Here's how Bush may win by losing

[channonc 466]

Where is the contradiction? 

I will ask you point blank:  Is homosexuality a sin?

152025[/snapback]

Well, I think mcgufcm answered the first question rather well.

As far as whether or not it is a sin, doesn't matter from a public policy point of view, which is what we have been arguing. I don't think it should matter what my personal beliefs are.

152080[/snapback]

In the absence of light, darkness prevails. So when you throw out your personal beliefs (your individual light) you give Satan the right to dictate what YOU will accept.

152096[/snapback]

Is "sin", which comes from personal religious beliefs, really the best barometer for what should be legal or illegal in a secular society and its' government?

152104[/snapback]

Yes, of course Al, don't you realize, we should find out who is living a sinful life (especially in their bedroom) and come up with legislation to stop it. IMMEDIATELY!!!

[Tigermike 3,050]

Where is the contradiction? 

I will ask you point blank:  Is homosexuality a sin?

152025[/snapback]

Well, I think mcgufcm answered the first question rather well.

As far as whether or not it is a sin, doesn't matter from a public policy point of view, which is what we have been arguing. I don't think it should matter what my personal beliefs are.

152080[/snapback]

In the absence of light, darkness prevails. So when you throw out your personal beliefs (your individual light) you give Satan the right to dictate what YOU will accept.

152096[/snapback]

Is "sin", which comes from personal religious beliefs, really the best barometer for what should be legal or illegal in a secular society and its' government?

152104[/snapback]

Yes, of course Al, don't you realize, we should find out who is living a sinful life (especially in their bedroom) and come up with legislation to stop it. IMMEDIATELY!!!

152106[/snapback]

More miss characterization from the left.

[Tiger Al 0]

More miss characterization from the left.

Maybe that isn't your (and others) intent, but that's pretty close to the way it sounds and reads.

You say that homosexuality is a sin and, as such, homosexuals should have no legal considerations with regards to the subject here because they're sinners. At least, that's what I get from these statements:

My beef is the legalization of sin. I realize it's hard for democrats to make an absolute statement like that, but there it is, in a nut shell. Sin being legalized on the alter of political correctness and moral relativism.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

tigermike, i'm not good with the quote machine so i'll just have to hope you follow me.

on your first point, i don't think government should give marriage licenses. like i said before, i think the fact that government is involved in the marriage issue at all is a failing of the Christian church. government involvement should stop at whether or not a couple is now a legal union. at which point we could start to dictate the requirements for couple union status without having to involve religious issues. plus the church should not allow government to dictate who is/isn't married when in fact that spiritual binding is a gift from God not george washington.

next point. i really wasn't trying to put words into your mouth. i have no idea what you mean by having a "beef with the legalization of sin" if you don't think laws should reflect Christian definitions of sin. maybe you can clear that up for me, but that's the only way i see to avoid legalization of sin. sorry if i mischaracterized your words.

next point, i think the only way you can say this is wrong and we should avoid it is to compare it to other things you think are wrong and find out to what extent you avoid it. right? that's why i bring up the other sins as a standard of measurement. that's why i ask if you think gay union is the sin or if homosexuality is the sin. personally i go with the latter which is legal. so that feeds back into you argument that the goal is to avoid legalization of sin.

finally, you missed the point! my point was there ARE NO LEVELS OF SIN! that's why a man can't be MORE GAY. he's just homosexual or not. which is why in my eyes legalization of gay union doesn't make the government's legal acceptance of homosexuality any more or less. we already legally allow you to be gay. we can't let you be MORE GAY b/c there's no such thing.

and i think they would accept union status if it also allowed them to receive the same tax benefits as a married couple. i honestly do.

[channonc 466]

Here we go with the ol' slippery slope theory.

And for the record, I disagree with her David.

[Tiger Al 0]

I dont think anyone, Mike included has a "beef' with or claims that a gay couple should not have the right to insure, etc each other. We have legal unions, contracts and etc. etc. under contract law as remedies for this. My company allows for designation of a partner of the same sex. Contracts, unions, etc have to be honored by all states NOW!

If companies allow you to claim people other than spouses, children, etc. on your insurance it's only out of the goodness of their heart. Remember, the Baptists boycott Disney because they do the same. Your company does, mine doesn't.

What I dont get is WHY with all that out there we have to have this shoved down our collective Christian throats that we MUST ACCEPT calling a covenant decried by God okay for a gay couple that (most likely) could not care less about God anyway.

I really don't think, and they've said as much, that they care what you call it. The people in Vermont never seemed to have a problem with calling it a civil union. As for the shoving, someone wanted to amend the constitution recently but the name escapes me...it'll come to me later.

I have a better discussion for the Liberal bent on the board. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg wrote in 1976 that the age of consent should be lowered to age 12 for straight or gay sex. Wouldn't michael Jackson love to hear from her now....Basically, she wrote legal briefs supporting NAMBLAand pedophilia more or less.

