how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[Katzndogz]

So if we legalize gay marriage we will then allow people to marry their toaster, little boys, and blow up dolls... That sounds rational.

At one time allowing same sex marriage wasn't rational either.

At one time, Congress permitting beastiality in the military wasn't rational.

 

[Dragon]

i'd say perversion is not a "useless" word because it aptly describes behavior of people like say Sandusky.....or the act of two men having sex together...

Of course you would. So let me be clear.

There is no such thing, objectively, as a sexual perversion. All judgments as to whether a given sexual act is "normal" or "perverse" are subjective and arbitrary. If we are to make moral distinctions about sexual acts, and I agree that we should and must, those distinctions must be on some other basis than "normality" or "perversion."

A distinction has already been offered. Some sexual acts occur between consenting adults without any coercion involved. Others occur between adults and minors, or between adults and animals, in which one party is not a consenting adult and/or coercion is involved.

This is not only the basis on which I think we SHOULD make moral distinctions among sexual acts, it is also the basis on which I and others in fact DO make such moral distinctions. We have completely tossed the idea of "perversion" out the window, so that there is no connection at all for us between homosexuality and pederasty. Neither one is something we consider "perverse," but pederasty IS a sex act involving coercion, and THAT is what makes it wrong.

There is no slippery slope here, because we aren't even thinking in terms of "perversion" and there is no recognition on our part that we have made a "perversion" acceptable. There is no such thing, for us, as a "perversion." We are thinking in terms of consent and free choice versus coercion and victimization. Gay sex doesn't victimize people "a little bit" while pederasty victimizes people "a lot." Gay sex doesn't victimize anyone at all (unless it's rape), while pederasty does. The distinction is absolute.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

i'd say perversion is not a "useless" word because it aptly describes behavior of people like say Sandusky.....or the act of two men having sex together...

Of course you would. So let me be clear.

There is no such thing, objectively, as a sexual perversion. All judgments as to whether a given sexual act is "normal" or "perverse" are subjective and arbitrary. If we are to make moral distinctions about sexual acts, and I agree that we should and must, those distinctions must be on some other basis than "normality" or "perversion."

A distinction has already been offered. Some sexual acts occur between consenting adults without any coercion involved. Others occur between adults and minors, or between adults and animals, in which one party is not a consenting adult and/or coercion is involved.

This is not only the basis on which I think we SHOULD make moral distinctions among sexual acts, it is also the basis on which I and others in fact DO make such moral distinctions. We have completely tossed the idea of "perversion" out the window, so that there is no connection at all for us between homosexuality and pederasty. Neither one is something we consider "perverse," but pederasty IS a sex act involving coercion, and THAT is what makes it wrong.

There is no slippery slope here, because we aren't even thinking in terms of "perversion" and there is no recognition on our part that we have made a "perversion" acceptable. There is no such thing, for us, as a "perversion." We are thinking in terms of consent and free choice versus coercion and victimization. Gay sex doesn't victimize people "a little bit" while pederasty victimizes people "a lot." Gay sex doesn't victimize anyone at all (unless it's rape), while pederasty does. The distinction is absolute.

yadda yadda......you sound like one of those "enlightened" psychologists supporting the Left-wing agenda...

you can say "We tossed out the idea of perversion"......but that "We" only includes pinheads like you.....not the general American godfearing public....

one can easily say two men having sex together is perverted because of a "perversion of function or structure"....and it would be true.....and quite obvious to most....and "objective" as well...

i'd also say that Gays do victimize people just as straights do.....remember those priests that you Lefties screamed about...? those priests were largely if not all GAY pederasts (or should we call them rapists?)......otherwise they would have probably been HET pederasts raping little girls instead....you might say the Church had a HOMO problem.....and yes i'm sure there are other factors involved in the problem of pederasty....but isn't that also true with gays as well....?

 

[bodecea]

So if we legalize gay marriage we will then allow people to marry their toaster, little boys, and blow up dolls... That sounds rational.

At one time allowing same sex marriage wasn't rational either.

At one time, Congress permitting beastiality in the military wasn't rational.

And at one time allowing women equal rights in the work place wasn't rational either.

And at one time allowing blind or deaf people out in the work force instead of the home or the lock up wasn't rational either.

Shall I go on?

 

[bodecea]

i'd say perversion is not a "useless" word because it aptly describes behavior of people like say Sandusky.....or the act of two men having sex together...

Of course you would. So let me be clear.

There is no such thing, objectively, as a sexual perversion. All judgments as to whether a given sexual act is "normal" or "perverse" are subjective and arbitrary. If we are to make moral distinctions about sexual acts, and I agree that we should and must, those distinctions must be on some other basis than "normality" or "perversion."

