dk

dk: Well TomboyMom, since you haven’t referenced any of my arguments, upon reflection, it appears your long on rhetoric but short on substance. As I pointed out earlier, child abuse doesn’t justify domestic abuse, so pointing out the infidelities of heterosexuals, like spelling errors, makes a very weak argument. I didn’t make any conclusion, but referenced health data (with a source) that concludes the incidence rates of HIV/AIDs of gay youth ages 13-24 was disproportionately high. I didn’t draw conclusions about gay people, but gay culture that celebrate promiscuous anal sex oblivious to the health risks. Catholic priests like anyone in a trusted position of authority should be held accountable for the public safety of anyone in their charge. Likewise the trusted adults at the gay teen community center I mentioned should be held accountable for the 25% prostitution rate, HIV/AIDs rate and sexual acts committed against boys on their watch.

There are reasons I didn't include lesbians. I'll address a few.

dk: I didn’t mention lesbians because they don’t commit sodomy.

dk: Gay marriage would change the fundamental structure of the nuclear family. Government has a vital interest in the family unit because parents raise children. The nuclear family over the last 40 years has become increasingly dysfunctional, broken and amputated to the chagrin of children. Legalizing gay or lesbian marriage institutionalizes homosexuality. An institutional change that would bring gay culture into public schools.
dk: First I didn’t mention pedophilia, and like rapists, its rare for women to be pedophiles. I wish you and your family the best life has to offer, but this isn’t about you or your family. Where’s the father of your kids? Whether it makes you comfortable or not your children have a father, and need their father even if you don’t anymore. Heaven forbid, but if something happens to a Lesbian mom, or a Lesbian mom and her co-parent break up, custody gets thrown into the courts with all kinds of gut wrenching new implications. Broken and amputated homes are a big deal when the custudy of children are involved, gay and lesbian marriage just makes the whole mess more complicated unfair, painful and tragic.
dk: If you are going to use “fundamentalists” in an analogy you need to define it for me.
dk: Its not about my religion, but the ability of good people to raise children without public schools socializing their children with sexual values that undermine a child’s home. You may be in an optimal circumstance given your family situation, but that doesn’t give you or anyone else the right to mess with other families.
dk: My liberty ends where the freedom of others begin. Don’t mess with kids.

BrotherMan

According to Merriam Webster:

1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

It isn't the state's business to monitor who what or how people have sex when they are in the privacy of their own home.

Quote:

Gay marriage would change the fundamental structure of the nuclear family.

But how? Men and women would still marry. Husbands and wives would still have children. Husbands and wives would still be well within their rights to teach their children whatever they wanted.

Quote:

...it appears your long on rhetoric but short on substance.

Hi, pot? Yeah, this is kettle...

You don’t like the color purple. It’s so painfully obvious now! I should have recognized it earlier. I don’t understand people who don’t like the color purple.

To state that I care nothing about families is nothing short of poisoning the well. My position is that there is nothing illegitimate, illegal or immoral about gay people. I may question the actions of some gay people, but that is no different than the questionable actions of some in the heterosexual lifestyle.

You said that parents don’t want their kids to be gay.

I agree, but I don’t think we’re on the same page as to why.

From what I gather, you say that because being gay is somehow ‘wrong’.

I would say it because parents don’t want their children to be stigmatized as being evil and immoral creatures who are second class citizens.



The media targets kids because they are eager consumers. Who pays the media? Corporations. Who funds corporations? Eager consumers. To lay the blame on a mindless entity (or sets of mindless entities) is silly. You have completely abdicated the responsibility of the parents to raise their own children. Yet, somehow, parents continue to raise fairly well adjusted children who are able to think and reason and live life all on their own without much help from The Media.



Spouting over-broad generalizations is at best a questionable tactic. Because you disagree that homosexuals are people too doesn’t mean they’re not.

And we all know the gays are the only ones who view porn as art. And that they all look the same, act the same, think the same because The Media tells them to.

That is not a definition, that is an opinion.



