he cast into the sea, than he should offend one
these little ones" (Luke 2:17).

The "Human Rights Campaign" also noted: "In 1986, Cardinal Ratzinger in
a letter to the Catholic bishops, wrote: 'Although the particular
inclination of the homosexual person is not sin, it is a more or less
strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil.'"

* The Rainbow Sash Movement wrote that they were "deeply disappointed
with the choice of Cardinal Ratzinger as pope. We had hoped for a
pastor and shepherd, instead we get a doctrinal enforcer." This
statement goes on to declare: "We remind our fellow Catholics that we
are the Church ... The Rainbow Sash Movement will continue to call for
openness, toleration and inclusion in the Church."

(Question: Have Rainbow Sash or any of these other three organizations
made any statement that there should be marriage for other sexual
orientations, such as necrophilia, sadomasochism or bestiality?)

It was rather disagreeably hasty for these four groups to attack the
new pope so quickly. But all of their attacks are a badge of honor for
this moral leader, who was so quickly elected to lead what is by far
Christianity's largest denomination.
Craig Chilton
2005-04-30 04:56:16 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Apr 2005 13:59:09 -0700,
"RoB WAde" <***@yahoo.com> ...

...as usual, proving in MANY ways that he doesn't have a
brain in his head -- including crossposting to MANY more than
the normal maximum of 5 groups, most of which were OFF-topic
(and most of which I've deleted) -- is running true to form as a
moronic, RRR-cult retard...
Post by RoB WAde
U.S. sodomy lobby attacks Pope Benedict XVI
WorldNetDaily
Les Kinsolving
"Sodomy lobby????"

ROTFL!!!!!!

MORE proof that the ACCURATE term for that bigoted
and idiotic "news" organization truly *would* be "WorldNUT!"

What a collection of hateful, bigoted, immature, and
moronic tools.


-- Craig Chilton <***@mchsi.com>
Roedy Green
2005-04-30 05:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I don't
think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what straight people
did in bed. That's their business.

All we gays want are three things:

1. not to be beat up

2. to be treated as equals. We are sick and tired of heterosexual
patronising.

3. to keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation. It is none of
their business what consenting adults do in private.


Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
Malcolm
2005-04-30 12:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I don't
think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what straight people
did in bed. That's their business.
It is not uncommon for gay guys to try to convince straight people to have
sex with them.
A gay guy doesn't have a very strong interest in promoting sodomy between
two other people, it is true. However you occasionally see events put on by
homosexual organisations that encourage people to "explore their sexuality".
Like most organisations they want members.
Post by Roedy Green
1. not to be beat up
2. to be treated as equals. We are sick and tired of heterosexual
patronising.
3. to keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation. It is none of
their business what consenting adults do in private.
"to be treated as equals" is steadily being interpreted in wider and wider
terms. Firstly the demand was for decriminalisation, then for an equal age
of consent, then for gay marriage. Then it will be for equal rights to adopt
and to work with children. Finally it will be for "non-directional" sex
education.

There is a very serious issue about how far the state should go in trying to
enforce moral behaviour. Morality and law cannot be separated, but not
everything that is immoral can be made illegal. However it is obvious from
your post that you haven't even begun to look at this philosphical problem.
Let's say that a group of adults join a cult, and decide to kill themselves
in the belief that they will be transported to a spaceship travelling behind
a comet that is passing Earth.Is it obvious that the state has no right to
intervene?

What homosexuals actually want is for the church to drop its position that
sodomy is immoral. Unfortunately that isn't possible. However you can say
"as a Catholic homsexual I don't accept that I am any more sinful than those
couples who use contraception."
Bill Baker
2005-04-30 13:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I don't think
I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what straight people did in
bed. That's their business.
It is not uncommon for gay guys to try to convince straight people to have
sex with them.
Maybe where you live, but I've never seen this.
Post by Malcolm
A gay guy doesn't have a very strong interest in promoting sodomy between
two other people, it is true. However you occasionally see events put on
by homosexual organisations that encourage people to "explore their
sexuality". Like most organisations they want members.
Care to provide some documentation on these events? When and where?
Post by Malcolm
1. not to be beat up
2. to be treated as equals. We are sick and tired of heterosexual
patronising.
3. to keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation. It is none of
their business what consenting adults do in private.
"to be treated as equals" is steadily being interpreted in wider and wider
terms. Firstly the demand was for decriminalisation, then for an equal age
of consent, then for gay marriage. Then it will be for equal rights to
adopt and to work with children. Finally it will be for "non-directional"
sex education.
Just like blacks. First they didn't want to be slaves, then they wanted
to be able to vote, then they wanted to marry people from other races.
Funny how that works, huh?
Post by Malcolm
There is a very serious issue about how far the state should go in trying
to enforce moral behaviour. Morality and law cannot be separated, but not
everything that is immoral can be made illegal.
Especially when harm cannot be demonstrated satisfactorily.
Post by Malcolm
However it is obvious from your post that you haven't even begun to look
at this philosphical problem. Let's say that a group of adults join a
cult, and decide to kill themselves in the belief that they will be
transported to a spaceship travelling behind a comet that is passing
Earth.Is it obvious that the state has no right to intervene?
Well what are you going to do, arrest someone for committing suicide?
Post by Malcolm
What homosexuals actually want is for the church to drop its position
that sodomy is immoral.
Not true. Not any more than divorcees wanting the Catholic Church to drop
its position that divorce is immoral.
Post by Malcolm
Unfortunately that isn't possible. However you can say "as a Catholic
homsexual I don't accept that I am any more sinful than those couples
who use contraception."
As a human being, I don't believe in sin period.
--
Lurlean Lie #33:
"The hookers got their pink zones - which are silver at a couple of the more
up scale queer bars." news:***@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Dennis Kemmerer
2005-04-30 18:24:33 UTC
Permalink
"Malcolm" <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:d4vu55$dg1$***@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

[snip]
Post by Malcolm
"to be treated as equals" is steadily being interpreted in wider and wider
terms. Firstly the demand was for decriminalisation, then for an equal age
of consent, then for gay marriage. Then it will be for equal rights to
adopt and to work with children.
Is there something wrong with any of those things?
Post by Malcolm
Finally it will be for "non-directional" sex education.
I'm afraid I don't know what 'non-directional sex education is.' Is that a
new church tract buzzphrase?

[snip]
Post by Malcolm
What homosexuals actually want is for the church to drop its position that
sodomy is immoral.
That's a presumptuous generalization.
Post by Malcolm
Unfortunately that isn't possible.
Unfortunate for you, maybe. I, and many people I know, don't give a fuck
what the church thinks.

[snip]
Sir Marksman
2005-04-30 18:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
[snip]
Post by Malcolm
"to be treated as equals" is steadily being interpreted in wider and wider
terms. Firstly the demand was for decriminalisation, then for an equal age
of consent, then for gay marriage. Then it will be for equal rights to
adopt and to work with children.
I suppose you have proof that homosexuals DESERVE special rights.
Malcolm
2005-04-30 20:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
I'm afraid I don't know what 'non-directional sex education is.' Is that a
new church tract buzzphrase?
No. The phrase hasn't gained wide currency yet because homosexuals are still
demanding homosexual marriage. I am predicting that when homosexual marriage
is recognised this will be the next demand - that in schools we must teach
children in a "non-directional" way. That is to say, not to suggest that
heterosexual relationships are in any way superior to homosexual ones.
Of course the buzzword settled on might not be "non-directional sex
education" but something similar (like "anti-homophobic studies") and I
might be wrong, but time will tell.
Andrealphus
2005-04-30 20:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
I'm afraid I don't know what 'non-directional sex education is.' Is that a
new church tract buzzphrase?
No. The phrase hasn't gained wide currency yet because homosexuals are still
demanding homosexual marriage. I am predicting that when homosexual marriage
is recognised this will be the next demand - that in schools we must teach
children in a "non-directional" way. That is to say, not to suggest that
heterosexual relationships are in any way superior to homosexual ones.
Of course the buzzword settled on might not be "non-directional sex
education" but something similar (like "anti-homophobic studies") and I
might be wrong, but time will tell.
It depends on what the current aim of sex education happens to be. When it
first started it was focused on pregnancy prevention. It has taken on the
added focus of disease prevention. I see no reason why the focus of
disease prevention should not be just as equally aimed at same sex couples
as it is opposite sex couples. In fact, the material that was sent home
with my kids about sex education when they were in school didn't mention
marriage or permanent relationships at all, and that was in the mid 1970's.
Dennis Kemmerer
2005-04-30 22:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
I'm afraid I don't know what 'non-directional sex education is.' Is that a
new church tract buzzphrase?
No. The phrase hasn't gained wide currency yet because homosexuals are
still demanding homosexual marriage.
Actually, what they're 'demanding' is equal access to existing civil
marriage statutes, none of which mentions anything about sexual orientation.
Post by Malcolm
I am predicting that when homosexual marriage is recognised this will be
the next demand - that in schools we must teach children in a
"non-directional" way. That is to say, not to suggest that heterosexual
relationships are in any way superior to homosexual ones.
Since the relationships are equal, why wouldn't you teach kids that the
relationships are equal?
Post by Malcolm
Of course the buzzword settled on might not be "non-directional sex
education" but something similar (like "anti-homophobic studies") and I
might be wrong, but time will tell.
Malcolm
2005-05-01 09:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by Malcolm
I am predicting that when homosexual marriage is recognised this will be
the next demand - that in schools we must teach children in a
"non-directional" way. That is to say, not to suggest that heterosexual
relationships are in any way superior to homosexual ones.
Since the relationships are equal, why wouldn't you teach kids that the
relationships are equal?
I'm a biologist. I can tell you that when two men have sex together you
won't have any children.
Now we can argue that this doesn't matter, you might even say that in our
over-populated world it means that homosexual relationships are better and
should be encouraged. However the relationships are clearly not equal, so
that particular argument must be dropped.
s***@dca.net
2005-05-01 14:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
I'm a biologist. I can tell you that when two men have sex together you
won't have any children.
Now we can argue that this doesn't matter, you might even say that in our
over-populated world it means that homosexual relationships are better and
should be encouraged. However the relationships are clearly not equal, so
that particular argument must be dropped.
The marriage=reproduction argument doesn't hold water. Nearly every
country and organized religion allows the elderly to marry, allows the
infertile and sterile to marry, etc. In fact, when one state
legislator in the midwest announced plans to for a bill to limit
marriage to people who *can* reproduce, there was strong opposition
even from conservative church groups.

In other words, there is a strong consensus that marriage is beneficial
to the individuals involved and to society, in ways that have
absolutely nothing to do with biological reproduction. The usual
counter-argument -- "well at least an infertile straight couple can
adopt children" -- applies equally to gay couples, except in places
such as Florida where an artificial barrier has been put in place.

