Search This Blog

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Gay marriage - Democrats unwittingly advance NAMBLA'S agenda?

This is a reprint of my February 20th posting that links pedophilia to gay marriage. Read it (most particularly the last third of the posting) and weep!!!!

~~~~~~~

There is a push in this country to legalize "gay marriage" and a push back to institute laws banning the same. What is the deal here?

Okay, first of all the phrase sounds a lot like "dry" water to me. There is no such animal. A marriage is a union between a male and a female. This has been the way of marriage for hundreds, indeed, thousands of years. The entire idea of a "gay marriage" sounds to me like a cat that barks or sweltering hot ice. It doesn't make any sense. The idea of marriage was to cement a hopefully permanent union of a man and a woman and create a protective union within which any children might be nurtured. Obviously a gay union won't be producing any children any time soon.

Yet it is a hot button item. Homosexuals are trying and in some cases succeeding in co-opting a heterosexual tradition and getting some measure of legal status. They claim it is a right that is being denied them.

Thomas Sowell rather eloquently argues to the contrary.

"Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football."


Now I hear the voices rising in protest. "But without marriage, gays in committed relationships have no rights to visit each other in hospitals, have joint ownership of land and so on!" Not true, actually, for people have been entering into various partnerships since the beginning of recorded time. Nevertheless, there are other ways to address this issue.

Ramesh Ponnuru writes on this subject in the National Reviw Online. Concerning recent legislation proposed by Colorado state senator Shawn Mitchell:

"Mitchell’s idea is to make certain benefits available to gay couples — and to many other pairs of people. His legislation would make it easier, for example, for gay men to arrange to give each other a say in their medical care by becoming “reciprocal beneficiaries.” But two brothers, or a brother and sister, or two male friends, could enter the same arrangement. Thus there would be no recognition of homosexual relationships as such."

In truth, such legislation would not please "gay marriage" advocates because they don't really want what they say they want. The issue is not really about getting married, it is about other agendas.

Agenda # One: Acquiring society's official imprimateur of respectability on homosexual relationships. Homosexuality has been decriminalized in this country but the majority of citizens still consider it an aberrant behavior. Making "gay marriage" legal goes a long way towards erasing the stigma of homosexual relationships.

Agenda # Two: Partner benefits. Many companies give medical coverage to spouses and children, but not to co-habiting couples. Homosexuals want a benefit not usually given to other co-habiting-but-not-married couples by having the option of marriage available to them.

Agenda # Three: Advance the cause of the continued breakdown of sexual mores in society.

To agenda one, I say that society has no interest in encouraging homosexuality. In a normal, free country we would neither shoot gays on sight nor pass them a marriage license. It is aberrant activity but if it is not prohibited by law then it becomes a choice left up to the people involved. Just don't come to the rest of us and ask us to tie a ribbon on it.

To agenda two, I say it is up to the individual company whether to offer "partner benefits" to people living together whether of opposite or same sex. Some companies do this already and some don't. A same sex couple can seek employment with a company that does, or seek to get the rules changed at that company. I don't believe that we should legislate on this issue either way. Let companies and their employees come to the decisions they prefer. Trust me, employees have a say, because a company needs to attract the right people (not talking about MacDonalds here, okay?) and the market or needs of a few key employees can drive this decision one way or the other.

Now to agenda three. I have been accused of setting up a "straw man" with this argument but I will argue strongly that I do not. I believe that much of the radical element of homosexual advocates seek to push the envelope farther than most people realize. Homosexual advocates, in association with the ACLU and NAMBLA, are seeking to change other laws.

Consider this exerpt from an article found at traditionalvalues.org:

"According to David Thorstad, in "The State Of Gay Liberation," homosexuals must get back to a "radical vision of sexual freedom for all. We need to reaffirm our place in the great variety of same-sex behaviors that exist-have always existed-in human societies. We dare not allow our homosexual gift to be alienated from us by the limited vision, stifling political correctness, and erotophobic provincialism." In short, homosexuals should openly support the promotion of adult/child sex!

Professor Mohr argues that the use of "gay youth" is a key to gaining political and cultural victories in the U.S. He writes: "...these brave youth are key to culture's change on gay issues. Thanks to them, increasingly people know someone for whom being gay is an issue. Thanks to them the gay movement is achieving critical mass." Bruce Mirken claims that radical AIDS activism is what will save the homosexual movement from decline.

The effort to push adult/child sex isn't limited to these three homosexual activists. It is part of the overall homosexual movement. As author Mary Eberstadt wrote in "Pedophilia Chic: Reconsidered" in The Weekly Standard, (Jan. 1, 2001): "The reason why the public is being urged to reconsider boy pedophilia is that this 'question,' settled though it may be in the opinions and laws of the rest of the country, is demonstrably not yet settled within certain parts of the gay rights movement." Eberstadt notes that as the homosexual movement becomes more mainstream, this "question" about adult/child sex will become more prominent. Homosexuals who desire sex with children will do exactly what the ACLU is doing in Kansas: Destroy all laws banning sex between adults and children."


The homosexual will argue on logical grounds that he is seeking to fulfill his sexual orientation. Then comes the pedophile asking for the same. This is an avowed goal of NAMBLA and also many in the homosexual advocacy movement. So then here comes the necrophile demanding the right to have sex with corpses and now comes the sado-masochist and so on. You say straw man, I say I see forces aligned in hopes of eliminating any restraint on sexuality in our society.

Frank V. York and Robert H. Knight published a 32-page paper on the linkage between the homosexual agenda and pedophilian which you can peruse here. It is not a matter of a bunch of conservatives running around yelling that "the sky is falling" but a recognition that evil is on the move and it has a plan.

Go ahead and reject the notion that "gay marriage" brings on the legalization of necrophilia. Fine, but it is a fact that advocates of "gay marriage" are trying to bring about pedophilia. One only has to go to the NAMBLA site and read what they say and keep in mind this is what they are willing to admit to the general public. I quote from the site:

"Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream." -- David Thorstad

Sounds like a nightmare to me!

52 comments:

lavaughn42 said...