So, gays aren’t even adults?

Either parents understand the risks and are able to effectively communicate with their children or they stick their heads in the sand and hope nothing bad happens.

For those able to communicate with their children, there is little issue with sex, drugs, STDs and pregnancy. Sure it happens, but that’s probably why it’s called ‘youthful indiscretion.’

For those unable to communicate with their children, someone has to teach them the facts. The funny thing about teaching is that if you only teach half the truth, then that is all that the students will learn.

That is a non sequitur. Responsible, consensual sex between two adults is not a crime. Your desire to cast an aspersion upon one type of sex is fallacious.

That’s a false dichotomy. There can be liberty for all without interfering with freedom for all. For whatever reason, you seem to think that gay people want to corrupt the youth. Perhaps we may have to agree to disagree.

You have yet to make the connection between being gay and being a pornographer as being immediate and viable.

lisarea

dk, I'd decided not to respond to you anymore until you answered the questions asked you, and backed up some of your more ridiculous claims.

Obviously, you have no intention of doing so, so we'll each be left to draw our own conclusions as to their veracity.

Anyway, in the event that you are willing to address some of these issues, let me reiterate a few of the ones I think are important, and maybe add a few more.

I shouldn't even need to point this out, but I will: Pointing out the infidelities of homosexuals makes a very weak argument as well.

You're relying very strongly on statistics here, but you're not examining those statistics.

Let's assume that it's correct that the incidence of HIV/AIDS among young gay people is disproportionately high.

The obvious question, then, is "Why?"

Let's throw out some factors that might affect those numbers:

1. HIV is more readily transmitted via anal sex than via vaginal. Does that, in itself, make anal sex wrong? Does the fact that being black put one at greater risk for sickle cell anemia make it wrong to be black? How, exactly, would recognizing monogamous homosexual relationships by allowing gay people to marry exacerbate the HIV/AIDS problem? I can't imagine how recognizing monogamous gay marriage is going to infect children with diseases.

2. Homosexual teenagers, due to a social atmosphere that shuns and demonizes them, have a very rough time at it. Adolescence is a very difficult time for even the best adjusted children. On top of all the inherent difficulties of adolescence, homosexual teenagers have to deal with being ostracized and marginalized because of their orientation as well. This is not an innate problem with homosexuality. This is an innate problem with intolerance and with a hostile and judgmental society. Because of these things, homosexual children are often shunned by their families, their peers, and their communities. This leaves them in some very frightening situations. They become depressed, anxious, and confused. Many are kicked out of their homes and left to fend for themselves. Some do drugs. Some have promiscuous and unprotected sex, some even become prostitutes. Disturbingly and disproportionately large numbers of them commit suicide. In this environment, and faced with these realities, is it really any surprise that disproportionate numbers of them contract HIV/AIDS?

Note that these problems don't magically disappear at the onset of adulthood, either. Homosexual adults experience discrimination, too, in jobs, in housing, in religion, and even just in the grocery store.

Do you have evidence to show this decline in the moral structure of the nuclear family? Yes, you'll likely find higher divorce rates now, but there are many discounted factors involved in these numbers as well:

1. Incest between children and fathers, not so very long ago, was considered normal in many segments of society. It was a common, but unwritten, rule that when a farm wife died, her oldest daughter would assume her mother's responsibilities. All of them. For better or worse--and I'd argue some of both--we live in a more open society now, with all of its dirty laundry implications. The simple fact that such crimes are reported more in the news now can be at least in part attributed to both the media's willingness to report it, and in people's willingness to talk about it.

2. Child pornography was legal, so the lack of a 'paper trail' of arrests and convictions isn't evidence that it wasn't happening.

3. Like incest, domestic violence is a much more public issue now. It's reported more, it's prosecuted more, and it's talked about more. Domestic violence itself is not at all a new problem. It's just that it hasn't always been thought of as a problem.