--
Steven Capsuto
http://www.stevecap.com
Malcolm
2005-05-01 17:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@dca.net
Post by Malcolm
I'm a biologist. I can tell you that when two men have sex together
you won't have any children.
Now we can argue that this doesn't matter, you might even say that in
our over-populated world it means that homosexual relationships are
better and should be encouraged. However the relationships are clearly not
equal, so that particular argument must be dropped.
The marriage=reproduction argument doesn't hold water. Nearly every
country and organized religion allows the elderly to marry, allows the
infertile and sterile to marry, etc.
That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that the relationships are not
equal. I'm a biologist, and we would never treat reproductive behaviour in
the same way as an act that cannot lead to reproduction.
However I am not saying that this is an argument against homosexuality, in
fact I said the opposite, that it might be an argument in favour. What I
want is for the idea that heterosexual and homosexual relationship are
"equal" to be dropped.
Cornelia Wyngaarden
2005-05-01 17:31:46 UTC
Permalink
On 01/05/05 10:06 AM, in article
Post by Malcolm
Post by s***@dca.net
Post by Malcolm
I'm a biologist. I can tell you that when two men have sex together
you won't have any children.
Now we can argue that this doesn't matter, you might even say that in
our over-populated world it means that homosexual relationships are
better and should be encouraged. However the relationships are clearly not
equal, so that particular argument must be dropped.
The marriage=reproduction argument doesn't hold water. Nearly every
country and organized religion allows the elderly to marry, allows the
infertile and sterile to marry, etc.
That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that the relationships are not
equal. I'm a biologist, and we would never treat reproductive behaviour in
the same way as an act that cannot lead to reproduction.
However I am not saying that this is an argument against homosexuality, in
fact I said the opposite, that it might be an argument in favour. What I
want is for the idea that heterosexual and homosexual relationship are
"equal" to be dropped.
Marriage is not about biology it is about law and the protection of
individual rights. Legal recognition is what is required to be equal.
Marriage was invented to protect inheritance rights. Alice B. Toklas was
absolutely robbed by Gertrude Stein's family of the properties that they had
acquired together and if children were involved it would have even been more
tragic than it was. Yes, children are often involved, either by previous
relationships or (((((shudder))))) choice... a *pro-life* choice at that.

So this biology crap is just that, crap and a flaming red herring.

Marriage was invented not because of biology but to protect property that
children were foolishly gambling away on bad choices...and it was invented
before Christinsanity so there.

See Solon and the law.
Dennis Kemmerer
2005-05-01 17:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cornelia Wyngaarden
On 01/05/05 10:06 AM, in article
Post by Malcolm
Post by s***@dca.net
Post by Malcolm
I'm a biologist. I can tell you that when two men have sex together
you won't have any children.
Now we can argue that this doesn't matter, you might even say that in
our over-populated world it means that homosexual relationships are
better and should be encouraged. However the relationships are clearly not
equal, so that particular argument must be dropped.
The marriage=reproduction argument doesn't hold water. Nearly every
country and organized religion allows the elderly to marry, allows the
infertile and sterile to marry, etc.
That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that the relationships are not
equal. I'm a biologist, and we would never treat reproductive behaviour in
the same way as an act that cannot lead to reproduction.
However I am not saying that this is an argument against homosexuality, in
fact I said the opposite, that it might be an argument in favour. What I
want is for the idea that heterosexual and homosexual relationship are
"equal" to be dropped.
Marriage is not about biology it is about law and the protection of
individual rights. Legal recognition is what is required to be equal.
Marriage was invented to protect inheritance rights. Alice B. Toklas was
absolutely robbed by Gertrude Stein's family of the properties that they had
acquired together and if children were involved it would have even been more
tragic than it was. Yes, children are often involved, either by previous
relationships or (((((shudder))))) choice... a *pro-life* choice at that.
So this biology crap is just that, crap and a flaming red herring.
Marriage was invented not because of biology but to protect property that
children were foolishly gambling away on bad choices...and it was invented
before Christinsanity so there.
See Solon and the law.
Don't waste your keystrokes. 'Malcolm' is another run-of-the-mill
penis-vagina bigot.
Dennis Kemmerer
2005-05-01 17:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by s***@dca.net
Post by Malcolm
I'm a biologist. I can tell you that when two men have sex together
you won't have any children.
Now we can argue that this doesn't matter, you might even say that in
our over-populated world it means that homosexual relationships are
better and should be encouraged. However the relationships are clearly not
equal, so that particular argument must be dropped.
The marriage=reproduction argument doesn't hold water. Nearly every
country and organized religion allows the elderly to marry, allows the
infertile and sterile to marry, etc.
That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that the relationships are not
equal. I'm a biologist, and we would never treat reproductive behaviour in
the same way as an act that cannot lead to reproduction.
However I am not saying that this is an argument against homosexuality, in
fact I said the opposite, that it might be an argument in favour. What I
want is for the idea that heterosexual and homosexual relationship are
"equal" to be dropped.
If they're not equal, one must be superior/inferior to the other. Which one
is it?
Malcolm
2005-05-01 21:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
What I want is for the idea that heterosexual and homosexual relationship
are "equal" to be dropped.
If they're not equal, one must be superior/inferior to the other. Which
one is it?
Let's say that a grocer looks at two apples. He says "these apples are the
same size and the same variety, therefore they must be sold at the same
price".
Everyone would see that this is perfectly reasonable.
Now he looks at an apple and an oraange, and says "I am ideologically
committed to the notion that all fruit is equal, therefore the price must be
the same".
Everyone can see that this is absurd.

However if he says "apples cost me fifty cents, and ten cents for storage,
so I'll charge a dollar. Oranges - we can get them for forty cents but they
don't sell as fast and take up more shelf space, so I'll sell them for a
dollar."
Nothing surprising here. It just so happens that the two products end up
with the same price tag.

So yes, since heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different they
must have points of superiority and inferiority. However it doesn't
automatically follow that one can be labelled as "better". For instance, if
you want vitamin C, oranges are better. If you want to make an alcoholic
drink, you're better off with apples.

So can you tell me what you vlaue in human sexual relationships?
Bonnie Bitch
2005-05-01 21:49:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 1 May 2005 21:25:28 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
Post by Malcolm
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
What I want is for the idea that heterosexual and homosexual relationship
are "equal" to be dropped.
If they're not equal, one must be superior/inferior to the other. Which
one is it?
Let's say that a grocer looks at two apples. He says "these apples are the
same size and the same variety, therefore they must be sold at the same
price".
Everyone would see that this is perfectly reasonable.
Now he looks at an apple and an oraange, and says "I am ideologically
committed to the notion that all fruit is equal, therefore the price must be
the same".
Everyone can see that this is absurd.
Small flaw with your analogy, bunky: we're only discussing one group
-- people.
A better analogy would be:
A grocer named Malcolm looks at two apples. One is a Jonathan, one is
a Golden Delicious.
They both cost the same, and both are the same size.
Yet, Malcolm the Grocer is ideologically opposed to Golden Delicious
apples, on purely religious grounds. (Malcolm's sick, fucked-up,
diseased cult has been saying this for the last 2000 or so years.)
So, Malcolm tosses out all the Golden Delicious apples and refuses to
sell any. Malcolm then goes out to all the other grocers in the
neighborhood and tries to force them to not sell GD apples, simply
because he is opposed to GD apples. (Malcolm also happens to be a
part-time bigoted assloaf, to boot.)
In fact, Malcolm and his bigoted assloaf grocer buddies are so
incensed that anyone would even want GD apples that they try to get a
Constitutional amendment passed banning GD apples. In the end, they
lose, of course, because bigoted assloaves in any profession are
doomed to fail.
And still, somehow, GD apples are still grown, solely as a result of
Jonathan apples breeding and growing in their groves (ain't genetic
and congenital factors great!), and Golden Delicious apples still
exist.
And, on a happy note, the grocer down the road, is having a business
boom, because he is selling Golden Delicious apples.

Moral of the story: bigoted assloaves, like Malcolm the Grocer and his
buddies, are stupid, xenophobic, felching idiots who deserve what
they get.

Happy FOAD --

Bonnie Bitch
Dennis Kemmerer
2005-05-01 23:21:28 UTC
Permalink
[snip interesting but irrelevant analogy about the pricing strategies of
apples vs. oranges]
Post by Malcolm
So yes, since heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different they
must have points of superiority and inferiority.
The only difference you've come up with so far is the ability to reproduce,
and as I said before, there's lots of opposite-sex couples who can't
reproduce.

So, I'll ask you one more time. Which one is superior and which one is
inferior?
Post by Malcolm
However it doesn't automatically follow that one can be labelled as
"better".
'Superior' means 'better.'

[snip]
s***@dca.net
2005-05-08 12:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Let's say that a grocer looks at two apples. He says "these apples are the
same size and the same variety, therefore they must be sold at the same
price".
Any two things in the world are similar in some ways and different in
others. The question is whether they are similar enough to be
considered "the same" for the purpose at hand.

For instance, a heterosexual marriage between two nineteen year olds is
going to be different, in many significant ways, from a marriage
between a widow and widower in their late 60s. A poor couple's
marriage will differ in some ways from a marriage between two
ultrawealthy people. In fact, any two married couples' experiences
will be different. But for legal purposes, they are considered "the
same."

The question, then, is whether there is something about same-sex,
longterm couples that is different enough to bar them from marriage.
Again and again, the procreation argument is put forth, but that
doesn't apply here because marriage is legal between people who cannot
procreate (the elderly couple, people who are unable to reproduce due
to injury, illness, etc.), or who choose not to procreate (people who
have had vasectomies, tubal ligations, etc.)

So the procreation argument doesn't make gay couples different *enough*
to justify exclusion from civil marriage. (Religious marriage is a
different matter: clergy have always had the right to refuse to perform
weddings they find religiously objectionable, but which the state
considers legal: interfaith marriages, for example.)

--
Steven Capsuto
http://www.stevecap.com
Malcolm
2005-05-08 22:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@dca.net
Any two things in the world are similar in some ways and different in
others. The question is whether they are similar enough to be
considered "the same" for the purpose at hand.
Sure.
Post by s***@dca.net
For instance, a heterosexual marriage between two nineteen year olds is
going to be different, in many significant ways, from a marriage
between a widow and widower in their late 60s. A poor couple's
marriage will differ in some ways from a marriage between two
ultrawealthy people. In fact, any two married couples' experiences
will be different. But for legal purposes, they are considered "the
same."
So it is often alleged that is is "absurd" to forbid marriages between
elderly people. Of course it isn't, it just happens to be Christian
tradition that such marriages can be accepted. Child marriage has never been
common in Christian countries, and is currently prohibited by canon law.
However in some cultures it is regarded as normal.
Most cultures have so many poor people, and such wide variations in wealth,
that there is no formal wealth limit for marriage. However there are often
traditions designed to provide a de-facto limit (a Jewish groom must buy
the engagement ring with his own money, for example).
Personally I would defend the Chrisitian traditions and theological
understanding of marraage, but it doesn't follow that if a Hindu, for
instance, posted about his particular traditions, we could instantly dismiss
all his arguments as of no account.
Post by s***@dca.net
The question, then, is whether there is something about same-sex,
longterm couples that is different enough to bar them from marriage.
It seems to me that the sex of the participants is one of the basic factors
in any sexual relationship. I was getting rid of the "equality" argument
(apples and oranges must be sold at the same price because all fruit is of
the same value), not the "liberty" argument (the stall was sold as an apple
barrow, but if the owner wants to sell oranges as well the onus is on us to
prove that he is not entitled to do so).
I agree with you here, having shown that same sex relationships have a point
of difference with different-sex relationship, the anti-gay marriage lobby
must show why that makes different legal treatment not only rational, but
also a moral imperative.
Post by s***@dca.net
Again and again, the procreation argument is put forth, but that
doesn't apply here because marriage is legal between people who cannot
procreate (the elderly couple, people who are unable to reproduce due
to injury, illness, etc.), or who choose not to procreate (people who
have had vasectomies, tubal ligations, etc.)
That is the obvious and important difference. It is not the only argument.

