Religions > Atheism > Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2007 12:25:47 AM |
| Object: |
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
Thankfully there are times when common sense wins the day.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/sep/07092602.html
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special
Rights
DENVER, September 26, 2007
(LifeSiteNews.com) - A federal appeals court has issued a significant
ruling saying that an employer's concern over the use of restrooms by
"transsexual" employees is legitimate, according to Alliance Defense
Fund Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. Raum explained further that the
court ruled that "transsexuals" do not qualify as a protected class
under Title VII.
"The court delivered a significant legal punch to political special
interest groups who are demanding that persons with Gender Identity
Disorder be treated as though they were members of the opposite sex.
The court correctly ruled that employers have a valid concern
regarding their employees' proper use of public restrooms," said Raum.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled Thursday that the
Utah Transit Authority had a legitimate concern over a male employee's
restroom usage. Michael Etsitty, a male employee, had begun taking
female hormone therapy and wearing women's jewelry and makeup but
still had male sex organs. UTA had liability concerns regarding the
man's use of women's bathrooms.
A copy of Thursday's ruling in Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority can
be read at http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/UTADecision.pdf
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
08 Oct 2007 11:58:50 AM |
|
|
On 7 okt, 23:31, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
<pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:1191761765.358877.239960@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 7 okt, 00:18, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
Yes - terrorisn is worse than homosexuality.
And that's about the best defense of homosexuality that you'll ever come
up
with.
Sorry for my bad spelling, but apart from that, my "defense" of
homosexuality couldn't possibly be better than your "attack". Your
statement that it is devastating to society is wasn't supported by any
argument other then the fact that a society needs a new generation.
That's a pretty important fact, wouldn't you say?
I went back up the thread trying to find more, and only ran up to your
presumption that it would be better for children to grow up in a
"normal" family than to be raised by homosexuals. Wether this is true
or false I cannot say. As far as Ik now, no research has been done in
this direction. But even if you were right, the small number of
children being raised by homosexuals couldn't possibly have a
devastating effect on society as a whole.
How many children must suffer this way, until you would consider it to be
devastating?
1? 100? A thousand? A million?
Indeed in a society where homosexuality is not tolerated and where
most homosexuals therfore would get marrried, much more children would
be raised by - in the closet - homosexuals. Ever thought of that?
I agree.
That's why I never said that homosexuality should not be tolerated.
To be sure Greek Society where it was custom to have sexual relations
between adult men and adolescent boys thrived a little bit longer than
any present-day democratic republic has done, and it's downfall had
little to do with it's sexual behaviour (according to the books I read
about it). Indeed, although it later came under Roman rule, it was
culturally dominating the empire.
Your argument, that pedophelia is harmless, is a common one.
In fact, we have thousands of prisoners who share it.
If you have serious reasons why homosexuality could be devastating to
society, please unveil them. And please try and discriminate between
homsexuals "in the closet" and "out of the closet", and explain which
would be more devastating and why.
Well I gave one - the need for a next generation.
If you don't think THAT one is a good reason, I don't see how any other
argument would play out any better.
By the way, what happened to the original subject; the transsexuals?
It naturally morphed into one about pervert rights in general.
Sorry but as I have already said, the impact of homosexuality on
childbirth is neglectable compared with the impact of family planning.
And as you are clearly against homosexuals being parents, there is
also nothing you can do about it.
So your argument does not lead to any consequences.
As such it is indeed what one could call a "lame" argument
No offence intended.
The example of Greek society was made by me, not to show that
pedophila was harmless. In fact it does not do so The youngsters were
all adolescents , and all was done openly. Pedophila today is
especially harmfull for younger children, and more so because
generally the pedophile will threathen the kid in order to keep his
crime a secret. Also we have no reliable data as to the mental health
of Greek youngsters (they seemed awfully keen on going to war). I was
just trying to make tou see that a greater and more widespread sexual
"perversity" as you like to call it, was not devasting to it's society
then.
I still do not think you have presented a good argument,
especially as you do not even have any recommandations for the problem
you perceive. Saying "Homosexuality is bad", doesn't lead to more
children I fear.
Peter van Velzen
October 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
08 Oct 2007 02:13:52 PM |
|
|
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:1191862730.888125.276230@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Sorry but as I have already said, the impact of homosexuality on
childbirth is neglectable compared with the impact of family planning.
I agree - homosexuality has like *nothing* to do with childbirth.
And as you are clearly against homosexuals being parents, there is
also nothing you can do about it.
Protecting children from sexual deviants is not only possible; it's a moral
imperative.
Pedophila today is
especially harmfull for younger children, and more so because
generally the pedophile will threathen the kid in order to keep his
crime a secret.
Actually, of the people convicted of pedophilia in the US, almost none
threaten violence or retaliation.
The danger of pedophilia is more psychological and sociological, than it is
physical.
It's all about boundaries.
I was
just trying to make tou see that a greater and more widespread sexual
"perversity" as you like to call it, was not devasting to it's society
then.
I never claimed or even implied that my statement is about ancient
societies.
I was talking about OUR society.
It's like if I said that breating methane is dangerous, then a rational
person would naturally understand that I'm talking about "for humans".
Similarly, when I say that sexual perversion is devastating to society - I'm
not talking about cavemen, or martians, or african babboons.
I am talking about OUR society.
It's common for gay-rights activists to claim that, for example, since
Amazon tribes practice pedophilia it must be OK for Americans, too.
But that's perverted logic there.
I still do not think you have presented a good argument,
especially as you do not even have any recommandations for the problem
you perceive.
I wasn't presenting an argument.
I was making a values judgement - that not exposing children to a happy,
healthy, heterosexual lifestyle at home is harmful to their development.
Saying "Homosexuality is bad", doesn't lead to more
children I fear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
10 Oct 2007 11:14:28 AM |
|
|
On 8 okt, 21:13, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
<pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:1191862730.888125.276230@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Sorry but as I have already said, the impact of homosexuality on
childbirth is neglectable compared with the impact of family planning.
