| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Roberto" |
| Date: |
03 Mar 2004 09:15:04 PM |
| Object: |
problems with homosexuality |
Warning! This a repost. I got one weak response in a previous posting.
I'm reposting for the sake of my understanding. I need your
perspectives.
Here's the perspective of one nut case – me. I'm a Christian and I
have gay friends. Yes, it's true. This is obviously an issue I have to
contend with because I know my gay friends are human beings, just like
me. Yes, this Christian actually knows that some gays are actually
have feelings and are pretty cool, talented and can be monogamous. So
it really is tough (poor me, huh?) to take my position while not
turning a blind eye to friends that advocate a change in the
definition of marriage.
The question that rings in my mind, and excuse me for being obtuse -
at which point do we place a limit on the definition of marriage? If
we remove the current limitation, and include same genders, then what
about polygamy or androgyny? How about extending it to include
incestuous relationships (consenting adults)? Or even adult and child
(after all an adult really is an adult when he/she can reproduce – not
because of an arbitrary law that defines what a minor is)? How about
extend the definition of marriage to include marriage between human
and animal (there is often a mutual and loving relationship between
dog and human - there are studies that show that pets can increase the
longivity and quality of life, so why not pay for pet health care). If
things go as planned by legalizing gay marriages – you can be
guaranteed to see all of the above and more pop up. And why the heck
not? No one will have the corner on morality so anything should be
able to go.
In a previous posting of this material, someone mentioned that the
above arguement fails to address consent. Consent between two
individuals to engage in anything harmful cannot be condoned by any
sane society. Homosexuality is harmful, but just as harmful as
premarital heterosexual sex or adultary. The physical danger of
homosexuality is real (std's, rectal damage), and just as real as the
psyschological damage. Homosexuals as well as deviant heterosexuals
are prone to being less satisfied with a single partner. This does not
mean that they may not choose to get married, which they will do, but
the lack of a moral basis for such a commitment affords them the
freedom to be less inclined toward faithfulness. In other words, if
homosexuality is okay for those practicing it, then being faithful to
a partner is also a backward Judeo-Christian concept, for which there
would be no logical basis to follow.
So why is homosexuality so threatening? As I perceive it the treat is
universal and long term - does not the above speak of a culture that
could implode, especially if there is no absolute guide for morality?
How about the economics of it? Who is going to pay for all the
benefits that will have to be doled out to the spouses of all these
kinds of marriages? The government? Ha! corporations? They would no
sooner run away to a country that is free of this, if it will save
them a buck. The alternative will be for such spousal benefits to be
eliminated which will likely be the long term solution.
The problem with homosexuality is that it places an emphasis on sex
and not so much the relationship between two human beings. It is okay
to have a deep and loving friendship between two humans of the same
sex, but when it crosses over to sex or sexual feelings, there is a
problem. Why? Well first of all, it goes against nature - sexual
organs between a male and a female complement each other. Charles
Darwin will tell you that sex is natures expression in its will for
reproduction. He will tell you that any other form of sexual
gratification is just that - self gratification. Homosexuality, even
in non-humans, has never helped the development of a species.
So what about the folks that have an innate sexual attraction to
people of the same sex? I cannot dogmatically assert that such people
do not exist. I had a gay dog once, and if it happens in animals, then
why not humans? People are born with all kinds of abnormalities so why
not include homosexual attraction as a genetic trait? Well, I think at
some level all humans are abnormal, this includes myself. Innate to me
is a propensity to do all kinds of stupid things that could land me in
jail or destroy the environment. What stops me from doing these things
is the law, as well as social, cultural and religious mores. All of
these rules have been developed over time to help preserve society.
This implies that I actually have to exercise choice, and often go
against my own nature to do what is considered healthy for the well
being of society and ultimately my self.
In very much the same way, while homosexuality may be a powerful and
innate feeling to an individual, he or she can often control it. This
begs the question of suppression. Is it normal to do this? What about
the psychological effects of suppression? The answer – deal with it.
How? Well if you are genetically predisposed to anything you thought
harmful to your well being, you will find a solution.
The question is how do you get to the point of recognizing that
homosexuality is harmful to yourself and to society in general? This
leads to the question - why is homosexuality regarded harmful to
society? Well first of all, homosexuality places an emphasis on sex.
Parents in every society, around the world, would like to see their
progeny flourish. Homosexuality prevents this (granted - donor sperms
or wombs not withstanding). Beyond this, society and religion see it
as a threat to the very definition of a family unit. Why is it a
threat? Well, regarding homosexuality as "normal" will allow for
experimentation. Sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is a
powerful agent in causing short and long term psychological harm to
those who unwittingly fall into its trap (there are many studies on
this). Social and religious rules generally encourage developing
relationships to a point of maturity and commitment before stepping
into the realm of sex. This is what allows for a functional family
unit.