In Catholic terms, anyone who married someone who had been sterilised would
be granted an annullment quite easily. Homosexuals certainly have the case
that the teaching on homosexual relationships is more vigorously enforced
than the teaching on contraception - it doesn't necessarily make sense to
kick up a huge fuss when homosexual marraige is proposed, but just give a
polite protest when government posters go up promoting free contraceptives.

In Catholic teaching, sexual acts must be open to the transmission of life.
John the Baptist was conceived to a mother past the menopause, so we cannot
hold that this is a barrier. Sex during pregnancy is also allowed, but that
is in the context of a productive relationship. Cryptic infertility isn't a
problem. With modern medicine, a doctor might know that there is on fact no
chance of a pregancy, but psychologically the couple don't know that.
Doctors can also be wrong. Obvious infertility does lead to a grey area. The
couple must be able to consummate the marriage. However often these things
are very private, if a person does have abnormalities in the sexual organs,
for instance, only his partner and doctor will normally know, so there is no
public scandal.
Post by s***@dca.net
So the procreation argument doesn't make gay couples different *enough*
to justify exclusion from civil marriage.
An argument can be basically sound, but not absolutely conclusive. Most
people would say that murder should be illegal because the state has a duty
to protect life. However if you kill someone on death row that is still
murder. It doesn't follow that the whole notion of "protecting life" is
nonsense. It does show that there are other reasons why states prohibit
murder.

An ideal Christian marriage is between two young people who are both
virgins, who intend to live together and raise children, and who remain
faithful to each other until death.
It is unlikely that there is a single homosexual relationship with those
characterisics. So there is actually no comparison with the ideal Chrisitian
marriage.

However many Christian marriages are not ideal. People live together. They
have boyfriends and girlfriends and affairs. They decide they can't afford
to have kids, they get divorced, etc etc etc.
In these circumstances, marriage can be seen as patching up a bad job. If
you live with someone, in Chrisitian tradition you are not obliged to get
married, even if you have children. However often marriage is in fact the
best solution all round. Statisitically, marriages to a former co-habitee
tend to break down more often thna when the partners don't live together.

Amongst Catholics who were virgins at marriage and don't use contraception
the divorce rate is effectively zero.
We have no data on homosexual marriage yet, but it is most unlikely that
there will be any group of homosexuals, male or female, for whom the divorce
rate will be effectively zero.
Post by s***@dca.net
(Religious marriage is a
different matter: clergy have always had the right to refuse to perform
weddings they find religiously objectionable, but which the state
considers legal: interfaith marriages, for example.)
There is the legitimate point that the church is kicking up a huge fuss
about homosexual marriage, but not about remarriage of divorcees. The reason
is that non-Christians, and some Christian denominations, do allow divorce
and remarriage. So much as the Catholic church disapproves, it doesn't feel
able to impose a social and religious change through political pressure.
Homosexual marraige, on the other hand, is an innovation. The church is
arguing that existing laws be maintained, not that new ones be enacted.

(Christians, unlike some other faiths, have always accepted interfaith
marriages, though disapproving. Recently the Vatican issued a warning about
marrying Muslims because of the intolerance of their doctrines).
s***@dca.net
2005-05-10 10:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Malcolm --

You raise some excellent points, but they all flow from what strikes me
as a faulty concept of the purpose of government in a free society.

The key issue here is: What should the relationship be between the
Church's ideals and civil law, in a country where people have the right
not be Christian? (I hope we can agree that people do and should have
such a legal right. Otherwise there's not much point in discussing the
matter.)

It is one thing for a religion to preach to its members, and serve as
an advisory voice to society at large like the ancient prophets:
telling the public what that particular faith considers good and right,
and explaining why it believes as it does. But to enshrine such
beliefs in law and impose them on everyone, regardless of an
individual's own religious professions or lack thereof, has the whiff
of theocracy about it.

I think we can agree that no religion should have to perform marriages
that violate its teachings. However, civil marriage is a different
matter.

History shows that countries go down a dangerous road when the
government's goals include the saving of souls -- or to use your
wording, when law is based on "moral imperatives" (in practice, a
religious concept) rather than a rational consideration of a policy's
impact.

I'm not 100% for or against same-sex marriage. Ten years ago, I'd have
said I was against it, but the more I hear the arguments against gay
marriage the more convinced I am that it's the right way for society to
go.

So far, the public debate on the matter has been far too clouded with
discussion of sacraments and moral imperatives, and has not focused
enough on the purposes of *civil marriage* and whether they apply to
lesbian or gay couples. If the best someone can come up with is "it
should be illegal because marriage is a sacrament" or "because this is
the way it's always been," I suspect it's because there is no sound
legal, ethical argument against same-sex marriage.

--
Steven Capsuto
http://www.stevecap.com
Dennis Kemmerer
2005-05-10 17:23:24 UTC
Permalink
<***@dca.net> wrote in message news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[snip]
Post by s***@dca.net
So far, the public debate on the matter has been far too clouded with
discussion of sacraments and moral imperatives, and has not focused
enough on the purposes of *civil marriage* and whether they apply to
lesbian or gay couples. If the best someone can come up with is "it
should be illegal because marriage is a sacrament" or "because this is
the way it's always been," I suspect it's because there is no sound
legal, ethical argument against same-sex marriage.
You're exactly right. Opponents' arguments against same-sex marriage boil
down to:

1. Religion

2. Appeal to tradition ('that's the way it's always been')

3. Procreation

4. 'Eeeew,' ('let's outlaw asparagus because it's yucky')

5. 'Slippery slope' ('it'll lead to marrying your
sister/mother/brother/horse/buick,' AKA 'the sky is falling')

None of the arguments has any legal validity, and the opponents know it.
I've seen people ranging from Rick 'The Bigot' Santorum to President Bush
come right out and say that a Constitutional amendment is the only way to
ban same-sex marriage. Doesn't stop them, though, from screaming
hysterically about procreation, promiscuity, 'destruction of marriage,'
'armageddon' and their other strawmen, red herrings and misinformed
religious voodoo. The tighter their titties get twisted, the more ridiculous
and anachronistic their arguments become.
Malcolm
2005-05-10 22:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@dca.net
Malcolm --
You raise some excellent points, but they all flow from what strikes me
as a faulty concept of the purpose of government in a free society.
Thank you. It is a nice change to see that on this ng adults can disagree in
a civilised and productive way.
Post by s***@dca.net
The key issue here is: What should the relationship be between the
Church's ideals and civil law, in a country where people have the right
not be Christian? (I hope we can agree that people do and should have
such a legal right. Otherwise there's not much point in discussing the
matter.)
Exactly. First point is that in many societies, it is simply not feasible
for people to choose their religion. A medieval peasant cannot exampt
himself from the harvest festival, and an African bushman cannot refuse to
appease the spirit of his kill. We mistake our current condition for
normality, partly because the cities of the late Roman Empire were another
example of those excpetional societies where men chose which religion to
follow.
However I agree that in current social conditions in Britain and America, it
would be seen as oppressive to enact laws mandating any particular religion.
In America you have this theory of "separation of religion and state".
Originally it meant that the established Christian denominations - Baptist,
Methodist, Episcopalian etc, wouldn't enjoy any advantage over the others.
More recently it has been interpreted as meaning that the state must treat
all philosphical positions as of equal value. This is beginning to lead to
absurdity. For instance it is not possible to teach school biology without
making some statement obout the value of religious doctrines. More subtly,
but more importantly, it is also impossible to teach history, literature,
art and music without giving covert messages as to the value of certain
traditions.
In Britian we don't have the same issue - the Anglican Church is
established.
Post by s***@dca.net
It is one thing for a religion to preach to its members, and serve as
telling the public what that particular faith considers good and right,
and explaining why it believes as it does. But to enshrine such
beliefs in law and impose them on everyone, regardless of an
individual's own religious professions or lack thereof, has the whiff
of theocracy about it.
But this is always the case. If not religious ethical principles, secular
ethical principles will be enacted into law. It is illegal to sell yourself
into slavery to repay debts. In Britian is illegal to refuse to employ
female teachers in your school.
Post by s***@dca.net
I think we can agree that no religion should have to perform marriages
that violate its teachings. However, civil marriage is a different
matter.
History shows that countries go down a dangerous road when the
government's goals include the saving of souls -- or to use your
wording, when law is based on "moral imperatives" (in practice, a
religious concept) rather than a rational consideration of a policy's
impact.
No. Atheists also frequently have "moral imperatives". In purely legal
terms, homosexual marriages offer almost nothing that cohabitation doesn't.
Homosexuals are not motivated by pension plans and inheritance rights, but
by the moral imperative that the state must recognise their relationships as
of equal value.
Post by s***@dca.net
I'm not 100% for or against same-sex marriage. Ten years ago, I'd have
said I was against it, but the more I hear the arguments against gay
marriage the more convinced I am that it's the right way for society to
go.
I actually think that the church has thrown a knee-jerk wobbly on this. If
they wanted to hold the line, it should have been with divorce (what right
does the state have to declare a marriage performed by the church dissolved,
without the church's permission?). If civil marriage and religious marriage
are two different things, it isn't obvious that homosexual civil unions are
out of bounds.
Post by s***@dca.net
So far, the public debate on the matter has been far too clouded with
discussion of sacraments and moral imperatives, and has not focused
enough on the purposes of *civil marriage* and whether they apply to
lesbian or gay couples. If the best someone can come up with is "it
should be illegal because marriage is a sacrament" or "because this is
the way it's always been," I suspect it's because there is no sound
legal, ethical argument against same-sex marriage.
The ethical argument would be that homosexual relationships are not the same
as heterosexual relationships, and are immoral (without going into why they
are immoral). The legal argument would be that a contract to do something
immoral is not binding - for instance contracts involving prostitution have
no force in law, and are stuck down by the courts. A similar contract
involving sacks of potatoes would be enforced.
s***@dca.net
2005-05-11 00:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by s***@dca.net
Malcolm --
You raise some excellent points, but they all flow from what
strikes me
Post by Malcolm
Post by s***@dca.net
as a faulty concept of the purpose of government in a free society.
Thank you. It is a nice change to see that on this ng adults can disagree in
a civilised and productive way.
Likewise.
Post by Malcolm
However I agree that in current social conditions in Britain and America, it
would be seen as oppressive to enact laws mandating any particular religion.
In America you have this theory of "separation of religion and
state".
Post by Malcolm
Originally it meant that the established Christian denominations - Baptist,
Methodist, Episcopalian etc, wouldn't enjoy any advantage over the others.
My knowledge of the architects of American independence is limited.
Mostly I've read biographies and writings of the "big three" members of
the 2nd Continental Congress: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and
John Adams.

