F
fix
Guest
Perhaps, but disease is not the only reason. The diseases that are spread through the homo act are usually carry more morbidity and mortality.
- Status
E
eikke
Guest
it should also be pointed out that tchaikovsky notwithstanding, a lot of bad music gets disseminated via homosexuals.
“it’s raining men,” anyone?
“it’s raining men,” anyone?
V
Vitus
Guest
The Barrister:
Children by their very nature can not consent. They do not have the mental capacity to do so. Do not confuse pedophilia with homosexuality, they are quite different. Anyone who has sex with children should be locked away and never let out. They are dangerous predators with little hope of recovery.
Surely you can see the difference.
Goats can not consent. If someone had relations with a goat and said that the goat consented, then I’d be more worried about the person’s mental faculty than the action with the goat.
Children by their very nature can not consent. They do not have the mental capacity to do so. Do not confuse pedophilia with homosexuality, they are quite different. Anyone who has sex with children should be locked away and never let out. They are dangerous predators with little hope of recovery.
Adults have the the mental capacity to consent and decide for themselves what is right an wrong when it comes to actions in the privacy of their own home. What those adult choices are depend on the individual and their relationship.
Surely you can see the difference.
V
Vitus
Guest
Any educated person can tell you that homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom. Your claim that it is “unnatural” does not hold up in that respect.
And those without faith or whose religion permits homosexuality, how do you convince them that men and men were not meant to be together? Especially those in a loving,committed relationship?
No it wasn’t, at least not sufficiently. How does sexual acts between consenting adults destroy culture? And what culture? Your culture? How so? If you do not like a certain sexual practice, don’t practice it.
The nature of HIV and it’s effect on the immune system leaves HIV infected individuals more suseptable to many kinds of diseases. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. And precautions can be taken to reduce abrasions in any kind of sexual act. (trying to keep it as clean as possible here).
E
eikke
Guest
iow, you defend consent so that it accords strictly with your own views but can not be said to go beyond them.
V
Vitus
Guest
I do not understand what you are trying to say here.
E
eikke
Guest
what i’m trying to say is that obviously underage children can “consent” to sex with adults. sexually precocious kids chase adults all the time. it seems that your definition of consent is such that this phenomena couldn’t possibly fit your criteria for it.
by the same token, istm that the category of “consent” would apply to any goat that decides not to run away from its human paramour, or doesn’t kick or vocalize in any recognizable ways its disapproval. but it sounds like, by your definition of consent, such considerations are beside the point because “consent” can only occur between two human beings belonging to a similar age group.
but that strikes me as a purely arbitrary definition of consent, defined more by concerns with legitimizing certain sexual mores while keeping them free of the taint of others, than from any logical consistency.
V
Vitus
Guest
Now I understand.
In order to consent, one must understand what “consenting” means.
Goats are not humans, they have neither the ability to communicate clearly or the ability to reason. They have neither the mental ability to understand “consent” nor the ability to accept or decline sexual offers. Now if someone would claim that having sex with a goat goes against the “natural” order, than I would agree. Men were not made to be with goats for a variety of reasons.
Now as children approach the age of consent, that is a bit of a different manner. The age of consent varies from state to state, country to country and culture to culture. When I was referring to “kids”, I was referring to young children, not sexually inquistive teens.
Adults understand what consent means and have the ability to communicate that consent with another understanding adult.
E
eikke
Guest
in that case, the category of “consent” doesn’t apply to goats either way, and one doesn’t need to worry about it when having their way with one.
i’m not talking about sexually inquisitive teens. i’m talking about sexually precocious pre-teens. it doesn’t matter. a child can consent to sex just as much as it can consent to being taken to the grocery store or having its parents enroll it in piano classes or some accelerated learning program. the fact that it might not understand the long-term ramifications of its actions from an adult perspective does not mean that it can not consent. just ask any ten year old boy from fifth century greece.
M
maggiec
Guest
Auberon Quin:
maggiec
Not harmed? Have you seen statistics on children of homosexual couples? Have you followed the aids epidemic? Have you read scripture states it is unnatural? Please reconsider your position, there are many problems and it doesn’t stay private, it seeps out daily.
maggiec
K
Ken
Guest
How do you demonstrate that the Constitutional provision that says congress shall make no law establishing religion is based on a hifger and objective authority. What is that authority?
K
Ken
Guest
What are the stats on children of homosexuals? Please cite the source. Is the source Paul Cameron?
M
maggiec
Guest
K
Ken
Guest
I’d say the most damning statistic in that article is the following:
**Incest in Homosexual Parent Families. A study in Adolescence found:
A disproportionate percentage–29 percent–of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent. . . . Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.[60]**
The footnote in the article attributes this to Paul Cameron. The study is nonsense. The following deals with the fatal flaws of the study:
**For example, in one of their 1996 papers, Cameron and Cameron identified 17 respondents from the combined 1983-84 samples who claimed to have a homosexual parent. The questionnaire responses of these 17 people were scrutinized for various negative experiences, such as reporting incestuous relations with a parent (5 reported such incest). From these data, Cameron and Cameron concluded that 29% (5/17) of children with a homosexual parent have incestuous relations with a parent, compared to 0.6% of the children of heterosexuals, and that “having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.”
Even if findings from their sample could be generalized (which, as shown above, is not the case) and if all of their respondents gave truthful and accurate answers (an assumption that is questioned below), drawing such conclusions from a subsample of 17 people is invalid. This is because data from such a tiny sample have an unacceptably large margin of sampling error.
In a simple random sample of 17, the margin of error due to sampling (with a confidence level of 99%) would be plus-or-minus 33 percentage points. (Because the Cameron group used a cluster sample, rather than a simple random sample, the margin of error probably would have been even higher.)
