Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bigotry is rooted in false beliefs. It is a fact that men do not have vaginas. You might want to go to your local university and enroll in an anatomy course.
Homosexuality is abnormal. What part of that do you not understand?
You might also want to enroll in some philosophy course at your local university, since you're lacking in that discipline as well.
Just because one can do something, it does not logically follow that one ought to do something.
You can stick a fork in your eye. Is sticking a fork in your eye something that you ought to do? Why not?
Just because someone can have sex with an animal, it doesn't mean they should. Just because someone can have sex with a dead person doesn't mean they should do that either. Just because a paraphilia can have sex with a pre-pubescent child doesn't mean they ought. Just because a pedophile can have sex with an infant doesn't mean they should do that. And just because two people of the same sex can engage in sex, doesn't mean they ought to do that either.
Yes, because those things are abnormal.
And the comparison is quite valid. One thing I learned from interviewing sexual predators during the course of criminal investigations is that sexual predators, in the same manner as homosexuals, refuses to see their behavior as abnormal.
A pedophile or paraphile sees their behavior as completely normal. In fact, they saw me as being abnormal, because I find the mere thought of having sex with a young child, or very young child disturbing.
Same with [true] rapists. If you are not raping people, they consider you to be the abnormal one, because they see rape as a perfectly normal and natural course of action.
So in what way are you different? Well, you're not, because you see your sexual behavior as normal, just like they do.
You might want to take a zoology course too at your local university, so that you can study evolution in great detail. And when you do, you will see that every single life form on Planet Earth that has existed, that exists now, and that will exist in the future has one function and one function only, and that is to reproduce to perpetuate the species and ensure its future existence.
And then you will come to understand that homosexuality is abnormal, because it is anathema to life itself -- it is anti-life, and completely contrary to the purpose and function of human existence, as well as the existence of all life forms on Earth (including plants).
Statistics are irrelevant, and commonality has no bearing on what is normal or abnormal.
Total fail.
Consent is irrelevant. If people consent to being robbed and murdered, then does that make robbery and murder normal? Does it make it a "victimless crime?"
What is wrong, is always wrong. What is abnormal is always abnormal, and the fact the someone consents to abnormal behavior does not make it normal, nor does it make it right or justifiable.
Again, not relevant. Homosexuality is abnormal. We group things by their basic characteristics, and homosexuality, zoophilia/bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, paraphilia and rape are all abnormal actions.
If two consenting adults agree to commit a crime, it is still a crime and their behavior is still abnormal, regardless.
Even though homosexuality is abnormal, I'm not willing to treat it on the same level as criminal act. Homosexuality, like religion, should be kept in the bedroom, if you want to engage in abnormal behavior.
Labeling people who disagree with your point of view as homophobes is not very becoming.
gious people. Where does it stop. Are we all to be boring carbon copies of each other.
And where have you seen hatred? Disagreement is not hatred. I know homosexuals are running the standard liberal playbook, but that falls short in the face of facts.
I'm on record as suggesting that the "homeless" (snicker) should be lined up and shot, or at the very least, stripped of citizenship, given $10, a brown-bag lunch, a parachute and have their goat-smelling assess kicked out the back door of a C-130 on a drag run over Somalia or Afghanistan or some other hell-hole (and given the chance I would do exactly that).
I have never advocated violence against homosexuals.
Distinguishing...
Mircea
No, the issue, which you continually avoid, is that homosexuality is as abnormal behavior.
Then those people are not heterosexuals.
Then they are not heterosexual. You seem to have a language problem.
Heterosexuality is not an "orientation"; it is a function of human existence. In fact, humans exist precisely because they are heterosexual.
Merely being different does not rise to the level of abnormality.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where men have vaginas and how homosexuals procreate.
By your own admission it has "evolved" and how did that happen? Well, that happened because you kept incorrectly using the words, that's how it happened.
That doesn't impress me. It is not at all unlike "racism" which has evolved to an epithet applied to anyone in disagreement with another, even though race or ethnicity is not even at issue.
No, the issue is treating abnormal behavior as normal.
Necrophiliacs, Zoophiliacs and murderers often have have lives, loves, families, dreams, careers, etc just as straight people do, but that doesn't make them normal.
Again, the issue is abnormal sexual behavior. I suppose many people would be put off by a woman discussing her sexual exploits with a dog and a horse.
Again, the issue is abnormal sexual behavior. Learn and understand the difference.
I don't see any valid research that has made any unequivocal conclusions. All I see is "Weasel Words" like "believe," "feel," "possibly," "maybe," "could be/could result," "may be/may result" and so on.