I agree - homosexuality has like *nothing* to do with childbirth.
And as you are clearly against homosexuals being parents, there is
also nothing you can do about it.
Protecting children from sexual deviants is not only possible; it's a moral
imperative.
Pedophila today is
especially harmfull for younger children, and more so because
generally the pedophile will threathen the kid in order to keep his
crime a secret.
Actually, of the people convicted of pedophilia in the US, almost none
threaten violence or retaliation.
The danger of pedophilia is more psychological and sociological, than it is
physical.
It's all about boundaries.
I was
just trying to make tou see that a greater and more widespread sexual
"perversity" as you like to call it, was not devasting to it's society
then.
I never claimed or even implied that my statement is about ancient
societies.
I was talking about OUR society.
It's like if I said that breating methane is dangerous, then a rational
person would naturally understand that I'm talking about "for humans".
Similarly, when I say that sexual perversion is devastating to society - I'm
not talking about cavemen, or martians, or african babboons.
I am talking about OUR society.
It's common for gay-rights activists to claim that, for example, since
Amazon tribes practice pedophilia it must be OK for Americans, too.
But that's perverted logic there.
I still do not think you have presented a good argument,
especially as you do not even have any recommandations for the problem
you perceive.
I wasn't presenting an argument.
I was making a values judgement - that not exposing children to a happy,
healthy, heterosexual lifestyle at home is harmful to their development.
This is another presumption you actually have not proven.
As far as I know a happy family is good for children.
But "heterosexual"?
Even if it were true, most homosexuals do not raise any children,
so the problem your perceive doesn't exist for them.
I maintain that nothing "devasting for society" can be expected from
them,
and I have given you several reasons why this should be so,
but you maintain with this truly unfounded presumption nevertheless
Why?
I would really like to know!
Peter van Velzen
October 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
10 Oct 2007 02:19:55 PM |
|
|
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:1192032868.649908.226080@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 8 okt, 21:13, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
I wasn't presenting an argument.
I was making a values judgement - that not exposing children to a happy,
healthy, heterosexual lifestyle at home is harmful to their development.
This is another presumption you actually have not proven.
As far as I know a happy family is good for children.
But "heterosexual"?
Yes - for humans.
Humans reproduce sexually - that means a man and a woman.
And for a child to grow up not seeing how to handle that VERY complex
relationship, it's unhealthy.
Furthermore, kids naturally emulate their parents.
So a normal, healthy kid who grows up with gay parents will emulate them,
rather than follow nature.
Eventually, maybe, someday they'll learn better - but not until after the
initial damage is done.
Kids have to learn about boundaries, before they are taught to test those
boundaries.
I maintain that nothing "devasting for society" can be expected from
them,
and I have given you several reasons why this should be so,
but you maintain with this truly unfounded presumption nevertheless
Actually - no you haven't.
You just keep re-asserting that there's nothing wrong with it, and asking
insincere questions.
I've noticed that gay rights activists, like anti-immigrant types, always
fall on that strategy when reasoned into a corner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
11 Oct 2007 11:36:55 AM |
|
|
On 10 okt, 21:19, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
<pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:1192032868.649908.226080@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 8 okt, 21:13, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
I wasn't presenting an argument.
I was making a values judgement - that not exposing children to a happy,
healthy, heterosexual lifestyle at home is harmful to their development.
This is another presumption you actually have not proven.
As far as I know a happy family is good for children.
But "heterosexual"?
Yes - for humans.
Humans reproduce sexually - that means a man and a woman.
And for a child to grow up not seeing how to handle that VERY complex
relationship, it's unhealthy.
Furthermore, kids naturally emulate their parents.
So a normal, healthy kid who grows up with gay parents will emulate them,
rather than follow nature.
Eventually, maybe, someday they'll learn better - but not until after the
initial damage is done.
Kids have to learn about boundaries, before they are taught to test those
boundaries.
I maintain that nothing "devasting for society" can be expected from
them,
and I have given you several reasons why this should be so,
but you maintain with this truly unfounded presumption nevertheless
Actually - no you haven't.
You just keep re-asserting that there's nothing wrong with it, and asking
insincere questions.
I've noticed that gay rights activists, like anti-immigrant types, always
fall on that strategy when reasoned into a corner.
Well I am posting from alt.atheism,
1. At this NG we maintain that people with exceptional claims, need to
provide
proof, otherwise we have no reason to believe them.
2. "Devastating" is an exceptional claim,
especially as society is - as yet - not devestated.
3. Therefor it is up to you to provide proof.
The reasons you thus far gave have both been insufficient.
As to the number of children born, the influence of homosexuality is
not enough that it cannot ne easily compensated. In Algeria around
1970 the population doubled in 15 years. In order to keep population
steady about 2/3 of the population should have abstained from
heterosexual intercourse, or use contraceptives.
It is clear that the percentage of homosexuals is not important in
this matter.
As to children not growing up in a "happy heterosexual environment".
Again, the influence of broken-up families (25%) is much larger
than te number of children raised by homosexuals (2%?)
If you claimed negative influence, one might give you the benefit of
the doubt,
but you claim nothing less than a "devastating" effect.
You have not made any argument as to make that plausible.
Therefor I assume this "devastating" influence does not exist.
Peter van Velzen
October 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
11 Oct 2007 11:24:21 PM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote:
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
Well I am posting from alt.atheism,
1. At this NG we maintain that people with exceptional claims, need to
provide
proof, otherwise we have no reason to believe them.
2. "Devastating" is an exceptional claim,
especially as society is - as yet - not devestated.
3. Therefor it is up to you to provide proof.
That, of course, depends on your interpretation of "devastation".
Personally, I consider successful attempts to raise children in an unhealthy
environment to be "devastating" to society.
Then you had best not have any children since obviously you would be
a poor parent and your attempt to raise children would be damaging to
society.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
12 Oct 2007 08:00:03 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:14:52 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
That, of course, depends on your interpretation of "devastation".