Homosexuality, by its very nature, places an emphasis on sexual
activity first, then relationship. Premarital heterosexual sex and
adultery are just as harmful, and equally frowned upon. Religion,
precisely Islam, Christianity, Judaism, will tell you that self
gratification of any sort - gluttony, greed, premarital heterosexual
sex, homosexuality, heterosexual adultery etc - is unhealthy and not
to be condoned by society. Is the sexual activity between two humans
of the same sex absolutely necessary for the relationship to blossom?
Absolutely not. The same applies to humans of different sex. You can
form good long lasting friendships without involving sex. In fact, sex
has been known to be a relationship destroyer - even in heterosexual
relationships in cases where the basis for the relationships was based
on sex alone.
Again - there is nothing wrong with desiring a deep, long lasting,
friendship with another person of the same sex. There is also nothing
wrong with a man being interested in the arts, cooking, fine dress,
more than football or other things that would define him as being
"macho". Some men or women are fooled into thinking that they are gay
because their interests are that of the opposite sex. They experiment,
and then find themselves caught in a pattern that they cannot come out
of because of guilt, and perhaps a need to justify their
experimentation.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
04 Mar 2004 12:02:33 AM |
|
|
"Roberto" <travelling_goat@yahoo.com> wrote
Here's the perspective of one nut case - me. I'm a
Christian and I have gay friends.
"Some of my best friends are... "
"Black," followed by overtly racist statements.
"Jewish," followed by overtly anti-Semitic statements.
"Gay," followed by overtly homophobic statements.
The truth is, your position demonstrates animosity. Without
animosity, why on earth would you care?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roberto" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
04 Mar 2004 06:11:11 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0Iqdnf61MKAYWNvdRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
"Roberto" <travelling_goat@yahoo.com> wrote
Here's the perspective of one nut case - me. I'm a
Christian and I have gay friends.
"Some of my best friends are... "
"Black," followed by overtly racist statements.
"Jewish," followed by overtly anti-Semitic statements.
"Gay," followed by overtly homophobic statements.
The truth is, your position demonstrates animosity. Without
animosity, why on earth would you care?
Not animosity, but genuine concern. I don't so much care about laws,
but the choices my friends make. "Black" or "Jewish" are not choices.
"Gay" is. I personally think that this choice is harmful. If you were
to see a friend about to hang himself, wouldn't you intervene? And if
you did, would it be out of hate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Klee" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
05 Mar 2004 12:10:14 AM |
|
|
In article <859bedfd.0403040411.575fccf4@posting.google.com>, Roberto
<travelling_goat@yahoo.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<0Iqdnf61MKAYWNvdRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
"Roberto" <travelling_goat@yahoo.com> wrote
Here's the perspective of one nut case - me. I'm a
Christian and I have gay friends.
"Some of my best friends are... "
"Black," followed by overtly racist statements.
"Jewish," followed by overtly anti-Semitic statements.
"Gay," followed by overtly homophobic statements.
The truth is, your position demonstrates animosity. Without
animosity, why on earth would you care?
Not animosity, but genuine concern. I don't so much care about laws,
but the choices my friends make. "Black" or "Jewish" are not choices.
"Gay" is. I personally think that this choice is harmful. If you were
to see a friend about to hang himself, wouldn't you intervene? And if
you did, would it be out of hate?
At what point in your life did you decide not to be gay? Or did it just
"happen"
--
....and in elder days there were wars in the Heavens between the Ibemmeraphim
and the Angels of the Apple of Knowledge...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
05 Mar 2004 04:56:58 PM |
|
|
On 4 Mar 2004 04:11:11 -0800, (Roberto)
thought hard and said:
Not animosity, but genuine concern. I don't so much care about laws,
but the choices my friends make. "Black" or "Jewish" are not choices.
"Gay" is. I personally think that this choice is harmful. If you were
to see a friend about to hang himself, wouldn't you intervene? And if
you did, would it be out of hate?
Oh, and I suppose we could just wake up one day and say "You know
what, I am going to be gay from now on"?
It is not as simple.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
04 Mar 2004 10:55:28 AM |
|
|
On 4 Mar 2004 04:11:11 -0800, (Roberto)
wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0Iqdnf61MKAYWNvdRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
"Roberto" < > wrote
Here's the perspective of one nut case - me. I'm a
Christian and I have gay friends.
"Some of my best friends are... "
"Black," followed by overtly racist statements.
"Jewish," followed by overtly anti-Semitic statements.
"Gay," followed by overtly homophobic statements.
The truth is, your position demonstrates animosity. Without
animosity, why on earth would you care?
Not animosity, but genuine concern. I don't so much care about laws,
but the choices my friends make. "Black" or "Jewish" are not choices.
"Gay" is. I personally think that this choice is harmful. If you were
to see a friend about to hang himself, wouldn't you intervene? And if
you did, would it be out of hate?