Since you don't understand science, I will school you in that regard. Science is universal, meaning it always is -- and because it is universal, it is repeatable.
In other words x + y = zalways is and anyone can conduct their own experiments and get the same results. I can mix Hydrochloric Acid with Sodium Hydroxide, and each and every time, without fail, I will get H2O (Water) and a salt -- in this instance Sodium Chloride (Table Salt). Everyone who ever lived, who lives now and how lives in the future will be able to add HCl to SOH and get H2O and NaCl.
Same is true for 4.5 kg of plutonium. Everyone on Planet Earth can take 4.5 kg of plutonium, force it to a certain density, and get a yield of 0.01 kt; force it to an even denser state and get a yield of 0.1 kt; and force it to an extremely dense state and get a yield of 1 kt.
That is science. When you actually post some science, I'll pay attention.
And on what basis do you make that claim?
Around 2001 or so, a psychiatrist published a study in which he claimed homosexuals can change their orientation. After about 10 years of being attacked and vilified by pragmataphobes and heterophobes, he recanted in 2010 or 2011, making an extraordinary claim.
He claimed that the credibility of the individuals involved in the study was in question.
For any psychiatrist or psychology to make such a claim casts aspersions on the entire field of psychiatry and psychology, because if the credibility of an subjects are ever at issue, then no study has any validity.
Is there any evidence that pedophiles, paraphiles or [true] rapists can be rehabilitated? Well, that in fact is a trick question, because in the History of Earth, there is no evidence whatsoever that any pedophile, paraphile, or rapist has been rehabilitated.
And why? Why is it impossible to rehabilitate such people? Because they refuse to see their behavior as abnormal. Why? It doesn't really matter why.
Not only is that true of all sexual deviants, including zoophiles/bestiality, necrophiliacs (those who like sex with dead people), "weenie-waggers" et al, it is also true of all criminal actions and all other behaviors that are abnormal.
A sexual deviant can never be rehabilitated so long as they refuse to acknowledge that their behavior is abnormal and their actions are wrong. The same is true of criminals. No criminal, regardless of the crime committed, can ever be rehabilitated so long as they refuse to acknowledge that their behavior is abnormal and their actions are wrong.
And that also applies to all forms of psycho-therapy, whether it is addiction therapy or emotional illness therapy. A gambler, a drug addict, an alcoholic and such can never be transformed, until they admit they have a problem and that their behaviors are wrong. Same with those who abuse spouses or children, and "cutters" (people who slash their bodies, usually their arms/forearms with broken glass, knives, metal fragments etc), those who are extremely jealous or insecure, or lacking in trust, and so on.
What you have presented is a classic tautological/circular argument.
Homosexuals refuse to see their behavior as abnormal -- and so cannot change -- because homosexuals refuse to see their behavior as abnormal -- and so cannot change -- because homosexuals refuse to see their behavior as abnormal.......
Congratulations on that.
So? Homosexuality, as an abnormal sexual behavior ought not be criminalized, but at the same time, others do not have to accept it or condone it, and that does not make them intolerant, or homophobic or racist or bigoted.
The whole idea of marriage is means of validating the life-style and sexual behavior that refuse to acknowledge as abnormal.
I'm an atheist. Why would give a damn what someone's bible says?
That would not be me. I see marriage as a contractual obligation to be handled exactly as any other contract, and that means when one party violates the contract or fails to perform on the contract then the violating party is severely penalized.
And yes, that means a spouse who engages in infidelity or other wrongful behavior should forfeit everything.
And what exactly are you doing? You don't even understand "science." Science is not people agreeing that something "might be...maybe...possibly" in order to avoid persecution and harassment by others.
Not impressed...
Mircea
Not always. The difference between pedophiles and paraphiles is age group. Pedophiles prefer infants to the prepubescent age, while paraphiles prefer children in the 10-13 age group.
Correcting...
Mircea
Okay.
Jeopardy Contestant: I'll take Reality & Truth for $200, Alex.
Alex Trebek: And we have the Daily Double. How much will you risk?
Jeopardy Contestant: All of it...all $10,000 of it.
Alex: Okay, The answer is: homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, paraphilia, necrophilia, public exposure and rape are these...
Jeopardy Contestant: What are abnormal and deviant sexual behaviors?
Alex: Correct, and you have doubled your score to $20,000
Amused...
Mircea
Not relevant, since the behavior is still abnormal.
Suppose people formed a group and consented to have a scissors stuck in their eyeballs, so they all sat around sticking scissors in one another's eyeballs.
Does that change their behavior from abnormal to normal?
Questioning....
Mircea
That question will never be answered, so long as pragmataphobes continue to harass and attack and vilify those who do not agree with them.