Personally, I consider successful attempts to raise children in an
unhealthy environment to be "devastating" to society.
Sounds good. Thus, you should never be allowed to have children, as your
narrow-minded bigotry, irrationality and apparently total inability to
follow even your own arguments are sufficient to conclude you're not
capable of providing a healthy - intellectually healthy, at least -
environment.
So, when are you being sterilized for the benefit of society as a whole?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
10 Oct 2007 07:47:31 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:19:55 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Humans reproduce sexually - that means a man and a woman.
Furthermore, kids naturally emulate their parents.
It is amusing watching you refute yourself. By application of those two
statements, there *are no gays*. There cannot be, as their parents were
man and woman, and this is what they emulate.
Since there are gays, however, it follows your argument is - again - a
load of steaming nonsense.
I'm sorry, did you have a point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
11 Oct 2007 12:44:36 AM |
|
|
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e80u4-a0t.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:19:55 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Humans reproduce sexually - that means a man and a woman.
Furthermore, kids naturally emulate their parents.
It is amusing watching you refute yourself. By application of those two
statements, there *are no gays*. There cannot be, as their parents were
man and woman, and this is what they emulate.
Based on what I said, that's the conclusion you came to?
No, of course not.
You're just being dishonest to promote a gay, liberal agenda.
It's a dispicible way for you to be - but that's the kind of person you are,
isn't it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
11 Oct 2007 10:52:15 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:44:36 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e80u4-a0t.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:19:55 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Humans reproduce sexually - that means a man and a woman.
Furthermore, kids naturally emulate their parents.
It is amusing watching you refute yourself. By application of those two
statements, there *are no gays*. There cannot be, as their parents were
man and woman, and this is what they emulate.
Based on what I said, that's the conclusion you came to?
Of course, since those are the points you made and the conclusion they
lead to.
However, since the conclusion is as flawed as your mind is, it follows
that the points you make are wrong.
No, of course not.
You're just being dishonest to promote a gay, liberal agenda.
I've no interest in promoting gay anything. I promote equality. Do try
to get your facts straight. I know it's a strain, but even you should
be able to manage that.
Meanwhile we're left with the drivelling idiocy of your position that says
kids emulate their parents, and since even gay kids (until relatively
recently, at least) must have het parents, therefore kids end up straight,
not gay. So, by your logic, there are no gays.
I'm sure, if you don't drown in the stuff dribbling down your chin, that
you can work out, eventually, where the error lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
12 Oct 2007 08:00:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:09:09 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fet1u4-ko7.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:44:36 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Humans reproduce sexually - that means a man and a woman.
Furthermore, kids naturally emulate their parents.
It is amusing watching you refute yourself. By application of those
two statements, there *are no gays*. There cannot be, as their
parents were man and woman, and this is what they emulate.
Based on what I said, that's the conclusion you came to?
Of course, since those are the points you made and the conclusion they
lead to.
So you think that gay kids can only be born to gay parents? What a weird
position for you to take.
No, that's your position - kids emulate their parents. We're not that
stupid.
It's *your* argument, you of all people should be able to follow it.
--
Don't Panic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
08 Oct 2007 05:42:09 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:13:52 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Sorry but as I have already said, the impact of homosexuality on
childbirth is neglectable compared with the impact of family planning.
I agree - homosexuality has like *nothing* to do with childbirth.
Indeed, since they are wholly different subjects. Sort of like how rococo
architecture has like nothing to do with skirt lengths this year.
And as you are clearly against homosexuals being parents, there is also
nothing you can do about it.
Protecting children from sexual deviants is not only possible; it's a
moral imperative.
That would presuppose that these "sexual deviants" are in some manner
harmful to children, something you've yet to establish, and further, it
presupposes that homosexuals _are_ "sexual deviants" which might be
trivially true in the sense that they're not "the norm", but beyond that
seems to have little apparent relevance.
I never claimed or even implied that my statement is about ancient
societies.
I was talking about OUR society.
It's like if I said that breating methane is dangerous, then a rational
person would naturally understand that I'm talking about "for humans".
Sure. And if you said so, we might ask why, at which point you'd say
something along the lines of "because that would interfere with oxygen
intake, which we need in order to live, so it would have the nasty
tendency to kill us." Hmm, yes, this could be a bad thing. Oddly, you
completely fail to show the reasons why these other things you complain
about are bad, you just assert they are.
Similarly, when I say that sexual perversion is devastating to society -
I'm not talking about cavemen, or martians, or african babboons. I am
talking about OUR society.
Yet you fail to show _why_ these things are devastating.
It's common for gay-rights activists to claim that, for example, since
Amazon tribes practice pedophilia it must be OK for Americans, too. But
that's perverted logic there.
Last I checked, few if any gay-rights activists offered *any* form of
support or backing for pedophilia in any form. You're not one of those
boneheaded morons who can't tell the difference between someone being gay
and someone predating upon children, are you?
I was making a values judgement - that not exposing children to a happy,
healthy, heterosexual lifestyle at home is harmful to their development.
You say this, yet you give no reason for it. Thus we discount it as
simple bleating, noise for the sake of making noise.
--
“Not everything that counts can be counted; and
not everything that can be counted counts.” --
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
08 Oct 2007 12:17:47 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:31:37 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Sorry for my bad spelling, but apart from that, my "defense" of
homosexuality couldn't possibly be better than your "attack". Your
statement that it is devastating to society is wasn't supported by any
argument other then the fact that a society needs a new generation.
That's a pretty important fact, wouldn't you say?
Not unless there's a significant risk of people as a whole becoming
homosexual and thus preventing the next generation.
So tell us, exactly when are *you* going gay?
[reposted since you seem to have missed the original.]
