Open letter to Bush on Church and State

[Terry Tate]

Hell, I would say there is a MUCH stronger argument to recognize polygamy ...

 

It's win-win,

 

117859[/snapback]

 

Win-win? Did you say WIN-WIN??? Sorry, I just can't wrap my brain around the thought of having to deal with more than one woman on a daily basis. If that's part of the deal, I'm not playing.

[Campy]

I love the reaction from libs when they get confronted with the dark facts about that which they so heroically espouse. 

116457[/snapback]

So the guy who thinks that homosexuality is a disease likes to confront people with "the dark facts." That's too funny.

[MichFan]

So the guy who thinks that homosexuality is a disease likes to confront people with "the dark facts." That's too funny.

If we are going to broaden the use of the term "disease" to include mental abnormalities such as reliance on alcohol, then yes, homosexuality is an abnormality and thus a disease whether it be genetic or a developed behavior. The anus was not designed to be penetrated and provides no physiological function in that regards, so how can one argue that it is not abnormal?

[Alaska Darin]

Win-win? Did you say WIN-WIN??? Sorry, I just can't wrap my brain around the thought of having to deal with more than one woman on a daily basis.        If that's part of the deal, I'm not playing.

117900[/snapback]

The bright side is: if there has to be conversation then it's likely you won't be involved.

[aussiew]

The bright side is: if there has to be conversation then it's likely you won't be involved.

 

That's true....and funny.

[Mickey]

If we are going to broaden the use of the term "disease" to include mental abnormalities such as reliance on alcohol, then yes, homosexuality is an abnormality and thus a disease whether it be genetic or a developed behavior.  The anus was not designed to be penetrated and provides no physiological function in that regards, so how can one argue that it is not abnormal?

118147[/snapback]

So your standard is "no physiological function"??? How about wings on a chicken?

 

Here is an easy view of homosexuality as playing a role in enhancing the survival of the species:

 

Competition among males for females can become deadly and result in a reduction in the number of males thereby decreasing the available hunters, gatherers and workers toiling to improve the suvival of the group/tribe. Homosexuals would not be competing for females yet would be available to help in completing all other essential tasks from hunting to defending against human and animal predators. Adults procreating, as any modern day parents will tell you, have very little free time given the rigors of raising their young. Non-procreative adults would not have their time, time that could be spent working for the benefit of the group, dominated by child rearing activities. Homosexuals would be non-procreative and therefore be able to perform the work others have no time for or to help in child rearing. It could well be argued that groups of humans or hominids with a strain of homosexuality that persists without growing beyond a certain point would have a survival advantage over groups without that trait.

 

 

As for the "design" of body parts, A hammer might be designed to pound in nails but it works just as well knocking a hole through a wall if that is what you need. Not as good as a drill but it'll work. Heterosexuals have anal sex, does that mean therefore that heterosexuality is a "disease"? Your comparison to alcoholism is way off. Some people are more likely to develop a physical addiction to alcohol than others. Two people can drink the same amount but one becomes addicted and the other does not. That makes alcoholism a disease.

 

Lastly, everything that is not normal, is not wrong or the product of a disease. An athlete who can run the 40 in under 4.4 is not normal, but we don't call it "abnormal" though technically it is because "abnormal" has a negative connotation. Instead, we would call this ability "exceptional" which is just a positive way of saying "not normal". All you are doing by selecting those kinds of phrases is expressing your opinions by making a value judgment that homosexuality is bad and therefore, rather than being simply unusual, it is abnormal. That is fine, just don't pretend that there is some scientific basis to it with some prattle about the design of the anus.

[ofiba]

So your standard is "no physiological function"???  How about wings on a chicken?

 

Here is an easy view of homosexuality as playing a role in enhancing the survival of the species:

 

Adults procreating, as any modern day parents will tell you, have very little free time given the rigors of raising their young.  Non-procreative adults would not have their time, time that could be spent working for the benefit of the group, dominated by child rearing activities.  Homosexuals would be non-procreative and therefore be able to perform the work others have no time for or to help in child rearing.  It could well be argued that groups of humans or hominids with a strain of homosexuality that persists without growing beyond a certain point would have a survival advantage over groups without that trait.

 

118576[/snapback]

Can you not say the same about an incestual couple that decides to not have kids due to the risks of birth defects? Or how about all the free time the 3rd member of a polygamous relationship would have? That would serve a purpose too eh?

You can try to justify homosexuality all you want, but the fact remains that anything you say about homosexuality, you can also say about incest and polygamy.

You must either allow none, or allow all of them. There is no middle ground.