Franklin was a Deist and moral relativist who construed freedom of
religion broadly. Jefferson wrote that freedom of religion should
extend to people who preach that there is one god, twelve gods or none
at all. Adams, when he became president, entered into a treaty with
Tripoli. The document assured the leaders of that Muslim nation that
they had nothing to fear from the United States, as our country was in
no way founded on Christian beliefs.

However, the country's early legislators held a wide range of views,
which surely included the approach you describe.
Post by Malcolm
More recently it has been interpreted as meaning that the state must treat
all philosphical positions as of equal value. This is beginning to lead to
absurdity. For instance it is not possible to teach school biology without
making some statement obout the value of religious doctrines. More subtly,
but more importantly, it is also impossible to teach history,
literature,
Post by Malcolm
art and music without giving covert messages as to the value of certain
traditions.
That is always the case. It is even true in Catholic parochial
schools: the messages are just different.
Post by Malcolm
In Britian we don't have the same issue - the Anglican Church is
established.
Slightly less established than it used to be though, isn't it? I seem
to recall that there was recent (or pending?) legislation to replace
the old blasphemy laws with a statute broadly outlawing religious hate
speech. From a free speech standpoint, neither law sounds very
productive.
Post by Malcolm
No. Atheists also frequently have "moral imperatives".
In the classical sense of the word "moral," yes. But in practice,
"moral" now seems to mean "what my preacher assures me that God wants."
To talk about morality, in this present-day sense, requires little
thought, since it's largely a matter of parroting something that was
spoonfed and not open to reconsideration in the light of facts.
Post by Malcolm
In purely legal
terms, homosexual marriages offer almost nothing that cohabitation doesn't.
Marriage carries with it a thousand or more legal and financial
protections, as well as other practical ones (visitation rights in
hospital emergency wards, a sense of stability for the couple's
children, etc.). In the U.S. there is the added issue of access to
health insurance, which is a huge matter.
Post by Malcolm
Homosexuals are not motivated by pension plans and inheritance
rights, but
Post by Malcolm
by the moral imperative that the state must recognise their
relationships as
Post by Malcolm
of equal value.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. The long-term, same-sex couples I
know are concerned about both equality -- an ethical issue -- and
protection for their partner from some of the horrors that go with
being in a relationship that has no legal standing. This is
particularly a worry for the older couples I know (various pairs in
their 70s and 80s, who have been together for half a century or more
and are legally considered strangers).
Post by Malcolm
I actually think that the church has thrown a knee-jerk wobbly on this. If
they wanted to hold the line, it should have been with divorce (what right
does the state have to declare a marriage performed by the church dissolved,
without the church's permission?).
This is where the waters get muddied. When the church performs a
wedding, two institutions are created: a church marriage and a civil
marriage. Obviously, the state has a right to dissolve the latter, and
the church has the right to consider the former still intact. I think
France has the right idea: IIRC, France firmly separated the two
concepts centuries ago.
Post by Malcolm
If civil marriage and religious marriage
are two different things, it isn't obvious that homosexual civil unions are
out of bounds.
Finally, we agree! :-)
Post by Malcolm
The ethical argument would be that homosexual relationships are not the same
as heterosexual relationships,
Aside than the defining feature -- the gender of the people involved --
you would have to come up with some other basic traits inherent in
same-sex couples that are not also shared by thousands of straight
couples. Again, every marriage is different, but you'd have to prove
that gay marriage is different *enough* to warrant unequal treatment.
Post by Malcolm
and are immoral (without going into why they
are immoral).
That parenthetic remark is a lovely rhetorical wave of the hand... But
the *why* is precisely what must be gone into if millions of people are
to be denied a basic right.
Post by Malcolm
The legal argument would be that a contract to do something
immoral is not binding - for instance contracts involving
prostitution have
Post by Malcolm
no force in law,
Because prostitution is illegal. It's that simple. You're confusing
morality ("what my preacher taught me") with democratically enacted
law.

The problem with focusing on morality rather than ethics in enacting
laws is that it's hard to get people to agree on something as
intangible as morality: we cannot hook up a video camera and interview
a Supernatural Being and find out Ultimate Truths. So Anglicans will
believe one (or many) things, Catholics a variety of other things
(depending on their particular branch of that faith), Jews (ditto) and
so on. We can more easily focus on ethics and look at the outcomes
produced by individual public policies, and consider basic matters of
fairness. We'll still have disagreements, but they'll be easier to
resolve since they're based in the physical world rather than theories
about the metaphysical one.

Regards from across the Pond.

--
Steven Capsuto
http://www.stevecap.com
Malcolm
2005-05-12 21:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Malcolm
and are immoral (without going into why they are immoral).
That parenthetic remark is a lovely rhetorical wave of the hand... But
the *why* is precisely what must be gone into if millions of people are
to be denied a basic right.
The legal argument would be that a contract to do something
immoral is not binding - for instance contracts involving
prostitution have no force in law,
Because prostitution is illegal. It's that simple. You're confusing
morality ("what my preacher taught me") with democratically enacted
law.
You are wrong on a point of fact. In Britian, if two people agree to have
sex and that money will chnage hands, no offence is committed. The law
focuses on the nuisance caused by "soliciting" and on third parties taking a
share of the proceeds. However the contract is not enforceable, so if the
man refuses to hand over the hundred pounds after having sex, the woman
cannot take him to court and sue for the money.
Where small amounts of money are involved, it is not obvious that this law
is very fair. However in practise it is probably a sensible law, since
enforceable contracts involving sex would soon lead to some very difficult
situations, such as "you agreed to leave your wife for me". We are not
abstract economic beings exchanging abstract services, and transactions
involving sex have a very different psychological character to those
involving sacks of potatoes.

So contracts involving sex are not recognised because the state considers
them to be immoral, not the other way round. Similarly, if the state
considers homosexual acts to be immoral, it is obvious that recognising
contracts or marriages involving homosexual sex is fraught with difficulty.

But are homosexual acts immoral? That's the huge question. My only point in
this thread is that this question needs to be answered on its own terms.
Arguments about equal rights are a pure distraction.
Dennis Kemmerer
2005-05-12 21:44:46 UTC
Permalink
"Malcolm" <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:d60gpd$844$***@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

[snip]
Post by Malcolm
But are homosexual acts immoral? That's the huge question. My only point
in this thread is that this question needs to be answered on its own
terms.
Gee, why didn't you just say that in the first place. It's a very simple
question.

All other circumstances being equal, homosexual acts are no more or less
immoral than heterosexual acts.
Chuckles
2005-05-13 12:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
[snip]
Post by Malcolm
But are homosexual acts immoral? That's the huge question. My only point
in this thread is that this question needs to be answered on its own
terms.
Gee, why didn't you just say that in the first place. It's a very simple
question.
All other circumstances being equal, homosexual acts are no more or less
immoral than heterosexual acts.
Such a simple concept is beyond the understanding of many brainwashed
Christians.
Malcolm
2005-05-15 00:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chuckles
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
All other circumstances being equal, homosexual acts are no more or less
immoral than heterosexual acts.
Such a simple concept is beyond the understanding of many brainwashed
Christians.
Read the thread.
This is just "Apples and oranges must be sold at the same price because we
are ideologically committed to the notion that all fruit is of equal value".
Dennis Kemmerer
2005-05-15 01:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by Chuckles
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
All other circumstances being equal, homosexual acts are no more or less
immoral than heterosexual acts.
Such a simple concept is beyond the understanding of many brainwashed
Christians.
Read the thread.
This is just "Apples and oranges must be sold at the same price because we
are ideologically committed to the notion that all fruit is of equal value".
You owe me for a case of irony meters.

Your objection to same-sex relationships is nothing more than an
'ideological committment to the notion' that opposite-sex relationships have
more value than same-sex relationships.
Malcolm
2005-05-15 20:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
You owe me for a case of irony meters.
Your objection to same-sex relationships is nothing more than an
'ideological committment to the notion' that opposite-sex relationships
have more value than same-sex relationships.
The difference is that the homosexual lobby say that it is self-evidently
true that same-sex and opposite sex relationships are of equal value,
because as good Western liberals we all believe in equality, don't we?

I am saying they are not equal, and given reasons. So far in this thread I
haven't gone into whether homosexual relationships are of greater or lesser
value, just attacked the idea that they are equal. Why do you assume that if
homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not of equal value, the
homosexual relationships must be inferior? Surely you might not argue that,
in an over-populated world, relationships that cannt lead to conception
ought to be encouraged?
Dennis Kemmerer
2005-05-15 21:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
You owe me for a case of irony meters.
Your objection to same-sex relationships is nothing more than an
'ideological committment to the notion' that opposite-sex relationships
have more value than same-sex relationships.
The difference is that the homosexual lobby say that it is self-evidently
true that same-sex and opposite sex relationships are of equal value,
because as good Western liberals we all believe in equality, don't we?
I don't think anybody cares what you and the mouse in your pocket think.
Post by Malcolm
I am saying they are not equal, and given reasons.
The only 'reason' you've posited is reproductive capability, an argument
that's easily refuted, because there's a very large number of opposite-sex
couples who have no reproductive capability.
Post by Malcolm
So far in this thread I haven't gone into whether homosexual relationships
are of greater or lesser value, just attacked the idea that they are
equal.
You've merely expressed an ideologically-based opinion.
Post by Malcolm
Why do you assume that if homosexual and heterosexual relationships are
not of equal value, the homosexual relationships must be inferior?
So yes, since heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different they
must have points of superiority and inferiority.
'Superior' means 'of higher value.'

You're the one asserting that one's better than the other.