--
“For example Mammoths are just a form of Elephant or perhaps I should
say that Elephants are just a variation of Mammonths!” -- Laurie
Appleton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
08 Oct 2007 02:38:18 PM |
|
|
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ra5qt4-u59.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:31:37 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Your
statement that it is devastating to society is wasn't supported by any
argument other then the fact that a society needs a new generation.
That's a pretty important fact, wouldn't you say?
Not unless
There is no "not unless" - not in America.
Here, in the US, we have a constitutional mandate to "fecure the bleffingf
of liberty, to ourfelvef and our pofterity".
So the fact that society needs a new generation is a fact that we cannot so
casually dismiss.
Individuals may choose for themselves to not have a next generation.
But as a nation, we have to provide for one anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
08 Oct 2007 05:45:10 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:38:18 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Your
statement that it is devastating to society is wasn't supported by any
argument other then the fact that a society needs a new generation.
That's a pretty important fact, wouldn't you say?
Not unless
There is no "not unless" - not in America.
Yes, there is, as the point you make only matters if there is significant
risk of the population as a whole turning gay, thus preventing future
generations.
Once again I ask - so when are *you* going gay?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
07 Oct 2007 05:16:18 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:31:37 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Sorry for my bad spelling, but apart from that, my "defense" of
homosexuality couldn't possibly be better than your "attack". Your
statement that it is devastating to society is wasn't supported by any
argument other then the fact that a society needs a new generation.
That's a pretty important fact, wouldn't you say?
Not unless there's a significant risk of people as a whole becoming
homosexual and thus preventing the next generation.
So tell us, exactly when are *you* going gay? What's that? Never? So
much for your point, then.
I went back up the thread trying to find more, and only ran up to your
presumption that it would be better for children to grow up in a
"normal" family than to be raised by homosexuals. Wether this is true
or false I cannot say. As far as Ik now, no research has been done in
this direction. But even if you were right, the small number of
children being raised by homosexuals couldn't possibly have a
devastating effect on society as a whole.
How many children must suffer this way, until you would consider it to
be devastating?
1? 100? A thousand? A million?
Since you've yet to demonstrate that there's any negative results - apart
from becoming a target of bigots such as yourself - from being gay or
being raised in a gay household, the issue is moot.
To be sure Greek Society where it was custom to have sexual relations
between adult men and adolescent boys thrived a little bit longer than
any present-day democratic republic has done, and it's downfall had
little to do with it's sexual behaviour (according to the books I read
about it). Indeed, although it later came under Roman rule, it was
culturally dominating the empire.
Your argument, that pedophelia is harmless, is a common one. In fact, we
have thousands of prisoners who share it.
Actually, he's got quite a devastating little point there, as far as your
position goes. We, today, don't tolerate pedophilia, not because it's a
"deviant sexuality" or some such, but because it is a form of predation
against the defenseless.
The Greeks, apparently, thought differently. Be that as it may, it shows
that "sexual" behaviours _we_ regard as heinous and intolerable had
little if any impact on the health or longevity of the society. If
something regarded as _that_ bad had bugger all effect on the society, it
is wholly unreasonable to conclude something with no actual demonstrated
negativity would have any effect at all.
If you have serious reasons why homosexuality could be devastating to
society, please unveil them. And please try and discriminate between
homsexuals "in the closet" and "out of the closet", and explain which
would be more devastating and why.
Well I gave one - the need for a next generation.
So, again, when are *you* going gay? You're not? Fine; that argument is
dismissed.
By the way, what happened to the original subject; the transsexuals?
It naturally morphed into one about pervert rights in general.
You're a pervert? Funny, I thought you were on the side of self-
appointed righteousness. The only others involved, as far as I can tell,
are gays and those in favour of equality.
Well, okay, I suppose in your view, supporting equality could be
considered a perversion. Still, hardly a common usage.
--
Newtonian gravity was rejected in place of Einstein’s theory.
-- Jesse Hornbacher
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
08 Oct 2007 12:14:00 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:18:46 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Sorry but homosexuality is not damaging society.
When you deny a thing for no reason, as you did there, it's a clear sign
that your faith as overwhelmed your reason.
You'd prefer he'd said "There's no reason to think homosexuality is
damaging society"? Fine, say it that way. The result is the same; it's
you left to support your view that it is damaging society. Something
you've failed, absolutely, to do.
--
Oh, what the hell, please just kill yourself now. -- Kirby Nixon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
08 Oct 2007 05:35:09 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:24:32 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
I never said that "homosexuality is damaging to society" and I don't believe
that it is.
I said that raising children without a happy, healthy, hetrosexual home life
is what's damaging.
Okay, fine. A slightly different and still absolutely unsupported notion.
Perverts do great theater
I wouldn't know; you seem to be the expert on perverts.
I realize that there are a great many people like you out there who feel
differently - and I find it astonishing, and a bit repulsive.
Yeah, treating people _as_ people is just so horrible.
In fact, the GOP has done a FINE job of putting people who feel as you
do in positions of authority over children.
Good!
Mark Foley was a senator who
drafted child-protection legislation - before he was caught making
passes at young boys.
So he did some good along with the bad. He should be praised for the
good, as well as chastised for the bad.
Being a pervert is totally OK, if that's what you want to be.
You're the one with the thing for perverts. At least, you persist in
using the term and seeming overly concerned with what these "perverts" do.
Me, I'm just about treating people like people.
--
“So many gods, so many creeds,
So many paths that wind and wind,
While just the art of being kind
Is all the sad world needs.”
-- Ella Wheeler Wilcox
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
09 Oct 2007 06:28:30 AM |
|
|
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ttnqt4-7n.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:24:32 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
I said that raising children without a happy, healthy, hetrosexual home
life
is what's damaging.
Okay, fine. A slightly different and still absolutely unsupported notion.
That's funny.
That's one of those non-denial denials that wrong people like so much.
Instead of DENYING that a happy, healthy, hetrosexual home life is
important - you simply claim that it's unsupported.
In fact, the GOP has done a FINE job of putting people who feel as you
do in positions of authority over children.