Is the divorce rate higher now than it was forty years ago? Sure. Why? See above for at least a partial explanation. The simple fact that marriages were less likely to end in divorce forty years ago is no evidence that the nuclear family was a healthy and well-functioning unit. Divorce was simply not an option for many. Women didn't have the earning power to strike out on their own. Both socially and economically, single mothers were at a great disadvantage, even if they did realize that their marriages were endangering themselves and their children.

How is this at all different from a step-family situation, though? A child of an absentee father and a remarried mother would be in exactly the same situation if his mother died, with the exception that his mother's new husband might have a slightly better chance of getting custody than his natural, absentee father. Would you argue that a child is better placed with his natural parent, even if that parent abandoned him, than with a caring stepparent who raised him, regardless of the sex of that parent?

I am a good person. I am a good mother. My son goes to public schools. I absolutely do want him exposed to all different types of people in all different types of healthy relationships. I would have loved it if he were able to grow up in a society where he knew that, if he was gay, he could grow up normal, healthy, happy, and accepted in society. Your narrowminded, irrational views don't give you or anyone else the right to mess with my family, or with anyone else's.

People who truly care about their children care about them no matter what they are. Parents of homosexual children should want the same thing. The only trick is, you don't know when your child is born whether he's straight or gay. As such, good parents should raise their children to know that, whatever the case may be, they are not subhuman, immoral, evil, or defective because of it.

In fact, I would argue strongly that to raise your child in an atmosphere of intolerance such as that you suggest shows not just poor parenting, but a serious and fundamental moral depravity. Why anyone would encourage an atmosphere of intolerance and hatred that may well end up hurting or even killing their own child is beyond me.

Vorkosigan

Gay marriage would change the fundamental structure of the nuclear family. Government has a vital interest in the family unit because parents raise children. The nuclear family over the last 40 years has become increasingly dysfunctional, broken and amputated to the chagrin of children. Legalizing gay or lesbian marriage institutionalizes homosexuality. An institutional change that would bring gay culture into public schools.

Is this guy for real? Can we have a definition of "gay culture" along with some of its unique and defining practices and customs. Enlightenment, please.

Vorkosigan

Ut

dk, [echo]dk, dk, dk, dk....[/echo]

Have you missed that on the previous page?

The fact is: when you look at the data, British, Canadian, French and Swedish teenagers are less promiscuous than American teenagers despite living in societies more open to sexuality in general and to homosexuality in particular.

Jinto

I'm speculating here, but I'll bet that in his mind it's something like this:

Gay culture - the set of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought of or associated with the notion that any sexual relations occurring between two or more consenting adults is and ought to be considered normal without concern to the gender or marital status of the participants.

In other words, us.

dk

1. Originally posted by dk

1. I didn’t mention lesbians because they don’t commit sodomy.
   BrotherMan:According to Merriam Webster:
   1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
   2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
   dk: If you look at the Latin root in Merriam Webster it says, “from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11”. I should have said anal sex, sorry if this was confusing. Off topic but I find it fascinating how words change from decade to decade.
   
2. Originally posted by dk
   Sodomy laws are infrequently enforced. In 1960 every state had a sodomy law, and today sodomy laws remain on the books of 13 states. The state of Texas says the law is about states rights to enforce moral standards, and the gays say there 14th Amendment privacy rights are violated, and sodomy laws make them second class citizens.
   BrotherMan: It isn't the state's business to monitor who what or how people have sex when they are in the privacy of their own home.
   dk: That’s your opinion, here’s an excerpt from...
   COURT APPEARS DIVIDED ON ANTI-SODOMY CASE , States should not be able to single out one group and make their conduct illegal solely because the state dislikes that conduct, lawyer Paul Smith argued for the Texas men. "There is a long history of the state making moral judgments," retorted Justice Antonin Scalia. "You can make it sound very puritanical," but the state may have good reasons, Scalia added. "Almost all laws are based on disapproval of some people or conduct. That's why people regulate," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist added dryly.
   
