yguy

Hey - to advocates of pedophilia, there is nothing objectionable about sex with "consenting" children. And some of these people are respected professionals like Martin Seligman, a "consenting child" himself by his own testimony. Maybe if pedophiles can do to the APA what homosexuals did to it in the early 70's, it can attain a status similar to homosexuality.

NHGH

Let's recall that the definition you previously gave for "subtle pro-homosexual propaganda" was "the media proclivity for portraying homosexuals as, in many cases, more "together" than heteros - of glorifying the lifestyle." None of the three specific examples you cite seem to meet these criteria; at most, they imply that homosexuality is not immoral. That's a far cry from "glorifying the lifestyle". None of the examples even hints at the idea that gays are more "together" than heteros--no comparison is even implied, so far as I can tell.

As for the more general comment about "no segment [of All Things Considered, I'm assuming here] regarding culture or entertainment [being] complete without a 'gay' perspective", I don't see how providing a gay perspective constitutes "pro-homosexual propaganda" by your criteria either.

Obviously, this claim leads to the question: "Do you have any arguments to support it?" As Autonemesis pointed out back on page 3, people can procreate for selfish reasons, e.g. "carry[ing] on the family name", "because they believe they will fulfill themselves", etc.

Assuming that your claim is true, however, we then must turn to another problem. Apparently you understand "traditional marriage" to be a subset of heterosexual marriages. Thus, for example, a (straight) marriage in which the partners decide not to have children does not constitute a "traditional marriage", if I understand you correctly. Yet, you've previously indicated that you do not think we should prohibit such couples to marry.

Why not? How is it that gay marriages would "have a corrosive effect on our moral foundation" and "degrade the institution [of marriage] as a whole" in a way that nontraditional straight marriages would not? Why do they deserve to be singled out?

What makes you think that gay marriages are all that different from straight marriages? I would imagine that day-to-day domestic life would be similar in both. (Obviously, the mechanics of the sexual aspect of the relationship would be different; but then, I don't think most couples invite the kids to watch, so I don't see how this would have any appreciable effect.) Thus, a child growing up in a gay marriage would learn all he needed to know in order to enter into a marriage of his own, gay or straight, if and when he was ready.

I think the difference is that there's some actual evidence to support a link between HIV and eventual death.

Well, I thought that my following comment about "most Americans [being] intellectually sophisticated enough that they can distinguish between the government conferring its stamp of approval on gay marriage, and simply recognizing that the private domestic arrangements of its citizens are not an appropriate subject matter for public policy" should have covered this, but let me illustrate the point with a couple of examples:

Do you think that smoking is generally "accepted as normal"? Smoking is legal despite the fact that it is known to be harmful to the smoker; yet no reasonable person would interpret the fact that it is legal as "acceptance"; it's just understood that legally prohibiting it would not be good public policy.

Do you think that advocating racist views is "accepted as normal"? Not only is this legal, it's constitutionally protected; yet most people would not interpret this fact as "acceptance"; it's just understood that legally prohibiting it would not be good public policy.

I don't know anything about Seligman other than that you've insinuated in another post that he's an apologist for pedophilia. I won't respond until I've had a chance to read the paper you cited.

(I assume by "gender-confused" you mean "gay.) This assumes, of course, that genetics plays little or no role in sexual orientation. It seems that scigirl and Dr Rick have caught this one already, so I'll leave it to them.

1) No, I don't have any moral objections to transsexualism or transvestism, but

2) at any rate, I don't see how being raised by a gay couple would lead to either of these phenomena, so

3) I think your dire predictions about such individuals becoming "fixtures in retail stores and the like" are (to say the least) premature; and anyway

4) What does Michael Jackson (and his alleged Frankensteinianity) have to do with any of this?

yguy

Nothing past high school.

Ahh, well, I suppose the famous Scigirl condescension is better than no response at all.

What I'm missing, though, is anything that contradicts what I've said on this matter. It is possible that I am blinded by ignorance of the science involved; but from my POV, it is at least as possible that you are blinded by your own prejudices.

NHGH

Unless, of course, it turns out to be false. I don't see the point of getting worked up over wild, unsubstantiated (and indeed unsubstantiable) claims.