Radar wrote: "Fine, but it is a fact that advocates of "gay marriage" are trying to bring about pedophilia. "

You left out the word some. Some advocates of... I can agree with that statement.

"The idea of marriage was to cement a hopefully permanent union of a man and a woman and create a protective union within which any children might be nurtured. Obviously a gay union won't be producing any children any time soon."

A gay marriage may not be able to produce children, but can they not nurture them? There are avenues open for gay couples to adopt children, or they can bring children in from a previous relationship, or be artificially inseminated. Do these children not need the permanent union?

And if producing a child is necessary, should we start administering tests to see if couples are actually fertile before issuing the marriage license?

Juggling Mother said...

"The idea of marriage was to cement a hopefully permanent union of a man and a woman and create a protective union within which any children might be nurtured"

as lavaughn42 said, if the purpose of matrriage is to produce children, I assume you are against (knowingly) infertile couples getting married, people (women) over the age of 40 getting married, or those who do not want children getting married?

Ooops, naughty me.

Although tbh, i disagree with gay marriage. And secular marriage. and the legalisation of a religious ceremony. It really pisses me off that I had to do all that god stuff just to get the same rights as other couples! I would prefer to see the introdustion of proper secular partnerships, and keep marriage a religious thing for those who want to - like bar Mitzvah - with no legal standing at all.

Juggling Mother said...

Oh, and the introduction of gay "marriages" in the UK and other European countries has not led to any increase in paedophillia.

Or necrophillia.

Or beastiality

Or anything else like that.

Anonymous said...

Interesting, I mainly agree. And not being a member or even membership material,I do have to say that even Nambla makes some convincing points.

augurwell said...

Well, what people do in their own closets is up to them. I don't mind if it's brought out of the closet but they can keep it in the garage. I don't think that all this gay frolicking around in public is any kind of good example for our kids. And Bill Clinton's antics in the White House are not a good example for children either.

Clinton should have been honest with his wife and got a divorce, that's what honourable people do.

And gays do not fit the pattern, marriage is of a woman and a man. Now why can't gays have their own thing and in coming out of the closet, keeping it in the garage they could call it getting "Garried". I have noticed that gay people look different so gayness may be a genetic disease? And perhaps if they have testosterone therapy it would go away.

Even in Greek times there was the common practice of gay men taking boys into the wilderness for their first gay rapping. This is true and the Romans were always staying away from them because the Greeks were too effeminate and considered a bad influence on the youth of Rome.

~

The other day my niece, who is about 5 years old said to me "Do you know boys can live with boys and girls can live with girls? It's ok if they want to but it doesn't seem right to me." she said.

xiangtao said...

"I have noticed that gay people look different so gayness may be a genetic disease?"

In what way do they look different. If we were to give you a line up of maybe ten people, would you then reliably be able to tell us who is gay and who is not based solely on their physical appearance? I'm going to have to call BS on that one.

"Even in Greek times there was the common practice of gay men taking boys into the wilderness for their first gay rapping. This is true and the Romans were always staying away from them because the Greeks were too effeminate and considered a bad influence on the youth of Rome."

I suppose you have some evidence to back this up other than urban legend?

scohen said...

"I don't mind if it's brought out of the closet but they can keep it in the garage."

What the hell does that even mean?

xiangtao said...

Only mechanics are allowed to be gay.

cranky old fart said...

It's amazing the crap that comes from the moronic mouths of some rednecks, isn't it?

Like most forms of prejudice, it comes from pure ignorance.

Have you ever met or talked to any gay folks Auger? Or did your preacher tell you that you might catch AIDs by breathing the same air as them?

loboinok said...

It's amazing the crap that comes from the moronic mouths of some rednecks, isn't it?

Like most forms of prejudice, it comes from pure ignorance.

Have you ever met or talked to any gay folks Auger? Or did your preacher tell you that you might catch AIDs by breathing the same air as them?

Is it even necessary to point out the obvious ignorance in your statements?

scohen said...

Cranky, It's a shame ignorance isn't painful. In my mind, the world would be a better place if an ignorant comment like the one above would be followed by pain similar to a migraine, but more fleeting.

This whole discussion is just nuts. There is no one with any voice or power that is advocating the legalization of pedophilia or anything of the sort. It's silly to say otherwise, because despite what NAMBLA says, they're NAMBLA, and no one listens to those sick bastards.

Talk about the mother of strawman arguments.

This is *exactly* the same logic that right-wingers use when they say that terrorists want democrats to win. To paraphrase Reagan, Just because NAMBLA endorses gay marriage doesn't mean proponents of gay marriage endorse NAMBLA.

Are we ever going to talk about evolution again? This blog is so boring when all we get is right-wing babble --I want creationist babble! That kind of ignorance is at least kind of funny. This is just pathetic and homophobic.

And lobo: Cranky was being insulting. That's not the same thing as ignorance.
That said, I'd be very surprised if Mr. Augrwell turns out to be a college educated atheist living in New York City.

highboy said...

Augurwell: While I believe same sex marriage to be terribly wrong, I have to tell you some of what you said is just plain stupid, but something tells me you meant it to be stupid.

"I suppose you have some evidence to back this up other than urban legend?"

He actually has it all wrong x. Roman and Greek cultures, both of them, thought of homosexuality as something to aspire too. They still married women, for the obvious reason of procreating, but still had their boyfriends. Most historians' view is that this is because of the low view they had of women. That's just bits and pieces of what I picked up in ancient history classes. Who cares anyways?

I agree Lobo, cranky did indeed make an ass out of himself. I particularly like the preacher remark, because cranky knows so many, and they all say stupid things like auger did.

"Only mechanics are allowed to be gay"

A good joke sir, good for a chuckle.

"There is no one with any voice or power that is advocating the legalization of pedophilia or anything of the sort"

Other than the ACLU fighting to legalize child porn, which has been shown many times on this site alone.

"This blog is so boring when all we get is right-wing babble --I want creationist babble!"

I could be wrong, but radar is a right winger, and it is his blog...

Why not try discussing evolution on your own blog?

