SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

They account for these differences. Sorry, but this is an old trope that has come up every time, regardless of the study and the source that I cite. It's getting tiresome.

That's rich! We told you what was wrong with these stale, old arguments in another thread.

You then followed your usual tactic: drop the subject when bested, then simply re-state it in another thread, as if you didn't know better.

Tiresome, indeed.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No. My beliefs still supported gay marriage, even though I believed homosexuality to be a sin. I based my argument on the fact that many of the problems of the homosexual lifestyle could be traced to promiscuity.

Please feel free to outline what exactly this 'homosexual lifestyle' is and where I can get shares in it, or whatever.
I would like to know what these 'problems' are, based on your own extensive knowledge of the 'homosexual lifestyle' - given that you've seen so free to tell us about how deficient we are in comparison to heterosexual couples.

Having experienced 'homosexual lifestyles' on 4 continents, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.

Is there a 'heterosexual lifestyle'?

Do any Apolytoners have a 'heterosexual lifestyle' with its concomitant problems?

By the way, regurgitating the same arguments that have been exploded due to their derelict logic is not simply consistent, its obdurate, foolish and ultimately banal.

A sewer consistently deals with human waste matter- doesn't make sewage smell any sweeter, or look any better.

[Aeson]

Thanks for the link to NARTH BK, at least now I know where you are coming from.

Interesting. So you would characterise homosexuality as deviant behavior.

I was characterizing drug use as deviant behavior.

That you consistantly quote sentence fragments and take individual statements out of context seems to note that any real discussion with you is impossible.

Stop for a minute. Sexual intercourse. The penetration of the vagina by the penis.

This is precisely my point. Homosexuals cannot consummate their relationships.

Here's a link too: http://www.dictionary.com

Use it to help you figure out what words mean so you can use them properly.

sexual intercourse
n.
1. Coitus between humans.
2. Sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.

As you will note, 2. Do I have to even explain?

[Ben Kenobi]

drop the subject when bested, then simply re-state it in another thread, as if you didn't know better.

I do sleep you know.

I don't always see the replies to my posts.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now, if you would take a look at statistics for female abuse by male spouses, you'd find that these numbers are about the same--a full quarter of women say they have been physically battered in a relationship. Comparing gay men in relationships with men to straight men in relationships with women is deceptive, since women are by and large not batterers, but men are.

Comparing gay men in relationships with men to straight men in relationships

Why? That seems a fairer consideration than comparing the men to the women.

Secondly, if we accept your conclusion, that because women are by and large not batterers, why do we see the increased battering in lesbian relationships? Surely, one would expect the battering to go down, but it does not.

The other thing is that legalizing marriage is exactly the kind of thing that could HELP these rates go down, as the very study cited here concluded:

Boris:

Umm, the study you cite says no such thing.

and every major medical, psychiatric and psychological association agrees that reparative therapy is not only a crock, it's psychologically damaging to the people who try to undergo it.

How can they say that is is damaging, when they do not test the procedure? It's an assumption they make based on the fact that they delisted homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. How can it hurt people, if it is no longer a disoder? We should encourage people to follow their desires, and to accept the fact that they are gay, and to learn to live with it.

I'm sorry, but if I'm someone who is gay, and is not happy, that is not what is going to help me. Reperative therapy will.

[Ben Kenobi]

denied the right to marry someone of the same gender.

No such right exists.

[Ben Kenobi]

Therefore, being gay should not be a reason to be punished.

Agreed. That's why I argue we should not allow them to marry. Homosexuality hurts the participants.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Coitus between humans.
2. Sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.

I would argue that 2 would not qualify under the context of consummation.

Find a legal definition of consummation.

I was characterizing drug use as deviant behavior.

That you consistantly quote sentence fragments and take individual statements out of context seems to note that any real discussion with you is impossible.

You have two huge posts, and condense my entire reply to these two points, and I'm the one with whom logical discussion is impossible!

I spent more than a half an hour on that post to you alone. I try to parse as much as possible, because there is plenty of repetition in your post.

Thank you for clearing up the ambiguity in your previous statement. Drug users are deviants. Thank you very much Aeson.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have to go.

I may be back tonight, I may not.

Just so I don't get accused of abandoning the thread when I have clearly been PWNED.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You have two huge posts, and condense my entire reply to these two points, and I'm the one with whom logical discussion is impossible!

