PandaJoe

Just curious, mods, is banning someone a 2 click process?

yguy

How you could get that idea I don't know. I'm talking about the media proclivity for portraying homosexuals as, in many cases, more "together" than heteros - of glorifying the lifestyle.

When did I say they were, necessarily?

If one insisted on trivializing the idea to the point that children=good, you'd have a point. Obviously what we're looking for is a generation of children who are stronger and freer than the previous one. Acceptance of gender confusion as normal will lead us in the other direction.

The problem with "gay marriage" specifically, of course, is that it necessarily and in calculated fashion deprives the child of either a father or a mother.

From a public policy perspective, that is not the issue, but whether as a general rule such "marriages" would degrade the institution as a whole.

No significant effect will be seen in the short term, or possibly even in our lifetimes. I have no doubt, however, that children raised by homosexual parents will be inferior to those from stable, traditional marriages by and large. When these children grow up and get married, they will have all kinds of problems

That is true enough from the POV of rank and file homosexuals, but they are being used by political operatives who are hostile to traditional values to try to intimidate those of us who are not into doubting what we know.

Thirty years ago, it was unsubstantiated hyperbole that acceptance of homosexuality would open the door to acceptance of pedophilia. Just a few years ago, the American Psycological Association was headed by Martin Seligman, a man who has spoken positively of his pedophilic experience as a nine year old; and apparently there is a move afoot in the American Psychiatric Association to do for pedohilia what it did for homosexuality, if a report (which I've been unable to confirm from a mainstream source) from the NARTH site is accurate.

Godot

Exactly. I frequently catch flack for my unwillingness to get married. The best argument they can come up with is "how is it any different from what you have now (ergo, why not just do it)?" My response is "why change it if there is no difference?"
Some of us have absolutely no interest in getting married. If the only difference between your relationship and mine is some piece of paper, why should you be accorded certain benefits which I am barred from receiving?
[/segue]

Godot

According to this line of reasoning, single-parent families are equally devoid of value?
Really though, do you honestly think that a homosexual marriage is a pre-meditated conspiracy to undermine the moral fabric of society? Watch Springer sometime. Not much of that fabric is left intact.
Upon what foundation do you base such a belief? If it is your personal opinion, that is one thing. If you are submitting it as an objective reality, that is another matter altogether.
What sorts of problems do you expect these traumatised children to exhibit? It couldn't possibly take you very long to look through the literature to verify if there is any correlation between homosexuality and moral decrepitude. Please do: I'll wait.
:banghead:

yguy

I believe the place for discussion of the banning of the y-man would be the Conference Room. I encourage you do start a thread there stating your case. It oughta be a riot.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): I assume a certain command of the English language. Do you understand the difference between homicide and suicide?
....and that's Fr Sport to you.

(Fr Andrew): Somehow, in your case, I don't think it would be rape. I think as soon as you learned to relax...


(Fr Andrew): I'm sorry, yguy, I've been dealing with people like you my entire life...and I'm afraid I haven't much love left. You (metaphorically, here) cause a lot of misery and suffering in the world.
You're my enemy, pretty much.

yguy

That's because you have hate instead. Good luck.

yguy

Then I fail to see what the devil you're talking about.

Before you get too pretentiously authoritarian about absolution, perhaps you'd do me the favor of pointing out what I need absolution FOR.

Kindly point to the section of the forum rules which dictates that claims may not be put forth which are not supportable by means of empirical data.

Please. If you were a fish, you'd demand proof of the existence of water.

Corroborating facts do not of themselves confer validity on any proposition, as any fool knows.

I have. Unfortunately, it is far too obviously true for someone like you to believe it.

Is that in the rules too? Are you actually stupid enough to take anything anyone says here as more than opinion on first read?

They don't address fornication that I'm aware. They also don't address pedophilia, so God must think it's OK too.

Right?

Godot

Clearly.

Quote:

Before you get too pretentiously authoritarian about absolution, perhaps you'd do me the favor of pointing out what I need absolution FOR.

heh. I thought that particular word might get a rise out of you. But hey, whatever absolution you do or do not require is none of my concern. That's between you and your popsicle pete deity.

Quote:

Kindly point to the section of the forum rules which dictates that claims may not be put forth which are not supportable by means of empirical data.

It is not in the rules, and we both clearly know this. You're perfectly free to spout off whatever line of bullshit you feel like, but you will get called on it. The game is something like put up or shut up. Namely, that if you refuse to provide substantiating evidence for your claim, you can be dismissed as a crank. Or even as a troll.

Quote:

Please. If you were a fish, you'd demand proof of the existence of water.

Your analogy is flawed. This little tete-a-tete is more akin to me being a fish and you being a bird and my demanding proof of the existence of air. It may be patently obvious to you, but certainly not to myself, or for a number of people on this forum for that matter. We are merely asking you to elaborate on your position such that we may be able to better understand where you are coming from.

Quote:

Corroborating facts do not of themselves confer validity on any proposition, as any fool knows.

I didn't think you'd call yourself a fool, but if you say so...
While they certainly do not confer validity, they do lend credence to the idea being developed. Your position is going to be much stronger in any discussion if you can provide some form of evidence to substantiate said position.

Quote:

I have. Unfortunately, it is far too obviously true for someone like you to believe it.

Pity for you that I have a higher standard of what constitutes evidence than you do.
All I have seen presented so far is opinion. Any "evidence" in this thread attributed to you has been presented by other posters, and it hasn't been particularly flattering.
Or do you mean the ten commandments as your source of evidence?

Quote:

Is that in the rules too? Are you actually stupid enough to take anything anyone says here as more than opinion on first read?

Now, now. Everything written here is opinion. Some people actually take the time and effort to do even a modicum of research in an area before spouting off their opinion on a subject. You have been making positive claims with regard to morality and homosexual marriage (and they aren't in the least bit inflammatory either ), therefore you must have some credible reason to take such a stand. As I said above put up or shut up. Either show us how you came to the belief you have on this issue or retract the inane statements you have insisted on making.

Quote:

They don't address fornication that I'm aware. They also don't address pedophilia, so God must think it's OK too. Right?

If you say so.
You're the one that brought up the ten commandments. You didn't even bother answering which set you hold to, or which particular one holds true in this circumstance. My point was that if there is no direct injunction against homosexuality in the ten commandments (as you have alluded there to be), then what purpose do they have in this discussion.
You're grasping at straws here in an effort to avoid the questions being put to you. Pithy one sentence off the cuff remarks do not constitute a rational discussion when other take the time to formulate a response to your asinine drivel.
Have a nice day.

yguy

Fine. Glad that nonsense is out of the way.

Be my guest.

Some are undoubtedly doing that. It is odiferously clear to me that you are not among them.

To those with an empiricist mindset, that is no doubt the case. Such people need to be debating someone besides me, it appears.

Showing you how I come to believe these things is clearly impossible. As for the alternative, I decline.

The relevance is that they were the central feature of a moral code under which this country came to be the best there has ever been.

This, of course, is the problem. You are so determined to prove me wrong that you are utterly incapable of appraising what I say dispassionately.