Third Party & Independents: Archives

Whenever I hear a person accuse the right of hatred and intolerance, the image of Michael Moore and the rest of the Hollywood noise machine and thier pure, fully demonstrated hatred for Bush and everything Republican. Honestly, I have no defense for Santorum, but it’s quite a wide brush you have used in response to his comments. From what I have seen, there is far more hatred and intolerance coming from the left.

“Jacktruth”

I’d love to hear what you’re talking about. That’s a pretty obtuse comparison.

Michael Moore et al do nothing more than criticize political figures, attempting to hold them responsible for their actions.

Santorum and the paranoid Christian Right criticize a non-homogeneous group of people who have done nothing, and moreover criticize them for their status rather than their actions. Gay people can’t help being gay.

There’s a big difference between Michael Moore demanding an explanation the conduct of public figures, and a public figure making shameful and bigoted claims about an enormous and diverse group of people.

It appears you share Santorum’s inexplicable persecution complex.

“shameful and bigoted claims about an enormous and diverse group of people”

- What hateful people those in Republicans Right are turning out to be.

- Should be codify into law what so many conservatives advocate by word and deed, and relegate homosexuals and lesbians to second class citizenship once and for all for having the gall to love someone from the same sex?

- opinions and observations would not chaff as much if they were not drawn from the deep well of ignorance that almost every conservative seems to drink from. And if the source of that well water were not the Holy Bible, a tome that any reasoned person will admit is full of contradictions, and is little more then a really good book of fiction, none of which can be proved

Good thing Republicans, religious people and heterosexuals aren’t “an enormous and diverse group of people.”
PRICELESS!

And is the good Senator insinuating that all priests who molested children were homosexuals, are homosexual? If memory serves, children of both sexes were molested with equal vigor and vulgarity.

Can you post a link to exactly what Senator Santorum said? It�s difficult to ascertain a meaning without that knowledge. Also, if boys were involved, the priests in question would have to be homosexual or partially homosexual (bisexual)

And aren’t most sex offenders heterosexual?

Not in this case. If a man rapes a boy, he is by definition either homo or bisexual.

Is their deviant behaviors caused by alternative life-styles as well, or is there another more heterosexual cause for their behaviors, like a dysfunctional family life, or bad parents?

Obviously, the homo(bi)sexual lifestyle is part of the cause, since heterosexuals don�t rape boys. So even if the alternate lifestyle didn�t cause the problem, it certainly made it worse.

Traveler,

“”And aren’t most sex offenders heterosexual?

Not in this case. If a man rapes a boy, he is by definition either homo or bisexual.”

Statisticly, most sex offenders are hetero-sexual.
To paint a significant portion of society with such a broad brush is unconcienable.
Even as an off-the-cuff remark, it still is baloney. The man has his head up his butt, and deserves to be told so.

From the above linked article:

“Traynham said Santorum �was speaking to a broader cultural argument about the need for everyone to take these issues very, very seriously.�”

So, let me see. Let’s lock up all gays because they are deviants.

You need to get over the “sexual” part of homosexual, and move on.

kctim:

Read this slowly: Republicans are such because they choose to be; homosexuals are not. Now digest that for a minute.

Traveler:
That’s not even logical. The issue of homosexuality is not even related to pedophilia. End of story. If you suggest otherwise, you’re simiply wrong. What’s wrong about sex with children isn’t the sex of the child, it’s the fact that it involves a child.

Jacktruth—

So let me get this straight: voicing (valid) opposition to the President and his near-sided policies is hatred? Hummm, then I must be guilty of hating Bush which is not true; I despise the man, but I do not hate him, I do not know him well enough, nor would I want to waste that much emotion on him.

Please detail the Left’s alleged hatred against our society and its people…

Traveler—

Your comment misses the mark by a wide margin. Heterosexuals rape women, men (in prison), young girls, and in some sick cases, infant girls. So to use your train of thought the heterosexual lifestyle needs serious examining. The heterosexual life style must be somehow lacking in normality, if such deviant behavior is taking place.

So let me get this straight: voicing (valid) opposition to the President and his near-sided policies is hatred? Hummm, then I must be guilty of hating Bush which is not true; I despise the man, but I do not hate him, I do not know him well enough, nor would I want to waste that much emotion on him.

Please detail the Left’s alleged hatred against our society and its people…

First off who said that the left hates our society and its people? I don’t believe that statement was used anywhere… Jacktruth just stated that Moore, etc seem to have “hatred for Bush and all things Republican”. Since when do Bush and all things Republican constitute our society and its people?