"Cranky was being insulting. That's not the same thing as ignorance."

Funny how you have repeatedly condemned others for being this insulting while you say nothing admonishing cranky. But I get it, he's a left winger right?

"That said, I'd be very surprised if Mr. Augrwell turns out to be a college educated atheist living in New York City."

The last thing we need is another one of those.

You know you do have a blog of your own scohen, and you can look down your nose at creationists as much as you want there.

scohen said...

"Funny how you have repeatedly condemned others for being this insulting while you say nothing admonishing cranky. But I get it, he's a left winger right?"

Uh.. no. I think Mr. Augr deserved the insult as he made some incredibly homophobic comments. In case you forgot, I do believe I told a liberal troll on your blog to lay off the insults directed at you. How quickly we forget --must be those fist-sized holes...

What I said was this:
"Meatbrain, while I appreciate your staunch defense of my ideas (you seem to ‘get’ them) I think your comments would be a lot more biting without the insults. You’re just stooping to his level when you call him an idiot, no matter how much he deserves it."

and what I meant to say was this:

"Meatbrain, while I appreciate your staunch defense of my ideas (you seem to ‘get’ them) I think your comments would be a lot more biting without the insults. You’re just stooping to his level when you call him an idiot, no matter how much you think he deserves it."

"You know you do have a blog of your own scohen, and you can look down your nose at creationists as much as you want there."

But it's so much more fun here. Besides, what would do, talk about how sound the theory is? That's kinda boring. I'm more interested in showing you creationists why it's so sound --if you'll listen.

cranky old fart said...

"Other than the ACLU fighting to legalize child porn, which has been shown many times on this site alone."

Oh please. Source?

"I particularly like the preacher remark, because cranky knows so many, and they all say stupid things like auger did."

Where did I say "all" preachers? I will however say we "all" know of some who might "say stupid things like auger did"

Mazement said...

I'm a college-educated agnostic redneck who moved to New York City this year, so pretty much everybody here has just offended me. Shame on you!

I thought that we'd agreed that the business about the ACLU wanting to legalize child porn was a hoax. If somebody reminds me of the name of the case then I suppose we can rehash it again.

Augerwell's rant put me in mind of the story of Alan Turing. Maybe some of the people here don't know it...

Alan Turing was one of the founding fathers of modern computer science. He was also instrumental in breaking some of the Nazi codes during WW2.

After the war, it came out that he was homosexual, and the government in its infinite wisdom decided to try to "cure" him with hormone treatments. Naturally that didn't work; it just caused a variety of negative side-effects. He committed suicide shortly afterwards, at the age of 41.

I know Augerwell thinks he's being funny when he suggests "testosterone therapy". But, really, I think there are some things we shouldn't even joke about.

highboy said...

"That's kinda boring. I'm more interested in showing you creationists"

I'm a creationist? Funny, I didn't know that.

"I think Mr. Augr deserved the insult"

Oh, well that changes everything. For a minute I thought you were acting immature.

"Where did I say "all" preachers?"

You automatically assumed it was a preacher. You stereotyped.

"I will however say we "all" know of some who might "say stupid things like auger did"

Probably the gay ones, before we find out that their gay.

"Oh please. Source?"


Try this one:

"The 1996 Act upheld by a Federal Judge - August 1997

The US Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 which bans computer-generated sexual images of children and porn featuring adults who are depicted as minors was upheld by a federal judge on the 12th of August 1997. Rejecting arguments by sex film distributors and the American Civil Liberties Union, U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti said the new law protects children from sexual exploitation without violating freedom of speech.

"Even if no children are involved in the production of sexually explicit materials, the devastating ... effect that such materials have on society and the well-being of children merits the regulation of such images," Conti wrote in the first court ruling on the law’s validity.

He dismissed the ACLU’s fears that the law could criminalize a film of "Romeo and Juliet" or a doctor’s sex education manual. Only pictures that are marketed as child pornography are covered by the law, Conti said."

And And here is a direct quote from an ACLU lawyer concerning a child porn ban:

""Mere possession should not be a crime," said John Roberts, executive director of the Boston branch of the American Civil Liberties Union."

And straight from the ACLU site:

""The Court said that instead of punishing the abuse of children -- which no one objects to -- this law impermissibly punishes the expression of ideas," said Ann Brick, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California."

Ideas that include Child Porn Ms. Brick.

This is my favorite:

"The American Civil Liberties Union stepped in to defend NAMBLA as a free speech matter and won a dismissal based on the fact that NAMBLA is organized as an unincorporated association, not a corporation. John Reinstein, the director of the ACLU Massachusetts, said that although NAMBLA "may extol conduct which is currently illegal", there was nothing on its website that "advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape".

Hello? Does that even make sense? The whole site advocates pedophilia, which is illegal. So what big shot ACLU attorney should have said, is "there was nothing on its website that "advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, other than pedophilia.

"I thought that we'd agreed that the business about the ACLU wanting to legalize child porn was a hoax."

I just demonstrated otherwise. And before anyone tries the "its just speech" in reference to NAMBLA, let me just suggest you try writing a publication based on the assassination of a U.S. president and see how long it lasts. It won't be long. Why? Because it advocates illegal behavior. I also like the ACLUs' stance that child porn that uses CGI of children instead of real children should be legal. ITS STILL CHILD PORN. So there you have it. The ACLU defends child pornography and all the dancing around the phrase isn't going to change that.

Mazement said...

OK, I think I see where you're confused. When the Supreme Court overturned the COPPA law, they weren't ruling that child pornography should be legal. In fact, child pornography is still illegal.

They ruled that the law was over-broad, and could be used to ban things that weren't child pornography by any meaningful definition of the term.

This is all explained in one of the links you posted.

The NAMBLA thing is really complicated...

Basically there's a difference between conspiring to break the law and lobbying to change the law. NAMBLA can't be shut down unless they actually break the law.

(To build on your assassinate-the-President idea...it's illegal for me to try to assassinate the President or to conspire with other people to assassinate him. But it's legal for me to play a video game where I shoot at a CGI model of the President, or to lobby to have laws against assassination repealed.)