Good!
Mark Foley was a senator who
drafted child-protection legislation - before he was caught making
passes at young boys.
I thought you were just a garden-variety pervert.
I hadn't realized that you were an advocate for pedophilia.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
09 Oct 2007 10:40:46 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:28:30 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Instead of DENYING that a happy, healthy, hetrosexual home life is
important - you simply claim that it's unsupported.
The claim that it is important is wholly unsupported. Had you simply said
"a happy, healthy home life", I would have readily agreed. Since you
included the bit about "heterosexual", including it as a requirement, I
point out that you have not established this as a requirement. You've
asserted it, repeatedly, but aside from the prototypical "is too! is
too!" you've done nothing to support it.
Mark Foley was a senator who
drafted child-protection legislation - before he was caught making
passes at young boys.
I thought you were just a garden-variety pervert. I hadn't realized that
you were an advocate for pedophilia.
You're the one who brought 'em up, not I.
--
A path without obstacles probably leads nowhere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
09 Oct 2007 08:24:26 PM |
|
|
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u0kst4-h2h.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:28:30 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Instead of DENYING that a happy, healthy, hetrosexual home life is
important - you simply claim that it's unsupported.
The claim that it is important is wholly unsupported.
OK - I'm done with you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
09 Oct 2007 11:15:02 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:24:26 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u0kst4-h2h.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:28:30 +0000, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Instead of DENYING that a happy, healthy, hetrosexual home life is
important - you simply claim that it's unsupported.
The claim that it is important is wholly unsupported.
OK - I'm done with you.
Of course you are; after all, I expect you to support your claims and you
are apparently unable to do so, leaving as your only recourse to run away.
Or are you actually so addled that you seriously believe simply re-
asserting the same nonsense constitutes supporting your claims?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
05 Oct 2007 11:41:13 AM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 11:53 am, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:scrct4-7o6.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:39:00 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
For a race of beings who procreate sexually - that's not a good thing.
It's perfectly good for many.
And that's why I originally spoke about the inverse properties of macro v.
micro sociology.
While religious zealotry and sexual perversion may be harmless on an
individual level, it is devastating to society.
Which is a reason to resist fundamentalists. However, there is
nothing perverted about homosexuality, and it does not harm society.
The meaning of life is to procreate.
No, it's not. The purpose of life is to _survive_.
If that's your purpose, be prepared for a BIG disappointment.
Nobody gets out of this alive.
Then perhaps you should have read the rest of what he wrote. He was
not talking on the individual level.
[replace text that was dishonestly snipped]
More to the point,
it is for the _species_ to survive; the individual is largely
irrelevant. Survival of species depends on reproduction, to be sure, but
it does not depend _solely_ on reproduction.
[end replacement]
I see no actual benefit to being straight; it's like
Survival of the species is one benefit.
However, homosexuals contribute to that as well. They are available
to care for children that have lost their parents, help to gather and
produce excess food since the to do not have children to care for,
help take care of children along with their parents, reduce potential
population pressures by NOT producing offspring, and other benefits.
Just because they do not contribute to the gene pool does not mean
that they do not contribute to the survival of the species.
There are others.
And no doubt they are the same benefits that homosexuals see in being
with the ones that they love.
[replace rest if statement that was dishonestly snipped]
it's like
being left-handed, who cares, apart from a few closet gays and people who
have nothing better to do with their lives than worry about what someone
else might be doing in the bedroom?
[end replacement]
Yeah - but they can never be a family
Says whom? So it's Dad and Dad instead of Mom and Dad, it's still a
family. That it doesn't fit your myopic viewpoint is your problem, not a
problem with the situation.
Says science.
"Family" has a very specific, genetic definition.
How about giving that definition and where you got it from. I know
some of the scientific definitions of "family", and none of them
apply.
Here are some of them from Dictionary.com:
Biology. the usual major subdivision of an order or suborder in the
classification of plants, animals, fungi, etc., usually consisting of
several genera.
Linguistics. the largest category into which languages related by
common origin can be classified with certainty: Indo-European, Sino-
Tibetan, and Austronesian are the most widely spoken families of
languages.
Mathematics.
a. a given class of solutions of the same basic equation, differing
from one another only by the different values assigned to the
constants in the equation.
b. a class of functions or the like defined by an expression
containing a parameter.
c. a set.
Chemistry. A group of elements with similar chemical properties.
Chemistry. A vertical column in the periodic table of elements.
According to the general definition of "family" as it is generally
applied to people, a homosexual couple that is raising children IS a
family. The children do not have to be blood relations, any more than
adopted children of a heterosexual couple need to be blood relations
of their parents for them to be a family.
And here is the definition that I am talking about, from the same
source.
"parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling
together or not."
A gay couple may PRETEND to be family.
Just like a heterosexual couples that do not have or want children are
"pretending to be a family", according to you?
They may even buy some kids and a house to perpetuate the fantasy.
You mean like heterosexual couples that cannot have children who adopt
are perpetuating a fantasy? That they are not a real family as well?
But they're not.
Your definitions and observations apply to heterosexual couples as
well. You are claiming that they are not a family just because they
adopt and/or cannot have children.
They're just friends, at best.
No, they are a family. You just don't want to admit it.
Contradicting science in order to conform to a homosexual or religious
agenda is BAD bidness.
.
Then you should keep your religious and homophobic agenda out of
people's lives. Equality is GOOD business for everyone.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
06 Oct 2007 05:18:46 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1191602473.466507.305670@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 11:53 am, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
Survival of the species is one benefit.
However, homosexuals contribute to that as well. They are available
to care for children that have lost their parents, help to gather and
produce excess food since the to do not have children to care for,
help take care of children along with their parents, reduce potential
population pressures by NOT producing offspring, and other benefits.
Outsourcing child-rearing to those who have chosen to NOT rear children is a
very, very bad choice.
But your point is valid - having gay parents may, occasionally, be better
than having no parents at all.