A distinction has already been offered. Some sexual acts occur between consenting adults without any coercion involved. Others occur between adults and minors, or between adults and animals, in which one party is not a consenting adult and/or coercion is involved.

This is not only the basis on which I think we SHOULD make moral distinctions among sexual acts, it is also the basis on which I and others in fact DO make such moral distinctions. We have completely tossed the idea of "perversion" out the window, so that there is no connection at all for us between homosexuality and pederasty. Neither one is something we consider "perverse," but pederasty IS a sex act involving coercion, and THAT is what makes it wrong.

There is no slippery slope here, because we aren't even thinking in terms of "perversion" and there is no recognition on our part that we have made a "perversion" acceptable. There is no such thing, for us, as a "perversion." We are thinking in terms of consent and free choice versus coercion and victimization. Gay sex doesn't victimize people "a little bit" while pederasty victimizes people "a lot." Gay sex doesn't victimize anyone at all (unless it's rape), while pederasty does. The distinction is absolute.

yadda yadda......you sound like one of those "enlightened" psychologists supporting the Left-wing agenda...

you can say "We tossed out the idea of perversion"......but that "We" only includes pinheads like you.....not the general American godfearing public....

one can easily say two men having sex together is perverted because of a "perversion of function or structure"....and it would be true.....and quite obvious to most....and "objective" as well...

i'd also say that Gays do victimize people just as straights do.....remember those priests that you Lefties screamed about...? those priests were largely if not all GAY pederasts (or should we call them rapists?)......otherwise they would have probably been HET pederasts raping little girls instead....you might say the Church had a HOMO problem.....and yes i'm sure there are other factors involved in the problem of pederasty....but isn't that also true with gays as well....?

Not true...but girls being molested doesn't seem to get your knickers in a knot quite as much, does it?

 

[Too Tall]

A reason I would not go to Oklahoma nor advise any one I know to go thru Oklahoma. Don't need to visit a 3rd world country like place.

You see?

This is what pisses me off.

"if you dont think like me then you are an asshole"

Fucked up attitude...and gets us nowhere.

Sorry, you misunderstood me, Jarhead. I do not go places where, if I or my wife had an accident or became ill, we would NOT be protected by law. It's not an insult, it's purely a wise decision to stay away from 3rd world type places. We don't go into Mexico either. or Texas.

Is this the Texas you would not go into?

Established in 1982, the transplant program at the Texas Heart Institute at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital is one of the most experienced, successful programs in the world. Its surgeons have performed more than 1,150 transplant procedures. The key to the program's success is an experienced, highly skilled transplant team that includes surgeons, cardiologists, nurses, operating room personnel, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, rehabilitation specialists, and many other professionals. The team works to meet every need faced by transplant candidates, including emotional, family, and financial needs.

 

[kaz]

Gays do not have the same right as heterosexuals to marry the one they love.

OMG, government doesn't recognize their relationship, that must be devastating for them. Imaging, living your life without government validating your life choice and sexual orientation, it's a subhuman form of existence. It's amazing that gays don't cry all day and commit suicide in droves. No government validation. It's beyond comprehension. Getting up and going to work every day and government not telling you that where you put your pecker is OK. How do they live like that, it's utterly unbelievable...

 

[bodecea]

You see?

This is what pisses me off.

"if you dont think like me then you are an asshole"

Fucked up attitude...and gets us nowhere.

Sorry, you misunderstood me, Jarhead. I do not go places where, if I or my wife had an accident or became ill, we would NOT be protected by law. It's not an insult, it's purely a wise decision to stay away from 3rd world type places. We don't go into Mexico either. or Texas.

Is this the Texas you would not go into?

Established in 1982, the transplant program at the Texas Heart Institute at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital is one of the most experienced, successful programs in the world. Its surgeons have performed more than 1,150 transplant procedures. The key to the program's success is an experienced, highly skilled transplant team that includes surgeons, cardiologists, nurses, operating room personnel, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, rehabilitation specialists, and many other professionals. The team works to meet every need faced by transplant candidates, including emotional, family, and financial needs.

Yep...because they would not recognise my right to make decisions about my wife's health even tho we are legally married in CA.

Before you say that wouldn't happen, that's EXACTLY what happened to a family member of my wife in Fort Worth.

 

[bodecea]

Gays do not have the same right as heterosexuals to marry the one they love.

OMG, government doesn't recognize their relationship, that must be devastating for them. Imaging, living your life without government validating your life choice and sexual orientation, it's a subhuman form of existence. It's amazing that gays don't cry all day and commit suicide in droves. No government validation. It's beyond comprehension. Getting up and going to work every day and government not telling you that where you put your pecker is OK. How do they live like that, it's utterly unbelievable...