Anyway, I hope everybody finally understands that the ACLU doesn't support child pornography. I mean, maybe we don't agree with the ACLU on every single issue, but that doesn't mean that they're monsters. This sort of hysteria doesn't help anybody.

scohen said...

"I'm a creationist? Funny, I didn't know that. "

Yes you did, you only struggle between young-earth and old-earth creationism. We've been over this before.

You claim to be undecided, but the two options you're considering are both creationism. To accept science in this matter means that the story in the bible can not be taken literally. To rightly claim not to be a creationist, you have to believe or at least be open to the belief that the world is billions of years old and that all life and its variation was produced by gradual, slow, undirected change. Can you claim to consider this? Before you couldn't --maybe you have read some books and think differently now.

I'm going to ignore your personal attack because it's mighty embarrassing when you accuse someone of some bad behavior and they point out that indeed you are wrong. It's especially scalding when the evidence is on your own web site --but that seems to happen a lot with you.

However, I did take this from one of the ACLU links from your post.

"The Child Pornography Protection Act barred sexually explicit material that depicts what "appear(s) to be a minor"' or that is advertised in a way that "conveys the impression" that a minor was involved in its creation. Such depictions, the Court today recognized, could include scenes from Academy Award-winning films like Traffic and American Beauty."

So explain to me how this overly broad law would allow the scenes from those two fantastic movies and simultaneously disallow pornography. Who gets to decide which is which? I'm going to go out on a limb that you haven't followed the supreme court's difficulty defining what is obscene, but it's something that's plagued them for a long time.

Man, this is boring, and it looks like Mazement has done an admirable job of explaining the situation. I don't think you'll get it, but (s)?he is right. I don't agree with every ACLU lawsuit, but they're not monsters.

xiangtao said...

"Roman and Greek cultures, both of them, thought of homosexuality as something to aspire too. They still married women, for the obvious reason of procreating, but still had their boyfriends. Most historians' view is that this is because of the low view they had of women. That's just bits and pieces of what I picked up in ancient history classes."

I have studied classics (Latin and Greek) fairly thoroughly and I have seen nothing to lead me to believe that this kind of behavior was any more prevalent in the classical world than it is here and now. Perhaps in the future people will look back at our Mark Foleys and Ted Haggards and make the same claims that us 21st century americans were all into young homosexual love.

"A good joke sir, good for a chuckle."

Thank you, I try

highboy said...

"They ruled that the law was over-broad, and could be used to ban things that weren't child pornography by any meaningful definition of the term."

You couldn't have read all the links then. The ACLU clearly states that they defend child porn as long as real children are not involved. They also directly state that possession of child porn should not be criminal.

"Man, this is boring"

Feel free to cease at any time then. You do have a blog of your own, if someone will read it. As for my "personal attack", YOU claimed that Auger deserved the insult. Pointing to one noble deed on my site hardly exempts you from this criticism.

Anywho, you would have to deliberately ignore the ACLUs' own statements to claim that they don't defend child porn. I cite again: ""Mere possession should not be a crime," said John Roberts, executive director of the Boston branch of the American Civil Liberties Union."

They also argue that as long as real children are not involved, and only computer generated children, that its not child porn, which is ubsurd. Its pornography that depicts sexual acts with children, therefore it is child porn, and the ACLU clearly defends it, unless you ignore the ACLUs' position.

Quick and dirty:

"After a long hiatus marked by censorship of homosexual themes,[15] modern historians picked up the thread, starting with Erich Bethe in 1907 and continuing with K. J. Dover and many others. These scholars have shown that same-sex relations were openly practiced, largely with official sanction, in many areas of life from the 7th century BC until the Roman era."

Although in Greece, while man/boy love was seen as something to aspire to, the actual sexual desire was not:

"Elaborate social protocols existed to protect youths from the shame associated with being sexually penetrated. The eromenos was supposed to respect and honor the erastes, but not to desire him sexually. Although being courted by an older man was practically a rite of passage for young men, a youth who was seen to reciprocate the erotic desire of his erastes faced considerable social stigma."

xiangtao said...

"There is some debate among scholars about whether pederasty was widespread in all social classes, or largely limited to the aristocracy."

From your link, highboy.

This is what I meant about taking something that did happen among some Greeks and expanding it to say that all Greeks had homosexual relations with young boys. I could make a similar suggestion that because there is so much pedophilia going around among Chrstian preachers that I can safely assume that all Christians are pedophiles.

scohen said...

"You couldn't have read all the links then. The ACLU clearly states that they defend child porn as long as real children are not involved."

The question, I guess, is how does the above qualify as child pornography? It's like saying they defend murder as long as no one died.

So let's say some porn actress is 24, but pretends in a film that she's 17. This is a crime now? How?

Similarly, in American Beauty, Mena Suvari was supposed to be 17 and appeared topless, even though she was 20 at the time. This is a crime? What distinguishes this case from the one above?

"As for my "personal attack", YOU claimed that Auger deserved the insult."

And you claimed that I didn't defend augurwell because Cranky was a liberal, which isn't the case. I didn't defend Augurwell because he/she/it is an ass and felt the insult was warranted.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

If Michael Moore posted the same things that Augur posted, I'd still think he deserved what he got. You must think I'm much more politically biased than I actually am. I wonder why.

highboy said...

"This is what I meant about taking something that did happen among some Greeks and expanding it to say that all Greeks had homosexual relations with young boys."

When did I say all Greeks practiced homosexuality?

"And you claimed that I didn't defend augurwell because Cranky was a liberal, which isn't the case."

Did I? Are you sure? Do you know how to read? Because I actually was pointing out, not that you should be defending Auger, but rather reprimanding cranky. But fine, you thought he deserved it. That's all that matters in mature conversation.

"The question, I guess, is how does the above qualify as child pornography?"

The examples you cited are not the same thing. You are saying that the government should allow computer generated images of 7 year old girls performing oral sex to be bought and sold? Because that is what the ACLU is defending, in addition to your two examples.

scohen said...