Similarly, gay parents may do a better job of raising children than, for
example, a herd of geese.
But that's about the best you can say about gays raising children.
And no doubt they are the same benefits that homosexuals see in being
with the ones that they love.
Homosexuality is not participation in a loving relationship.
Homosexuality is a REJECTION of an entire class of loving relationships.
Bisexuals, at least, are not so closed-minded.
They're just over-partying.
Homosexuality, is intolerance of the natural order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
07 Oct 2007 12:36:42 AM |
|
|
On Oct 6, 6:18 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1191602473.466507.305670@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 11:53 am, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
Survival of the species is one benefit.
However, homosexuals contribute to that as well. They are available
to care for children that have lost their parents, help to gather and
produce excess food since the to do not have children to care for,
help take care of children along with their parents, reduce potential
population pressures by NOT producing offspring, and other benefits.
Outsourcing child-rearing to those who have chosen to NOT rear children is a
very, very bad choice.
It is a worse choice to force people to raise children that don't want
children.
But your point is valid - having gay parents may, occasionally, be better
than having no parents at all.
A lot more often than "occasionally". By the nature of homosexuality,
it is very, very unlikely that any homosexual couple will have any
children unless they want children. And then usually by adoption.
Similarly, gay parents may do a better job of raising children than, for
example, a herd of geese.
They would also do a better job of raising children than you, since
they would not teach their children to be intolerant, and you probably
would.
But that's about the best you can say about gays raising children.
No, I can say a lot more that is better than that about homosexuals
raising children. However, you are too homophobic to understand.
And no doubt they are the same benefits that homosexuals see in being
with the ones that they love.
Homosexuality is not participation in a loving relationship.
Homosexuals, do, however, participate in a loving relationship with
another person just as heterosexuals do.
Homosexuality is a REJECTION of an entire class of loving relationships.
Tell that to homosexual couples that have had loving and committed
relationships for many years, or even decades.
You obviously do not actually know what the definition of
homosexuality is. The definition of homosexuality, heterosexuality,
and bisexuality have nothing whatsoever to do with the type of
relationship the person has. It has to do with whom the person is
romantically and sexually attracted to.
A heterosexual is someone that is attracted to a person of the
opposite sex.
A homosexual is someone that is attracted to a person of the opposite
sex.
A bisexual is someone that can be attracted to a person of either
sex. This is also often noted as including the person's predominate
orientation as well.
You are the only one that is rejecting entire classes of loving
relationships, and you are doing it through ignorance and homophobia.
Bisexuals, at least, are not so closed-minded.
You, however are closed minded.
They're just over-partying.
No, they are not. You obviously understand almost nothing about
homosexuality, bisexuality, or human sexuality.
Homosexuality, is intolerance of the natural order.
Wrong, as usual. Homosexuality is part of the natural order since
homosexual relationships can be found in nature.
You are rejecting homosexuality because you do not like it. You
refuse to accept that homosexual are just as good at raising children
as heterosexuals, and it is almost guaranteed that children in a
homosexual home and family are wanted and loved.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
07 Oct 2007 12:13:41 PM |
|
|
On Oct 7, 4:10 am, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1191735402.851733.49230@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 6:18 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
[replace text that was dishonestly snipped]
Survival of the species is one benefit.
However, homosexuals contribute to that as well. They are available
to care for children that have lost their parents, help to gather and
produce excess food since the to do not have children to care for,
help take care of children along with their parents, reduce potential
population pressures by NOT producing offspring, and other benefits.
Outsourcing child-rearing to those who have chosen to NOT rear children is a
very, very bad choice.
It is a worse choice to force people to raise children that don't want
children.
But your point is valid - having gay parents may, occasionally, be better
than having no parents at all.
A lot more often than "occasionally". By the nature of homosexuality,
it is very, very unlikely that any homosexual couple will have any
children unless they want children. And then usually by adoption.
[end replacement]
Similarly, gay parents may do a better job of raising children than, for
example, a herd of geese.
They would also do a better job of raising children than you, since
they would not teach their children to be intolerant, and you probably
would.
Maybe you're right - that the flock of geese would be better parents.
Please pardon my intolerance toward geese.
And how about your statements BEFORE and AFTER what I wrote, which did
factor into my response.
Do you see what happened here?
You mean you cherry-picking what I said, and taking the context
completely out in order to keep yourself from looking bad?
In your zeal to play the victim, you demonstrated the kind of
victim-mentality that so often damages the gay-rights cause.
What "victim-mentality"? And what makes you think that I was playing
the victim? Sounds like you are making the same assumptions without
any evidence that are so common for people that are against homosexual
rights.
By contradicting yourself, you force those who agree with you to oppose you.
I did not contradict myself. YOU took my statements out of context,
and thus changed what was said. That is why I am returning the
context, so that the meaning is more clear.
And while I'm adult enough to point it out to you, a small child would only
be confused by your irrationality.
With small children, I would explain things much differently, using
things that they should be able to understand. We, however, are
supposedly adults, even if you are using childish tricks to try to
change the meaning of what I said.
[return text that was dishonestly snipped]
But that's about the best you can say about gays raising children.
[end replacement]
No, I can say a lot more that is better than that about homosexuals
raising children. However, you are too homophobic to understand.
No, they are not. You obviously understand almost nothing about
homosexuality, bisexuality, or human sexuality.
Actually, although I'm not gay myself, I'm a gay-rights activist, and
webmaster a couple of gay-rights sites.
Given your statements, I find that somewhat difficult to believe,
unless the sites are against homosexual rights. You never actually
said in your statement if you are in favor or opposed to equal rights
for homosexuals. You can honestly claim that you are a "gay rights
activist" and be opposed to equal rights for homosexuals and working
against them getting equal rights. An anti-gay rights activist is
still a gay rights activist, he or she just opposes them having equal
rights.
And your statements are what show that you appear to be against
homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals.