[Arondale]

Just a question for everyone arguing for gay marriage. Where does morality come into play in all of this?

 

I can give everyone all the reasons why I am against gay marriage, but the foundational reason is based in my faith. As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is morally wrong. I believe it is a choice and nothing more. So even before considering gay marriage, I believe homosexuals are sinning in their lifestyle. That being the case, there is no way I can condone these people continuing in their lifestyle, let alone being granted equality in marriage.

 

My question is basically meant to ask whether you believe in moral absolutes. Homosexuality has always existed, but it has not always been so widely accepted in society, yet several have posted that because society accepts it that is the very reason why it should be allowed. Others have argued that if it doesn't personally affect me then it should not be an issue. The thing missing in these arguments and others similar to them is any reference to morality.

 

Is morality defined by what society believes at the time? Is morality only a personal matter and not a societal matter? Is morality relative for each individual?

 

I think most of you would be unable to argue the fact that our country and society in general has seen a steady decline in the importance of morality. From television to movies to prominent people, morality is on the decline.

 

I will fight gay marriage not merely on the principle of homosexuality, but also on the belief in a moral absolute. I do not believe that morality changes as society changes. I believe the moral decline of society is a serious issue and I believe gay marriage is just one more step down that road. This isn't about what is normal or what is mainstream, it is about a moral absolute.

 

The point of arguing about incest, pedophiles, polygamy, etc. is simply to point out that the support for gay marriage is ignoring the moral implications. Supporting gay marriage means you are only concerned about equality and are ignoring any issues of whether it is morally right or wrong. I shouldn't say it is ignoring the moral implications, but it is either defining morality on public opinion or using equality to define morality. If you take this approach on morals with homosexuality, then there is no reason to believe that down the road polygamists and others could simply point to the homosexual argument and demand the same treatment.

[ofiba]

Just a question for everyone arguing for gay marriage.  Where does morality come into play in all of this?

 

I can give everyone all the reasons why I am against gay marriage, but the foundational reason is based in my faith.  As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.  I believe it is a choice and nothing more.  So even before considering gay marriage, I believe homosexuals are sinning in their lifestyle.  That being the case, there is no way I can condone these people continuing in their lifestyle, let alone being granted equality in marriage.

 

My question is basically meant to ask whether you believe in moral absolutes.  Homosexuality has always existed, but it has not always been so widely accepted in society, yet several have posted that because society accepts it that is the very reason why it should be allowed.  Others have argued that if it doesn't personally affect me then it should not be an issue.  The thing missing in these arguments and others similar to them is any reference to morality. 

 

Is morality defined by what society believes at the time?  Is morality only a personal matter and not a societal matter?  Is morality relative for each individual?

 

I think most of you would be unable to argue the fact that our country and society in general has seen a steady decline in the importance of morality.  From television to movies to prominent people, morality is on the decline. 

 

I will fight gay marriage not merely on the principle of homosexuality, but also on the belief in a moral absolute.  I do not believe that morality changes as society changes.  I believe the moral decline of society is a serious issue and I believe gay marriage is just one more step down that road.  This isn't about what is normal or what is mainstream, it is about a moral absolute. 

 

The point of arguing about incest, pedophiles, polygamy, etc. is simply to point out that the support for gay marriage is ignoring the moral implications.  Supporting gay marriage means you are only concerned about equality and are ignoring any issues of whether it is morally right or wrong.  I shouldn't say it is ignoring the moral implications, but it is either defining morality on public opinion or using equality to define morality.  If you take this approach on morals with homosexuality, then there is no reason to believe that down the road polygamists and others could simply point to the homosexual argument and demand the same treatment.

118828[/snapback]

 

My sentiments exactly. Very well put.

 

If people want to throw out morals all together, they must understand what that entails. They cannot pick and choose which immoral acts to allow, and which ones to frown upon.

[MichFan]

Competition among males for females can become deadly and result in a reduction in the number of males thereby decreasing the available hunters, gatherers and workers toiling to improve the suvival of the group/tribe. Homosexuals would not be competing for females yet would be available to help in completing all other essential tasks from hunting to defending against human and animal predators. Adults procreating, as any modern day parents will tell you, have very little free time given the rigors of raising their young. Non-procreative adults would not have their time, time that could be spent working for the benefit of the group, dominated by child rearing activities. Homosexuals would be non-procreative and therefore be able to perform the work others have no time for or to help in child rearing. It could well be argued that groups of humans or hominids with a strain of homosexuality that persists without growing beyond a certain point would have a survival advantage over groups without that trait.