"The examples you cited are not the same thing. You are saying that the government should allow computer generated images of 7 year old girls performing oral sex to be bought and sold?"

Of course they're not the same thing. The law was over-broad and would ban both the very good movies and the creepy computer-generated images. That's the entire problem with the law, and what the ACLU was objecting to. If a law can ban American Beauty, something is seriously wrong with it.

But what's interesting to me is to see where the conversation has gone. Radar made some assertions about gay marriage, and since no one could really back up these laughable claims, we end up talking about how evil the ACLU is.

"Did I? Are you sure?"

Yes. You said:

"Funny how you have repeatedly condemned others for being this insulting while you say nothing admonishing cranky. But I get it, he's a left winger right?"

And you question my ability to read. --you're a funny one. You know, for someone who constantly belittles people with whom you disagree, you are sure quick to call someone immature for allowing a third party to do the same thing.

Mazement said...

I can't find any context for the "Mere possession should not be a crime" quote so I can't comment on it.

It might be that he's talking about unintentional possession. (There are a couple of different ways you can get child pornography on your computer without knowing about it.) I'd really like to see the whole statement in context.

The examples you cited are not the same thing. You are saying that the government should allow computer generated images of 7 year old girls performing oral sex to be bought and sold?

"...the government should allow..." is an interesting phrasing. I guess you subscribe to the liberal belief that the government is the solution to all of society's problems.

The ACLU is suspicious of the government and doesn't want it to have too much power. So they'd want to phrase the question as, "Should the government be permitted to ban..."

When you look at things from that perspective, the dynamics of the argument change.

It's easy to see why real child pornography should be banned; it can't be produced or distributed without harming children.

"Simulated child pornography" is vile and disgusting, but it's harder to show that it's so harmful that the government needs to step in. There are good arguments on both sides and it's possible for people of good conscience to disagree.

Anyway, I do think it's fair to say that the ACLU wants "simulated child pornography" to remain legal.

Dropping the word "simulated" would imply that they want real child pornography to become legal. IMHO that's a dishonest misrepresentation of their position so I hope people will stop saying that.

Let's argue against their position on the merits instead of using hysterical scare tactics.

radar said...

"Oh, and the introduction of gay "marriages" in the UK and other European countries has not led to any increase in paedophillia.

Or necrophillia.

Or beastiality

Or anything else like that."


I take it you haven't ever been to the Netherlands?

radar said...

NAMBLA is a fringe organization, however, they are one with pretty good funding and more members than you would think. They are pushing an agenda that most Americans find to be abhorrent. Then again, a lot of Americans find homosexual behavior to be abhorrent.

I think that when homosexual behavior is between consenting adults it should not be illegal because our government is a government of the people and this is the will of the people. I've worked with homosexual people, heck, me and three friends used to always go to bars together, to beaches, to movies, and so on, and one of the guys was homosexual. We were all friends and the rest of us didn't think about it. "Jo" was different in that way but he never treated us like potential dates and we just treated him like the rest of us...so if the idea of homosexuality came up it would be one of us kidding him about it, like we would kid Roberto about being short or Steve about having a big nose. I don't hate homosexuals at all, period!

That being said, I still maintain and have presented evidence that many forces are in favor of "gay marriage" in order to further warp the idea of marriage and it is totally unnecessary. Homosexuals can live together without trying to co-opt marriage for their own purposes.

radar said...

By the way, I do intend to get back to scientific discussions again soon. I need to get a bit more off of my chest on political matters first. Richard Dawkins may have been completely wrong, but that won't get me killed.

xiangtao said...

"I take it you haven't ever been to the Netherlands?"

Actually I have, more than once, and contrary to the typical American stereotype the Dutch are not crazy, drugged out sex fiends. They are for the most part pretty much like anyone else I have ever met from any other place. I certainly haven't seen any pedophelia etc. there any more than I have here.

highboy said...

"Anyway, I do think it's fair to say that the ACLU wants "simulated child pornography" to remain legal."

Simulated child porn real child porn.

"IMHO that's a dishonest misrepresentation of their position so I hope people will stop saying that."

Not going to happen. Your unwillingness to call a spade a spade is why nothing is done about this atrocious behavior. Its child porn. Period. Adding the word "simulated" doesn't change that.

"But what's interesting to me is to see where the conversation has gone. Radar made some assertions about gay marriage, and since no one could really back up these laughable claims, we end up talking about how evil the ACLU is."

YOU were the one that stated no one of power was trying to promote legal pedophilia, which has just been demonstrated to be false, since we've established that the ACLU is in fact defending child porn, which depicts pedophile behavior.

Mazement said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mazement said...

Me: "IMHO that's a dishonest misrepresentation of their position so I hope people will stop saying that."

Highboy: Not going to happen.


OK. I hope you'll reconsider later on, because I think that dishonesty is wrong.

I do understand, kind of. The election's been stressful for everybody. Maybe we can re-open the debate in a couple of months when you're in a better (and hopefully more honest) mood.

highboy said...

"OK. I hope you'll reconsider later on, because I think that dishonesty is wrong."

I too think dishonesty is wrong, so I hope you reconsider your weak argument that simulated child porn is not child porn. A more absurd postition is rarely heard of. The election by the way, wasn't stressful for me. It turned out exactly as I had hoped.

loboinok said...

Oh, and the introduction of gay "marriages" in the UK and other European countries has not led to any increase in paedophillia.

Or necrophillia.

Or beastiality

Or anything else like that.


http://www.goofigure.com/UserGoofigureDetail.asp?gooID=7032

(Denmark) and yes, it is in the states as well...we just haven't devolved to this level...yet.
I wonder where "evolution" fits into this new "enlightenment?"

This is *exactly* the same logic that right-wingers use when they say that terrorists want democrats to win.

JERUSALEM – Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747


But what's interesting to me is to see where the conversation has gone. Radar made some assertions about gay marriage, and since no one could really back up these laughable claims, we end up talking about how evil the ACLU is.

I must have missed it. Which claims do you consider "laughable?"

Juggling Mother said...