Definition: Pedophilia involves reoccurring sexual arousal and desires or fantasies involving sexual impulses toward a pre-adolescent child or children. The pedophile must be above age 16, and the sexual attraction must involve a child of age 13 or younger who is at least 5 years younger than the adult.

I think and cncur with the idea that every basis or argument for "normalizing" homosexual activity can be used to "normalize" acceptance of NAMBLA.

1) We will always have a certain percentage of the population...

2) It appears in ancient literature...

3) Some truly great people were gay/NAMBLOIDS...

4) Attraction like this normally found in all animals...

5) It used to be practiced this way in ancient society...

6) We think there may be a gene associated with this...

7) How can we deny what is in an individual God created...

etc, etc.

So how do you accept homosexuality and deny other abberrant behaviors?

Do you have a line that you draw? Why? Why not let everyone do what feels right to them?

This is an attempt to distract the dialogue of this thread. Can we start a separate "pedophilia" thread for this, please?

[mcgufcm 4,107]

just to put that stupid argument to rest: our government has protected/regulated youth above and beyond adults basically since its conception. we don't let kids drink. we don't let them abort children. we don't let them marry. we don't let them vote. we don't let them drive. we don't require them to work. we don't require them nor allow them to fight in the military. we don't let adults have sex with them. we don't let children and teens do a lot of things so disgusting behavior involving children is in NO WAY feasibly linked to concentual, deviant activity between two ADULTS of the same gender. that is the dumbest commonly used comparison in the world.

[Tiger Al 0]

that is the dumbest commonly used comparison in the world.

That's why it's so common!!!

[DKW 86 7,440]

just to put that stupid argument to rest: our government has protected/regulated youth above and beyond adults basically since its conception. we don't let kids drink. we don't let them abort children. we don't let them marry. we don't let them vote. we don't let them drive. we don't require them to work. we don't require them nor allow them to fight in the military. we don't let adults have sex with them. we don't let children and teens do a lot of things so disgusting behavior involving children is in NO WAY feasibly linked to concentual, deviant activity between two ADULTS of the same gender. that is the dumbest commonly used comparison in the world.

152243[/snapback]

Just to put that stupid argument to rest: our government has protected/regulated marraige as between a man and a woman, then why are we even discussing this now? To claim that there is not an organized effort out there to remove these prohibitions is just stupid in itself.

Al, as usual, skirts the question without answering it. Again, why dont we just go ahead and allow pedastry? Or are you a bunch of narrowminded right wing thugs?

[mcgufcm 4,107]

i'll tell you what. ask every person you encounter for the next 12 months that question. every. single. person. and let me know when you get a single solitary yes. then we can talk about it. till then it will remain the dumbest comparison i have ever heard. our government wouldn't even remotely consider lifting child labor laws despite the fact that child labor is still prominent in some parts of the world. so even the remote consideration of lowering the age for concentual sex is just so far beyond the realm of possibility that you can't answer that question without laughing.

[Tiger Al 0]

Pedophilia, included in the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1968, continues to be classified as a mental disorder. The DSM is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals and provides clear, objective descriptions of mental illnesses, based upon scientific research. Pedophilia is categorized in the DSM-IV-TR as one of several paraphilic mental disorders. The essential features of a Paraphilia are recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors that generally involve nonhuman subjects, children, or other nonconsenting adults, or the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner.

An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act and this is never considered normal or socially acceptable behavior. Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H., Director, American Psychiatric Association’s Division of Research states, “there are no plans or processes set up that would lead to the removal of the Paraphilias from their consideration as legitimate mental disorders.”

The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for Pedophilia (302.2) are:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual

urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children

(generally age 13 years or younger);

B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Pedophilia generally is treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy. The therapy may be prescribed alone or in combination with medication. Some examples of medications which have been used include anti-androgens and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Relapse prevention is also emphasized. However, the outlook for successful treatment and rehabilitation of individuals with Pedophilia is guarded.

American Psychiatric Association

I realize that the slippery slope fallacy is your best argument but it really is silly. You might as well argue that because consensual sex is legal then pretty soon rapists will try to legitimize what they do.

And again, David, although mcguf and I humored you in this thread, nothing in this thread is even remotely about pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, etc., so could we please limit those discussions to the other thread dedicated to that topic?

[DKW 86 7,440]

The debate has spilled over into a public battle over a book due May 1 on children and sexuality. Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex is from the University of Minnesota Press, a noted academic publishing house. The author, Judith Levine, is a respected journalist and activist who has been writing about sex and families for 20 years.

E-mails are running 2-to-1 against the book, Armato says, but a corner has been turned. "We are beginning to hear favorable things from those who say these topics must be addressed."

From an APA affiliated website. Al, you should really read what you link to. You and mcgu really arent up on this stuff are you?