Thus, even if the numbers had come from a representative sample, the only valid conclusion that the Cameron group could have drawn is that the true proportion of adults who report having a homosexual parent and being an incest victim is somewhere between -4% (effectively, zero) and +62%. This is such a wide margin of error as to be meaningless. Moreover, because this confidence interval includes zero, the Cameron group cannot legitimately conclude that the true number of children of homosexual parents (in the 8 municipalities sampled) who were victims of parental incest was actually different from zero.
Again, the Cameron group’s numbers are meaningless because the sample could not be considered representative of any larger group. But even if it had been representative, their conclusions from extremely small subgroups of their sample would not be valid. **
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html
I can understand how people can be fooled by statistics that support their position. but when they learn of the flaws in a study or statistic, what does the Christian do? Keep repeating it?
T
The_Barrister
Guest
Opinion. There are many people who would disagree with you. So the question I asked is still valid - what would your LAW be based upon? What would be the MORAL bedrock for your LAW?
Opinion. There are many people who would disagree with you. So the question I asked is still valid - what would your LAW be based upon? What would be the MORAL bedrock for your LAW?
So the deciding issue is simply whether someone is “capable” of “consent”? So if, in the privacy of your bedroom, a consenting adult asks you to shoot him in the head, what moral foundation would guide your trigger finger to contract or relax?
Surely YOU must see the difference…
A
Auberon_Quin
Guest
I finally broke down and read your article.
It said nothing – not one thing – about any society that institutionalized homosexuality and collapsed as a result.
So I am still waiting for that proof you promised me. Or would you rather just withdraw the claim?
Don’t make me file a motion with the court…
It said nothing – not one thing – about any society that institutionalized homosexuality and collapsed as a result.
So I am still waiting for that proof you promised me. Or would you rather just withdraw the claim?
Don’t make me file a motion with the court…
B
Brad
Guest
I’m glad you asked this question. The authority for that provision is the Christian faith. A key reason that many came to America is because they encountered religious persecution. They wanted to be able to worship without interference from government. Because Christianity is based on love of neighbor, Christianity never requires or forces anyone to convert to the faith. Therefore, the founding fathers wanted to ensure that the states would be free to practice their faiths as they saw fit and the federal government would not interfere. This is a Christian concept.
This country was founded on Christian principles and the foundation of the law was Judeo-Christian law. Simply because the government determined it would not force a religion on its people does not mean that the government has no moral laws. It is because this country was founded on Judeo-Christian law that it is not a theocracy and people of other faiths have such freedom
B
Brad
Guest
You are trying to put me into a corner whereby it would take exhaustive research to come up with exact facts. As the same time, you will not tell me where your definiton of the morality of an act comes from. If you feel uncomfortable discussing your morals then I will re-phrase the question - where does anyone’s definition of whether an act is moral or not come from that cannot be traced to a religious belief?
In any event, 27 of the founding fathers had seminary degrees. Of all the founding fathers, only 2 could be considered non-Christian - Franklin and Jefferson. Despite this, Jefferson believed in God, he just didn’t believe that Jesus was God. One of the founding fathers (don’t remember name) was governor of Delaware and Supreme Court Justice of Pennsylvania. When a criminal was convicted to be put to death, he asked the individual to accept Jesus Christ and come into a relationship with Him before facing death. The Bible was instituted into courtrooms upon which people swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them God. The dollar says “In God We Trust”. The Pledge states “One Nation Under God”. In many state supreme courts, the justices take oaths to uphold the laws of God while on the bench. All of our first schools were Christian schools. Textbooks included study on the Bible.
If you are to imply that somehow we came up with laws simply out of intellectual minds who refused to consider their religious beliefs in doing so, you are making a stretch that could not be proven in a court of law simply by the above evidence. And there is much, much more. To imply that they instituted laws in
America despite of their religious beliefs, you are saying they completely ignored their moral foundation and yet still came up with laws that synchronized with this foundation. How could this be?
B
Brad
Guest
Don’t know of too many societies without any religious systems. Even “pagan” societies and those that believe in multiple deities had systems of beliefs that were foundations for what was acceptable or not.
Irregardless, I was referring more specifically to America.
V
Vitus
Guest
The Barrister:
However, I do not want the govenment dictating to me what I should consider moral and immoral when it comes to matters of personal, adult relationships.
The bedrock for the law is irrelevant. Some are opposed to sodomy due to some kind of ick factor, some due to religious reasons, some because the are just plain ignorant. If you are opposed to sodomy because it goes against YOUR morals (whatever bedrock you build that opposition on), that is fine. Your morals are not shared by all, which is also fine. When you want to impose those morals on the rest of society through governmental agencies, then there is a problem.
The government has no place to regulate my sexual conduct in my bedroom, behind closed doors, with a willing adult partner, regardless of the sex of that partner.
Of course it’s my opinion, all morals are a matter of opinion when it comes down to it. Many times people are in complete agreement on those opinions. Sometimes they are not.
However, I do not want the govenment dictating to me what I should consider moral and immoral when it comes to matters of personal, adult relationships.
The bedrock for the law is irrelevant. Some are opposed to sodomy due to some kind of ick factor, some due to religious reasons, some because the are just plain ignorant. If you are opposed to sodomy because it goes against YOUR morals (whatever bedrock you build that opposition on), that is fine. Your morals are not shared by all, which is also fine. When you want to impose those morals on the rest of society through governmental agencies, then there is a problem.
The government has no place to regulate my sexual conduct in my bedroom, behind closed doors, with a willing adult partner, regardless of the sex of that partner.
That is a strawman and you know it. I don’t debate with strawmen.
- Status