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?