As fascinating as the danish article was, I don't see what it's go to do with gay marriage leading to beastiality. Beastiality has always been legal in denmark!

I too have ben to the Netherlands - where I succeeded in neither taking drugs or having sex for the whole trip!

Of course, we in most of Western Europe (and particularly the UK, where we regularly debate raising the age from 16 with parental consent)to 18) consider the US to condone pedophillia by having such ridiculously low ages of consent. Like a 12 year old can really make a rational judgment about sex when half of them haven't even reached puberty!

radar said...

At the end of the day, my assertions concerning "gay marriage" have been shown to be reasonable. The whole idea has brought about polarization and caused division rather than agreement between hetero and homosexuals. Furthermore, there are those who will use the redefinition of marriage to bring about radical changes that 95 to 99% of the nation do not want to see.

Homosexuals, live together, enter into contracts or civil unions, whatever, just stay the heck away from the heterosexual tradition of marriage! You bring nothing but pain and confusion and turmoil with you when you seek to destroy marriage as it has been known for thousands of years.

scohen said...

"At the end of the day, my assertions concerning "gay marriage" have been shown to be reasonable."

I don't see how you've proven even one of your assertions. You just made them and then posted above stating that they were correct. I think you forgot the 'providing some kind of evidence to support your claims' part of the argument.

Gay marriage looks to me like interracial marriage --a generational difference of opinion that will change when the older people die out. Wait 20 years, and it's a whole new ballgame.
The kids these days just aren't growing up with the same prejudices and structural homophobia that your generation grew up with, and that's going to have repercussions on gay marriage.

I remember talking to my Dad about gay marriage when I was in college. He was against it until I told him that his reasons sounded a lot
like those made against interracial marriage 30 years before. I think he changed his opinion on the spot.

Furthermore, if as you claim, 99% of the people are against it why do the anti-gay marriage laws just squeak by? Just curious.

Also, if two homosexuals marry, how does that affect you at all? I know it doesn't affect me --unless I'm invited to the wedding. This is the clincher for me, it really surprises me how upset you guys are over this issue. I imagine that there aren't many homosexuals where you live, so why invest the anger unless it somehow affects you.

and Lobo: I don't know what you were getting at with either article. The first just illustrated that bestiality is legal in the Netherlands (it's legal in Oregon too) and the second proved my point.

Thanks, I guess.

loboinok said...

Gay marriage looks to me like interracial marriage --a generational difference of opinion that will change when the older people die out. Wait 20 years, and it's a whole new ballgame.
The kids these days just aren't growing up with the same prejudices and structural homophobia that your generation grew up with, and that's going to have repercussions on gay marriage.


If you can show me conclusively that homosexuality is genetic or that being black or white isn't... I'll accept that.

I think it may take a bit longer than 20 years.
My Grandkids are home schooled and have been indoctrinated much better than the public schools could have indoctrinated them.(and there are tens of thousands across the country, doing the same)


princetonprinciples.org

princetonprinciples.org/section2

princetonprinciples.org/section3

princetonprinciples.org/section4

princetonprinciples.org/section5

Signatories

highboy said...

"Of course, we in most of Western Europe (and particularly the UK, where we regularly debate raising the age from 16 with parental consent)to 18) consider the US to condone pedophillia by having such ridiculously low ages of consent."

I agree.

"If you can show me conclusively that homosexuality is genetic or that being black or white isn't... I'll accept that."

Exactly. Its not a civil rights issue, gays have the same opportunities as everyone else. They can marry just like heteroes can. But since marriage is between a man and a woman, why would they bother?

"I think it may take a bit longer than 20 years.
My Grandkids are home schooled and have been indoctrinated much better than the public schools could have indoctrinated them."

Yes, and there are charter schools and voucher programs that are becoming more and more successful, as are single sex classrooms. When parents are given the power instead of the state, they are indoctrinated more conservatively.

scohen said...

So if tomorrow, they find a gay gene, you're all for gay marriage, right? What about if they find other natural causes of gayness? Will you be on board for equal rights then? So equal rights only applies to natural, genetic traits now? I can discriminate based on religion or disability (as long as you weren't born with it)? That's nuts.

I'm sure you're very proud that your grandkids have been thoroughly indoctrinated with hatred of homosexuals, but like the racists of today, they'll be a tiny minority that is totally discredited and maybe even despised by normal society. I wonder what else they 'learned' in home-school. I wonder how old they think the earth is. I wonder how they think biodiversity came about. I wonder if they know physics. I wonder if they know how far away the stars are. I wonder if they know that we're made of stardust. I wonder if they know that school isn't for indoctrination, but for education.

"They can marry just like heteroes(sic) can.But since marriage is between a man and a woman, why would they bother?"

Let me take that phrase back to the 1960s. Black people can marry just like white people can. But since marriage is between one white woman and one white man or one black woman and one black man, why would they bother with intermarriage?

I feel the love.

Again, I'm really not sure why you people care so much. Gay marriage won't be compulsory. I don't see how it affects you one bit.

loboinok said...

So if tomorrow, they find a gay gene, you're all for gay marriage, right?

Not likely. If you can find monkeys in your gene pool, you'll have no difficulty finding homosexuality in it as well.

Will you be on board for equal rights then?

Until you can learn the difference between "equal rights" and "special rights", I won't be wasting either of our time on this one.

I'm sure you're very proud that your grandkids have been thoroughly indoctrinated with hatred of homosexuals

My Grandkids have not been indoctrinated with hatred of any sort.
They know the difference between sinners and sin.
They accept ALL people but reject the wrongful acts they do such as murder, theft, lying.
They also have been taught that hatred is a powerful word with meaning, and would not use it as a vitriolic attempt to misrepresent someones beliefs or feelings.

but like the racists of today who incessantly tie homosexuality to race, as in "equal rights" and "interracial marriage" and have no ground or hope of defending it on its on merits (or lack of).

I wonder if they know that we're made of stardust

No. They were taught truth and science. (not to be confused with scientology)

I don't see how it affects you one bit.

You payed for your "education" and I supplied the links above. If you reject it... there's not much I can do about it.