I'm sure you have not bothered to have your marriage legally registered with a marriage license. So you have a perfect right to roll your eyes at the millions of others who do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Many people do not have the right to marry someone they love. But they will. As we slide down. Brothers and sisters love each other. Men and horses. Warren Jeffs loved all his wives. Jerry Sandusky loved his boys. Some people love their toasters. All want to marry who they love. All you need is love.

By the way, I should educate you.

No, you’re the one in need of education.

Are you truly this dense or are you a blind partisan hack?

Laws banning siblings marrying, plural marriage, marriage to animals, marriage to inanimate objects are Constitutional and appropriate because they’re applied to everyone, equally.

And the above have nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

…or the act of two men having sex together...

It is ‘perversion’ only in your subjective opinion – it has not been considered as such by mental health professionals in almost 40 years.

yadda yadda......you sound like one of those "enlightened" psychologists supporting the Left-wing agenda...

And you don’t sound ‘enlightened’ at all.

 

[Seawytch]

answer what....? pls restate your question....

Sure.

Wait. By legalizing gay marriage, the government would be telling you that you have to live a gay life?

no......does the government legalization of straight marriage mean you have to live a straight life....?

It does for poor Marcus Bachmannn

 

[Seawytch]

All you're saying is that its stupid to extend the privilege of marriage to homosexuals. I agree.

Why is it stupid? Are you not in favor of the State supporting and encouraging gay couples to make lasting stable relationships with their loved ones?

No, I couldn't care less. Of what benefit to society is it if gay couples form lasting stable relationships? That only matters when children are involved.

So when did we stop allowing people without children to marry? When did we start requiring fertility tests prior to issuing state marriage licenses? What's the age cutoff? Can my 95 year old grandfather marry is 85 year old girlfriend? No miracle of birth is EVER going to occur there. Will you prohibit them from legal, civil marriage?

My partner (of 16 years mind you) and I HAVE children...two of them. Does that mean we get to play in your reindeer games?

Can ANYONE provide a compelling state reason to deny consenting adult gay and lesbian couples equal access to civil marriage? Don't worry too much if you can't...lawyers defending gay marriage bans can't either. (which is why they keep getting found unconstitutional by Federal judges)

 

[Seawytch]

i never said marriage LICENSES were around for eons......i was speaking of traditional marriage....

Right...traditional marriage...where the woman was the property of the man and he could beat her if he wanted to (like it is encouraged in the bible)?

How about those "traditional" marriages in the bible? You know...like the men with MULTIPLE wives? Or how about that paragon of virtue, Lott? How did HE end up the hero in that story while we, consenting adult gays, have been bearing the brunt of that biblical fairy tale for eons? He's the guy who left town to sleep with his daughters AFTER offering them up to be raped by an angry mob... WTF?

 

[kaz]

I'm sure you have not bothered to have your marriage legally registered with a marriage license. So you have a perfect right to roll your eyes at the millions of others who do.

Of course I have a marriage license. How would I live without government validating my lifestyle? I mean if government doesn't tell me that my marriage is marriage, it would be meaningless. In fact my entire existence would be. I live for government approval.

Since you're a government loving liberal, can you tell us about the extra taxes that you voluntarily pay? How much do you add to your tax bill? You never take deductions, do you?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Of course you would. So let me be clear.

There is no such thing, objectively, as a sexual perversion. All judgments as to whether a given sexual act is "normal" or "perverse" are subjective and arbitrary. If we are to make moral distinctions about sexual acts, and I agree that we should and must, those distinctions must be on some other basis than "normality" or "perversion."

A distinction has already been offered. Some sexual acts occur between consenting adults without any coercion involved. Others occur between adults and minors, or between adults and animals, in which one party is not a consenting adult and/or coercion is involved.

This is not only the basis on which I think we SHOULD make moral distinctions among sexual acts, it is also the basis on which I and others in fact DO make such moral distinctions. We have completely tossed the idea of "perversion" out the window, so that there is no connection at all for us between homosexuality and pederasty. Neither one is something we consider "perverse," but pederasty IS a sex act involving coercion, and THAT is what makes it wrong.

There is no slippery slope here, because we aren't even thinking in terms of "perversion" and there is no recognition on our part that we have made a "perversion" acceptable. There is no such thing, for us, as a "perversion." We are thinking in terms of consent and free choice versus coercion and victimization. Gay sex doesn't victimize people "a little bit" while pederasty victimizes people "a lot." Gay sex doesn't victimize anyone at all (unless it's rape), while pederasty does. The distinction is absolute.

yadda yadda......you sound like one of those "enlightened" psychologists supporting the Left-wing agenda...

you can say "We tossed out the idea of perversion"......but that "We" only includes pinheads like you.....not the general American godfearing public....

one can easily say two men having sex together is perverted because of a "perversion of function or structure"....and it would be true.....and quite obvious to most....and "objective" as well...

i'd also say that Gays do victimize people just as straights do.....remember those priests that you Lefties screamed about...? those priests were largely if not all GAY pederasts (or should we call them rapists?)......otherwise they would have probably been HET pederasts raping little girls instead....you might say the Church had a HOMO problem.....and yes i'm sure there are other factors involved in the problem of pederasty....but isn't that also true with gays as well....?

