Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Autonemesis · 06-14-2003, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
What makes you think incestuous marriages are all that different from traditional ones?

What makes you think incestuous marriages aren't traditional?

NHGH · 06-14-2003, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Not sure what your point is here. It seems you've given up trying to argue that the examples of "subtle pro-homosexual propaganda" you previously cited actually fit your definition of "the media proclivity for portraying homosexuals as, in many cases, more "together" than heteros - of glorifying the lifestyle."

Quote:

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.

Still waiting, of course, for any credible argument that gay marriage is inherently more "selfish" than traditional marriage. While we're waiting, perhaps you'd like to explain why a gay couple couldn't "not ... indulge that selfishness and thus overcome it" in the same manner as a traditional married couple.

...

Quote:

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.

That question makes sense if you assume that all acts should be illegal in the absence of a compelling reason to permit them. If you assume that people should be allowed to do as they please in the absence of a compelling reason to prohibit them (in common parlance, if you live in a "free society"), then that question is simply silly.

...

Quote:

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?

I see Dr Rick has already replied to this, and I don't really have anything to add.

Quote:

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.

Well, this is the usual sequence that we follow: first find convincing evidence or argument to support a claim, then accept the claim as true. Basically what you seem to be asserting here is that, on one occasion, the "people" to whom you refer guessed right, from which nothing of consequence follows.

Quote:

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.

Seems to me that the only way in which I've "propose[d] to treat homosexual marriage" is to legally permit it, and thus we're already treating smoking (and advocacy of white supremacy) in that manner.

...

Quote:

If you can't see that he [Michael Jackson]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.

Well, I'm not going to defend Michael Jackson aesthetically; I just fail to see what he has to do with the issue of gay marriage--even if he is the "absolute paragon of gender confusion" you claim he is.

At any rate, if it helps you sleep better at night, let me just say that no, I don't have a daughter. If I did, though, I'd like to think that I'd judge her potential boyfriends on character rather than appearance.

NHGH · 06-14-2003, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Obviously, the specific legislation wouldn't, but those who did so would be subject to the same villificaitons as Dr Laura, Rick Santorum and others have been.

Thus violating their God-given right of immunity from criticism...

yguy · 06-14-2003, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(Fr Andrew): Why?

He has posted here that he was a social worker for several years, and had to deal with these perverts up close and personal quite a few times. I would guess his level of contempt for pedophiles is rather greater than mine.

Quote:

I'm sorry that you find me "mean", yguy.

It doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Quote:

I suppose that's because I don't love you and said that you were my enemy, pretty much.

"I don't see it as mean, I see it as honest."

I'm aware of that. By all means, let all your enmity hang out.

yguy · 06-14-2003, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NHGH
Not sure what your point is here.

I was pointing out that the manipulative intent is impossible to convey adequately with the written word. If I could show you the actual clips you might see it...if you have eyes to see it, that is.

Quote:

Still waiting, of course, for any credible argument that gay marriage is inherently more "selfish" than traditional marriage.

Indeed, believability is in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:

While we're waiting, perhaps you'd like to explain why a gay couple couldn't "not ... indulge that selfishness and thus overcome it" in the same manner as a traditional married couple.

Because like heteros who get married for the wrong reasons, homosexuals begin the "adventure" with an act of rebellion against common sense.

Quote:

That question makes sense if you assume that all acts should be illegal in the absence of a compelling reason to permit them.

We're not talking about making something legal which was once illegal. We're talking about making a law granting respect to the wishes of a certain segment of society. Again, what we deny religious groups through the first amendment, we would be granting homoseuxals. The question then becomes why we shouldn't do the same for religion through a Constitutional amendment.

Quote:

Well, this is the usual sequence that we follow: first find convincing evidence or argument to support a claim, then accept the claim as true. Basically what you seem to be asserting here is that, on one occasion, the "people" to whom you refer guessed right, from which nothing of consequence follows.

It wasn't guessing. It's called foresight - even though I'm sure your ego bristles at the idea that right wingers could see something you can't or won't.