Permitting gay marriage wouldn't deprive anyone of the right to express a negative opinion of it, so I stand by my previous assessment: the only way anyone could be "intimidated" by this prospect is if he believed that he had the right to force others to live by his personal views, and thus that the existence of gay marriage violated his rights somehow.

As for the business about Dr. Laura: are you referring to her claims that homosexuality is a "biological error", that gays, or at least their sexual practices, are "deviant" (with strong moral undertones), etc?


I'm afraid that I'll have to wait till later to respond to the rest of your post.

Dr Rick

The data show that homosexuality most likely has both genetic and environmental origins; the data does not show or support any conclusion about which one "prevails."

Amen-Moses

Pretty much destroys your theory then doesn't it, unless you want to argue that the pharisees won their particular battle? (in one way I suppose you could say they did as Paul claimed to be a pharisee but looking at it historically it looks like the Romans had the upper hand)

Amen-Moses

yguy

Evidently we must agree to disagree on this point.

Beyond that, however, if similar studies were done on pedophiles, and the results showed a similar correlation, would we not be obliged to be as accepting of pedophiles as we now are of homosexuals? Wouldn't contempt directed a pedophiles be as wrong as if it were directed at blacks?

Koiyotnik

I fail to see how a child bereft of a traditional marriage is somehow disadvantaged by not being able to understand how such a marriage would work.

Example: my mother died when I was six years old. My father didn't even start dating again until 6 or 7 years after that. Five years ago he re-married. I can say that I have a firm grasp on marriage and its ensuing components.

I'm sure I'm not the only person to have undergone such experiences and turn out fine. My best friend's father left her at a young age, and she has a working understanding of traditional marriages. Another friend of mine had homosexual parents, and he is heterosexual--in fact, married for about five years now.

So, care to explain your assertion?

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Why must you direct "contempt" at anyone for something beyond their control?

If a pedophile commits a crime, then you should deal with him as a criminal...just as you would a homosexual who commits a crime.

yguy

I am reminded of a movie reviewer who said about some film or other, "I found it manipulative...of course all films are manipulative..." He perhaps spoke more truly than he knew. When you have well-groomed actors with their passionate words and their penetrating stares backed up with a well timed score, you can make anything look good if you don't push the envelope too hard. Music, especially, has the power to impart meaning to nonsensical utterances, a sense of truth to lies. And let's face it - actors get paid to lie, to appear to be what they are not.

There is no marriage not tinged with some degree of selfishness. The idea is not to indulge that selfishness and thus overcome it, so that children will be inspired to do likewise.

It would depend on why they decided not to. There are both selfish and unselfish reasons for going that route. Obviously, trying to codify such things into law would be a nightmare.

You're looking at it from the wrong end. The question is why they deserve to have their particular brand of selfishness enshrined in law.

What makes you think incestuous marriages are all that different from traditional ones?

It has been known for some time now - at least since Time Magazine published its groundbreaking article - that men and women are actually born different. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that there is more to this difference than plumbing. If a husband and wife relate to each other in a positive way, the child learns how men and women should relate to each other in a marriage. How in hell could they learn that in a homosexual marriage?

Before there was any such evidence, there were people telling homosexuals that if they didn't back off on their promiscuity, they'd be sorry. Even now that AIDS is an established fact, many "gays" can't keep it in their pants.

Sems to me that if we treated smoking as you propose to treat homosexual marriage, we'd pass laws requiring employers to cater to smokers' wants, rather than forcing them outside to do their thing. If we treated white supremacists that way, they'd be granted air time on PBS.

Not necessarily. Many effeminate men have never engaged in homosexual activity.

If you can't see that he is an absolute paragon of gender confusion - accusation of child molestation aside - I am at a loss. If you'd be OK with your daughter dating somebody like that, I pity your daughter, if you have one.

He was, of course, the product of a "traditional family", as far as I know, but his parents had to have dropped the ball bigtime to let him become subject to the influences from the entertainment industry (which of course was heavily influenced by homosexuals and other deviants by the time he started to take off as a solo act) which led him to become the hideous mockery of humanity that he is.

Look at pictures of him as a kid. Look at him now - the picture of Dorian Gray.