A point needs to be taken in context. All points do not have to be addressed simultaneously, and some points are not necessary to address at all (due to time constraints or just a lack of new things to say on the subject). Completely different issues.

I did not address most of your post, time constraints being a major reason. Realize that much of your post was also referencing NARTH's website, and I did not see the relevance of those points to the points I was continuing the debate on (ie. definition of sexual intercourse and stripping away of sentence context and qualification). If you feel I took something out of context, please explain and I will try to address the issue in context.

I didn't comment on anything contained within your NARTH reference because I am not familiar enough with their work to do so. Do you think I should be required to comment even when I have nothing to say (at least as of yet)?

I am not comfortable in exspousing personal opinions about subject matter which I have no knowlege. I'd hope you could understand.

I may be back tonight, I may not.

Just so I don't get accused of abandoning the thread when I have clearly been PWNED.

You seem to want people to treat extend you some courtesy (in regards to whether you will be able to respond or not), but aren't willing to extend the same courtesy to me?

If I don't respond to all your points, you use it as an argument against the points I am responding to. Seems hypocritical to me.

I spent more than a half an hour on that post to you alone. I try to parse as much as possible, because there is plenty of repetition in your post.

It does take a lot of time, some points are best left behind eventually as there is nothing further to be said about them, and I am certainly don't expect you to reply to everything I state unless you feel the need. If you do pick a point to debate on, I do expect you to use it in context though. That you have several times ignored a qualifying portion of a sentence, or the context of the paragraph, to refute the now 'wrongly qualified' portion of the sentence is what I have a problem with.

Thank you for clearing up the ambiguity in your previous statement. Drug users are deviants. Thank you very much Aeson.

You of all people should understand the fallacy of your statement here. I identified drug use as deviant behavior, but applied no label to drug users. That label is your own creation, and should be qualified as such. How many times have you said something to the effect that it is not labelling the person, but the action? Was that just hypocrisy on your part, or do you believe such is possible?

The negative connotation you seem to apply to that statement isn't supported by the definition of the term deviant though.

As an example, you could make a case for posting on Apolyton being deviant behavior. My current Utah residence is in an area where many of the topics, opinions, and images posted here would be socially unacceptable. But that doesn't mean deviant in regards to how rural Utah views Apolyton is a derogatory term for most of us, just in their eyes it is unnaccepted. Deviant only equates to a derogatory term for those incapable of evaluating an action or a person outside the evaluation that society in general tries to feed them.

de·vi·ant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dv-nt)
adj.
1. Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.

n.
2. One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

You might debate that drug use is an accepted standard of our society, and that of course would be debatable. It doesn't carry any further insinuation on my part though.

Find a legal definition of consummation.

As there are no legally accepted gay marriages as of yet, there probably are no legal definitions defining what is and what is not consummation of a gay marriage. If you can find any, please share.

(Your propensity to take things out of context probably has you wanting to apply legal definition of consummation between man and woman here, even though the context is man and man or woman and woman, and so is not applicable.)

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Which they obviously are... like Taxation and health benefits.

MrBaggins, in order for their to be even an issue of denial of "equal rights", homosexuality must be a STATUS, like being a woman or a minority or of a particular faith. There are many, as exhibited by NARTH, who argue that homosexuality is "curable", therefor it is voluntary. If it is not curable, then homosexuality is a "status."

Even if homosexuality is involunatary, rights can still be denied if there is a strong governmental reason for doing so. Thus, I still believe we can legislate in favor of raising children in traditional families without violating the rights of homosexuals, as the interests of children outweigh the interests of homosexuals.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


MrBaggins, in order for their to be even an issue of denial of "equal rights", homosexuality must be a STATUS, like being a woman or a minority or of a particular faith. There are many, as exhibited by NARTH, who argue that homosexuality is "curable", therefor it is voluntary. If it is not curable, then homosexuality is a "status."

Sexual preference includes far more than just homosexuality, and is just as much a status as anything else.

Even if homosexuality is involunatary, rights can still be denied if there is a strong governmental reason for doing so. Thus, I still believe we can legislate in favor of raising children in traditional families without violating the rights of homosexuals, as the interests of children outweigh the interests of homosexuals.

It seems to me that the larger problem is the tax discrimination... it is automatic and consistant. Gay couples are always penalized in every occassion, because the two partners living effectively in a common-law marriage are of the same gender.

