Gay-Straight Alliance, and Your Children

Originally posted by roxdog,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (roxdog,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-roxdog, I hate you damn ACLU types. Sometimes freedom of speech needs to be thrown out.

The ACLU is a joke. Why are you against the first amendment? Why don't you move to Moscow? They'll love you over there![/b][/quote]

In Spain, we shut down Batasuna (political party) and shut down a newspaper that was writing pro-ETA stuff. That is right and had to be done.

[Suburbanite]

Europe is hardly on-par with real American freedoms anyways.

[SVMc]

Europe is hardly on-par with real American freedoms anyways.

???huh???

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by Suburbanite,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Suburbanite,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-ConservativeX Where have I compared you to pedophiles?  I am asking you if pedophilia is morally wrong (which you have already admitted to believing) and if pedophilia should be outlawed. Should NAMBLA have the same protections you ask for? If not, why not?

You associate NAMBLA and homosexuality, it is clear.[/b][/quote]


No, it is clear that since you can't answer the questions, you are trying to turn attention away from the point raised to call names.

If you can answer the questions, go for it.

Not that you say they are the same, but that there is sexual deviance.

Since you are claiming not to understand my point, let me spell it out: I am demonstrating, using comparative morality, the fact that Gian has no problem using HIS morality to declare a sexual preference as morally wrong and illegal. Illegal to the point they should be SHOT!

But your logic is miserably flawed. Just because someone disagrees about morals doesn't give people the right to throw morals out the window. Don't apply this to NAMBLA, apply it to Murder. If homosexuality isn't seen as immoral, than should murder be legal if someone doesn't see it as immoral? Of course not, that’s the stupidest thing in the world. Morals change. That’s all there is to it.

I agree, but again, that has nothing to do with the points I have raised.

This entire line of questioning is designed to trap Gian and force him to compare his struggle to get others to tolerate homosexuality with those who try and get NAMBLA tolerated. And they aren't the same thing, and by judging them the same, you do great discredit to yourself.

No, it is a legitimate demonstration showing that he has no problem using HIS morality to declare a sexual lifestyle as morally wrong and condoning it being illegal. To the point of them being SHOT.

Sub, how about seeing if you can address the points that have been raised?

You've skipped over quite a few just to come here and drop your statements...

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by SVMc, You don't even believe that. Are you saying that there should be NO MORAL discrimination in the USA? NONE? What about laws that prohibit actions based on morality? First, don't tell me what I do and do not believe.

Unless you are an absolutist to the statement, you clearly DO NOT believe it.

If you are, then you have a problem, since that would indicate a support for the removal of ALL law, since every law affects SOMEONE'S morality somewhere.

Second, you obviously have a black and white view of morality. Either I do think that morality should be legislated or I do not. Unfortunately I would say neither is the case.

Whether you want to recognize it or not, most if not all laws are based on SOMEONE'S morality of what is bad and should be outlawed, or good and should be protected.

Morality as many people have attempted to point out to you, and as you are a shining (although perhaps unaware) example, is subjective. Your social, religious and cultural environment among many other factors will govern your personal morality.

It is subjective only at an individual level; en masse, the result is societal morality, which is not subjective; it is quantitative and results in policy changes.

Legislation is an imperfect means by which societies attempt to come to common agreement on issues that the majority of people in the society believe are harmful or have the potential to be harmful to the community. These morals are also subjective and change over time. (This also does not address the tyranny of the majority)

As opposed to the tyranny of the minority? Shall we return to Kingdoms and oligarchies?

No thanks, I trust the people of America more than I do any small group or individual.

Comparing homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia is a common tactic of bigots that refuse to tackle the issue of homosexuality head on. They prefer to try a slippery slope argument indicating that one action is equivalent to another, which is in and of itself a false statement.

And trying to ignore the point with an attempted labeling is a common tactic used when you simply can't answer the question.

The point of my question (as if you needed it spelled out) was not to compare anything other than the morality of Gian with my own. I have demonstrated and Gian has admitted that he uses his OWN morality to favor the outlawing of sexual preferences to the point of desiring violent deaths for those people.

The point has been made, by Gian himself.

On bestiality and pedophilia, it has already been pointed out here that the primary reasoning for differentiation is the issue of consent, and consent between adults.

Consent and age of consent are two moral qualifiers, which, as you have pointed out, are not absolute in all societies.

Furthermore it has been proven time and time again that bestiality and pedophilia like rape have little to do with satisfying sexual urges or a sexual appetite and much more to do with anger, and the desire to exercise power and dominance over someone / animal or thing.