After all, you made the statements
"Homosexuality is not participation in a loving relationship.
Homosexuality is a REJECTION of an entire class of loving
relationships.
"Bisexuals, at least, are not so closed-minded.
They're just over-partying.
Homosexuality, is intolerance of the natural order.
Yes, these statements are taken a little out of context, but you did
make these statements in those groups, and without any text between
them. Your statements were in response to my statement that children
with homosexual parents get the same benefits children with
heterosexual parents. Loving parents that care for them.
And what I've learned from my work is that the enemy of the cause is not
everybody else - but rather, the gay community itself.
You are showing that you are an enemy of the cause of equal rights for
homosexuals by your statements.
Specifically - the victim mentality that you demonstrate here.
You should also be careful about making assumptions. I never said
that I was homosexual. What you are seeing more more outrage about
people that want to deny a group of people in this country equal
rights and happiness just because they love someone (as in a
consenting adult) that is "not on the approved list".
However, you are also taking my statements out of context. They were
in response to specific things that you had said and implied. For
example, your statements and implication that homosexuals do not make
good parents. Your statements and implication that homosexuals cannot
experience loving relationships. Your complete ignorance about what
bisexuality is, and your apparent ignorance of what heterosexuals and
homosexuality actual is. You clipped most of the post that shows
these attitudes and ignorance. And those things did factor into the
statements that I made.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
07 Oct 2007 04:27:05 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:13:41 -0700, Mark Sebree wrote:
In your zeal to play the victim, you demonstrated the kind of
victim-mentality that so often damages the gay-rights cause.
What "victim-mentality"?
Apparently, if you're a fan of equal rights, you've fallen prey to victim
mentality. Seems only those who think they're on the losing side can be
in favour of fair and equitable treatment.
--
If we can have a school of fish, how about a church of idiots? -- SQ
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
03 Oct 2007 09:04:30 AM |
|
|
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fudct4-m3p.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
They can be TOLD that hetrosexuality is
acceptible or tolerable - but they have no first-hand exposure to such a
thing, and thus can only at best take it as some kind of theoretical
truth, inapplicable to their own young lives.
So your argument, therefore, is that a child can be *told* that
homosexuality is acceptable or tolerable, but they have no first-hand
knowledge of this and thus can only at best take it as some kind of
theoretical truth, inapplicable to their own young lives... and
therefore, we should be actively promoting such relationships.
Yes - sexual relations between a Man and a Woman are well worth
advocating... for humans.
Similarly, children should be taught to eat healthy food, drink lots of
water, and get enough sleep.
Later, when they're past adolesence, they can (and should) be exposed to
alternative lifestyles.
Similarly, a child should be taught to read and write before he's asked to
analyze Faust or Marx.
There's a fundamental truth in families that children take after their
parents - "I want a gal, just like the gal, that married dear old dad".
Except those who don't. I have *very* different traits from my parents
in many areas, particularly as pertain to my choices in partners and
lifestyle.
That's fine for you, if you're an adult.
Personally, I like to smoke cigarettes and drink coffee.
And when my niece was a toddler, she used to love the shiny pack of
cigarettes.
That's why I slapped her hand whenever she touched it.
Thus, a normal child, not otherwise prone to sexual perversions, would
be compelled by their environment to explore such a lifestyle.
Would be compelled to explore heterosexuality, because that's what their
parents do?
If you honestly believe that the purpose of sex is to please your parents,
there's nothing I can type here to correct that belief.
Yes, well, a strong argument for putting them all in mixed-
role families, then, so they're exposed to all sorts of different roles
to examine.
Confusing children in this way is a bad way to provide them with the
stability that they so need.
Children need structure. Not "want", but "need".
Teaching them to break the rules before they even learn what the rules are
is not just unhealthy - it's dangerous.
Hmm. By your reasoning, the best possible situation would
be for kids to grow up in families with multiple parents, some gay, some
lesbian, some bi, some straight, some transgendered, so they're not
forced into any single mode of emulation simply by their surroundings.
If you *honestly* think that's my reasoning, you're crazy.
This is
not a healthy thing for a child, as it steers them away from becoming
family-folks, and into a dark and dangerous lifestyle.
At worst, if it were actually true, it would steer them into being gay,
which is hardly "a dark and dangerous lifestyle".
That's what the junkie teenagers tell me about heroin-use, too.
They too like to portray their lifestyle as something good, healthy and
noble.
Even when they're dying of AIDS or Hep-C.
That's why I keep saying - sexual perversion, like drug use, is not for
children.
Not only should they not practice it, they shouldn't be exposed to it.
A lot of religions have questioned the meaning of life, but science
gives us the answer.
The purpose of life is to procreate.
Err... no, not quite.
Yeah - it is.
Anything that stears young humans away from that, steers them away from
their own humanity.
You've never heard of, say, kin selection, I take it. You might want to
re-examine the issue; it is wholly unnecessary to actually have offspring
of your own to be a net benefit to the gene pool.
That's a very strange way of denying the genetic truth of Darwanism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" forSpecial Rights |
03 Oct 2007 11:31:27 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:04:30 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
So your argument, therefore, is that a child can be *told* that
homosexuality is acceptable or tolerable, but they have no first-hand
knowledge of this and thus can only at best take it as some kind of
theoretical truth, inapplicable to their own young lives... and
therefore, we should be actively promoting such relationships.
Yes
So you agree, we should be promoting gay relationships. Good.
- sexual relations between a Man and a Woman are well worth
advocating
Why advocate? It's not like I'm going to go gay no matter how much
advocating I see, and I rather doubt most gays are going to go straight
based on advocacy. Besides, what do *you* care who I sleep with? I
don't give a damn about your preferences.
Similarly, children should be taught to eat healthy food, drink lots of
water, and get enough sleep.
Again, implying without any justification whatsoever that one way is
healthy or good, the other isn't. How about backing up some of these
points?
Later, when they're past adolesence, they can (and should) be exposed to
alternative lifestyles.