[snip irrelevant over-population red herring]
Malcolm
2005-05-16 21:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
The only 'reason' you've posited is reproductive capability, an argument
that's easily refuted, because there's a very large number of opposite-sex
couples who have no reproductive capability.
That's an obvious reason, but not the only one. You've shown that fertile
and infertile heterosexual relationships are unequal, not that homosexual
and heterosexual relationships are equal.
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by Malcolm
So yes, since heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different they
must have points of superiority and inferiority.
'Superior' means 'of higher value.'
You're the one asserting that one's better than the other.
So if apples are oranges are equal in every respect, then apple cider will
taste the same as orange cider. If they are not the same, then you can do a
tasting test, and more people will prefer one cider to another. In fact we
know that apples are superior for making alcohlic drinks, whilst oranges
contain more vitamin C. If you are going to ask "are apples better than
oranges?" the best anwser is "better for what, are you making booze of
vitamin supplements?".
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
[snip irrelevant over-population red herring]
Not irrelevant.
I've gort rid of one bad argument from homosexual marriages. This doesn't
mean that I have proved that such marriages should not be performed, nor
gotten rid of every argument for them.
Let's take one step at a time, shall we.
Paul Duca
2005-05-15 23:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
You owe me for a case of irony meters.
Your objection to same-sex relationships is nothing more than an
'ideological committment to the notion' that opposite-sex relationships
have more value than same-sex relationships.
The difference is that the homosexual lobby say that it is self-evidently
true that same-sex and opposite sex relationships are of equal value,
because as good Western liberals we all believe in equality, don't we?
I am saying they are not equal, and given reasons.
No...you give the reasons other people fed you for their own
benefit.


Paul
Jeff North
2005-05-16 08:39:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:02:19 +0000 (UTC), in
|
| >
| > You owe me for a case of irony meters.
| >
| > Your objection to same-sex relationships is nothing more than an
| > 'ideological committment to the notion' that opposite-sex relationships
| > have more value than same-sex relationships.
| The difference is that the homosexual lobby say that it is self-evidently
| true that same-sex and opposite sex relationships are of equal value,
| because as good Western liberals we all believe in equality, don't we?
|
| I am saying they are not equal, and given reasons. So far in this thread I
| haven't gone into whether homosexual relationships are of greater or lesser
| value, just attacked the idea that they are equal. Why do you assume that if
| homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not of equal value, the
| homosexual relationships must be inferior? Surely you might not argue that,
| in an over-populated world, relationships that cannt lead to conception
| ought to be encouraged?
Are you implying that a heterosexual marriage that hasn't or cannot
produce offspring is still superior to that of a homosexual/lesbian
couple?

Does the government, or anyone else for that matter, disallow sterile
heterosexuals from marrying?

---------------------------------------------------------------
***@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
f***@mail.croydon.ac.uk
2005-05-15 11:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
For instance it is not possible to teach school biology without
making some statement obout the value of religious doctrines. More subtly,
but more importantly, it is also impossible to teach history,
literature,
Post by Malcolm
art and music without giving covert messages as to the value of certain
traditions.
In Britian we don't have the same issue - the Anglican Church is
established.
Sorry, but I simply don't understand what you are saying here. What
can 'the value of religious doctrines' possibly have do do with
biology? If you were teaching history, for example' then this would be
revelent, religious doctrines have affected peoples behaviour, caused
them to design certain buildings in particular ways, go to war, etc.,
but what possible connection can there be with biology?
Andrealphus
2005-05-15 12:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@mail.croydon.ac.uk
Post by Malcolm
For instance it is not possible to teach school biology without
making some statement obout the value of religious doctrines. More
subtly, but more importantly, it is also impossible to teach
history, literature, art and music without giving covert messages as
to the value of certain traditions.
In Britian we don't have the same issue - the Anglican Church is
established.
Sorry, but I simply don't understand what you are saying here. What
can 'the value of religious doctrines' possibly have do do with
biology?
Particularly since the past "religious doctrines" concerning biology has
been later proven to be 100% wrong.
Post by f***@mail.croydon.ac.uk
If you were teaching history, for example' then this would
be revelent, religious doctrines have affected peoples behaviour,
But one doesn't necessarily have to assign a "value" to the various
docterines to give a purely academic treatment to them in history.
Post by f***@mail.croydon.ac.uk
caused them to design certain buildings in particular ways, go to
war, etc., but what possible connection can there be with biology?
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."

Albert Einstein
Malcolm
2005-05-15 20:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Particularly since the past "religious doctrines" concerning biology has
been later proven to be 100% wrong.
If I say "It is accepted by all competent authorities that humans evolved
from ape-like creatures around 150,000 years ago" then in my opinion I am
teaching biology. I am also pasing judgement on the value of religions that
assert the opposite.
Post by Andrealphus
But one doesn't necessarily have to assign a "value" to the various
docterines to give a purely academic treatment to them in history.
In practise this isn't true. For instance personally I would teach that the
Genesis account of creation was regarded as a myth in the fifth century,
because educated people like St Augistine believed that a creation in stages
was incompatible with the elemental theory of matter. You cannot teach that
without also making comments on the value of present day religious
doctrines.
Andrealphus
2005-05-15 20:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by Andrealphus
Particularly since the past "religious doctrines" concerning biology
has been later proven to be 100% wrong.
If I say "It is accepted by all competent authorities that humans
evolved from ape-like creatures around 150,000 years ago" then in my
opinion I am teaching biology.
Nonsense. You are teaching the THEORY of Evoluion. There is no "biology"
involved.

I am also pasing judgement on the
Post by Malcolm
value of religions that assert the opposite.
Again, nonsense. You are giving an academic treatment to a well documented
theory.
Post by Malcolm
Post by Andrealphus
But one doesn't necessarily have to assign a "value" to the various
docterines to give a purely academic treatment to them in history.
In practise this isn't true.
In practice, giving an academic treatment is quite true.
Post by Malcolm
For instance personally I would teach
that the Genesis account of creation was regarded as a myth in the
fifth century, because educated people like St Augistine believed
that a creation in stages was incompatible with the elemental theory
of matter. You cannot teach that without also making comments on the
value of present day religious doctrines.
A good instructor can give an academic treatment without placing such
values.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."

Albert Einstein
Malcolm
2005-05-16 21:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Nonsense. You are teaching the THEORY of Evoluion. There is no "biology"
involved.
A theory can become so well established that you cannot teach a subject
without it. The atomic theory of matter, for instance, wasn't demonstrated
by any one conclusive experiment, but gradually superseded the old four
elements theory.
To say that you can teach physics or chemistry without teaching about atoms
is nonsense. Similarly you cannot teach biology without teaching about
evolution.
Post by Andrealphus
Again, nonsense. You are giving an academic treatment to a well documented
theory.
Scools don't work like that. Pupils are not sufficiently mature
intellectually to weigh everything from principles. Neither are university
academics, who in practise rely largely on authority and usually have only
one narrow area of actual expertise.
Post by Andrealphus
A good instructor can give an academic treatment without placing such
values.
If you can employ Socrates as your schoomaster, maybe you have a hope. Mr
Bloggs at the local state school can't help but teach values at the same
time as he teaches history. The question is, does he admit this or does he
do so unconsciously.
Andrealphus
2005-05-16 21:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by Andrealphus
Nonsense. You are teaching the THEORY of Evoluion. There is no "biology"
involved.
A theory can become so well established that you cannot teach a
subject without it. The atomic theory of matter, for instance, wasn't
demonstrated by any one conclusive experiment, but gradually
superseded the old four elements theory.
To say that you can teach physics or chemistry without teaching about
atoms is nonsense. Similarly you cannot teach biology without
teaching about evolution.
But you can teach evolution without teaching biology.
Post by Malcolm
Post by Andrealphus
Again, nonsense. You are giving an academic treatment to a well documented
theory.
Scools don't work like that.
Schools do though.


Pupils are not sufficiently mature
Post by Malcolm
intellectually to weigh everything from principles. Neither are
university academics, who in practise rely largely on authority and
usually have only one narrow area of actual expertise.
Post by Andrealphus
A good instructor can give an academic treatment without placing such
values.
If you can employ Socrates as your schoomaster, maybe you have a
hope. Mr Bloggs at the local state school can't help but teach values
at the same time as he teaches history. The question is, does he
admit this or does he do so unconsciously.
Like I said, a good instructor can give an academic treatment without
placing such values. I've had several such instructors. Case in point.
I teach a martial art which was once steeped heavily in Taoist phylosophy.
I teach the martial art, and my students are not exposed to Taoism. It's
easy if you put a small amount of effort into it.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."

Albert Einstein
Dennis Kemmerer
2005-05-01 17:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by Malcolm
I am predicting that when homosexual marriage is recognised this will be
the next demand - that in schools we must teach children in a
"non-directional" way. That is to say, not to suggest that heterosexual
relationships are in any way superior to homosexual ones.
Since the relationships are equal, why wouldn't you teach kids that the
relationships are equal?
I'm a biologist. I can tell you that when two men have sex together you
won't have any children.
Hell, why didn't you just come right out and tell me that you were going to
posit the procreation argument.

As a biologist, I'm sure you're aware that there are many, many opposite-sex
couples who can't reproduce. According to your 'reasoning,' if an
opposite-sex couple can't reproduce, their relationship is unequal to that
of an opposite-sex couple who happens to be able to produce children.
Post by Malcolm
Now we can argue that this doesn't matter, you might even say that in our
over-populated world it means that homosexual relationships are better and
should be encouraged. However the relationships are clearly not equal, so
that particular argument must be dropped.
Does that inequality apply to opposite-sex couples that are incapable of
reproduction, or just the relationships you don't like?

How sad that your relationships are predicated on genitalia and gestation.
What shallow relationships you must have.
No One
2005-05-02 06:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by Dennis Kemmerer
Post by Malcolm
I am predicting that when homosexual marriage is recognised this will be
the next demand - that in schools we must teach children in a
"non-directional" way. That is to say, not to suggest that heterosexual
relationships are in any way superior to homosexual ones.
Since the relationships are equal, why wouldn't you teach kids that the
relationships are equal?
I'm a biologist. I can tell you that when two men have sex together you
won't have any children.
Well, I'm not a biologist but I have read that 25% of straight couples
try anal sex and probably more try oral sex. Last I heard, neither anal
sex nor oral sex is an effective way to produce children. Are you
claiming I'm misinformed?
Post by Malcolm
Now we can argue that this doesn't matter, you might even say that in our
over-populated world it means that homosexual relationships are better and
should be encouraged. However the relationships are clearly not equal, so
that particular argument must be dropped.
If a heterosexual couple restricts themselves to anal and oral sex
(maybe they are not married and want to reduce the risk of a
pregnancy to zero), does that make their relationship inferior. If
a straight, married women has a hysterectomy, is her marriage now
inferior due to an inability to have children?

Of course nobody in their right minds would make such claims, but that
is what your argument seems to require.
Jeff North
2005-05-01 05:45:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:23:35 +0000 (UTC), in
| >
| > I'm afraid I don't know what 'non-directional sex education is.' Is that a
| > new church tract buzzphrase?
| >
| No. The phrase hasn't gained wide currency yet because homosexuals are still
| demanding homosexual marriage. I am predicting that when homosexual marriage
| is recognised this will be the next demand - that in schools we must teach
| children in a "non-directional" way. That is to say, not to suggest that
| heterosexual relationships are in any way superior to homosexual ones.
News flash: no relationship is superior, or inferior, to any other
relationship.
| Of course the buzzword settled on might not be "non-directional sex
| education" but something similar (like "anti-homophobic studies") and I
| might be wrong, but time will tell.
While there are morons like you out there ready to trash someone elses
life because you feel that their relationship is inferior to yours
then yes, this type of 'education' will always be warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------
***@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
evilgeniusabroad
2005-04-30 20:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
It is not uncommon for gay guys to try to convince straight people
to have sex with them.
What planet are you from?