Self righteous bigot, being gay is dangerous only because of bigots
like you. If I see a person endangered by blind hatred of a bigot I
intervene. And no I despise you, and hate your bigot based hatred. But
I don`t hate you, I fear you the way I fear a rattle snake. and snakes
serve a useful purpose, but you don`t.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roberto" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
04 Mar 2004 11:07:56 PM |
|
|
(robpar) wrote in message news:<40485dec.7143427@news.airmail.net>...
On 4 Mar 2004 04:11:11 -0800, (Roberto)
wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0Iqdnf61MKAYWNvdRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
"Roberto" < > wrote
Here's the perspective of one nut case - me. I'm a
Christian and I have gay friends.
"Some of my best friends are... "
"Black," followed by overtly racist statements.
"Jewish," followed by overtly anti-Semitic statements.
"Gay," followed by overtly homophobic statements.
The truth is, your position demonstrates animosity. Without
animosity, why on earth would you care?
Not animosity, but genuine concern. I don't so much care about laws,
but the choices my friends make. "Black" or "Jewish" are not choices.
"Gay" is. I personally think that this choice is harmful. If you were
to see a friend about to hang himself, wouldn't you intervene? And if
you did, would it be out of hate?
Self righteous bigot, being gay is dangerous only because of bigots
like you. If I see a person endangered by blind hatred of a bigot I
intervene. And no I despise you, and hate your bigot based hatred. But
I don`t hate you, I fear you the way I fear a rattle snake. and snakes
serve a useful purpose, but you don`t.
I admit, there are some bigotted idiots out there who's only response
to homosexuality is violence and hate. I do not condone any violence.
I would stand and give my life to protect a gay person if any such
injustice where to happen. My concern is that homosexuality is blindly
accepted as okay. Read my initial posting to see my perspective on the
issue, if you care.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
05 Mar 2004 12:40:40 PM |
|
|
On 4 Mar 2004 21:07:56 -0800, (Roberto)
wrote:
robpar@deleteairmail.net (robpar) wrote in message news:<40485dec.7143427@news.airmail.net>...
On 4 Mar 2004 04:11:11 -0800, (Roberto)
wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0Iqdnf61MKAYWNvdRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
"Roberto" < > wrote
Here's the perspective of one nut case - me. I'm a
Christian and I have gay friends.
"Some of my best friends are... "
"Black," followed by overtly racist statements.
"Jewish," followed by overtly anti-Semitic statements.
"Gay," followed by overtly homophobic statements.
The truth is, your position demonstrates animosity. Without
animosity, why on earth would you care?
Not animosity, but genuine concern. I don't so much care about laws,
but the choices my friends make. "Black" or "Jewish" are not choices.
"Gay" is. I personally think that this choice is harmful. If you were
to see a friend about to hang himself, wouldn't you intervene? And if
you did, would it be out of hate?
Self righteous bigot, being gay is dangerous only because of bigots
like you. If I see a person endangered by blind hatred of a bigot I
intervene. And no I despise you, and hate your bigot based hatred. But
I don`t hate you, I fear you the way I fear a rattle snake. and snakes
serve a useful purpose, but you don`t.
I admit, there are some bigotted idiots out there who's only response
to homosexuality is violence and hate. I do not condone any violence.
I would stand and give my life to protect a gay person if any such
injustice where to happen. My concern is that homosexuality is blindly
accepted as okay. Read my initial posting to see my perspective on the
issue, if you care.
I have. check my response to it. I have read your response and will
respond to it.
One more time denying a person equal rights because you disprove of
his/her behavior is bigoted. Any support of a bigots position
encourages them to increase their oppression.
BTW I am not gay, and don`t especially like gay people, however I
dislike bigots that support oppression of them even more. And I
consider homosexual behavior to be a normal variation among humans.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
04 Mar 2004 06:41:19 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 04:11:11 -0800, Roberto wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<0Iqdnf61MKAYWNvdRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
"Roberto" <travelling_goat@yahoo.com> wrote
Here's the perspective of one nut case - me. I'm a Christian and I
have gay friends.
"Some of my best friends are... "
"Black," followed by overtly racist statements.
"Jewish," followed by overtly anti-Semitic statements.
"Gay," followed by overtly homophobic statements.
The truth is, your position demonstrates animosity. Without animosity,
why on earth would you care?
Not animosity, but genuine concern. I don't so much care about laws, but
the choices my friends make. "Black" or "Jewish" are not choices. "Gay"
is.
Are you sure?
I personally think that this choice is harmful.
How so?
If you were to see a friend about to hang himself, wouldn't you
intervene? And if you did, would it be out of hate?
Wow, that's a ripe analogy. Try this instead:
If you were to see a friend about to go out with a girl you didn't find
appealing, wouldn't you intervene?
Well, I suppose _some_ people would, but most of us wouldn't.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
04 Mar 2004 11:25:46 PM |
|
|
Roberto <travelling_goat@yahoo.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0Iqdnf61MKAYWNvdRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
"Roberto" <travelling_goat@yahoo.com> wrote
Here's the perspective of one nut case - me. I'm a
Christian and I have gay friends.