Not true...but girls being molested doesn't seem to get your knickers in a knot quite as much, does it?

Wrong....it's very true......the Church did have a HOMO problem.....to be more exact it was a problem of ephebophilia..... a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.....

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90 per cent belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17," said Tomasi. His statement is backed up by a report commissioned by the US bishops that found that in the overwhelming majority of cases the clergy involved were homosexuals, with 81 percent of victims being adolescent males."

Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican | LifeSiteNews.com

 

[kaz]

Right...traditional marriage...where the woman was the property of the man and he could beat her if he wanted to (like it is encouraged in the bible)?

You're such a stupid bitch. This is why I can so rarely agree with liberals. I'm very much against the social conservatives for their intolerance, yet you liberals are in no possible way better.

 

[Seawytch]

Gays do not have the same right as heterosexuals to marry the one they love.

OMG, government doesn't recognize their relationship, that must be devastating for them. Imaging, living your life without government validating your life choice and sexual orientation, it's a subhuman form of existence. It's amazing that gays don't cry all day and commit suicide in droves. No government validation. It's beyond comprehension. Getting up and going to work every day and government not telling you that where you put your pecker is OK. How do they live like that, it's utterly unbelievable...

And yet you are legally married aren't you? Dang it...there's a word for that, I just know it.

You know what the inequality in our civil marriage code costs me in REAL dollars? Hundreds a month. I'm a military retiree that is eligible for Tricare. My spouse isn't and so I must take my employer provided health care which costs me a few hundred a month. (Tricare Prime is CONSIDERABLY less.)

Now, because I am legally married in California, my spouse is entitled to be on my employer health plan, but because the Federal government doesn't recognize MY legal marriage like it does YOURS, I am TAXED differently. Turns out my county hadn't been doing it for a while and so I just saw a drop in my paycheck now that they are taxing it properly...to the tune of $120 a month.

 

[Dragon]

you can say "We tossed out the idea of perversion"......but that "We" only includes pinheads like you.....not the general American godfearing public....

Hard as this may be for you to accept, your views do not command a majority. There is no "general American God-fearing public." The general American public is not, in your terminology, "God-fearing."

i'd also say that Gays do victimize people just as straights do.....remember those priests

Rapists victimize people. Whether the rape itself is heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant except that if it's heterosexual then pregnancy is a possible complication. But it's always wrong.

 

[Seawytch]

Right...traditional marriage...where the woman was the property of the man and he could beat her if he wanted to (like it is encouraged in the bible)?

You're such a stupid bitch. This is why I can so rarely agree with liberals. I'm very much against the social conservatives for their intolerance, yet you liberals are in no possible way better.

Really? How is it "stupid" to point out that "traditional" marriage has undergone quite a few, pretty radical, changes since it's inception? Not even "one man, one woman" has remained constant, has it? Hell, marriage itself hasn't always been all that popular. St Paul pretty much gave it a backhanded compliment in that "better to marry than to burn" bullshit.

Hypocrite! That's the word for someone who wants to deny everyone something he, himself, partakes in (and benefits from)...hypocrite. I knew I'd remember.

 

[kaz]

Gays do not have the same right as heterosexuals to marry the one they love.

OMG, government doesn't recognize their relationship, that must be devastating for them. Imaging, living your life without government validating your life choice and sexual orientation, it's a subhuman form of existence. It's amazing that gays don't cry all day and commit suicide in droves. No government validation. It's beyond comprehension. Getting up and going to work every day and government not telling you that where you put your pecker is OK. How do they live like that, it's utterly unbelievable...

And yet you are legally married aren't you? Dang it...there's a word for that, I just know it

Yes, you keep providing an excellent argument that gay marriages aren't the commitment that straight ones are. My wife is my partner and I consider her feelings. As a conservative Christian it would be devastating to her to get divorced and not be legally married. To me it's an unnecessary annoyance. Yet you keep informing me that your partner's views mean nothing to you, you'd trample her like the road kill that she is and if she didn't acquiesce to your views then you'd be outta there. Got it. Apparently gays aren't ready for the level of commitment that heterosexual marriage is. I'm glad you keep bringing that up.

I also like how I TOLD you I was married IN a debate on gay marriage in order to have this conversation, yet you still clutch to it as some sort of great cleverness on your part to have figured it out. I obviously don't avoid this debate. And you add nothing to it, you just keep making the pedestrian comment and ignore my asking you over and over if you actually ignore your partner's feelings as you demand I ignore mine.