Realistically...
Mircea[/quote]
This is one of the most tiresomely pompous posts that I have ever had the displeasure to wade through.
Regarding the bolded word above, you do realize reality, by its very nature, is subjective, correct?
I am just glad I do not occupy the same reality indicated by this quoted post.
ETA; underlined text is my response to quoted post, dont know why it wont quote entire post in blue.
Perhaps it is because there is no clear definition of either "racism" or "homophobia"?? This is getting so ridiculous.
I don't like to get into these "gay rights" threads, because I know sure as sun rises in the east, that the same "activists" are going to come swarming out of the woodwork and make the same points and homosexual sound-bytes and most of them very dependent upon "pop culture" definitions. Of which there is none.
"Racism"? WHAT does that mean? It can run the spectrum from hating someone simply because they are of a different race...or objecting to a quota system (euphemistically known as "affirmative action"). And "homophobia? LMAO. What does THAT mean? Literally, it would be "fear of man". If so, seems like something that the lesbian population would be "guilty" of!
But really....sooooo you are a black lesbian? Does that make you feel good about yourself and credit with some kind of courage because you announce it to the world? Hell, I am a white straight man with politicially incorrect attitudes and don't make a point of announcing it, nor expect acolades for being so.
I do agree with you in one realm. In most cases, I honestly believe people cannot help their sexual orientation. But that is a far cry from what is being demanded today. That is, that the rest of society not only tolerate it, but actually embrace it.
The 60's Civil Rights movement is not comparable to the Gay Rights movement; much as y'all would like it to make that leap into analogy. In fact, you (and being a black woman I am sure you know this) will find the largest demographic opposition comes from the African-American population....
To sum it up, all you are doing is using "loaded" and meaningless and ambiguous terms in a calculated, negative, way...to make a "point" that is questionable, anyway...
And finally, the "gay rights" people HAVE to characterize their "opposition" as "bigoted" and "biased" and etc, etc, ad nauseum. The reason is, their position is dependent on presenting honest, principled, and moral opposition to the gay lifestyle as being a hatred of gay people themselves. Otherwise, they cannot present themselves as "victims" of a hateful and unenlightened society.
Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
Most of us out here who object to homosexual marriage (and particularly the "right" to adopt children) do NOT have any personal animosity toward gay people as individuals. Not in the least (I have friends who are openly gay, in fact...and they really are good friends). We do, however, object to these silly--a$$ed comparrisons, and the demand that a thousand years of definition of marriage be suddenly overturned and changed...
Now then, I am outta here!
There has been no single definition of marriage for even a hundred years, much less a thousand.
The term evolves with society.
Here in the US it has been ownership of a woman.
Only allowed between the same religions.
Allowed the woman to be raped at the whim of her husband.
Only allowed between members of the same sex.
Between one man and several women.
Allowed between family members.
Not allowed between family members.
Allowed to people of the same sex.
I'm sure there are some I have forgotten, but there is a start.
If you want to go back thousands of years the examples are too numerous to sit here and type out.
And finally, the "gay rights" people HAVE to characterize their "opposition" as "bigoted" and "biased" and etc, etc, ad nauseum. The reason is, their position is dependent on presenting honest, principled, and moral opposition to the gay lifestyle as being a hatred of gay people themselves. Otherwise, they cannot present themselves as "victims" of a hateful and unenlightened society.
Honest, principled and moral? That's a crock! You mean like the guy who always chimes in with "being gay is a sin!" in every thread? The guy who is constantly harping about some unseen harm to society gay marriage will cause? The guy who always tries to link homosexuality with pedophilia? Or the guy who posts graphic depictions of dogs having anal sex into every thread? I've left out their actual names but those who read this forum regularly will know who they are.
Honest, principled and moral? That's a crock! You mean like the guy who always chimes in with "being gay is a sin!" in every thread? The guy who is constantly harping about some unseen harm to society gay marriage will cause? The guy who always tries to link homosexuality with pedophilia? Or the guy who posts graphic depictions of dogs having anal sex into every thread? I've left out their actual names but those who read this forum regularly will know who they are.
*Yawns* LMAO Now where have I heard this type rant before...?
To be honest with you I don't believe in titles and classifications of human beings. So I am against terms like gay and lesbian and straight...all I know is humans all differ..I an not a great supporter of "gay rights" and I am certainly not a supporter of those who go out of their way to make the lives of gays and lesbians miserable or more difficult than they already are.
The human condition is an one made of ice in the lonely void of our temporal existence..we come into the world alone and leave the same way- It can be a world of joy some of the time . Other times it is a strain for most of us- It's not easy being a human being. Each of us do our best to be happy- sometimes this effort has a feeling of awkwardness and us not being perfect god like beings...struggle for those moments of joy..