3. Originally posted by dk
   Gay marriage would change the fundamental structure of the nuclear family.
   BrotherMan: But how? Men and women would still marry. Husbands and wives would still have children. Husbands and wives would still be well within their rights to teach their children whatever they wanted.
   dk: The nuclear family contains a husband and wife ordered to raise children, for better or worse. Polygamy and polyandry are more complex derivations of the nuclear family. Single mothers head of household, same sex marriages, and designer families have begun to re-order human life with new configurations. I think we can foresee a day when artificial genetically engineered wombs make motherhood and fatherhood superfluous to human life. This all raises a ton of moral, psychological and structural questions. Not the least of which is the question “Should we, and are we inventing Frankenstein or Dracula.” In the 20th Century science took license to do whatever was possible, often to the detriment of human dignity, family and life.
   
4. Originally posted by dk
   ...it appears your long on rhetoric but short on substance.
   BrotherMan:Hi, pot? Yeah, this is kettle...
   dk: touché
5. dk: Exactly, you don’t care one hoot about families. It makes no sense to me. I can’t understand a person that doesn’t care about family.
   BrotherMan: You don’t like the color purple. It’s so painfully obvious now! I should have recognized it earlier. I don’t understand people who don’t like the color purple.
   dk: I understand the color purple as a part of the visible spectrum with the shortest wavelength, around 400nm. I find people a much more complex entity. People that don’t understand family leave me empty.
   
6. BrotherMan To state that I care nothing about families is nothing short of poisoning the well. My position is that there is nothing illegitimate, illegal or immoral about gay people. I may question the actions of some gay people, but that is no different than the questionable actions of some in the heterosexual lifestyle.
   dk: Without a legitimate commitment to family people become unmoored from the human family, in my world. I don’t have a problem with gays or lesbians until they mess with kids/family.
   
7. BrotherMan You said that parents don’t want their kids to be gay.
   I agree, but I don’t think we’re on the same page as to why.
   From what I gather, you say that because being gay is somehow ‘wrong’.
   dk: No, I don’t think being gay or lesbian is any different than being born with a bad temper. I don’t think a person with a bad temper has a right to loose control of themselves and violate other people, ditto for gays and lesbians.
   
8. BrotherMan I would say it because parents don’t want their children to be stigmatized as being evil and immoral creatures who are second class citizens.
   dk: In my world people are born flawed, me more flawed than most. That doesn’t bother me in the least. I have gay and lesbian friends. I don’t get upset until people start messing with kids, and when people mess with kids we get into big time evil.
9. dk: I hope this doesn’t shock you, but the media targets kids, and about 50% of the time, the home in which a child is raised, is selected by a judge.
   BrotherMan The media targets kids because they are eager consumers. Who pays the media? Corporations. Who funds corporations? Eager consumers. To lay the blame on a mindless entity (or sets of mindless entities) is silly. You have completely abdicated the responsibility of the parents to raise their own children. Yet, somehow, parents continue to raise fairly well adjusted children who are able to think and reason and live life all on their own without much help from The Media.
   dk: Small evils are mindless, big evils aren’t.
10. dk: Slapping a “don’t hate” label on one side of a controversy issue is fallacious. Because we disagree doesn’t mean you hate me, or I hate you.
    BrotherMan Spouting over-broad generalizations is at best a questionable tactic. Because you disagree that homosexuals are people too doesn’t mean they’re not.
    dk: Homosexuals are people, and as people are culpable for the acts they commit themselves too, just like me. Any other supposition dehumanized homosexuals.
11. dk: Gay culture views pornography as art and orders their community’s identity with promiscuous sex. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why the gay community suffers so horribly from HIV/AIDs.
    BrotherMan And we all know the gays are the only ones who view porn as art. And that they all look the same, act the same, think the same because The Media tells them to.
    dk: You can’t justify one infidelity with another, that’s a rationalization.
12. dk: Deviant in the sense that psycholinguistics engineer speech to instill children with deviant sexual values.
    BrotherMan That is not a definition, that is an opinion.
    dk: You asked what I meant by deviant in the context of this thread. I told you.
13. dk: Then we should be able to agree that gay culture is deviant.
    BrotherMan So, gays aren’t even adults?
    dk: No, that gays have no business messing with kids.
14. dk: Ohhhh, so the cure for raped and pregnant teenagers is gay sex, a “hair of the dog” remedy.
    Either parents understand the risks and are able to effectively communicate with their children or they stick their heads in the sand and hope nothing bad happens.
    BrotherMan For those able to communicate with their children, there is little issue with sex, drugs, STDs and pregnancy. Sure it happens, but that’s probably why it’s called ‘youthful indiscretion.’
    dk: Yeh, right, tell that to a 15 year old that just contracted HIV from his sugar daddy.
    