Like heterosexuality, you mean? I agree. Oh, you meant if they're
raised by narrow-minded types who think the only viable combination is
Mom and Dad. Silly me, I looked at it the other way; to a kid raised in
a gay family, heterosexuality _would be_ the alternative lifestyle.
Similarly, a child should be taught to read and write before he's asked
to analyze Faust or Marx.
A point which is completely irrelevant, as he's not being asked to
analyze anything; the issue is whether he grows up with a particular
collection of parents.
Except those who don't. I have *very* different traits from my parents
in many areas, particularly as pertain to my choices in partners and
lifestyle.
That's fine for you, if you're an adult.
One who didn't take after his parents. Oh, wait, I get it... none of
this matters *at all* because once Johnny reaches puberty, he'll make his
own choices anyway, regardless of parental influnce, so gay parents or
straight makes no difference.
Can't have it both ways; either we follow what we're raised with, or your
whole point about the supposed ills of growing up that way because of
your family is complete twaddle.
cigarettes and drink coffee. And when my niece was a toddler, she used
to love the shiny pack of cigarettes.
That's why I slapped her hand whenever she touched it.
Oh, aren't *you* a wonderful fellow. Do you kick cats, too?
Thus, a normal child, not otherwise prone to sexual perversions, would
be compelled by their environment to explore such a lifestyle.
Would be compelled to explore heterosexuality, because that's what
their parents do?
If you honestly believe that the purpose of sex is to please your
parents, there's nothing I can type here to correct that belief.
This seems to be the gist you're working towards; some bizarre mechanism
by which one's choice of parents determines one's sexuality... which is
particularly silly given that essentially all gays come from het
families. You *are* aware that gays, too, are born, which, as you
persist in pointing out, involves conventional gender pairing, or turkey
basters as the case may be.
We can thus conclude your entire argument along this line is crap, as if
there were any validity to it - that parental sexual roles determined
offspring sexual roles - then there wouldn't _be_ any gays.
Yes, well, a strong argument for putting them all in mixed- role
families, then, so they're exposed to all sorts of different roles to
examine.
Confusing children in this way
What's confusing? Kids don't give a rat's rear what *you* think is
normal; they worry about themselves. Who is *my* mommy, who are *my*
daddies, these are my mommies and daddies. The only confusion comes in
later, when some twit who can't cope with the notion of differences tries
to assert his way as "normal".
is a bad way to provide them with the
stability that they so need.
Wrong again. Multiple parents provide *more* stability. In a two-parent
household, all it takes is an accident to reduce or eliminate the income-
generating potential of one (or both) and perhaps an illness to finish
the job for the other. Not to mention that today, you more or less need
two incomes, so who stays home with Junior?
Now if there were, say, 8 parents involved, accident or injury to two or
three wouldn't stop bills being paid, food on the table and so forth, and
it would leave a wide variety of options - from the disabled to those who
simply prefer to - to stay home and raise the kids.
Much more stable, much more resilient to changes in fitness, exposure to
accident or illness, much greater ability to actually raise the kid.
You want to limit it to _two_, thus _increasing_ the risk of total
destabilization, then call this "stability"? How weird.
Children need structure.
Indeed. This way they can get it. Your way, not so much. Therefore by
your own argument, you must be in favour of plural marriages.
Hmm. By your reasoning, the best possible situation would be for kids
to grow up in families with multiple parents, some gay, some lesbian,
some bi, some straight, some transgendered, so they're not forced into
any single mode of emulation simply by their surroundings.
If you *honestly* think that's my reasoning, you're crazy.
You offered the arguments; it's not my fault you don't like where they go.
At worst, if it were actually true, it would steer them into being gay,
which is hardly "a dark and dangerous lifestyle".
That's what the junkie teenagers tell me about heroin-use, too.
Again, with the negativity. Heroin is a serious drug, one which actually
does diminish one's ability to cope with the world, to function in it.
You have yet to establish any similar effects from simply being gay. Try
again.
That's why I keep saying - sexual perversion
Such as? You haven't demonstrated any.
Not only should they not practice it, they shouldn't be exposed to it.
But good, wholesome interpersonal relations, this is another matter; they
should definitely be exposed to this - be it Dad and Dad or Mom and Dad
or Mom and Mom or all my mommies and all my daddies. You seem to think
there's some magic requirement that if someone doesn't parent the way you
think they should, they have to have the kids in the bedroom. Why you
would think such bizarre things isn't clear. Of course, if that *isn't*
happening, then the whole "sexual perversion" notion ceases to be a
relevant issue, as the kids aren't exposed to sexual activity, just
parental affection and guidance and the like.
The purpose of life is to procreate.
Err... no, not quite.
Yeah - it is.
No, it's not. Try again.
You've never heard of, say, kin selection, I take it. You might want
to re-examine the issue; it is wholly unnecessary to actually have
offspring of your own to be a net benefit to the gene pool.
That's a very strange way of denying the genetic truth of Darwanism.
No idea what Darwanism is. Perhaps you mean Darwinism, in which case I
might suggest you leap forward about 150 years to the present. If that
*is* what you mean, one might point out that evolution deals in
populations, not individuals, and that many factors - kin selection among
them - play significant roles despite not actually involving direct
procreation.
--
We tend to idealize tolerance, then wonder why we find ourselves
infested with losers and nut cases. -- PATRICK HAYDEN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Demand of "Transsexuals" for Special Rights |
05 Oct 2007 10:57:03 AM |
|
|
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vnsct4-7o6.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
So you agree, we should be promoting gay relationships. Good.
Do you really think that lying like that does anything to further your
cause?
Similarly, children should be taught to eat healthy food, drink lots of
water, and get enough sleep.
Again, implying without any justification whatsoever that one way is
healthy or good, the other isn't. How about backing up some of these
points?
If you don't already KNOW that those things are important, there's nothing I
can type her that will leave you better informed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