If we return to the Stone Age, I'll gladly disavow my opposition to gay marriage. Of course, if I'm the alpha male I can have all the women I want without fear of being called a polygamist.

 

Your comparison to alcoholism is way off. Some people are more likely to develop a physical addiction to alcohol than others. Two people can drink the same amount but one becomes addicted and the other does not. That makes alcoholism a disease.

Using your analogy I guess you've proved my point. Two men can be sodomized by a gay person. One becomes a homosexual and the other stays straight. That makes homosexuality a disease.

 

Lastly, everything that is not normal, is not wrong or the product of a disease. An athlete who can run the 40 in under 4.4 is not normal, but we don't call it "abnormal" though technically it is because "abnormal" has a negative connotation. Instead, we would call this ability "exceptional" which is just a positive way of saying "not normal". All you are doing by selecting those kinds of phrases is expressing your opinions by making a value judgment that homosexuality is bad and therefore, rather than being simply unusual, it is abnormal. That is fine, just don't pretend that there is some scientific basis to it with some prattle about the design of the anus.

So running fast is comparable to anal penetration? Or anal penetration is "exceptional"?

 

The fact is that there is a scientific basis to this argument. The proximal and distal sphincters are not designed to provide pleasure during penetration. The proximal is an involuntary muscle that lets you know when things are starting to happen down there. The distal is a voluntary muscle that tells you to find a bathroom soon. The concentration of nerve endings are on the interior of these structures (thus, the necessary risk of gerbil entrapment for wierdos to achieve any heightened anal sensation). Stretching of these muscles through forced penetration does exactly what you might expect it to -- hurts like hell. Imagine the hardest session you've ever had on the crapper, and then imagine that repeatedly for however long it takes a partner to finish. I won't even get into the medical problems this can cause. Having once lived next door to a gay couple in an apartment building, the sound of gay lovemaking that carried through the walls was violent and extremely disturbing. Welcome to the wonderful world of sodomy. Libs want to recognize such a relationship as loving and give it broad social understanding and respect. I'll stand by my position that anyone who sodomizes someone is diseased, and anyone who voluntarily submits themself to sodomy is also diseased.

[MichFan]

Can you not say the same about an incestual couple that decides to not have kids due to the risks of birth defects? Or how about all the free time the 3rd member of a polygamous relationship would have? That would serve a purpose too eh?

You can try to justify homosexuality all you want, but the fact remains that anything you say about homosexuality, you can also say about incest and polygamy.

You must either allow none, or allow all of them. There is no middle ground.

The point of arguing about incest, pedophiles, polygamy, etc. is simply to point out that the support for gay marriage is ignoring the moral implications. Supporting gay marriage means you are only concerned about equality and are ignoring any issues of whether it is morally right or wrong. I shouldn't say it is ignoring the moral implications, but it is either defining morality on public opinion or using equality to define morality. If you take this approach on morals with homosexuality, then there is no reason to believe that down the road polygamists and others could simply point to the homosexual argument and demand the same treatment.

 

Arondale and ofiba -- well stated remarks. I think the decision that needs to be made regarding sexuality and the structure of civilly recognized relationships in modern society are whether there will continue to be a fundamental moral underpinning or whether we will cast morals aside due to their perceived origin in the church. I agree with arondale's assessment of the need for morals in society. The libs are currently moving down a path of selective morality, making a social argument for homosexual relationships yet staying with the moral argument on poligamy and incest. Anything to maintain their stigma of being hypocrats, I guess.

[GG]

Arondale and ofiba -- well stated remarks.  I think the decision that needs to be made regarding sexuality and the structure of civilly recognized relationships in modern society are whether there will continue to be a fundamental moral underpinning or whether we will cast morals aside due to their perceived origin in the church.  I agree with arondale's assessment of the need for morals in society.  The libs are currently moving down a path of selective morality, making a social argument for homosexual relationships yet staying with the moral argument on poligamy and incest.  Anything to maintain their stigma of being hypocrats, I guess.

118943[/snapback]

 

But hasn't morality always followed the path of enlightenment of the society? Would you say our morals are at the same level they were at the time of the writing of the Scripture (which is the comic point of the original letter to Dr. Laura).

 

The selective interpretaion of the morality of accepting gays vs not accepting incest or polygamy is the societal increasing acceptance of homosexuality as an aberration that does not present a danger to the general wellbeing of the society. Incest on the other hand, is a danger to the society by producing weaker and sicker offspring. Poligamy may very well come into vogue, if males suddenly start dropping dead at disproportionate rates.