[mcgufcm 4,107]

granted i don't actually own that book, but i am reading two excerpts (the intro and a section on "sensual education"). i haven't finished the full intro yet (she rails on about how unfair that her crap book didn't get picked up by a publishing house for a solid two pages... maybe it sucks lady???), but i can't really find a single suggestion the pedophilia or the like is or should be socially acceptable. she does make the case in the sensual education section that we are far too uptight about physical contact with children, and much moreso than we used to be. she makes a loose case that lots of physical touch in early childhood could actually stand to make society less tense and less violent (it's a stretch). she says that some of our social taboos weren't taboos only a few decades ago... such as parents bathing with a child or a child sleeping with parents in the same bed. that's as close as i've come to any contact between adults and children in her work.

in the intro she does overtly give away her political stance (great writing, idiot) and she does openly make fun of parents that are worried about devil worshipping child rapists (i think that's a word for word terminology) and she does seem to have a fixation on the huge impact that devil worship has had on american culture (not nearly as meaningful as she makes them out to be), but i can't seem to find a suggestion that adult/child sex or sexual activity is acceptable. so i'm not exactly sure what that lends to your suggestion that all-of-a-sudden this is going to be passed into law/social norm. i does tell me that you read an byte of information on something that seemed to suggest what you wanted to and copied it over here, which is weak.

if you want to read the same excerpts i did/am, feel free: http://www.upress.umn.edu/HarmfultoMinorsintro.html

[Tiger Al 0]

Sorry, David, I can't seem to find the connection between the American Psychiatric Association and ageofconsent.com. Maybe you can help me out there. I also don't make the connection between the author of the book and the American Psychiatric Association. I suspect you saw this in the article and thought you hit a home run:

Discussions about adult-child sex are appearing in professional journals, including a special issue last month of the AmericanPsychologist, a journal of the American Psychological Association (APA).

Sadly, the APA listed in the article is an association of psyCHOLOGISTS, not psyCHIATRISTS. Even then, the author is neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist.

As for the book, I have to agree with mcguf. I think you heard or read someone railing about it, saw the title and figured you just hit another home run. Unfortunately, you swung and the catcher is still holding the ball.

[Tiger Al 0]

Well this is interesting...this was in an interview with Salon.com:

In fact, nothing in Levine's book suggests that the author condones pedophilia. ("No sane person would advocate pedophilia," she said in her interview with Salon.) And, as it turns out, Reisman and Knight have admitted that they hadn't actually read much of Levine's book before they decided to campaign against it. (Reisman told the New York Times, "It doesn't take a great deal to understand the position of the writer. I didn't read 'Mein Kampf' for many years, but I knew the position of the author," while Knight told the same reporter that he had "thumbed through" the book.)

Looks like David's not alone. I assume they read more than the book title, though. :roll: And, OMG, Reisman equated the author with HITLER!!!

[mcgufcm 4,107]

and i just read the article you linked to... interesting the quotes you pulled from it. they paint a very different picture than saaaaay these:

Researchers are not trying willy-nilly to turn traditional American values upside down, says APA spokesman Rhea Farberman. There is no drive among mainstream mental health professionals or social science academics to "legitimize adult-child sex."

Contrary to what some critics say, the book does not advocate pedophilia, says Douglas Armato of the University Press. Instead, it makes a case for open and honest discussion about adolescent and children's sexuality.

Levine's book focuses on the need sex educators feel to get solid sexual information to adolescents. Frightening them, overemphasizing the dangers from pedophiles and from predators on the Internet, and overprotecting them does more harm than good, she writes.

"In my book, I deplore any kind of non-consensual sex between persons of any age."

researcher Robert Bauserman, who was with the University of Michigan in 1998 — now says, "I have the feeling that if you don't say anybody under 18 is permanently psychologically harmed by any type of sexual experience," then you are called a supporter of pedophiles by critics. He has never, he says, called for lower age-of-consent laws or "changing social norms." Instead, he says, researchers "need to identify the situations and circumstances that produce the most harm."

doesn't exactly paint a picture of rampant social change in favor of adult/child sexual relation does it?

[DKW 86 7,440]

Sorry guys, been out of town.

Yes I chose very carefully from the article. As you two often do from yours. And as the Admin, I am trying to stir the pot on these issues.

I am trying to make a point here that we, as humans have been on this earth for thousands of years. Every single generation that comes along always thinks that they know better than the one before it. Being Conservative is in some way, on some level, is a defense of past decisions. When Rome fell, they were actually living the lives of the Satyricon. They were chasing young boys, accepting of Homosexuality, etc. They lived "liberally" (notice the small 'l').

I am pointing out here that as a Christian, we have now tired of our believes being the only ones ttrashed by those on the Left. If a Christian believes anything, it must be a "narrowminded, closeminded, ignorant, uneducated" believe. We believe that marriage is a God-given institution. We beileve that it should be between a man and woman. Why, with all that is available to gays do they feel we must have this shoved down our throats?

Openly accepting gays is another thing that I feel is just wrong. If they want to live their lives in private, so be it. But why must we have it shoved down our throats that they are living an abhorrent, abberant lifestyle. We could not careless personally what they do in private.

Why do we have to have "Gay Days" at Disney World? Why do we have to Gay Pride Parades, Southern Decadence, Etc. Hell, you cannot go someplaces anymore where the gays havent taken over the area.