In the last 6 weeks:

G, on learning I was gay grabbed me and snogged me. Despite me telling
him i wasnt interested he was far too drunk to take 'no' for an anwser.
I either had to resort to violence or accept his attentions.
Technically, I was sexually assaulted.

C. I came round from a drunken stupor and only to see him naked,
marching out of the kitchen with a bottle of olive oil shouting "fuck
me you bastard", luckily, i passed out.

F. "Why dont you stay sleep on my sofa, bearing in mind I dont have a
sofa..."

B. "I dont want to stay in a hotel, why dont we go to yours...you can
have me, if you want"

I work with 5 blokes and 1 woman. What is going the fuck on?
JohnN
2005-04-30 20:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
What homosexuals actually want is for the church to drop its position that
sodomy is immoral. Unfortunately that isn't possible. However you can say
"as a Catholic homsexual I don't accept that I am any more sinful than those
couples who use contraception."
Only the most committed Roman Catholic homosexuals will care about the
church's position on the morality of homosexuality. All the other
homosexuals, and many heterosexuals, want the church to stop trying to
have its religious dogma enacted into law. If the RRC can not educate
and motivate its members to sheepishly kowtow to its dogma, then they
need to find other solutions.

JohnN
Bonnie Bitch
2005-04-30 22:25:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:36:53 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

<commentary edited to reflect truth in advertising and reality>
It is not uncommon for allegedly straight guys to try to convince
lesbians to have sex with them.
An allegedly straight guy has a very strong interest in promoting cunilingus
between lesbians, it is true.
However you constantly see events put on by
heterosexual organisations and heterosexuals
that encourage people to "explore their sexuality".
Like most organisations they want members.
Happy FOAD --

Bonnie Bitch
Jeff North
2005-05-01 05:41:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:36:53 +0000 (UTC), in
| >> "Sodomy lobby????"
| >
| > That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I don't
| > think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what straight people
| > did in bed. That's their business.
| >
| It is not uncommon for gay guys to try to convince straight people to have
| sex with them.
| A gay guy doesn't have a very strong interest in promoting sodomy between
| two other people, it is true. However you occasionally see events put on by
| homosexual organisations that encourage people to "explore their sexuality".
| Like most organisations they want members.
HOw do you know this?
OIC, you attend all these 'meetings' and are really pissed off because
no one tries to 'convert' you.
| >
| > 1. not to be beat up
| >
| > 2. to be treated as equals. We are sick and tired of heterosexual
| > patronising.
| >
| > 3. to keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation. It is none of
| > their business what consenting adults do in private.
| >
| "to be treated as equals" is steadily being interpreted in wider and wider
| terms. Firstly the demand was for decriminalisation, then for an equal age
| of consent, then for gay marriage. Then it will be for equal rights to adopt
| and to work with children. Finally it will be for "non-directional" sex
| education.
What's wrong with the above?
| There is a very serious issue about how far the state should go in trying to
| enforce moral behaviour.
Oh here we go with the usual moral/bybull claptrap.
| Morality and law cannot be separated, but not
| everything that is immoral can be made illegal. However it is obvious from
| your post that you haven't even begun to look at this philosphical problem.
| Let's say that a group of adults join a cult, and decide to kill themselves
| in the belief that they will be transported to a spaceship travelling behind
| a comet that is passing Earth.Is it obvious that the state has no right to
| intervene?
If all the members of the cult were adults then no. If there is some
much as one child then yes the state should be involved.
| What homosexuals actually want is for the church to drop its position that
| sodomy is immoral.
Bullshit. Most gays couldn't give a flying fig what the church does
and does not 'allow'.
| Unfortunately that isn't possible. However you can say
| "as a Catholic homsexual I don't accept that I am any more sinful than those
| couples who use contraception."
Now if only the church could practice what they preach about morals
i.e. child molestation.
---------------------------------------------------------------
***@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm
2005-05-01 19:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff North
| It is not uncommon for gay guys to try to convince straight people to have
| sex with them.
| A gay guy doesn't have a very strong interest in promoting sodomy between
| two other people, it is true. However you occasionally see events put on by
| homosexual organisations that encourage people to "explore their sexuality".
| Like most organisations they want members.
HOw do you know this?
It isn't rare for young men to be asked to have homosexual intercourse. If
you have any experience of subcultures in which homosexuality is common (for
instance, some industries in London) you will have observed this.
Post by Jeff North
OIC, you attend all these 'meetings' and are really pissed off because
no one tries to 'convert' you.
I was thinking of a "sexuality week" put on by the student's union at our
university. The gay society was involved. It wasn't specifically designed as
a gay soc recruitment event, but if people found out that they might be gay
as a result of seeing the exhibits there was some sort of contact (can't
remember the details).
Post by Jeff North
| "to be treated as equals" is steadily being interpreted in wider and wider
| terms. Firstly the demand was for decriminalisation, then for an equal age
| of consent, then for gay marriage. Then it will be for equal rights to adopt
| and to work with children. Finally it will be for "non-directional" sex
| education.
What's wrong with the above?
"To be treated as equals" sounds like a fairly modest and reasonable demand.
However it rapidly becomes a demand for an entire reshaping of moral values
and social structure.
If homosexual equality is enshrined in law, then obviously "homophobics"
cannot be allowed to teach sex education. So no Chrisitian can be a sex
education teacher. Since Chrisitian doctrines about sodomy are seen as evil,
then children must be taught not to be Christians. That is what the demand
for "equality" must ultimately lead to, if taken seriously.
Post by Jeff North
| Let's say that a group of adults join a cult, and decide to kill themselves
| in the belief that they will be transported to a spaceship travelling behind
| a comet that is passing Earth.Is it obvious that the state has no right to
| intervene?
If all the members of the cult were adults then no. If there is some
much as one child then yes the state should be involved.
Actually that would be my attitude as well (but I wouldn't make an exception
for the child). If people elect to kill themselves thenlet them get on with
it. However I'm not saying that I am obviously correct, or that there aren;t
good arguments to the contrary.
Post by Jeff North
Now if only the church could practice what they preach about morals
i.e. child molestation.
Most of the child molestation cases involving the church have been
homosexual. Heterosexuals are normally only attracted to girls past
menarche, whilst for homosexuals there is no such point at which sexual
behaviour sets in.

Homosexuals are attracted to the priesthood for various reasons. In the
sixties and seventies the church decided to be less stringent in rejecting
any candidate with even a hint of homosexual behaviour. I am not saying that
this was necessarily wrong - in the gospels Jesus alludes to homosexuality
only once (when He compares a town that rejects the disciples unfavourably
with Sodom), so it obviously wasn't a big deal with Him. However we are now
facing the consequences. The sexual revolution is beginning to devour its
own.
Jeff North
2005-05-02 00:28:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 1 May 2005 19:42:28 +0000 (UTC), in alt.politics.homosexuality
| >>| It is not uncommon for gay guys to try to convince straight people to
| >>| have sex with them.
| >>| A gay guy doesn't have a very strong interest in promoting sodomy
| >>between
| >>| two other people, it is true. However you occasionally see events put on
| >>| by homosexual organisations that encourage people to "explore their
| >>| sexuality". Like most organisations they want members.
| >
| > HOw do you know this?
| >
| It isn't rare for young men to be asked to have homosexual intercourse. If
| you have any experience of subcultures in which homosexuality is common (for
| instance, some industries in London) you will have observed this.
Men, who are comfortable with their sexuality, simply say 'thanks but
I'm straight' and move on. Some guys that I know admitted to being
flattered by the 'gay attention'. If they can pass that test ....
| >
| > OIC, you attend all these 'meetings' and are really pissed off because
| > no one tries to 'convert' you.
| >
| I was thinking of a "sexuality week" put on by the student's union at our
| university. The gay society was involved. It wasn't specifically designed as
| a gay soc recruitment event, but if people found out that they might be gay
| as a result of seeing the exhibits there was some sort of contact (can't
| remember the details).
Re-read what you wrote and see how rediculous you appear.
| >>| "to be treated as equals" is steadily being interpreted in wider and
| >>wider
| >>| terms. Firstly the demand was for decriminalisation, then for an equal
| >>age
| >>| of consent, then for gay marriage. Then it will be for equal rights to
| >>adopt
| >>| and to work with children. Finally it will be for "non-directional" sex
| >>| education.
| >
| > What's wrong with the above?
| >
| "To be treated as equals" sounds like a fairly modest and reasonable demand.
| However it rapidly becomes a demand for an entire reshaping of moral values
| and social structure.
Who's moral values? Yours?
| If homosexual equality is enshrined in law, then obviously "homophobics"
| cannot be allowed to teach sex education.
I doubt if these 'homophobics' know anything about sex. Their class
would consist of, guys you get a boner, you drag the bitch you want by
the hair into a place of convenience and you stick you boner between
her legs. The loader she screams, or protest, means that she likes it.
| So no Chrisitian can be a sex
| education teacher. Since Chrisitian doctrines about sodomy are seen as evil,
Look up in any dictionary what sodomy means. You may realise how
rediculous your argument is.
| then children must be taught not to be Christians.
Now there's something we can agree on.
| That is what the demand
| for "equality" must ultimately lead to, if taken seriously.
Yeah and the sky is falling.