"Some of my best friends are... "
"Black," followed by overtly racist statements.
"Jewish," followed by overtly anti-Semitic statements.
"Gay," followed by overtly homophobic statements.
The truth is, your position demonstrates animosity. Without
animosity, why on earth would you care?
Not animosity, but genuine concern. I don't so much care about laws,
but the choices my friends make. "Black" or "Jewish" are not choices.
"Gay" is.
You're nuts. The evidence contradicts you.
Besides, people have the right to make choices.
I personally think that this choice is harmful.
Then don't be gay.
If you were
to see a friend about to hang himself, wouldn't you intervene?
How would you like me telling YOU what to do? I think that you're
bigotry is harmful. What say we through your ***** in jail until
you come to your senses? After all, isn't it appropriate to
intervene in YOUR case?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
04 Mar 2004 07:04:50 AM |
|
|
Roberto wrote:
"Black" or "Jewish" are not
choices. "Gay" is.
What a strange idea. Could you (assuming you're heterosexual)
choose to stop being sexually attracted to women, and start being
sexually attracted to men instead? How exactly do you think you
would achieve that? Have you ever tried, just to test your
theory?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MrD Pstychologist \retired" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
05 Mar 2004 05:16:28 PM |
|
|
"Roberto" <travelling_goat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:859bedfd.0403031915.6d911ab9@posting.google.com...
Warning! This a repost. I got one weak response in a previous posting.
I'm reposting for the sake of my understanding. I need your
perspectives.
Here's the perspective of one nut case - me. I'm a Christian and I
have gay friends. Yes, it's true. This is obviously an issue I have to
contend with because I know my gay friends are human beings, just like
me. Yes, this Christian actually knows that some gays are actually
have feelings and are pretty cool, talented and can be monogamous. So
it really is tough (poor me, huh?) to take my position while not
turning a blind eye to friends that advocate a change in the
definition of marriage.
The question that rings in my mind, and excuse me for being obtuse -
at which point do we place a limit on the definition of marriage?
This begs the question, 'Why do we have to place a limit on the definition
of marriage?'
Well?
MrD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Erlandson" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
05 Mar 2004 07:23:46 PM |
|
|
That's what you do when you define something, you place limits,
boundaries on it.
"MrD Pstychologist (retired)" <askme@netins.net> wrote in message
news:c2b1k5$bkb$1@news.netins.net...
"Roberto" <travelling_goat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:859bedfd.0403031915.6d911ab9@posting.google.com...
Warning! This a repost. I got one weak response in a previous
posting.
I'm reposting for the sake of my understanding. I need your
perspectives.
Here's the perspective of one nut case - me. I'm a Christian and I
have gay friends. Yes, it's true. This is obviously an issue I have
to
contend with because I know my gay friends are human beings, just
like
me. Yes, this Christian actually knows that some gays are actually
have feelings and are pretty cool, talented and can be monogamous.
So
it really is tough (poor me, huh?) to take my position while not
turning a blind eye to friends that advocate a change in the
definition of marriage.
The question that rings in my mind, and excuse me for being obtuse -
at which point do we place a limit on the definition of marriage?
This begs the question, 'Why do we have to place a limit on the
definition
of marriage?'
Well?
MrD
.
|
|
|
| User: "MrD Pstychologist \retired" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
05 Mar 2004 09:23:05 PM |
|
|
"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a4GdnaU3nP6ptdTdRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
That's what you do when you define something, you place limits,
boundaries on it.
First: Why do you top post?
Second: This begs the question that marriage must have limits and boundaries
assigned to it.
Why?
Even if something must have limits and boundaries(which you are about to
show why they must) why would you advocate limits and boundaries that were
discriminatory based on sexual orientation?
Not long ago limits were based on racial distinctions and they've been
overthrown by fairness and decency. What difference is there in this case
with sexuality?
MrD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Erlandson" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
06 Mar 2004 03:02:06 AM |
|
|
Not long ago limits were based on racial distinctions and they've been
overthrown by fairness and decency. What difference is there in this
case
with sexuality?
The issue is morality. Morality is something people have or don't.
"MrD Pstychologist (retired)" <askme@netins.net> wrote in message
news:c2bg2i$sej$1@news.netins.net...
"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a4GdnaU3nP6ptdTdRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
That's what you do when you define something, you place limits,
boundaries on it.
First: Why do you top post?
Second: This begs the question that marriage must have limits and
boundaries
assigned to it.
Why?
Even if something must have limits and boundaries(which you are about
to
show why they must) why would you advocate limits and boundaries that
were
discriminatory based on sexual orientation?
Not long ago limits were based on racial distinctions and they've been
overthrown by fairness and decency. What difference is there in this
case
with sexuality?
MrD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
06 Mar 2004 11:21:10 AM |
|
|
"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@comcast.net> writes:
Not long ago limits were based on racial distinctions and they've been
overthrown by fairness and decency. What difference is there in this case
with sexuality?