Okay, then tell me what YOU would tell a member of NAMBLA who is "just seeking the same sexual freedoms gays want".

Another important difference is the potential to cause harm. We have legislated murder, theft, rape, bestiality and pedophilia because they cause physical or psychological harm, scaled to a power dynamic. That last part "SCALED TO A POWER DYNAMIC" is important. Because it means that the recipient upon which the crime was enacted did not consent and could not prevent or failed in preventing an attack upon their person or property and was harmed in the process.

But you place a false restriction in the legal code that doesn't exist. And as for harm, true or false: the average lifespan for a homosexual is LESS than that of a heterosexual?

Check the CDC...

You may feel that homosexuality is harmful to the spirit, soul or body, but you have a choice regarding your own participation. Should someone who is homosexual force you into a homosexual act... that is not homosexuality... that is rape.

Again, consent is a moral qualifier; I thought you weren't going to place morality into the argument?

The element of free choice and the fact that it is not harmful to those who are and are not participating makes IMO homosexuality and other consensual sexual orientations fully permissible and not an area for legislation, other than to preclude bigoted people from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation.

That's because you are basing them on YOUR MORALITY of consent and age of consent.

Are you a bigot? Namblaphobe?

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by FIFI, 1.) I am from OREGON, not Texas

Hmmm, Oregon is a pretty liberal state...

2.) I do not believe in treating ANYONE, even those who feel strongly against our issues, with any disrespect and/or intolerence. I have friends on both sides of the issue, but this was my point of view.

I am glad to hear that.

3.) I am a straight female (if that even should matter!) ANYWAYS, I would like to reopen this discssion with a new question.... WOULD YOU LET YOUR CHILD BE A MEMBER, OR A CLOSE FRIEND,. OF THE GSA AND ITS AFFILIANTS???

No, because you teach morality different than I teach my children.

Likewise, would you let your child be a member, or a close friend of a group that taught AGAINST what you are teaching?

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by roxdog, NABLMA is not an "illegal" organization. Though I believe they are pretty sick.

Careful, morals are frowned upon in this thread...

They have the right to express their opinion. They just don't have the right to boink little boys.

Correct; they have the same freedom of speech as those who wish to shoot them.

Their right to free speech is protected under the first amendment. Some may see this as unfortunate, but I think the protection of our constitutional rights is essential to perserving this republic.

So what about NAMBLA's "Constitutional right to love whomever they wish"?

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by SVMc, Can you only correspond whith someone you want to yell at? You two are having a circular discussion that is lending very little to the debate here, if you would like to continue this exercise in finger pointing how about sparing the rest of us the blow by blow? Or provide sources and links and concrete arguments as opposed to one liners so that others may join in the discussion... if you feel like responding to this post please ensure you also respond to the one above.

I thought people shouldn't tell others what to do?

Oh, sorry, that's just for you.

As for our posts, they are not circular in that Gian isn't answering my questions or addressing my points.

If you don't want to read them, there are plenty other posts on the board that I am sure will interest you.

[SVMc]

Re: The NABLMA debate there has been a seperate and distinct debate created for this topic in the Politics forum. Could we please return to the topic at hand.

(Conservative x)I agree, but again, that has nothing to do with the points I have raised.

I haven't seen point one or source one... and I've been waiting for this to return to the original text.

[SVMc]

Link to thread to debate NABLMA

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by Giancarlo, Didn't say otherwise. However their members have been found to break the law therefore the organization has to be shut down.

What you call "illegal" they call "love".

But YOUR morality has no problem declaring them "sick", to the point you wish them shot.

Again, please tell me how you are any different from people who believe homosexuality is a moral wrong and wish to see it illegal...

Well, except for the shooting part; that's over the top from any group.

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by Giancarlo,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Giancarlo,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-roxdog, I'm not. I'm defending the Constitution of the United States. There is a difference.

I hate you damn ACLU types. Sometimes freedom of speech needs to be thrown out.[/b][/quote]

You've made that belief well known.

Which is why freedom of speech is a Constitutional RIGHT.

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by Giancarlo, In Spain, we shut down Batasuna (political party) and shut down a newspaper that was writing pro-ETA stuff. That is right and had to be done.

Thank God we're not in Spain and you're not in power.

[ConservativeX]

Originally posted by SVMc, Re: The NABLMA debate there has been a seperate and distinct debate created for this topic in the Politics forum. Could we please return to the topic at hand.