highboy said...

"I'm sure you're very proud that your grandkids have been thoroughly indoctrinated with hatred of homosexuals"

You will now demonstrate where lobo even remotely implied that his grandkids were indoctrinated to hate homosexuals, or where he has exercised this hatred himself. At least you will if you don't want to appear to be as childish as you sound.

"I can discriminate based on religion or disability (as long as you weren't born with it)? That's nuts."

Sure is, which is why didn't even come close to implying it. You are a mental midget if you have to resort to these kind of remarks in this debate. Disagreeing with homosexual marriage hardly constitues hatred or discrimination. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. The goverment should not be forced to recognize marriage for every single sexual preference out there.

"Until you can learn the difference between "equal rights" and "special rights", I won't be wasting either of our time on this one."

Bingo.

highboy said...

"Again, I'm really not sure why you people care so much. Gay marriage won't be compulsory. I don't see how it affects you one bit."

Funny, I dont' see how not allowing gays to marry each other affects you one bit. As you say, if it doesn't affect you there is really no need to get so worked up. Right?

scohen said...

Lobo above:
"If you can show me conclusively that homosexuality is genetic or that being black or white isn't... I'll accept that."

Lobo after my retort:
"Not likely. If you can find monkeys in your gene pool, you'll have no difficulty finding homosexuality in it as well."

So which is it?

"No. They were taught truth and science. (not to be confused with scientology)"

What about my comment about being made from stardust wasn't scientific? Please tell me, I'd love to know. How exactly did my comment tread into a joke religion (scientology)? And, if they weren't taught evolution, they weren't taught science. Indoctrination, indeed.

Now on to Timmay:

"You are a mental midget"

I've always thought that people who use that phrase are among the least worthy of a response. It's just so pathetic sounding --no flash, no panache, and you just know that the person saying it thinks they're sooooo clever. Congratulations Tim, you're just like my 6th grade gym teacher! I'm sure you'll go far in life --we all know where Mr. Fellers wound up.

Yay for you, you brilliant, erudite, well-informed man.

...and I'm not worked up, do you see pro gay marriage entries on my blog? Do you see me flipping out over homosexuals on a daily basis? Now read your blog and tell me what you see. Read Radar's blog and tell me who is worked up.

loboinok said...

So which is it?

Not likely...I had forgotten about evolution.

I'm sure they were taught that we are made up of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc. I'm sure they know what stars are made of and I'm absolutely positive that they know we were created by a Creator God.
I'm also sure they were taught ABOUT evolution.

I wonder if they know that school isn't for indoctrination, but for education.

Of course they know that, they are way ahead of their peers.
Those who aren't aware of it are the state and federal governments and the NEA.
Get them to realize that simple fact, and we will be well on our way to returning our schools to the superior institutions they once were.

scohen said...

Lobo, I have many questions.

You said yourself that they were indoctrinated by home schooling, now you claim that learning about science is indoctrination. How can you claim they're ahead of their peers when they weren't taught basic science?

And again, how was my statement not scientific? Where did the oxygen, nitrogen, carbon --and every other element up to iron come from?

How does evolution change your opinion on whether or not gays should be accepted? How is allowing them to marry granting them 'special' rights? Usually when I see the term special rights, it's in reference to hate crime legislation --legislation to which I am adamantly opposed. I fail to see how granting homosexuals the right to marry other homosexuals makes them special.

highboy said...

"I've always thought that people who use that phrase are among the least worthy of a response."

Yet you still chose to respond. I must have gotten to you. Now instead of evading with what I'm sure you thought was a clever retort, now answer what I origianlly asked for:

"You will now demonstrate where lobo even remotely implied that his grandkids were indoctrinated to hate homosexuals, or where he has exercised this hatred himself. At least you will if you don't want to appear to be as childish as you sound."

Remember? How about producing some of that? And also tell me where this next absurd statement of yours is even close to what we've implied:

""I can discriminate based on religion or disability (as long as you weren't born with it)? That's nuts."

"Do you see me flipping out over homosexuals on a daily basis?"

No, I see you falsely accusing people of hating gays simply because they disagree that marriage is between anything but a man and a woman. I see you reverting to typical liberal rhetoric that usually follows when liberals get angry that people don't adhere to their ridiculous ideology. Or in another words, you got worked up. You also didn't answer the question:

"Funny, I dont' see how not allowing gays to marry each other affects you one bit. As you say, if it doesn't affect you there is really no need to get so worked up. Right?"

So basically you chose not to address any of the remarks that you made up, and when asked to clarify so simply insult me, and imply that I'm headed nowhere in life. Either retract your false characterizations of Lobo's position, or continue to be seen as the less than credible moonbat I always knew you were. Either way, keep your intolerance in San Francisco where it belongs. The rest of the country has progressed enough to tolerate the positions and opinions of others.

"I fail to see how granting homosexuals the right to marry other homosexuals makes them special."

Probably because its not a marriage. Marriage is between an man and a woman. The state should not be forced to recognize every sexual preference out there.

loboinok said...

You said yourself that they were indoctrinated by home schooling, now you claim that learning about science is indoctrination.

I don't recall making that claim, scohen.

How can you claim they're ahead of their peers when they weren't taught basic science?

The claim that they are ahead of their peers are based on test results and scores. Why you assume that they weren't taught basic science , I haven't a clue.


Where did the oxygen, nitrogen, carbon --and every other element up to iron come from?

God, ex nihilo.

How does evolution change your opinion on whether or not gays should be accepted?

Evolution doesn't affect my opinion about anything.
Nor have I ever said that gays should not be accepted.


How is allowing them to marry granting them 'special' rights?

They are already allowed and have the right to marry, the same as you, me and everyone else.

I have restrictions on who or what I may marry and they apply to everyone equally.

The Church has always restricted marriage and the state recognized the wisdom of that when it assumed the responsibility.

scohen said...

Lobo, first off, let me apologize, your grandkids aren't taught hatred, I used the wrong word. What I meant to say was they're taught to be bigoted towards homosexuals --to see their sexuality as a sin, when it's looking more and more like it's a natural variance.