I believe that his point was that painting every “Repulican Right” as hateful is a large step to take based off of one individual’s comments.

Therefore if we are going to go down that road there are many Liberal Left (Moore et all included) that spew an equal amount of “hate” as well. By your logic that means in theory I can now say “What hateful people those in Liberal Left are turning out to be”. I would not say that however because it would not be accurate, just as your blanket statement is not accurate of all Republican right.

Hummm, then I must be guilty of hating Bush which is not true; I despise the man, but I do not hate him, I do not know him well enough, nor would I want to waste that much emotion on him.

In just about every dictionary I’ve seen the word despise is a synonym for hate and vice versa… It seems strange to me to say you don’t hate him but you despise him?

Besides, IMHO the opposite of love is not hate, it is apathy. Which is why I could really care less what people like Michael Moore say.

Rocky, Unkind and Edward,

Please don�t try to paint me as some sort of homophobe. It�s simply my opinion that sexual preference is a factor no matter what ages are involved. I�m not saying it�s necessarily a causal factor. I�m just saying that if a man rapes a boy(of any age), he�s a homosexual and if he rapes a girl, he�s a heterosexual. I know you asked for the senator�s opinion on this, but since you didn�t post a link to what he said, I thought I�d give you mine instead. Perhaps my opinion is wrong, but I haven�t seen much real evidence one way or the other.

Heterosexuals rape women, men (in prison), young girls, and in some sick cases, infant girls. So to use your train of thought the heterosexual lifestyle needs serious examining. The heterosexual life style must be somehow lacking in normality, if such deviant behavior is taking place.

I�d say both lifestyles are lacking in morality these days…
Please explain to me how a man can rape a man and still be heterosexual?

Also, If you really want to convince us of Senator Santorum�s �intolerance and ignorance,� you might want to link to or even just quote some of his �nonsensical remarks.�

unkind
Ok, I took my time and read it.
Now its your turn.

“Read this slowly: Republicans are such because they choose to be; homosexuals are not. Now digest that for a minute”

NOT ALL Republicans or people who lean to the right, think like that.
To use such a broad brush like that is no different than saying being gay is only about the sex.
Whether they choose to be or not is irrelevent.

Perhaps Senator Santorum’s opinions and observations would not chaff as much if they were not drawn from the deep well of ignorance that almost every conservative seems to drink from… . On this I have to side with Senator Kennedy form the great state of Massachusetts. And by the way I love Boston!

Santorum’s remarks are revealing, and wrong.
Drawing conclusions about the whole based on the actions of a few is wrong.

But labeling all conservatives ignorant is equally wrong.

Wasn’t it Howard Dean’s comment a while back “that the only way Republicans could get a room full of blacks together was if they were on staff at the hotel”?

Whatever this whole thing is rediculous in painting a whole group from the comments of one (that has still not been linked)!

Do we really need to travel down that road once again and discuss all of Deans fowl words? Because from the above post I guess we should think that he spoke for all Dems.

Traveler:

Actually, saying it was a causal factor is exactly what you said:

“Obviously, the homo(bi)sexual lifestyle is part of the cause, since heterosexuals don?t rape boys.”

Maybe not the sole cause, but you were saying it was causally related.

Moreover, the prevailing opinion about sexuality these days among people who actually study it is that sexuality is not a pure binary, like positive/negative, but is a continuum. Meaning of course, that even the most heterosexual among us have homosexual impulses, even if small.

Also, the jail thing really shouldn’t be such a confounding situation. Sexuality is about preference, more often than not. In jail, it doesn’t matter what you prefer, it’s a question of what’s available. I guess it’s like how people can eat rotten food, if it’s the only thing to eat.

kctim:

Actually, it’s absolutely relevant. Making a generalization about a groups’ thinking when membership in that group is first, voluntary, and second, BASED on thinking a certain way is hardly the same as making a generalization about a group that people do not choose to be a part of, and membership in which does not relate to how they think.

Admittedly, that’s a convoluted sentence, so let me break it down. What I’m saying is:
If you choose membership in a group, and I criticize you for your membership in that group, that’s OK. Or at least, it’s a lot better than criticizing someone for being a part of a group that they had no choice about being in.

Which is why criticizing black people for being black is wrong, and criticizing gay people for being gay is wrong, but criticizing Nazis for being Nazis is not, because they choose to think like that. See the reasoning? It’s actually pretty easy.

Now, treating Republicans like a homogeneous group is arguably still the same kind of bad thinking in action, but it’s certainly less objectionable because membership is voluntary. Moreover, there was little to indicate that people like Moore and “the hollywood noise machine”, or however the other guy put it, actually tend to criticize all republicans. They DO criticize Republicans in power, and those that open their mouths to say stupid shit like Santorum does.