I'm not debating NAMBLA; I believe pedophilia is morally wrong.

I haven't seen point one or source one... and I've been waiting for this to return to the original text.

You haven't seen point one? Have you been reading?

I shall repeat it once again and see if you can address it:

Both Gian and myself (as well as others here) use their moral beliefs to dictate their political beliefs to the legality of actions.

I believe homosexuality to be morally wrong.
Gian believes pedophilia to be morally wrong.

I believe homosexuality should not be given legal protection (including marriage or civil rights; I believe the matter is left up to the States, as mandated in the Tenth Amendment)
Gian believes that pedophiles should be outlawed and SHOT.

The only difference is where we draw the line and Gian's much more violent resolution.

Others bring in moral qualifiers of consent and age, which are not morally universal (been to Thailand or Sudan lately?) as justification for their moral judgment.

And of course, it's easier to call names than address the point.

Can you address the point?

[SVMc]

Here's my original answer to what is more of a question than a point and is most certainly not reliable source. I still maintain that I have not seen point one or proof one from Conservative X. I have seen you content to phrase and re-phrase your question continually modifying to try to circumvent the answers that have been supplied.

(SVMc)First, don't tell me what I do and do not believe. Second, you obviously have a black and white view of morality. Either I do think that morality should be legislated or I do not. Unfortunately I would say neither is the case. Morality as many people have attempted to point out to you, and as you are a shining (although perhaps unaware) example, is subjective. Your social, religious and cultural environment among many other factors will govern your personal morality. Legislation is an imperfect means by which societies attempt to come to common agreement on issues that the majority of people in the society believe are harmful or have the potential to be harmful to the community. These morals are also subjective and change over time. (This also does not address the tyranny of the majority) Comparing homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia is a common tactic of bigots that refuse to tackle the issue of homosexuality head on. They prefer to try a slippery slope argument indicating that one action is equivalent to another, which is in and of itself a false statement. On bestiality and pedophilia, it has already been pointed out here that the primary reasoning for differentiation is the issue of consent, and consent between adults. Furthermore it has been proven time and time again that bestiality and pedophilia like rape have little to do with satisfying sexual urges or a sexual appetite and much more to do with anger, and the desire to exercise power and dominance over someone / animal or thing. Another important difference is the potential to cause harm. We have legislated murder, theft, rape, bestiality and pedophilia because they cause physical or psychological harm, scaled to a power dynamic. That last part "SCALED TO A POWER DYNAMIC" is important. Because it means that the recipient upon which the crime was enacted did not consent and could not prevent or failed in preventing an attack upon their person or property and was harmed in the process. You may feel that homosexuality is harmful to the spirit, soul or body, but you have a choice regarding your own participation. Should someone who is homosexual force you into a homosexual act... that is not homosexuality... that is rape. The element of free choice and the fact that it is not harmful to those who are and are not participating makes IMO homosexuality and other consensual sexual orientations fully permissible and not an area for legislation, other than to preclude bigoted people from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation.

(SVMc)First, don't tell me what I do and do not believe. (Conservative X)Unless you are an absolutist to the statement, you clearly DO NOT believe it. If you are, then you have a problem, since that would indicate a support for the removal of ALL law, since every law affects SOMEONE'S morality somewhere.

Exactly what are you trying to say here. That for someone to support an idea they have to have "faith" in it. Faith is usually associated with absolutism, belief is not static and rarely absolute. Where did you ever get the idea that I am a moral absolutist? I simply in response to you telling me "You Do NOT believe that" asked you not to "tell me what I do and do not believe".

(Conservative X) Whether you want to recognize it or not, most if not all laws are based on SOMEONE'S morality of what is bad and should be outlawed, or good and should be protected.

It seems like you failed to read the entire response. You asked a question implying that I thought there should be NO moral discrimination in the USA, which I took to mean USA legislation.

Are you saying that there should be NO MORAL discrimination in the USA?

I replied that I didn't think it was as simple as saying law should or should not be determined by morality. You cannot fairly assess that question from that standpoint unless you use a black and white definition of morality, which I don't believe there is since morality is subjective and not static. Of course law is based on some morality, an aggregate census of (depending on your level of political cynicism) - citizens, power holders, economic elites, media etc... And I never once indicated that I thought morality could be separated from legislation. If you were confused on that please point out how I gave you that impression.

It is subjective only at an individual level; en masse, the result is societal morality, which is not subjective; it is quantitative and results in policy changes.