[snip]
| > Now if only the church could practice what they preach about morals
| > i.e. child molestation.
| >
| Most of the child molestation cases involving the church have been
| homosexual. Heterosexuals are normally only attracted to girls past
| menarche,
Where so you get this crap from. Obviously not from reliable and
credible sources.
| whilst for homosexuals there is no such point at which sexual
| behaviour sets in.
So all heterosexuals are as pure as driven snow.
| Homosexuals are attracted to the priesthood for various reasons. In the
| sixties and seventies the church decided to be less stringent in rejecting
| any candidate with even a hint of homosexual behaviour. I am not saying that
| this was necessarily wrong - in the gospels Jesus alludes to homosexuality
| only once (when He compares a town that rejects the disciples unfavourably
| with Sodom), so it obviously wasn't a big deal with Him.
Neither was allowing Lotts daughters to fuck daddy.
| However we are now
| facing the consequences. The sexual revolution is beginning to devour its
| own.
Tell you what. Why don't you open a store selling chastity belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------
***@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
No One
2005-05-02 06:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
"To be treated as equals" sounds like a fairly modest and reasonable demand.
However it rapidly becomes a demand for an entire reshaping of moral values
and social structure.
If homosexual equality is enshrined in law, then obviously "homophobics"
cannot be allowed to teach sex education. So no Chrisitian can be a sex
education teacher.
Would you want someone with a phobia about sex to teach sex education?
Would you want your kids taught that they should feel guilty about any
kind of sexual feelings? Sounds like a good way to mess them up for a
good long time - make them feel guilty about natural human behavior
and then make a bundle off them in therapy as the shrinks try to fix
the mess.
Post by Malcolm
Since Chrisitian doctrines about sodomy are seen as evil, then
children must be taught not to be Christians. That is what the
demand for "equality" must ultimately lead to, if taken seriously.
Oh nonsense. Most Christians (defined here as people who go to a
Christian church on Sunday) spend their hour a week praising the
Lord and the rest of the week screwing their neighbors, I mean,
doing their job at a large corporation. Since most Catholics
apparently ignore their church regarding contraceptives and
birth control, why shouldn't they ignore their church on almost
any other sexual topic?
Post by Malcolm
Homosexuals are attracted to the priesthood for various reasons. In the
sixties and seventies the church decided to be less stringent in rejecting
any candidate with even a hint of homosexual behaviour.
You made that one up. There is an unusually high number of gay priests,
but the reason is that, in a homophobic culture, being a priest was just
about the only acceptable reason for a young man not to get married.
Post by Malcolm
I am not saying that a this was necessarily wrong - in the gospels
Jesus alludes to homosexuality only once (when He compares a town
that rejects the disciples unfavourably with Sodom), so it obviously
wasn't a big deal with Him. However we are now facing the
consequences. The sexual revolution is beginning to devour its own.
You are blaming Jesus for homosexuality? Now that really is funny.
The Etobian
2005-04-30 16:36:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 05:46:17 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I don't
think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what straight people
did in bed. That's their business.
1. not to be beat up
2. to be treated as equals. We are sick and tired of heterosexual
patronising.
3. to keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation. It is none of
their business what consenting adults do in private.
What gays want is unequivocal acceptance of their behaviour as normal.
Mere tolerance is not enough.
Andrealphus
2005-04-30 16:49:37 UTC
Permalink
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest particles
to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only religion capable of
scientific truth."

Albert Einstein
Post by The Etobian
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 05:46:17 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I don't
think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what straight people
did in bed. That's their business.
1. not to be beat up
2. to be treated as equals. We are sick and tired of heterosexual
patronising.
3. to keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation. It is none of
their business what consenting adults do in private.
What gays want is unequivocal acceptance of their behaviour as normal.
Mere tolerance is not enough.
Is that Republo-Doublespeak for Equal Rights?
Malcolm
2005-04-30 20:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by The Etobian
What gays want is unequivocal acceptance of their behaviour as normal.
Mere tolerance is not enough.
Is that Republo-Doublespeak for Equal Rights?
The problem is that if you give any group equal rights, can you tolerate
people saying that that particular group doesn't deserve equal rights?

You can have "equal rights" for gays and Chrisitans, but it is a very
unstable situation. Either the gays will want to kick out priests who preach
against them, or the Christians will want to keep the gays away from their
kids.
Andrealphus
2005-04-30 20:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by Andrealphus
Post by The Etobian
What gays want is unequivocal acceptance of their behaviour as normal.
Mere tolerance is not enough.
Is that Republo-Doublespeak for Equal Rights?
The problem is that if you give any group equal rights,
Equal rights are not something you can give. They are something you have.
You can only deny them.
Post by Malcolm
can you tolerate
people saying that that particular group doesn't deserve equal rights?
It depends on their reasoning for saying it.
Post by Malcolm
You can have "equal rights" for gays and Chrisitans, but it is a very
unstable situation.
Why is it unstable?
Post by Malcolm
Either the gays will want to kick out priests who preach
against them, or the Christians will want to keep the gays away from their
kids.
The Christians can keep their kids away from any number of people. They
simply cannot deny those people their rights in the process.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest particles
to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only religion capable of
scientific truth."

Albert Einstein
No One
2005-04-30 22:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by Andrealphus
Post by The Etobian
What gays want is unequivocal acceptance of their behaviour as normal.
Mere tolerance is not enough.
Is that Republo-Doublespeak for Equal Rights?
The problem is that if you give any group equal rights, can you tolerate
people saying that that particular group doesn't deserve equal rights?
You can say what you like, but if you try to violate constitutionally
guaranteed rights, don't be surprised if you find yourself answering
for it in court. You should in particular read Section 1 of the 14th
amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You will note the lack of any caveats regarding whom one might be
sexually attracted to.
Post by Malcolm
You can have "equal rights" for gays and Chrisitans, but it is a very
unstable situation. Either the gays will want to kick out priests who preach
against them, or the Christians will want to keep the gays away from their
kids.
Given the settlements the Catholic Church has to pay, Christians would
be well advised to keep their kids away from other Christians. I
wouldn't bring up kids if I were you.
Dennis Kemmerer
2005-04-30 22:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
Post by Andrealphus
Post by The Etobian
What gays want is unequivocal acceptance of their behaviour as normal.
Mere tolerance is not enough.
Is that Republo-Doublespeak for Equal Rights?
The problem is that if you give any group equal rights, can you tolerate
people saying that that particular group doesn't deserve equal rights?
'People' can say whatever they wish. However, if they wish to deny certain
rights to a particular group, they're required to show why the right should
be denied (the legal term is 'compelling state interest').
Post by Malcolm
You can have "equal rights" for gays and Chrisitans, but it is a very
unstable situation. Either the gays will want to kick out priests who
preach against them, or the Christians will want to keep the gays away
from their kids.
You're hung up on this 'acceptance' straw man. I'd bet the vast majority of
gay people don't really give a fuck what some priest is saying about them.

Christians can keep their kids away from anybody they want. That has nothing
to do with the issue of granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Judging from the recent news stories, they should keep their kids away from
Catholic priests.
Jeff North
2005-05-01 05:50:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:30:12 +0000 (UTC), in
| >
| >> What gays want is unequivocal acceptance of their behaviour as normal.
| >> Mere tolerance is not enough.
| >
| > Is that Republo-Doublespeak for Equal Rights?
| >
| The problem is that if you give any group equal rights, can you tolerate
| people saying that that particular group doesn't deserve equal rights?
|
| You can have "equal rights" for gays and Chrisitans, but it is a very
| unstable situation. Either the gays will want to kick out priests who preach
| against them,
...and the church does all it can do to retain the child molestors
witin its ranks.
| or the Christians will want to keep the gays away from their kids.
Just so there are more children for the priests to molest.
---------------------------------------------------------------
***@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
evilgeniusabroad
2005-04-30 22:31:36 UTC
Permalink
I dont think you realise....I tolerate you lot, not the other way
around.
Alun Bell
2005-04-30 22:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I don't
think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what straight people
did in bed. That's their business.
1. not to be beat up
2. to be treated as equals. We are sick and tired of heterosexual
patronising.
3. to keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation. It is none of
their business what consenting adults do in private.
Absolutely, and well piut. I'm straight, and I'm sick of homophobics
abusing my gay friends verbally and physically.
--
Alun Bell
Craig Chilton
2005-04-30 23:05:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 05:46:17 GMT,
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I
don't think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what
straight people did in bed. That's their business.
Thanks for reminding everyone that gays almost all are
EXPONENTIALLY more intelligent and sensible than the
retarded lemmings of the RRR cult.

Busybodyism is the HALLMARK of the mindless bigots of
the RRR cult.
Post by Roedy Green
1. not to be beat up
2. to be treated as equals. We are sick and tired of heterosexual
patronizing.
3. to keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation. It is none
of their business what consenting adults do in private.
Thankfully, on June 30, 2003, in Lawrence vs. Texas, the U.S.
Supreme Court DID ensure that government has NO business
meddling in people's sex lives and bedrooms.
Post by Roedy Green
---
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
-- Craig Chilton <***@mchsi.com>
Sir Marksman
2005-04-30 23:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig Chilton
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I
don't think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what
straight people did in bed. That's their business.
Thanks for reminding everyone that gays almost all are
EXPONENTIALLY more intelligent and sensible than the
retarded lemmings of the RRR cult.
Your ignorance LYING and HATEMONGERING is again exposed!
----

Abominations and LIEberals must be exposed!

Funny quote from Bill BaKKKer <***@postini.com> : I am an abomination and I can't stop antagonizing Sir Marksman!

Another funny quote from Bill BaKKKer: I can't stop SPAMMING and harassing other posters, because I have no life!

Watch Fascist Hatemonger and Bigot craig chilton aka james keegan antagonize!

"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)

Disgusting quote from Craig Chilton "Just like all other good providers of abortion services, Tiller is
a true American HERO!" 02/08/05

Max Varazslo posting as Bill BaKKKer: "I am in love with you Sir Marksman!" 2/27/05

"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"

Library of Usenet Madness
http://www.twhi.org/Library/library_usenet_madness.htm
See "Abortion is Your Time Machine" - a Craig Chilton classic!
Craig Chilton
2005-04-30 23:26:29 UTC
Permalink
LYING, FORGING, E-mail-address-STEALING, all-around
Net-Abuser and Social RETARD, "Sir Marksman" ...

...spewed nothing but hate-GARBAGE, as usual, and
once again proved his abject idiocy to everyone.

<garbage flushed>


Original post RESTORED ---
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 05:46:17 GMT,
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I
don't think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what
straight people did in bed. That's their business.
Thanks for reminding everyone that gays almost all are
EXPONENTIALLY more intelligent and sensible than the
retarded lemmings of the RRR cult.

Busybodyism is the HALLMARK of the mindless bigots of
the RRR cult.
Post by Roedy Green
1. not to be beat up
2. to be treated as equals. We are sick and tired of heterosexual
patronizing.
3. to keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation. It is none
of their business what consenting adults do in private.
Thankfully, on June 30, 2003, in Lawrence vs. Texas, the U.S.
Supreme Court DID ensure that government has NO business
meddling in people's sex lives and bedrooms.
Post by Roedy Green
---
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
-- Craig Chilton <***@mchsi.com>
Sir Marksman
2005-05-01 00:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig Chilton
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I
don't think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what
straight people did in bed. That's their business.
Thanks for reminding everyone that gays almost all are
EXPONENTIALLY more intelligent and sensible than the
retarded lemmings of the RRR cult.
Your ignorance LYING and HATEMONGERING is again exposed!
----

Abominations and LIEberals must be exposed!

Funny quote from Bill BaKKKer <***@postini.com> : I am an abomination and I can't stop antagonizing Sir Marksman!

Another funny quote from Bill BaKKKer: I can't stop SPAMMING and harassing other posters, because I have no life!

Watch Fascist Hatemonger and Bigot craig chilton aka james keegan antagonize!

"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)

Disgusting quote from Craig Chilton "Just like all other good providers of abortion services, Tiller is
a true American HERO!" 02/08/05

Max Varazslo posting as Bill BaKKKer: "I am in love with you Sir Marksman!" 2/27/05

"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"

Library of Usenet Madness
http://www.twhi.org/Library/library_usenet_madness.htm
See "Abortion is Your Time Machine" - a Craig Chilton classic!
Sir Marksman
2005-05-01 00:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig Chilton
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I
don't think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what
straight people did in bed. That's their business.
Thanks for reminding everyone that gays almost all are
EXPONENTIALLY more intelligent and sensible than the
retarded lemmings of the RRR cult.
Your ignorance LYING and HATEMONGERING is again exposed!
----

Abominations and LIEberals must be exposed!