The issue is morality. Morality is something people have or don't.
What you left out was the specification that it be YOUR "morality". Keep
proving Kornbluth right by insisting there's such a thing as an objective
morality, reality be damned.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2003-04 Houston Aeros)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MrD Pstychologist \retired" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
06 Mar 2004 06:57:00 AM |
|
|
"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DvCdnQU6Vro9DtTdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
Not long ago limits were based on racial distinctions and they've been
overthrown by fairness and decency. What difference is there in this
case
with sexuality?
The issue is morality. Morality is something people have or don't.
Do you attempt to define the topic so that you can set limits on what you
will have to think about?
Your assignment of morality is flawed. Everyone has morality, it just isn't
the same for everyone.
I don't think you understand what morality is.
MrD
"MrD Pstychologist (retired)" <askme@netins.net> wrote in message
news:c2bg2i$sej$1@news.netins.net...
"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a4GdnaU3nP6ptdTdRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
That's what you do when you define something, you place limits,
boundaries on it.
First: Why do you top post?
Second: This begs the question that marriage must have limits and
boundaries
assigned to it.
Why?
Even if something must have limits and boundaries(which you are about
to
show why they must) why would you advocate limits and boundaries that
were
discriminatory based on sexual orientation?
Not long ago limits were based on racial distinctions and they've been
overthrown by fairness and decency. What difference is there in this
case
with sexuality?
MrD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Erlandson" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
06 Mar 2004 04:32:15 PM |
|
|
Do you attempt to define the topic so that you can set limits on what
you
will have to think about?
Warmth, damp moss on a cold stone. Here, the rumble of cars but I
remember the sound of water falling, and splashing onto a gushing river.
Now does that make any sense to you. It shouldn't because it's
unstructured, undefined like a paragraph taken from a book and read
independently. If we didn't define things we would have little in
common when attempting to communicate. Marriage is a definition. By
tradition it implies between man and woman (naturally born.)
Your assignment of morality is flawed. Everyone has morality, it just
isn't
the same for everyone.
Morality is a law, like the law of gravity and it is applicable to all
of us the same way. People don't recognize morality as a law but an
opinion and that is where the problem lie.
"MrD Pstychologist (retired)" <askme@netins.net> wrote in message
news:c2chmn$ude$1@news.netins.net...
"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DvCdnQU6Vro9DtTdRVn-hw@comcast.com...
Not long ago limits were based on racial distinctions and they've
been
overthrown by fairness and decency. What difference is there in
this
case
with sexuality?
The issue is morality. Morality is something people have or don't.
Do you attempt to define the topic so that you can set limits on what
you
will have to think about?
Your assignment of morality is flawed. Everyone has morality, it just
isn't
the same for everyone.
I don't think you understand what morality is.
MrD
"MrD Pstychologist (retired)" <askme@netins.net> wrote in message
news:c2bg2i$sej$1@news.netins.net...
"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a4GdnaU3nP6ptdTdRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
That's what you do when you define something, you place limits,
boundaries on it.
First: Why do you top post?
Second: This begs the question that marriage must have limits and
boundaries
assigned to it.
Why?
Even if something must have limits and boundaries(which you are
about
to
show why they must) why would you advocate limits and boundaries
that
were
discriminatory based on sexual orientation?
Not long ago limits were based on racial distinctions and they've
been
overthrown by fairness and decency. What difference is there in
this
case
with sexuality?
MrD
.
|
|
|
| User: "MrD Pstychologist \retired" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
06 Mar 2004 06:26:35 PM |
|
|
"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:376dnRa61rQczNfdRVn-vg@comcast.com...
Do you attempt to define the topic so that you can set limits on what
you
will have to think about?
Warmth, damp moss on a cold stone. Here, the rumble of cars but I
remember the sound of water falling, and splashing onto a gushing river.
Now does that make any sense to you. It shouldn't because it's
unstructured, undefined like a paragraph taken from a book and read
independently.
But it does make some sense to me because of the ideas invoked.
We don't have to have a formal agreement about what splashing is for us to
both have fond memories of it.
I think you are grasping for straws to support your position in favor of
discrimination.
If we didn't define things we would have little in
common when attempting to communicate.
There is some truth in this, but we need not define anything to the sharpest
point in order to find common ground. Indeed, it would only show us the
differences instead of allowing us to find the similarities in our thoughts.
Your very nature is discriminatory. Define, divide, deny.
Marriage is a definition. By
tradition it implies between man and woman (naturally born.)
Your assignment of morality is flawed. Everyone has morality, it just
isn't
the same for everyone.
Morality is a law, like the law of gravity and it is applicable to all
of us the same way. People don't recognize morality as a law but an
opinion and that is where the problem lie.
Now that's just nonsense.
If you are that limited in your thinking, I'm not interested in any
conversation with you.