As for persecution of the good or of what we perceive as evil...There is a great sentence regarding how God behaves.."He sends the life giving rain on the wicked as well as the good". Live and let live- but if you come to take my life-------------------I will defend my self with wrath and vigor......the last part is to be funny......People will come to their senses in time- but not if you are brow beating them into a constant stupor.
There has been no single definition of marriage for even a hundred years, much less a thousand.
The term evolves with society.
[quote] Here in the US it has been ownership of a woman.
Only allowed between the same religions.
Allowed the woman to be raped at the whim of her husband.
Only allowed between members of the same sex.
Between one man and several women.
Allowed between family members.
Not allowed between family members.
Allowed to people of the same sex.
I'm sure there are some I have forgotten, but there is a start.
Quote:
Clever...but no dice. But yes, you are superficially correct. There have been many definitions of "marriage" over the many years...but not by official recognition and definition in the sense they lasted very long. Really, you are just -- for the most part -- presenting a warped definition that carefully avoids the reality of how it has traditionally been viewed.
For instance, allowed between family members? Yes, in some states and places, kin (as in a certain degree of cousins) are allowed to marry. But show me one where brother and sister could...? Is that what you mean?
One man and several women? Sure, the Mormans practiced it (and the male part of me tells me it might actually be sorta fun! LOL).
Ownership of a woman? What are you talking about?
The "allowance of rape of a woman" is the most ridiculous of all. Pure radical feminist slants and nuts; designed totally to use warped words in an attempt to sublty weaken the concept of the institution of marriage itself. Hell, marriage (between the natural and accepted man and woman bond) gives consent from the get-go. Either way and both! LOL Far as that goes, can a married woman "rape" her own husband? ROFLMAO
Now, if a spouse uses pure force in a violent way to have sex? Then there are remedies against this and always have been. It is called assualt/battery/or assault and battery. And well it should be.
But let's not BS about it all, ok? It is silly as hell. Most are not fooled by a moon-dance of definition which attempts to lower the institution of marriage and implications of sex to the level of "rape" Geez...
[QUPTE] If you want to go back thousands of years the examples are too numerous to sit here and type out.
And? Why don't they apply anymore? Even if they existed at all..?
=jjrose;24842960]There has been no single definition of marriage for even a hundred years, much less a thousand.
The term evolves with society.
Here in the US it has been ownership of a woman.
Only allowed between the same religions.
Allowed the woman to be raped at the whim of her husband.
Only allowed between members of the same sex.
Between one man and several women.
Allowed between family members.
Not allowed between family members.
Allowed to people of the same sex.
I'm sure there are some I have forgotten, but there is a start.
Clever...but no dice. But yes, you are superficially correct. There have been many definitions of "marriage" over the many years...but not by official recognition and definition in the sense they lasted very long. Really, you are just -- for the most part -- presenting a warped definition that carefully avoids the reality of how it has traditionally been viewed.
For instance, allowed between family members? Yes, in some states and places, kin (as in a certain degree of cousins) are allowed to marry. But show me one where brother and sister could...? Is that what you mean?
One man and several women? Sure, the Mormans practiced it (and the male part of me tells me it might actually be sorta fun! LOL).
Ownership of a woman? What are you talking about?
The "allowance of rape of a woman" is the most ridiculous of all. Pure radical feminist slants and nuts; designed totally to use warped words in an attempt to sublty weaken the concept of the institution of marriage itself. Hell, marriage (between the natural and accepted man and woman bond) gives consent from the get-go. Either way and both! LOL Far as that goes, can a married woman "rape" her own husband? ROFLMAO
Now, if a spouse uses pure force in a violent way to have sex? Then there are remedies against this and always have been. It is called assualt/battery/or assault and battery. And well it should be.
But let's not BS about it all, ok? It is silly as hell. Most are not fooled by a moon-dance of definition which attempts to lower the institution of marriage and implications of sex between married couples to the level of "rape" Geez...
Quote:
If you want to go back thousands of years the examples are too numerous to sit here and type out.
Clever...but no dice. But yes, you are superficially correct. There have been many definitions of "marriage" over the many years...but not by official recognition and definition in the sense they lasted very long. Really, you are just -- for the most part -- presenting a warped definition that carefully avoids the reality of how it has traditionally been viewed.
For instance, allowed between family members? Yes, in some states and places, kin (as in a certain degree of cousins) are allowed to marry. But show me one where brother and sister could...? Is that what you mean?