Quote:

Seems to me that the only way in which I've "propose[d] to treat homosexual marriage" is to legally permit it, and thus we're already treating smoking (and advocacy of white supremacy) in that manner.

We're not permitting it, we are making a special provision in the law to accomodate it. Smoking isn't legally
permitted, it's legally restricted. The legality of advocacy of noxious views of any kind is a natural consequence of the first amendment - no special provision there.

Quote:

Well, I'm not going to defend Michael Jackson aesthetically; I just fail to see what he has to do with the issue of gay marriage--even if he is the "absolute paragon of gender confusion" you claim he is.

At any rate, if it helps you sleep better at night, let me just say that no, I don't have a daughter. If I did, though, I'd like to think that I'd judge her potential boyfriends on character rather than appearance.

You don't think character has anything to do with appearance? Guess if he had a shaved head and a swastika tatooed on his arm that wouldn't faze you either then.

yguy · 06-14-2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NHGH
That said, I don't think that your quote, placed in context, can be reliably interpreted as "acceptance of pedophilia". As far as I can tell, the point of the paper is that:

1) Not every single instance of adult/child sexual contact results in actual harm, though of course many do (and when he "concluded ... that mental health researchers have vastly overstated the harmful potential of CSA [child sexual abuse]," it's important to keep in mind that this statement was in response to the view, which borders on self-caricature, that CSA invariably causes deep and lasting harm, with essentially no variation among individuals)

2) The likely effect of a hysterical reaction to the discovery that a child has been sexually exploited by a pedophile is to exacerbate rather than alleviate any harm done.

You missed the point. Seligman didn't claim his experience was not negative, he claimed it was positive. You can't judge Seligman's remarks by the context of the paper, because they were obviously put there to lend credence to the idea that pedophilia is less hideous than most people think.

Quote:

Nope, sure don't. As I pointed out previously, there's a difference between asserting that a particular type of conduct is not symptomatic of mental illness, and asserting that said conduct is morally acceptable.

Technically that is correct, of course. The obvious point is that the air of authority of any pronouncement from the APA conferred a perception of normalcy to homosexuality in the public eye. To say they had nothing to do with the legitimizing of homosexuality is like saying the Maxim Gorky - the writer who, having witnessed first hand the horror of Stalinist death camps, kept his mouth shut about it - had nothing to do with the perpetuation of that regime.

Quote:

As for the document you cite here, I note that it comes from a source which seems to have an axe to grind, so I'd be very careful about accepting its contents uncritically.

That's why I only posted the link because you asked for it. As I said, I couldn't confirm it with a mainstream source.

Fr.Andrew · 06-14-2003, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
He has posted here that he was a social worker for several years, and had to deal with these perverts up close and personal quite a few times. I would guess his level of contempt for pedophiles is rather greater than mine.

(Fr Andrew): Oh...I thought maybe I'd missed something that he'd said.
I asked you, yguy. Please answer.
Why must you direct "contempt" at anyone for something beyond their control?

yguy · 06-14-2003, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(Fr Andrew): Oh...I thought maybe I'd missed something that he'd said.
I asked you, yguy. Please answer.
Why must you direct "contempt" at anyone for something beyond their control?

Most of these creeps have no desire to control themselves. They've lost their humanity. Death by slow torture is too good for the bastards.

If they aren't worthy of contempt, who is?

Dr Rick · 06-14-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
If they aren't worthy of contempt, who is?

Trick but lame question; the answer's obvious.

Fr.Andrew · 06-15-2003, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Most of these creeps have no desire to control themselves. They've lost their humanity. Death by slow torture is too good for the bastards.

If they aren't worthy of contempt, who is?

(Fr Andrew): No one should be thought contemptible for something beyond their control.
Now, if a pedophile abuses a child, then his/her behavior is perhaps contemptible--certainly criminal--but that's not the same thing.

"Contemptible", imo, would be better used to describe someone willfully ignoring and manipulating evidence contrary to their prejudice, so as to perpetuate ignorance and an atmosphere of misunderstanding, fear and hate.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.