 

Morality has rarely been an absolute.

 

Aren't we currently in a life and death struggle with a society whose goal is to fight the enlightenment of their people?

[MichFan]

Aren't we currently in a life and death struggle with a society whose goal is to fight the enlightenment of their people?

GG, well stated post. Nice to see someone from the left make an eloquent case.

 

My argument, if you read the details I've provided about sodomy, is that I don't think our society is any further enlightened by enabling gay marriage. I don't believe America's morals have progressed/regressed to that point, and voters in state after state have confirmed it. Here in Ohio where the gay marriage ban was so broad as to disallow any form of civil union, and even certain heterosexual arrangements, the vote was a landslide.

[GG]

GG, well stated post.  Nice to see someone from the left make an eloquent case.

 

My argument, if you read the details I've provided about sodomy, is that I don't think our society is any further enlightened by enabling gay marriage.  I don't believe America's morals have progressed/regressed to that point, and voters in state after state have confirmed it.  Here in Ohio where the gay marriage ban was so broad as to disallow any form of civil union, and even certain heterosexual arrangements, the vote was a landslide.

119062[/snapback]

 

There are basically three societal topics on this board that see a resurgence of interest as a new influx of posters come over to PPP - abortion, evolution/creation, and gay marriage. Too bad the many iterations of this board have been Rubeo'd, as there are voluminous debates on this topic.

 

Frankly, I could care less what people do behind closed doors, as the recent Texas case also underlined. I don't equate the merits of that ruling, ie right to privacy, with the leap that homosexuality is an evil to the society.

 

I have no problem with religious establishments trying to uphold the morality of their faiths by not recognizing gay marriages. If a faith refuses to bless the gay couple under the covenant of their God, it is not the State's job to make sure it does.

 

But, to me the battle is over the word "marriage" not the secular protections offered by a civil union. Not codifying the civil unions actually makes a problem worse, as you have a hodge podge of private institutions that recognize "life partners" in handing out benefits, without tying the life partners under a legal agreement. Providing legal protections, along with legally binding the partners is the issue, not the sacred word "marriage."

 

I think that MASS courts overreached with their full faith & credit clause & forced the issue before the country is ready to accept gay marriage. They made the situation worse for people who basically want to live a regular life & get some legal protection available to others.

[erynthered]

Nice to see someone from the left make an eloquent case.

 

 

119062[/snapback]

 

 

I wonder about that....................

[JoeFerguson]

To ofiba and Arrondale:

 

Why is the sin of homosexuality singled out? And why does the Bible have to be the moral standard for the United States? Our country was founded on the basis of religious freedom. Homosexuals do not think it is immoral. If we are going to persecute people for sinning, why don't we have a constitutional ban on adultry(it's in the ten commandments)? Adultry is defined as sex with someone who is not your spouse. Therefore anyone who has had premarital sex has also committed adultry. Since we want to keep marriage as a sacred bond between a man and a woman, I think we should not allow anyone to get married that has committed adultry. Now we've excluded anyone who has disgraced the sacred bond by having sex with someone other than their spouse. Since we believe strongly about upholding the institution of marriage, we shouldn't condone these people (adulterers) and their lifestyle, let alone grant them equality in marriage.

 

While we're at it, how about we persecute anyone who goes to work on Sunday. After all, that's breaking another one of the commandments. If we are going to be crusaders for morality, we should crusade against all sins. Like ofiba said, "They cannot pick and choose which immoral acts to allow, and which ones to frown upon."

[Alaska Darin]

Ah, Freedom by moralist definition is the finest freedom of all. Nothing better than government intervention into the bedrooms of adult citizens. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

[MichFan]

Why is the sin of homosexuality singled out? And why does the Bible have to be the moral standard for the United States?

Typical lib kneejerk reaction. Arondale and ofiba never even mentioned the words sin, bible, or religion in any of their responses.

[MichFan]

Ah, Freedom by moralist definition is the finest freedom of all. Nothing better than government intervention into the bedrooms of adult citizens. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Hey, stick to legalizing marijuana and leave us contiguous 48'ers to ourselves with our gay marriage debate. You offer a potential solution though -- if gay couples promise to permanently remain in their bedrooms once married, I'll drop all opposition. It's that free and open integration with society thingy that really bugs me.

[GG]

You offer a potential solution though -- if gay couples promise to permanently remain in their bedrooms once married, I'll drop all opposition.  It's that free and open integration with society thingy that really bugs me.

120572[/snapback]

 

If you expand that to include anyone that Roseanne or Liza marry, you may have a deal.