MrD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Erlandson" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
06 Mar 2004 07:30:19 PM |
|
|
"MrD Pstychologist (retired)" <askme@netins.net> wrote in message
news:c2ds7r$k65$1@news.netins.net...
There is some truth in this, but we need not define anything to the
sharpest
point in order to find common ground. Indeed, it would only show us
the
differences instead of allowing us to find the similarities in our
thoughts.
Your very nature is discriminatory. Define, divide, deny.
Nature has a few laws of her own. For growth they include taking in
subject matter, breaking apart the subject matter, separating the
subject matter into usable and unusable groups, assimilating the usable
subject matter and finally expelling the unusable subject matter from
the body. I don't understand your simple analogy of define, divide and
deny as discriminatory as these process' are natural functions in life
and are not perversions of it. The discussion was 'problems with
homosexuality' and I pointed out anal intercourse was an unclean act and
you got off on "not all homosexuals practice it, there are other ways,
and how about gay women." I don't have the answer to homosexuality but
as it remains an enigma within all areas science and medicine I don't
think it wise to lend it any credibility, particularly marriage. I
believe it better for homosexual partners to peruse a declaration of
domestic partnership.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MrD Pstychologist \retired" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
07 Mar 2004 08:16:37 AM |
|
|
"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HrednQ_1es-g5tfdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
"MrD Pstychologist (retired)" <askme@netins.net> wrote in message
news:c2ds7r$k65$1@news.netins.net...
There is some truth in this, but we need not define anything to the
sharpest
point in order to find common ground. Indeed, it would only show us
the
differences instead of allowing us to find the similarities in our
thoughts.
Your very nature is discriminatory. Define, divide, deny.
Nature has a few laws of her own. For growth they include taking in
subject matter, breaking apart the subject matter, separating the
subject matter into usable and unusable groups, assimilating the usable
subject matter and finally expelling the unusable subject matter from
the body. I don't understand your simple analogy of define, divide and
deny as discriminatory as these process' are natural functions in life
and are not perversions of it. The discussion was 'problems with
homosexuality' and I pointed out anal intercourse was an unclean act and
you got off on "not all homosexuals practice it, there are other ways,
and how about gay women." I don't have the answer to homosexuality but
as it remains an enigma within all areas science and medicine I don't
think it wise to lend it any credibility, particularly marriage. I
believe it better for homosexual partners to peruse a declaration of
domestic partnership.
'Backpeddle, backpeddle.' It's not an enigma within all areas of science.
Homosexuality is believed to be induced by the levels of hormones present
within the uterous during gestation. This theory has been tested by
producing homosexual sheep, IIRC.
Where is your empathy and compassion? How can you seriously deny other
people the right to bond with someone they are actually attracted to, deny
them the right to their pursuit of happiness?
Have you ever pondered the question of what you'd do if you woke up one
morning and by some twist of reality it wasn't socially acceptable for you
to be attracted to the opposite sex?
You'd have to settle down and be with a man or be shunned and called
perverse. What would you do?
MrD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Erlandson" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
07 Mar 2004 02:42:04 PM |
|
|
"MrD Pstychologist (retired)" <askme@netins.net> wrote in message
news:c2fb1v$58l$1@news.netins.net...
"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HrednQ_1es-g5tfdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
"MrD Pstychologist (retired)" <askme@netins.net> wrote in message
news:c2ds7r$k65$1@news.netins.net...
There is some truth in this, but we need not define anything to
the
sharpest
point in order to find common ground. Indeed, it would only show
us
the
differences instead of allowing us to find the similarities in our
thoughts.
Your very nature is discriminatory. Define, divide, deny.
Nature has a few laws of her own. For growth they include taking in
subject matter, breaking apart the subject matter, separating the
subject matter into usable and unusable groups, assimilating the
usable
subject matter and finally expelling the unusable subject matter
from
the body. I don't understand your simple analogy of define, divide
and
deny as discriminatory as these process' are natural functions in
life
and are not perversions of it. The discussion was 'problems with
homosexuality' and I pointed out anal intercourse was an unclean act
and
you got off on "not all homosexuals practice it, there are other
ways,
and how about gay women." I don't have the answer to homosexuality
but
as it remains an enigma within all areas science and medicine I
don't
think it wise to lend it any credibility, particularly marriage. I
believe it better for homosexual partners to peruse a declaration of
domestic partnership.
'Backpeddle, backpeddle.' It's not an enigma within all areas of
science.
Homosexuality is believed to be induced by the levels of hormones
present
within the uterous during gestation. This theory has been tested by
producing homosexual sheep, IIRC.
Where is your empathy and compassion? How can you seriously deny
other
people the right to bond with someone they are actually attracted to,
deny
them the right to their pursuit of happiness?
Have you ever pondered the question of what you'd do if you woke up
one
morning and by some twist of reality it wasn't socially acceptable for
you
to be attracted to the opposite sex?
You'd have to settle down and be with a man or be shunned and called
perverse. What would you do?