Where did the oxygen, nitrogen, carbon --and every other element up to iron come from?

God, ex nihilo.


Were your grandkids taught this? I asked the question pretty much knowing the correct scientific answer, and that it is different than the answer that you'd get from believing in the bible as literal truth. The question above is basic science, and your answer is not correct according to our understanding of the universe. Thus, if your grandkids were taught this, they were not taught basic science.

Plus, on a more personal note, the processes that produce heavy elements from hydrogen are incredibly awesome. They're so much cooler than saying "poof" and everything exists. They're the same process that created the super-massive black hole at the center of our (and pretty much every) galaxy. This to me is the difference between the two approaches. What can be learned by believing the universe was created as it is now? Contrast this to what can be learned by figuring out processes and the rules of the universe.


On gay "acceptance":
Evolution doesn't affect my opinion about anything.
Nor have I ever said that gays should not be accepted.


But above, you stated that if being gay was genetic, you'd re-think your position on gay marriage --or at least agree that the attitude will change. This makes a ton of sense, as you really can't fault someone for being born a certain way, so to not allow them to marry the person of their choosing would, in effect, violate their civil rights. Then when I pointed this out, you switched course saying:

Not likely. If you can find monkeys in your gene pool, you'll have no difficulty finding homosexuality in it as well.

I wonder why you seemed to reverse course, and what exactly you mean by the above comment. Isn't genetics based on empirical, provable things? This gene triggers this enzyme, these genes make your eyes blue. This gene makes your hair brown, etc. Why would viewing this in the context of evolution (as it is currently done today, with spectacular results) change anything? Maybe I just don't understand what you were getting at. You do know that evolution doesn't say that we're the direct descendants of monkeys, but that we share a common ancestor, right? The differences between ours and a chimp's genome are very slight, but they produce very grand effects.

On special rights:
They are already allowed and have the right to marry, the same as you, me and everyone else.

I have restrictions on who or what I may marry and they apply to everyone equally.


So in the future, you'll be allowed to marry a man as well. How are the rights 'special' to homosexuals?

loboinok said...

Lobo, first off, let me apologize, your grandkids aren't taught hatred, I used the wrong word. What I meant to say was they're taught to be bigoted towards homosexuals --to see their sexuality as a sin, when it's looking more and more like it's a natural variance.


If they agree with God that the homosexual act is an abomination and homosexuality is not a "creed", "belief" or "opinion" as used to define "bigoted", are they bigoted?

However, religious faith does fall within that definition. So, who's the bigot?

They are also very tolerant upto and until they are told they have to accept or believe what they know is a lie.


"God, ex nihilo."

Were your grandkids taught this? I asked the question pretty much knowing the correct scientific answer, and that it is different than the answer that you'd get from believing in the bible as literal truth.

Yes, one is God's Truth and one is man's truth.

They know both, but accept God's and reject man's. They accepted man's for as long as was necessary to pass their tests.


What can be learned by believing the universe was created as it is now?
Contrast this to what can be learned by figuring out processes and the rules of the universe.


How does knowing that God created all things, prevent you from learning and figuring out the processes and rules?

I wonder why you seemed to reverse course, and what exactly you mean by the above comment.

I reversed because I realized that science will find that homosexuality is genetic. Secular Humanism has to remove God from science, schools, our society, our contitution and government or it can not continue to advance.

Sad to say but they are succeeding. They are taking away our God given rights and attempting to create rights alienable. Which also addresses your final question...

So in the future, you'll be allowed to marry a man as well. How are the rights 'special' to homosexuals?

scohen said...

"If they agree with God that the homosexual act is an abomination and homosexuality is not a "creed", "belief" or "opinion" as used to define "bigoted", are they bigoted?

However, religious faith does fall within that definition. So, who's the bigot?"

Well, your definition of bigotry is incredibly narrow. Using it, you can't be bigoted against black people, and as such, I reject it, and you should as well. And I'm certainly not the bigot. Have I called for any kind of discrimination against any religious person? Have I even come close?

"I reversed because I realized that science will find that homosexuality is genetic."

I know that's why you changed course ;) There is still a possibility that homosexuality might not be genetic, though it probably is. Still, if it is you have to admit that discriminating against homosexuals by forbidding them to marry is tantamount to racism. Actually, if homosexuality is genetic, it might be slightly *worse* than racism, because there is no genetic definition of what constitutes a race. Again, Lobo, Secular Humanism doesn't have anything to do with genetics. If homosexuality is genetic, we'll find a specific gene or series of genes that causes it and this will have as much to do with secular humanism as having blue eyes does.

"Yes, one is God's Truth and one is man's truth."

Well, one is your specific understanding of what is god's truth and the other is science. I'll grant you that with the caveat that there are many interpretations of what exactly god's truth is. I don't think the Catholics or most Jews would condone a literal reading of the bible. Still, if your grandkids forget or disregard something right after taking a test, it's hardly learning, right?

"How does knowing that God created all things, prevent you from learning and figuring out the processes and rules?"

Because it makes certain paths in science either uninteresting or taboo, and as such will stifle interest and the furtherance of knowledge. Let's say that every scientist alive today suddenly turned into a young earth creationist. Think of the ramifications in physics, biology, astronomy and geology. Now imagine that this happened 100 years ago. Think how much less we'd know about the universe if we thought the whole thing was 6000 years old. We'd probably still think the sun was on fire. Would we know what a black hole was? Would we even have looked for genes? After all, if things were created this way a short time ago, what's the point?

On a more concrete level, do you think your grandkids will pursue a carrer in biology? Could they possibly make contributions to evolutionary development? Could they even look out a telescope at a fairly near star and believe that the light they're seeing is 10,000 years old? Could they study the lifecycle of a star?

I don't think they could while still believing in a literal an inerrant bible. That's not to say that science is incompatible with religion, but it's certainly incompatible with your specific take on Christianity.

Anonymous said...

Relevant picture pertaining to the topic. http://oi47.tinypic.com/116qdrc.jpg