Mass morality is subjective, simply because someone records opinion poll data at a given point in time does not make it objective fact. Polling data is notoriously unreliable, it only serves to give us a general sense of the opinions of a particular group of people at a specific time. For example, at one point in history most Americans believed in the science of Eugenics that placed all races on a hierarchy and therefore made it morally acceptable for White Europeans to see themselves on a civilizing mission where they were an example of the pinnacle of civilization compared to all other races. This has been widely discredited now and most people today would see such views as racist.

Directly on the subject of homosexuality, the Romans actively encouraged homosexuality in the military because of the extended years men spent in military camps and it was believed to increase unit cohesion. However more recently homosexuality was grounds to be discharged from the military because it was thought to produce competing loyalties....

The point is that morality shifts and changes. Even large-scale popular morality. And that in light of that what may have once been seen as immoral may become acceptable and seen as unharmful.

(Conservative X) As opposed to the tyranny of the minority? Shall we return to Kingdoms and oligarchies?

The body of that paragraph was referring to legislation as an imperfect yet so far sufficient means of trying to negotiate public morality. You are only responding to the small bricked point where I acknowledge that one of the flaws of aggregate legislation based on aggregate polling data of popular opinion is it creates a tyranny of the majority, which can cause discrimination against minorities, or it could be a false majority. I am in no way suggesting a tyranny of the minority. Again this isn't a black and white either or situation. It's not majority rules minority looses or vice versa. There can be acceptance of majority rule (although for all the libertarians out there I am not advocating that as an ideal, simply as an attainable status-quo) with acknowledgement and rights for minorities.

And trying to ignore the point with an attempted labelling is a common tactic used when you simply can't answer the question. The point of my question (as if you needed it spelled out) was not to compare anything other than the morality of Gian with my own. I have demonstrated and Gian has admitted that he uses his OWN morality to favor the outlawing of sexual preferences to the point of desiring violent deaths for those people.

Stating that comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality is a common practice used by homophobes is not ignoring the point. Especially since it has gotten so much screen time.

Here are some links that describe why comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is not an accurate comparison

Homosexuality and Pedophilia is there a connection?

Religious Tolerance.org

USA Today

I am also not ready to accept Gian as an authority on morality. However, the difference I see between your own and Gian's arguments are: You see homosexuality, and all other non-heterosexual non-traditional forms of sex as immoral. Gian does not see homosexuality as immoral, however he does see pedophilia and bestiality as immoral.

Several people have argued that this is an important point because in the instance of homosexuality you have two consenting adults who are causing no harm to anyone.

In the other two examples you have people* involved who cannot or are not viewed as mature enough to form an informed decision on sexuality. Therefore they are in danger of being hurt, physically, psychologically and emotionally. The difference is the element of harm. You have provided no evidence that homosexuality harms anyone. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence that suggest pedophilia does.

(Conservative X) Consent and age of consent are two moral qualifiers, which, as you have pointed out, are not absolute in all societies.

Are you suggesting that sex should occur regardless of consent? That would be rape. On the morality scale rape seems to be pretty universally repugnant to most people so much so that the UN had declared it a war crime and it's a federal felony in most countries.

Age of consent has historically been more flexible, a few hundred years ago it was common for a 13 year old girl to marry and have children (of course we only lived to 35 or so) At the turn of the century you were old at 16 if you didn't have a marriage proposal, and in the 1950 the expected age of marriage was early 20's. The age of consent has been tied to educational advances, increases in life expectancy, rising living costs, and many other social indicators. Whatever the disputes over the "correct" age, generally we have agreed over time that there is such a thing as "too young".

Of course these things are not absolute moral imperatives. There aren't many things that are moral imperatives. That's why laws change, as does opinion.

Okay, then tell me what YOU would tell a member of NAMBLA who is "just seeking the same sexual freedoms gays want".

I would tell a member that there is a large body of evidence that suggest that unlike consensual sex between adults of homo or hetero sexual orientations, pedophilia has been linked to a need to control and dominate another human being similar to the sociopathic tendencies leading to rape and that there is a large psychological body of literature that deals with this. As far as I am aware there are no comprehensive studies that prove that children benefit from being exposed to a pedophile.

Is Pedophilia a mental disorder?

Harming the little ones: the effects of Pedophilia on children

But you place a false restriction in the legal code that doesn't exist

McDermott v. US consent and power dynamics

New Hampshier Bullying laws and power dynamics

And as for harm, true or false: the average lifespan for a homosexual is LESS than that of a heterosexual? Check the CDC...