This to me, obviously outweighs any nebulous theoretical problem with homosexuals raising children.

Indeed, Children are actually a different, and separate issue... since homosexuals can be in de-facto marriages, and be raising children, already... E.G. a lesbian getting artificial insemination and living with another woman.

Would you ban artificial insemination? Would you ban single mothers or fathers from persuing gay relationships (de-facto marriages)?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Homosexuality hurts the participants.

No it doesn't and nor can you prove it.

By the way, NARTH is a highly unreliable source, and most of their "studies" are pretty bogus. But since you quote them I know you really don't have a case at all.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Homosexuality hurts the participants.

thats what the lubes are for. I can see where you're coming from, well, not really as i have never been buggered by a penis. i can imagine without the lube it would be a rough ride.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel






thats what the lubes are for. I can see where you're coming from, well, not really as i have never been buggered by a penis. i can imagine without the lube it would be a rough ride.

Unfortunately like many religionistas of his kind, Obi-Gyn Kenobi seems fixated on a particular sexual act between gay men. Not all gay men regularly engage in anal intercourse, and many heterosexuals do. Oral sex between gay men would constitute a 'homosexual sexual act' but this doesn't appear to have occurred to Obi-Gyn- lack of imagination possibly.

Not many lesbians engage in regular anal intercourse (and according to informal studies conducted amongst lesbian friends of mine) it doesn't play a great role in the sex live of those who do occasionally.

Watching Obi-Gyn talk about 'homosexuality' is rather like imagining a blind person attempt to describe the interior of the Vatican by touching the roof of the dome.

Still would like to know what this 'lifestyle' is that I'm meant to have, or indulge in.

Could someone tell me what a 'heterosexual lifestyle' is, or if they have one?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obi-Gyn Kenobi

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins

It seems to me that the larger problem is the tax discrimination... it is automatic and consistant. Gay couples are always penalized in every occassion, because the two partners living effectively in a common-law marriage are of the same gender.

This to me, obviously outweighs any nebulous theoretical problem with homosexuals raising children.

Indeed, Children are actually a different, and separate issue... since homosexuals can be in de-facto marriages, and be raising children, already... E.G. a lesbian getting artificial insemination and living with another woman.

Would you ban artificial insemination? Would you ban single mothers or fathers from persuing gay relationships (de-facto marriages)?

I beg to differ. Tax policy is central to discrimination in favor of families. This is why I may oppose gay marriages even if I might otherwise be in favor. I am strongly pro-family. I believe in raising kids in the same families with their fathers and their mothers and in no other place. I am strongly against divorce. I am strongly against single parenthood. And above all I oppose gays and lesbians raising children.

Until and unless I am convinced that approving of gay marriages will not undermine our ability to legislate in favor of families, then count me as a bitter opponent of gay marriages.

[MrBaggins]

Ned> I think that tax and benefit law is utterly the wrong place to be encouraging good family values, whatever those might be, and I'm unconvinced that they are always beneficial in the context of male-female marriage, anyway.

I think the discriminatory nature of this taxation is absolutely demonstratable, repeatable, and thus the more imminent and immediate concern. The US is founded on this principal of equality... not equality, except where marriage and nuclear families are concerned... so... I see no reason not to provide the same basis of taxation and benefit for homosexual couples as is granted to commonlaw married couples.

So, in conclusion, I think you're wrong, and I'll leave it there.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Quote:

Originally posted by mindseye you drop the subject when bested, then simply re-state it in another thread, as if you didn't know better.

I do sleep you know.

I don't always see the replies to my posts.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. In other threads you have responded a few times before abandoning ship, so it doesn't wash that you "didn't see" the replies.

Example: the tired claims about gays having special problems. What about our recent conversation in which we discussed the symptoms exhibited by minorities facing discrimination, and how those symptoms and stresses vary by gender? Did that exchange slip from your memory?

Some of these topics have come up multiple times, each time with you writing as if it was the first posting, as if you weren't aware of the problems that have been previously pointed out multiple times by multiple posters.

Example: you have at least FIVE TIMES claimed that gays have equal access to marriage since they can marry someone of the opposite gender. Each time you were called on this. Yet you continue stating it in new threads, as if it were sound. You expect us to believe you "didn't see" all those replies? You even responded to some of them!