One man and several women? Sure, the Mormans practiced it (and the male part of me tells me it might actually be sorta fun! LOL).
Ownership of a woman? What are you talking about?
The "allowance of rape of a woman" is the most ridiculous of all. Pure radical feminist slants and nuts; designed totally to use warped words in an attempt to sublty weaken the concept of the institution of marriage itself. Hell, marriage (between the natural and accepted man and woman bond) gives consent from the get-go. Either way and both! LOL Far as that goes, can a married woman "rape" her own husband? ROFLMAO
Now, if a spouse uses pure force in a violent way to have sex? Then there are remedies against this and always have been. It is called assualt/battery/or assault and battery. And well it should be.
But let's not BS about it all, ok? It is silly as hell. Most are not fooled by a moon-dance of definition which attempts to lower the institution of marriage and implications of sex between married couples to the level of "rape" Geez...
Let's do just that, wanna?
On marital rape:
Quote:
The traditional definition of rape in the United States most
commonly was, 'sexual intercourse with a female not his wife without her
consent' (Barshis, 1983, p. 383). As Finkelhor and Yllo (1985) have argued, this
provides husbands with an exemption from prosecution for raping their wives. In
effect, 'a license to rape' (see Druker, 1979; Eskow, 1996; and Sitton, 1993, for a
discussion of the marital exemption). The foundation of this exemption can be
traced back to statements made by Sir Matthew Hale, Chief Justice in 17th
century England. Hale wrote, "The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed
by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and
contract, the wife hath given herself in kind unto the husband which she cannot
retract" (quoted in Russell, 1990, p.17). This ruling established the notion that
once married, a woman does not have the right to refuse sex with her husband.
1769: American colonies based their laws on the English common law, which said, “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law. The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.â€
So he pretty much OWNED her. She could own no property. Had nothing that was legally considered hers. The husband also owned any children of the marriage.
It wasn't until 1839 in Mississippi that a woman could legally own property.
There was even a time in US history that a married woman could not have her own bank account without her husband signing for her.
Quote:
Until 1967 and the enactment of the marital-property section of the Family Code, Texas law put a wife's salary, bonuses, and wages under her husband's control to the extent that technically only he could "contract her services to another." In other words, an employer who wished to comply strictly could not hire a woman without consulting her husband.
As for marrying relatives several states allow marriage between first cousins.
So as you can see, I was completely correct on ALL counts of the changing definition of marriage in the US.
What is one more change? Unless you would like to go back to the "traditional" form of marriage, wife as property.
Please, let's spare the BS. You obviously hate the institution of traditional marriage and are going to go to any ludicrous length to present it as a repressive and/or primitive institution.
Big deal! That and a dollar will get you a draw beer (at least in the joints I used to hang out in...where men routinely went home drunk and "raped" their wives. Yeah, right...).
Are you for real? Are you a man or woman? Are you married? If so, have you ever been raped by your spouse. Do you think men and women married rape each other and it should involve the criminal justice system. Tell me (us) your experience with "spousal rape" being even remotely the norm..?
So he pretty much OWNED her. She could own no property. Had nothing that was legally considered hers. The husband also owned any children of the marriage.
It wasn't until 1839 in Mississippi that a woman could legally own property.
There was even a time in US history that a married woman could not have her own bank account without her husband signing for her.
Gosh, too bad you were not born in Bethleham, huh? Bet as soon as those racist and sexist and homophobic oppressors had come to the New World, YOU would have sent them back with their ears ringing and all about not allowing equal rights for everyone, right?
I bet it does. LOL Sounds like it to me too...if one accepts your dramatic presentation of it all. But what if perhaps, just perhaps, your definition of "property" is just dumb??
Quote:
As for marrying relatives several states allow marriage between first cousins.
So? Flaw is that you presented it originally as if was a sibling relationship...and as if it was the norm. How many states do NOT allow first cousin marriages?
Quote:
So as you can see, I was completely correct on ALL counts of the changing definition of marriage in the US.
You are? Hell, I can hardly stop laughing. The definition -- in this country -- which is really all that matters -- is one between a man and woman. And any attempt to re-define it, has been soundly defeated at the voting booth (even in so-called "liberal" states).
Quote:
What is one more change? Unless you would like to go back to the "traditional" form of marriage, wife as property.
How old are you? What kind of marriage are you in? What do you know about it, anyway? Do you have any children?
Earth to you: Free institutions are the way they are because they contain an instrinsic wisdom and natural evolution within them, that just because it/they cannot be always articulated, does not mean the same are not the result of many years of collective experience. And that they seem to endure...which is something in itself...
Last edited by TexasReb; 06-21-2012 at 04:40 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