15. BrotherMan For those unable to communicate with their children, someone has to teach them the facts. The funny thing about teaching is that if you only teach half the truth, then that is all that the students will learn.
    dk: That’s what a sugar daddy says about safe sex.
16. dk: Ohhhh, so promiscuous heterosexual elements justify promiscuous gay elements. Do you also think gang violence justifies mob violence? or child abuse justifies domestic abuse? Corrupt police justify corrupt corporations? What you’re offering is a rationalization for unacceptable conduct.
    BrotherMan That is a non sequitur. Responsible, consensual sex between two adults is not a crime. Your desire to cast an aspersion upon one type of sex is fallacious.
    dk: Don’t rationalize, it is beneath you.
17. dk: If it comes down to the “Liberty of gays” and the “freedom of youngsters”, I have to go with the freedom of youngsters. I’ve already accepted that my liberty ends where the freedom of others begin. The presence of gay culture in the public square corrupts youth. The disproportionate number of youths, especially gay youths, infected by stds makes the point clear. Any other supposition would be unjustified.
    Freedom allows people safe access to the public square, so society has an obligation to make the public square safe for young people.
    BrotherMan That’s a false dichotomy. There can be liberty for all without interfering with freedom for all. For whatever reason, you seem to think that gay people want to corrupt the youth. Perhaps we may have to agree to disagree.
    dk: Liberty and freedom exist in tension. Liberty states a discretionary exercise of power over some matter and Freedom states an absence of coercion. Gay culture takes liberty with the freedom of young people using psycholinguistics, social engineering, skewed sociological methodologies and predetermined bias to misrepresent themselves, research and conclusions in the context of “don’t blame the victim” mentality. For example the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, and Columbia University Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health measuring the gay recommends to researches and health officials the use of loaded questions, familiar words, long questions and embedded questions. The promotion of these kinds of tactics to researchers violates every professional and ethical code derived ever written and subsequently taints the conclusions. They rationalize the obfuscation saying.. In fact, the sensitive nature of LGBT health affects the entire research process from the formulation of the research question, to the design and conduct of the study, to the publication and dissemination of the results. These problems, in addition to presenting methodological challenges, can present ethical, political, and legal challenges the researcher must address. This document, however, only attempts to address some of the methodological challenges.” ----- page 47, ibid. This illustrates the primary interest of most gay health and social researchers promote appearances at the expense of the facts. Honest academics in free society would provide critical commentary, but stand clear for fear of being labeled “hate mongers” and bigots, once labeled in the rigid order of ivory towered academic hierarchy careers are pigeon holed, canned and dead ended.
18. dk: I’m surprised to hear we agree. Since gay culture and pornography have so much in commont they should be deterred or zoned in the public square. That was easy.
    BrotherMan You have yet to make the connection between being gay and being a pornographer as being immediate and viable.
    dk: That’s because comments were directed to the pornographic content of gay culture. I’ll grant you pornographic content in gay culture has been normalized, but that makes my point. If you need evidence to connect pornography with gay culture do an Internet search on “gay art”, “gay literature” etc... The prurient nature of the content speaks for itself.

Ut

So dk, you are beginning to shed some light on the immense conspiracy to violate your kids.