----------------

Your style of debate shows little respect for your fellow posters.

If you won't even acknowledge our arguments, if you use arguments that have been repeatedly shown to employ faulty reasoning (protests which you were unable to refute), then simply re-stating and re-re-stating these arguments shows that you don't care a whit for our time or what we have to say.

So ... why bother coming here? Repetition of faulty arguments won't convince anyone here. Are you trying to convince yourself of something you feel ambivolent about? Or are you just some kind of fanatic with an axe to grind?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ned

(...) as the interests of children outweigh the interests of homosexuals.

Ned, can I please quote this next time someone has a problem with claims that gays are treated as second-class citizens?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by mindseye

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned the interests of children outweigh the interests of homosexuals.

Ned, can I please quote this next time someone has a problem with claims that gays are treated as second-class citizens?

Hmmm.. but what about homosexual children? Where would their interest rank?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No such right exists.

So I suppose since before Reconstruction in many parts of United States that blacks did not have the right to vote in the first place, that it was unconstitutional to grant them this right of citizenship?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Ned> I think that tax and benefit law is utterly the wrong place to be encouraging good family values, whatever those might be, and I'm unconvinced that they are always beneficial in the context of male-female marriage, anyway.

I think the discriminatory nature of this taxation is absolutely demonstratable, repeatable, and thus the more imminent and immediate concern. The US is founded on this principal of equality... not equality, except where marriage and nuclear families are concerned... so... I see no reason not to provide the same basis of taxation and benefit for homosexual couples as is granted to commonlaw married couples.

So, in conclusion, I think you're wrong, and I'll leave it there.

Well, to the extent the tax laws are written to subsidize marriage between a man a woman, they do so because we want to encourage raising kids in families. Providing the same tax breaks to homosexuals is wrong because it would encourage the exact opposite of what we intend to encourage.

For example, we now subsidize home ownership by allowing people to deduct interest. If we were to now allow rent to be deducted, we would kill the effective preference for home ownership.

[Ned]

Originally posted by mindseye


Ned, can I please quote this next time someone has a problem with claims that gays are treated as second-class citizens?

We have to consider the benefits and privileges of marriage issue by issue, in my view. Otherwise we will really screw up families.

I have no objection to giving gay married couples community property rights, inheritance rights, etc. I do mind them being given preferences we intend for traditional families for the very purpose of incenting that form of arrangement for raising kids.

[Ned]

MrBaggins, the issue of homosexual children in the future may become academic. As soon as we discover the "gay" gene, women will abort gay fetuses.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
MrBaggins, the issue of homosexual children in the future may become academic. As soon as we discover the "gay" gene, women will abort gay fetuses.

The religionistas won't, unless they really want to be seen as hypocritical; lesbians won't, and plenty of heterosexual non-religionistas won't- otherwise who is going to grow up and tell their husbands how to dress, treat their wives properly, trim their nasal and ear hairs, be prison warders and policewomen, et cetera, et cetera.

Mostly tongue in cheek Ned, but you're showing the same deficiency in imagination that Obi Gyn does with his fixation on sexual acts between gay males.

If a gay gene is identified, then the technology to develop a child from merged ova probably won't be that far behind. By which time one might hope that human societies might have matured beyond the stage of applying moral strictures from old tomes to natural human behaviour.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry, I'm not buying it. In other threads you have responded a few times before abandoning ship, so it doesn't wash that you "didn't see" the replies.

I'm here now.

Did that exchange slip from your memory?

No. I said that the complaint that all the problems with homosexuality cannot be traced to societal disapproval, and that this is a trope.

weren't aware of the problems that have been previously pointed out multiple times by multiple posters.

Of which said problems were dealt with and refuted. Hence I return to my valid statements, to retain consistency.

You expect us to believe you "didn't see" all those replies? You even responded to some of them!

No, stop putting words in my mouth. I merely said that I do not always see the replies to the post. When I do post in the thread, I deal with each and every post against me, even if the ratio be 5:1.

So I am quite patient.

Each time you were called on this. Yet you continue stating it in new threads, as if it were sound.

Which it is.

Your style of debate shows little respect for your fellow posters.

Many of my ideological enemies would differ with you on that point.

If you won't even acknowledge our arguments,

I do acknowledge points. Particularly weak arguments.

if you use arguments that have been repeatedly shown to employ faulty reasoning

Which they have not.