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. The first problem would be identifying a comparable number of homosexual and heterosexual men who are in the same age, race, physically health categories and then doing the compare and contrast. Second this study is only conducted between men in a particular time (1998) and does not have a generational range of 5 or more generations, which most reliable life span data does (cause different factors (war / famine) affect different generations so you need a constant). Also the life span for homosexuals is decreased in large part because of hate crimes perpetuated against them. The violent death rate for homosexual men is much higher than for heterosexual, so this study has little to do with potential lifespan. Finally when you compare life spans of homosexual men and heterosexual women, heterosexual women have a much shorter lifespan. This again is due to the rate of violent deaths and wife abuse afflicted upon heterosexual women. However it is reasonably common knowledge to know that women in general live longer than men (I think the last statistic was 4 years longer). So this study doesn’t hold water until they can make it multi-generational and study death as a result of natural causes or exclude the high rate of violent death inflicted on homosexual men.

Who Relies on Paula Camerons Research?

Again, consent is a moral qualifier; I thought you weren't going to place morality into the argument?

I never said that, you implied in your first response to me that I did not believe that there should be any moral discrimination in the USA. To which I have replied that there should be no legal discrimination in the law against people who have not committed a recognized and current criminal act (pending the stipulation that that particular criminal act is not in direct violation of human rights). Discriminating based on sexual orientation is a violation of human rights in many areas and actively being challenged in many more.

That's because you are basing them on YOUR MORALITY of consent and age of consent. Are you a bigot? Namblaphobe?

Of course I'm basing this on my morality, however I have also provided more resources than that. I am basing it in a popular morality that is encoded in law where I live, and actively being fought for in many other areas.

No I am not a bigot I do not discriminate against people based on race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity. I respect people rights to hold their own views so long as they do limit another person’s rights.

No I am not a Nambla phobe (you're digging now) I believe there is sufficient evidence that pedophilia is harmful psychologically to children, and I am satisfied with the abilities of each country (to the best of my knowledge) to agree on ages of consent, and I am willing to hear more information (on another thread to avoid co-opting this on further) if people think that there is not sufficient evidence to prove Nambla is advocating potentially harmful actions towards children.

[Mia]

The two of you are having a personal argument completely unrelated to topic. CREATE YOUR OWN THREAD if you don't like the one I started for you. This one is about something else.

Originally posted by ConservativeX, Since you are claiming not to understand my point, let me spell it out: I am demonstrating, using comparative morality, the fact that Gian has no problem using HIS morality to declare a sexual preference as morally wrong and illegal. Illegal to the point they should be SHOT!

That's how my mind works. I don't see anything good in abusing children or screwing animals, and I find it disgusting. You might find my homosexuality disgusting, but I'm not abusing anybody. In fact there is nothing wrong with it.

Sean, can you please take out all of the rambling in this thread by ConservativeX? He managed to trash this thread single-handedly.

Get out of this thread, ConservativeNut.

Originally posted by ConservativeX,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ConservativeX,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Giancarlo, Didn't say otherwise. However their members have been found to break the law therefore the organization has to be shut down.

What you call "illegal" they call "love".

But YOUR morality has no problem declaring them "sick", to the point you wish them shot.

Again, please tell me how you are any different from people who believe homosexuality is a moral wrong and wish to see it illegal...

Well, except for the shooting part; that's over the top from any group.[/b][/quote]

How is heterosexuality any better then homosexuality? How can you compare homosexuality with pedophila? You are a nutcase. I'm sorry for the personal attack but that had to be said.

Originally posted by ConservativeX,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ConservativeX,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Giancarlo, In Spain, we shut down Batasuna (political party) and shut down a newspaper that was writing pro-ETA stuff. That is right and had to be done.

Thank God we're not in Spain and you're not in power.[/b][/quote]

They were shut down because they were promoting terrorism.

[Fire]

Hey Gian... its not natural & you're not natural.

If everyone in this world was gay... where's your next generation?!! ...you feeling me?

You ways are wrong and most un-natural... Gays are still here today cuz most are confused to which way they should turn, making babies and repeating the cycle.

Thats just the simple truth. I'm sure you can tell the forum about depths of confusion.(Something more interesting to discuss and learn)

Natural law doesn't allow human-same-sex to reproduce & survive. So with that, I don't have problems with Gays or with Nature.

Fire Pon Dem