You quote a paper saying From this quote, you deduce that they "recommend to researches and health officials the use of loaded questions, familiar words, long questions and embedded questions". Incredible logic indeed

It should be pointed out that this is exactly the same paper you quoted in the first page. Which is it? If the paper contains serious methodological flaws, you should not have relied on it in the first page. If it doesn't, then why the sudden criticism?

You really need to explain in length what is meant by "mess with kids". Adopt a kid? Raise your kid? Kidnap a kid and rape him?

I note from your last post that you still completely fail to grasp this: British, Canadian, French and Swedish teenagers are less promiscuous, have less unwanted pregnancies, have less abortions, have less STDs than American teenagers because of, not despite, living in societies more open to sexuality in general and to homosexuality in particular.

Let me paint a clearer picture for you: Here, the "gay culture" (whatever this is supposed to mean) is much more present than in the USA and our teenagers have much less problems with their sexuality.

Got it?

I won't get my hopes too high.

HumanisTim

What you didn't hear? If they legalize gay marriage. Homosexuals will be aloud to break into the houses of good xtian couples. And kidnap their husbands if they find them attractive. :banghead:

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by dk
I should have said anal sex, sorry if this was confusing.
And what exactly is so terrible about anal sex? I mean, it's not really my thing, but I don't want to stop others enjoying themselves. And I do hear that some straight men like anal sex, so what's wrong with that?

The nuclear family contains a husband and wife ordered to raise children, for better or worse. Polygamy and polyandry are more complex derivations of the nuclear family.
Do you think poly marriages should be legalised, if they are only an extension of the nuclear family?

Single mothers head of household, same sex marriages, and designer families have begun to re-order human life with new configurations.
What about those single mothers who are widows? Are they re-ordering human life, or should they just get married again asap?
I agree that the public & legal nature of relationships is changing, but I don't see that this is a bad thing per se.

I think we can foresee a day when artificial genetically engineered wombs make motherhood and fatherhood superfluous to human life. This all raises a ton of moral, psychological and structural questions. Not the least of which is the question “Should we, and are we inventing Frankenstein or Dracula.”
I don't have the knowledge to address the scientific side of this, but I think it's pretty safe to say that we're not going invent a vampire. (Sorry, I know this is facetious, couldn't resist )

Without a legitimate commitment to family people become unmoored from the human family, in my world.
Why do you assume that gays are not committed to their families? I am single, but I am committed to my parents, brother & extended family. If I have the happiness to create another family, with a man or a woman, I will be committed to that family also. I think TomboyMom is a great example of a gay person who is totally committed to her family.

I don’t have a problem with gays or lesbians until they mess with kids/family.
How do you define "mess with"?

No, I don’t think being gay or lesbian is any different than being born with a bad temper. I don’t think a person with a bad temper has a right to loose control of themselves and violate other people, ditto for gays and lesbians.
How are two consenting adults doing whatever they want to do in the privacy of their home violating other people?

In my world people are born flawed, me more flawed than most. That doesn’t bother me in the least.
So homosexuality is a flaw?

I have gay and lesbian friends.
And I would be interested in hearing what they think about your opinions.

I don’t get upset until people start messing with kids, and when people mess with kids we get into big time evil.
You keep saying this, but why do you assume "gay = will mess with kids"?
You can't catch homosexuality, you know. Either you've got it or you haven't, babe.

Homosexuals are people, and as people are culpable for the acts they commit themselves too, just like me. Any other supposition dehumanized homosexuals.
Would I be correct in saying that you think "being" homosexual is not wrong, but "doing" homosexual things is wrong?
If so, why is it wrong?
(And what about those straight men buggering their wives?)

Gay culture views pornography as art and orders their community’s identity with promiscuous sex. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why the gay community suffers so horribly from HIV/AIDs.
Please, what is the "gay culture"? Is it anything like the "gay lifestyle"?

No, that gays have no business messing with kids.
Talk about a generalisation... Once again, how do you define "messing with", and why do you assume "gays" (all gays, by implication) do whatever you mean by it?
And I'll leave the rest, because it's not something I know about.
Looking forward to you response, dk.
TW