So ... why bother coming here?

I enjoy myself, and I have made some friends.

Repetition of faulty arguments won't convince anyone here.

True, but you have not shown my arguments to be faulty.

[Ben Kenobi]

A point needs to be taken in context. All points do not have to be addressed simultaneously, and some points are not necessary to address at all (due to time constraints or just a lack of new things to say on the subject). Completely different issues.

True. I can understand facing time constraints. Just don't accuse me of ignoring your points when I parse, or deliberately trying to take a quote out of context. I feel my position is stronger, so why should I need to misrepresent your position?

I didn't comment on anything contained within your NARTH reference because I am not familiar enough with their work to do so. Do you think I should be required to comment even when I have nothing to say (at least as of yet)?

No. I would never take a poster to task for abandoning a thread.

I am not comfortable in exspousing personal opinions about subject matter which I have no knowlege. I'd hope you could understand.

Sure do. Glad you could be honest with me. That takes courage.

You seem to want people to treat extend you some courtesy (in regards to whether you will be able to respond or not), but aren't willing to extend the same courtesy to me?

No, I just don't feel the other posters are being all that fair with me. Take your time. Post when you want to.

If I don't respond to all your points, you use it as an argument against the points I am responding to. Seems hypocritical to me.

Nah. I try to confine myself to what the poster says, unless I feel they are trying to dodge a point.

That you have several times ignored a qualifying portion of a sentence, or the context of the paragraph, to refute the now 'wrongly qualified' portion of the sentence is what I have a problem with

I felt the sentence was ambigious. You needer to clarify whether the drug use was deviant behavior, which you have.

You of all people should understand the fallacy of your statement here. I identified drug use as deviant behavior, but applied no label to drug users. That label is your own creation, and should be qualified as such. How many times have you said something to the effect that it is not labelling the person, but the action? Was that just hypocrisy on your part, or do you believe such is possible?

Point very well taken. By this logic, I ought to be able to distinguish between homosexuality and homosexuals. I ought to be able to characterise the behavior as deviant, and not the person.

The negative connotation you seem to apply to that statement isn't supported by the definition of the term deviant though.

Oh, I'm not the only one who would consider the term to have a negative connotation.

As there are no legally accepted gay marriages as of yet, there probably are no legal definitions defining what is and what is not consummation of a gay marriage. If you can find any, please share.

AFAIK, most gay marriage provisions overlook this point of consummation. They argue that the sexual union is insignificant to marriage, a rather radical point.

[Ben Kenobi]

Obi-Gyn Kenobi

I really hope that doesn't stick. Could get embarrassing in religion threads.

Unfortunately like many religionistas of his kind, seems fixated on a particular sexual act between gay men. Not all gay men regularly engage in anal intercourse, and many heterosexuals do.

You were the first to mention anal intercourse in the thread molly, so perhaps I am not the one so fixated.

Oral sex between gay men would constitute a 'homosexual sexual act' but this doesn't appear to have occurred to Obi-Gyn- lack of imagination possibly.

Well sucking Boris' wang is not my preferred thought for the morning.

Not many lesbians engage in regular anal intercourse (and according to informal studies conducted amongst lesbian friends of mine) it doesn't play a great role in the sex live of those who do occasionally.

Again, you speculate that these are my positions. A great amount of speculation based on sparse evidence.

Watching Obi-Gyn talk about 'homosexuality' is rather like imagining a blind person attempt to describe the interior of the Vatican by touching the roof of the dome.

Or a deaf man listening to Mariah Carey, but please continue. Quite a rant you have going, and I would hate to spoil.

Still would like to know what this 'lifestyle' is that I'm meant to have, or indulge in.

Could someone tell me what a 'heterosexual lifestyle' is, or if they have one?

I wanted to deal with that point before I left, but I had to go.

What do I mean by the gay lifestyle? I would argue, a propensity for promiscuity, lack of stable relationships, and a the concamitant psychological and physical problems associated with the above behaviors.

All of these, can be found in greater proportion among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

[Ben Kenobi]

So I suppose since before Reconstruction in many parts of United States that blacks did not have the right to vote in the first place, that it was unconstitutional to grant them this right of citizenship?

Again, false analogy, in the comparison between race, which cannot be chosen, and sexual preferences, which can.