Funny quote from Bill BaKKKer <***@postini.com> : I am an abomination and I can't stop antagonizing Sir Marksman!

Another funny quote from Bill BaKKKer: I can't stop SPAMMING and harassing other posters, because I have no life!

Watch Fascist Hatemonger and Bigot craig chilton aka james keegan antagonize!

"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)

Disgusting quote from Craig Chilton "Just like all other good providers of abortion services, Tiller is
a true American HERO!" 02/08/05

Max Varazslo posting as Bill BaKKKer: "I am in love with you Sir Marksman!" 2/27/05

"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"

Library of Usenet Madness
http://www.twhi.org/Library/library_usenet_madness.htm
See "Abortion is Your Time Machine" - a Craig Chilton classic!
Craig Chilton
2005-05-01 01:12:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 01 May 2005 00:05:55 GMT,
LYING, FORGING, E-mail-address-STEALING, all-around
Net-Abuser and Social RETARD, "Sir Marksman" ...

...spewed nothing but hate-GARBAGE, as usual, and
once again proved his abject idiocy to everyone.

<garbage flushed>


Original post RESTORED ---
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 05:46:17 GMT,
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I
don't think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what
straight people did in bed. That's their business.
Thanks for reminding everyone that gays almost all are
EXPONENTIALLY more intelligent and sensible than the
retarded lemmings of the RRR cult.

Busybodyism is the HALLMARK of the mindless bigots of
the RRR cult.
Post by Roedy Green
1. not to be beat up
2. to be treated as equals. We are sick and tired of heterosexual
patronizing.
3. to keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation. It is none
of their business what consenting adults do in private.
Thankfully, on June 30, 2003, in Lawrence vs. Texas, the U.S.
Supreme Court DID ensure that government has NO business
meddling in people's sex lives and bedrooms.
Post by Roedy Green
---
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
-- Craig Chilton <***@mchsi.com>
Roedy Green
2005-05-02 00:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Marksman
Your ignorance LYING and HATEMONGERING is again exposed!
Sir Marksman, I have been reviewing your posts. You seem to have half
a dozen keyboard macros that you use to respond to anything. Even so,
there is zero information content in them, since you seem to choose
them randomly. I can't get better quality entertainment of that sort
on demand from a one-page Java program. I trust if ever you
accidentally do make a point, someone will quote you in astonishment.

Further you are a dork and coward and general pain in the ass for
using phony follow-up tos.



so plonk.


Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
Sir Marksman
2005-05-01 00:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig Chilton
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I
don't think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what
straight people did in bed. That's their business.
Thanks for reminding everyone that gays almost all are
EXPONENTIALLY more intelligent and sensible than the
retarded lemmings of the RRR cult.
Your ignorance LYING and HATEMONGERING is again exposed!
----

Abominations and LIEberals must be exposed!

Funny quote from Bill BaKKKer <***@postini.com> : I am an abomination and I can't stop antagonizing Sir Marksman!

Another funny quote from Bill BaKKKer: I can't stop SPAMMING and harassing other posters, because I have no life!

Watch Fascist Hatemonger and Bigot craig chilton aka james keegan antagonize!

"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)

Disgusting quote from Craig Chilton "Just like all other good providers of abortion services, Tiller is
a true American HERO!" 02/08/05

Max Varazslo posting as Bill BaKKKer: "I am in love with you Sir Marksman!" 2/27/05

"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"

Library of Usenet Madness
http://www.twhi.org/Library/library_usenet_madness.htm
See "Abortion is Your Time Machine" - a Craig Chilton classic!
Craig Chilton
2005-05-01 03:43:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 01 May 2005 00:42:11 GMT,
LYING, FORGING, E-mail-address-STEALING, all-around
Net-Abuser and Social RETARD, "Sir Marksman" ...

...spewed nothing but hate-GARBAGE, as usual, and
once again proved his abject idiocy to everyone.

<garbage flushed>


Original post RESTORED ---
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 05:46:17 GMT,
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Craig Chilton
"Sodomy lobby????"
That would be a lobby to convince people to try anal sex. I
don't think I have ever met a gay guy who gave one hoot what
straight people did in bed. That's their business.
Thanks for reminding everyone that gays almost all are
EXPONENTIALLY more intelligent and sensible than the
retarded lemmings of the RRR cult.

Busybodyism is the HALLMARK of the mindless bigots of
the RRR cult.
Post by Roedy Green
1. not to be beat up
2. to be treated as equals. We are sick and tired of heterosexual
patronizing.
3. to keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation. It is none
of their business what consenting adults do in private.
Thankfully, on June 30, 2003, in Lawrence vs. Texas, the U.S.
Supreme Court DID ensure that government has NO business
meddling in people's sex lives and bedrooms.
Post by Roedy Green
---
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
-- Craig Chilton <***@mchsi.com>
evilgeniusabroad
2005-04-30 20:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by RoB WAde
Where in the Holy Bible is there any verse expressing approval
of the act of sodomy? In the New Testament, Jesus Christ, speaking
to those who offend little children (and what is more offensive than
child molesting?) said: "It were better for him that a millstone were
hanged about his neck and he cast into the sea, than he should
offend one these little ones" (Luke 2:17).
Oh look, a christian who quotes the bible in absolute fucking
ignorance.

Well, winkle-brain, lets have a look at your shitty little out of
context, out of brain-power quote, because I bet you your bucket arse
against my vast knowledge you know eff all about your holy book.

Lets check.

First of all, you cunt brained little twallop, Luke 2:17 has fuck all
to do with your pissy little quote. Luke 2:17 is about the birth of JC
and the census herod demanded.

I quote, because you are a fucking brain dead twat who should be
shot...

"2:15 When45 the angels left them and went back to heaven, the
shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem46 and see
this thing that has taken place, that the Lord47 has made known to us."
2:16 So they hurried off and located Mary and Joseph, and found the
baby lying in a manger.48 2:17 When49 they saw him,50 they related what
they had been told51 about this child, 2:18 and all who heard it were
astonished52 at what the shepherds said. 2:19 But Mary treasured up all
these words, pondering in her heart what they might mean.53 2:20 So54
the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising55 God for all they had
heard and seen; everything was just as they had been told.56"

So I guess that make you an ignorant cunt (hands up everyone who is
suprised...oh, no hands).


Next lets refernce the proper quote...turnip brain...

Mathew 18:2-10

2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of
them,

[jesus grabs a volunteer from the audience]

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[ Jesus is talking about adults, not children]

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the
same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

[so, any adults who are as humble before god, as this child is before
adults...probably]

5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth
me.

[ Be as a child and you get me too. I think ]

6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me,

[ JCis talking about those who have converted 'which believe in me',
not children, he used the child as an example ]

6. (cont) it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his
neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

[ Do not break anothers faith in JC ]

So, a quick look at the context shows JC using a child to demonstrate
the attributes that a believer should have, and as a warning not to
disaabuse them of their faith.

Absolutely nothing to do with children per se, and fucking nothing to
do with taking a cock up your arse, and nothing to do with child
molestation (which has fuck all to do with anal sex) you purile
ignorant dihgonest hate-,mongering warped piece of turn that isnt
worthy to be on mw shoe.





Now...i dont expect you to understand something as complexas a simile,
cunt chops, it is only one of the basic concepts used in the world of
languaghe...but dont polute my holy fucking space with you ignorant
twaddle.

Cunt.

Sincerely,

EvilGeniusAbroad
evilgeniusabroad
2005-04-30 20:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Bad typing day...apologies for that.
evilgeniusabroad
2005-04-30 20:59:16 UTC
Permalink
One more thing....The bible tells us to do evil.


Quotes from the Bible
From Levitiucs 5:4 "Do evil"
From Deuteronomy 19:20 "Do such an evil thing"
From 1 kings 21:20 "do evil"
From Romans 3:8 "Do evil so that good may come"
So, using your technique of ignoring context, similes, metaphors, and
anything else that might contradict my view it is clear that god wishes
his followers to do evil.

Now piss off before i take these out of context quote literrally and do
EVIL.
Steve Hansen
2005-04-30 23:53:05 UTC
Permalink
evilgeniusabroad wrote:
...
Post by evilgeniusabroad
Well, winkle-brain, lets have a look at your shitty little out of
context, out of brain-power quote, because I bet you your bucket arse
against my vast knowledge you know eff all about your holy book.
...

Gentlemen, Please. I agree that Mr. Wade often spews hateful lies,
but if you want to argue against his position, a measure of civility
would be helpful. No one read past the first insult.

Steve
evilgeniusabroad
2005-05-01 01:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Oh I was just having fun. And did i say he spewed hateful lies? No, I
was just virulently opposed to his abuse of the bible.

That quote is often trotted out by people who think it is some sort of
directive to protect children. It isnt, it is a metaphore and simile.


But why oh why does it take an atheist to actually read the scripture
and point it out? Or, indeed, to give it the correct chapter and verse
reference?

***sigh***
Boy Toy
2005-05-02 14:59:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:53:05 GMT, Steve Hansen
Post by Steve Hansen
...
Post by evilgeniusabroad
Well, winkle-brain, lets have a look at your shitty little out of
context, out of brain-power quote, because I bet you your bucket arse
against my vast knowledge you know eff all about your holy book.
...
Gentlemen, Please. I agree that Mr. Wade often spews hateful lies,
but if you want to argue against his position, a measure of civility
would be helpful. No one read past the first insult.
Steve
I did. It was great! Reminded me of Monty Python's "I'd like an
argument" skit.
--
Boy Toy
Toxic Toyz 4 Nasty Boyz
http://www.boytoyvideos.com
Andrealphus
2005-05-12 22:15:20 UTC
Permalink
From: "Malcolm" <***@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: U.S. sodomy lobby attacks Pope Benedict XVI
Date: Thursday, May 12, 2005 5:11 PM
Post by Malcolm
But are homosexual acts immoral? That's the huge question. My only point
in
Post by Malcolm
this thread is that this question needs to be answered on its own terms.
Arguments about equal rights are a pure distraction.
By whose moral standards do we judge this, or is there a quantative measure
of morality? Do we use legal standards of informed consent, and harm and
compelling societal interest? Do we use the Christer's moral edicts?
What about the Buddhists, Islamic, Hindu? To what level of morality does
such groups have to follow, in order to be considered a moral authority?
What about the phylosophical disciplines? Shouldn't they have some say?
And again, what level of their own phylosophy do they need to consistently
demonstrate before we can consider them moral authorities? Will we use the
"morals of the majority" to decide, and if so why this issue and not all
issues? Do we apply the mob rule to things like divorce, when grocery
stores should and should not be open, whether whites can marry asians, and
whether or not religion should be preached in schools? Is there really
such a thing as individual rights after all?

Or do we just toss it all and use your idea of morality?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...