MrD
Homosexuality remains an enigma largely because man remains an enigma.
Many theories exist why man adopts and develops cultural behaviors.
Some suggest that through evolution man has become hardwired to certain
predispositions, that this historical road to survival is so engrained
within us that we unconsciously accept or reject certain mannerisms. If
homosexuality is a disorder, as your theory and others suggest, why
would you wish to make it socially acceptable behavior? Do you liken
homosexual marriage to the marriage of mentally handicapped individuals?
How about the marriage of physically handicapped individuals? The road
to happiness isn't necessarily paved in pleasure. Throughout time many
men have sacrificed a great deal for the benefit of others and, frankly,
it really seems to me that homosexuals tend to be a selfish lot in that
they don't have that grace about them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MrD Pstychologist \retired" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
07 Mar 2004 03:36:26 PM |
|
|
"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:V4ydnZX6_J-zFNbd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"MrD Pstychologist (retired)" <askme@netins.net> wrote in message
news:c2fb1v$58l$1@news.netins.net...
'Backpeddle, backpeddle.' It's not an enigma within all areas of
science.
Homosexuality is believed to be induced by the levels of hormones
present
within the uterous during gestation. This theory has been tested by
producing homosexual sheep, IIRC.
Where is your empathy and compassion? How can you seriously deny
other
people the right to bond with someone they are actually attracted to,
deny
them the right to their pursuit of happiness?
Have you ever pondered the question of what you'd do if you woke up
one
morning and by some twist of reality it wasn't socially acceptable for
you
to be attracted to the opposite sex?
You'd have to settle down and be with a man or be shunned and called
perverse. What would you do?
MrD
Homosexuality remains an enigma largely because man remains an enigma.
'Man' may be an enigma, but that doesn't mean homosexuality needs to be.
It seems to me that you are entirely glossing over what I've said to
maintain your own opinion as if it is reasonable.
Many theories exist why man adopts and develops cultural behaviors.
Some suggest that through evolution man has become hardwired to certain
predispositions, that this historical road to survival is so engrained
within us that we unconsciously accept or reject certain mannerisms. If
homosexuality is a disorder, as your theory and others suggest, why
would you wish to make it socially acceptable behavior?
Back up the bus, my theory doesn't suggest it's a disorder at all, it just
explains why some people have this propensity. It also explains why some
people have a heterosexual propensity, do you claim this suggests they have
a disorder as well?
As far as socially acceptable, that is up to the society, it is not based on
reason. Fifty years ago, it was socially unacceptable for races to
intermarry. This wasn't based on any rational explanation, it was based on
emotion. Society changed and so did our expectation of what is acceptable.
Our society is becoming centered upon the idea that people have equal
rights and that they shouldn't be discriminated on based on heritage,
gender, nationality, age, or sexual preference. You seem bent on excluding
sexual preference from this list but I don't see you giving any rational
reason for why you think they should be excluded.
Do you liken
homosexual marriage to the marriage of mentally handicapped individuals?
How about the marriage of physically handicapped individuals?
These questions don't apply since your analogy is flawed. I would answer
that everyone has the right to pursue their own happiness as long as it
doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Homosexuals don't infringe on the rights of others by marrying.
If you think they do, please explain how.
The road
to happiness isn't necessarily paved in pleasure. Throughout time many
men have sacrificed a great deal for the benefit of others and, frankly,
it really seems to me that homosexuals tend to be a selfish lot in that
they don't have that grace about them.
Well perhaps the 'seems to me' part is your problem and not the homosexual
part. I think you should start by learning a bit about homosexuals. I've
certainly not seen them to be a selfish lot. I think what you are reacting
to is the extremely small percentage of 'gays' in the past that flaunt their
sexuality in the face of society in order to affect change. You surely
don't think that they are indicative of all homosexuals out there? This
would be like saying all pro-life proponents blow up abortion clinics or
shove pictures of aborted fetuses in people's faces.
You didn't answer my point about how you would react if society reversed
itself overnight and you were found to be perverse if you desired to be
with a woman instead of the man that society expects you to be attracted to.
Would you make a life with a man and be happy it was socially acceptable, or
would you be unhappy and looking to change the way society accepted you?
Equal rights to pursue happiness, tradition be damned.
MrD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
07 Mar 2004 10:05:55 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 17:30:19 -0800, "Jon Erlandson"
<jerlands@comcast.net> wrote:
"MrD Pstychologist (retired)" <askme@netins.net> wrote in message
news:c2ds7r$k65$1@news.netins.net...
There is some truth in this, but we need not define anything to the
sharpest
point in order to find common ground. Indeed, it would only show us
the
differences instead of allowing us to find the similarities in our
thoughts.
Your very nature is discriminatory. Define, divide, deny.
Nature has a few laws of her own. For growth they include taking in
subject matter, breaking apart the subject matter, separating the
subject matter into usable and unusable groups, assimilating the usable
subject matter and finally expelling the unusable subject matter from
the body. I don't understand your simple analogy of define, divide and
deny as discriminatory as these process' are natural functions in life
and are not perversions of it. The discussion was 'problems with
homosexuality' and I pointed out anal intercourse was an unclean act and
you got off on "not all homosexuals practice it, there are other ways,
and how about gay women." I don't have the answer to homosexuality but
as it remains an enigma within all areas science and medicine I don't
think it wise to lend it any credibility, particularly marriage.
I believe it better for homosexual partners to peruse a declaration of
domestic partnership.
Agreed let`s make domestic partnerships legal, and religious
marriage rituals optional, but with no legal standing. Then the
religious ritual, or who can celebrate the ritual would be up to the
church.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
06 Mar 2004 05:50:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 14:32:15 -0800, "Jon Erlandson"
<jerlands@comcast.net> wrote:
Do you attempt to define the topic so that you can set limits on what
you
will have to think about?
Warmth, damp moss on a cold stone. Here, the rumble of cars but I
remember the sound of water falling, and splashing onto a gushing river.
Now does that make any sense to you.
Yes, it does. It's two coherent sentences that paint a rather
evocative picture, actually. What part of it did you think didn't make
sense?
It shouldn't because it's
unstructured, undefined like a paragraph taken from a book and read
independently. If we didn't define things we would have little in
common when attempting to communicate. Marriage is a definition. By
tradition
"Tradition" is a catch-phrase often used to excuse any and every
social injustice from treating women as second-class citizens, to
slavery, to discriminating against whatever group one doesn't like;
invoking it here isn't a point in your favor.
it implies between man and woman (naturally born.)
"Naturally born"? Does this mean people delivered by c-section aren't
eligible? You aren't making much sense there, would you care to
clarify what you mean?
Incidentally, I've yet to see an argument against same-sex marriage
that wasn't used 50 years ago against interracial marriage. Do you
have a new one to present?
Your assignment of morality is flawed. Everyone has morality, it just
isn't
the same for everyone.
Morality is a law, like the law of gravity and it is applicable to all
of us the same way.
Rubbish. Morality is completely subjective; gravity is demonstrably
not.
People don't recognize morality as a law but an
opinion and that is where the problem lie.
I think you have that exactly backwards, actually.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
06 Mar 2004 01:21:19 PM |
|
|
Jon Erlandson <jerlands@comcast.net> wrote:
Not long ago limits were based on racial distinctions and they've been
overthrown by fairness and decency. What difference is there in this
case
with sexuality?
The issue is morality. Morality is something people have or don't.
You don't. You have hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Erlandson" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
06 Mar 2004 03:05:27 PM |
|
|
You don't. You have hate.
You people have stupidity in redundancy... Shee, it must be bred into
ya.
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:c2d8be$qns$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Jon Erlandson <jerlands@comcast.net> wrote:
Not long ago limits were based on racial distinctions and they've
been
overthrown by fairness and decency. What difference is there in
this
case
with sexuality?
The issue is morality. Morality is something people have or don't.
You don't. You have hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
06 Mar 2004 03:19:15 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:05:27 -0800, "Jon Erlandson"
<jerlands@comcast.net> wrote:
You don't. You have hate.
You people have stupidity in redundancy...
Ah. "You people"; the trademark catch phrase of the bigot.
Predictable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Erlandson" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
06 Mar 2004 04:27:29 PM |
|
|
Applying generalizations to a group is not bigotry but prejudice.
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:81gk409masua50vb4c7irb0s4tbhtvrr63@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:05:27 -0800, "Jon Erlandson"
<jerlands@comcast.net> wrote:
You don't. You have hate.
You people have stupidity in redundancy...
Ah. "You people"; the trademark catch phrase of the bigot.
Predictable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
06 Mar 2004 04:54:27 PM |
|
|
"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@comcast.net> wrote in news:q7ednd0sT7D-zdfdRVn-
uw@comcast.com:
Applying generalizations to a group is not bigotry but prejudice.
you might want to search google for the terms "top post" or "top posting"
before you post again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Erlandson" |
|
| Title: Re: problems with homosexuality |
06 Mar 2004 05:46:35 PM |
|
|
you might want to search google for the terms "top post" or "top
posting"
before you post again
Yes, I'm aware bottom posting can be more efficient if done correctly.
That means excluding all irrelevant information from the post and
including only what you are replying to, as I am doing here, something
you did not do in your post. The reasons are for bandwidth, storage and
ease of viewing. The problem is people don't bottom post correctly and
what you are left with is a mess of strings. Another problem is that
when messaging to numerous groups, which in itself isn't looked highly
upon, the threads aren't always reconstructed as in the original and the
entire discussion isn't easily decipherable. For these reasons I prefer
top posting but it's necessary to follow that same rule to active the
desired result.
BTW: you might look over these links.
http://www.illuminated.co.uk/blog/archives/000409.html
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