Hell, I’m pretty liberal, and I don’t hate republicans. But I hate the republicans in power right now, and also, I think some generalizations about them are fairly safe. But that’s beyond the scope of the discussion.

The point is, with even a small degree of perspicacity, you can see that Santorum and Moore really aren’t doing the same kind of thing.

Just a confusion here on definitions.

Any man who has sex with a man or boy is not a heterosexual. He may not be a homosexual, but at the very least (most) he is a bisexual.

This thread has reminded me of an incident when I was in college. Some of my gay friends were complaining about gay bashing (something I agree is terrible) and then they told me that in the more extreme cases, it also involved rape. I pointed out that we were no longer talking about straight guys. They disagreed and told me that it was about anger, not sex. I have been very angry at times, but I never considered that outlet for my rage and I don�t think any heterosexual men do. It sort of goes to the definition of being gay or straight.

BTW - most men don�t rape anybody, homo or hetero. Santoro�s comments were out of line, but why are they coming up now three years after the said them?

jacktruth,

“From what I have seen, there is far more hatred and intolerance coming from the left.”

Hm, let’s observe some comments I have recieved from conservatives on other blogs shall we?

Lol. You’re funny, Creepozoid.

Posted by: Zeek at July 13, 2005 02:05 PM

like to see how much laughing you do when you’re screaming in the agony you deserve, you stupid bastard

Posted by: Creepozoid at July 13, 2005 04:18 PM

Now that’s not even the worst of the death threats I’ve gotten from conservatives. Of course, this guy is far off to the right, and definitely does not personify the right wing, but you get my point I think.

I’m curious as to why my comment wasn’t approved, if I wrote something not allowed, I’d like to know what it was so I can avoid this in the future. It’s been over two hours and other comments have been approved since that time. If it’s a tech glitch? That would be nice to know, and I would happily repost it.

Hi All:

Just my 2 bits worth on these issues:

“Whenever I hear a person accuse the right of hatred and intolerance, the image of Michael Moore and the rest of the Hollywood noise machine and thier pure, fully demonstrated hatred for Bush and everything Republican. Honestly, I have no defense for Santorum, but it’s quite a wide brush you have used in response to his comments. From what I have seen, there is far more hatred and intolerance coming from the left.

Posted by jacktruth at July 14, 2005 12:41 PM”

I’m curious, how do you refer to Limbaugh, Coulter & Hannity? As Saints? Disciples? Defenders of the Faith? Please do not insult me or my intelligence, because unlike your(GOP) parties, my intelligence is not based on faulty evidence.

“I?d say both lifestyles are lacking in morality these days…
Please explain to me how a man can rape a man and still be heterosexual?”

Posted by The Traveler at July 14, 2005 02:38 PM

Ever seen a dog “Hump your leg until climax?” You are not even his species, however, his sex drive is so overwhelming he needs to release or he’ll go crazy, you are right to be disgusted, but does that mean you can only have sex with beasts from then on? Hetero/homosexual men will do just about anything to climax, testosterone is as powerful a drug as you can get. If you were the victim of homosexual rape, does that mean you are Homosexual, or does it mean that you were a victim and can now pick up the pieces & get on with your life? I KNOW I HAVE TRIVIALIZED THIS TOUCHY SUBJECT, IF YOU HAVE BEEN THE VICTIM OF THIS HORRIBLE CRIME MY HEART GOES OUT TO YOU. IT WAS NOT MY INTENTION TO MAKE LIGHT OF THE VICTIMS HORRIBLE, PREVENTABLE ORDEALS. PLEASE ACCEPT MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES.

But labeling all conservatives ignorant is equally wrong.

Posted by d.a.n at July 14, 2005 02:43 PM

After much Consternation, as much as I hate to admit it….You are Correct, but that shoe fits both ways. Damn, I hate it when you Guys use logic in your arguements.

Just Passing Gas,

As Always,
Wayne

VEM -

I have not taken the time to read all the comments, but I have to agree with what I know of what Santorum said, that the approval of unorthodox sexualities is not unrelated to the proliferation of illegal and unacceptable sexualities.

This is like the link between pornography and sexual deviance, or between marijuana and crack: it’s not an absolute causal connection, and it isn’t present in every case. But over a significant population, it’s not unreasonable to posit that “lite” forms of rebellion against the natural order lead to more destructive forms.

As far as Boston goes, it’s the greatest city on earth. Saying that it was (in 2002) the focus of the debate over the place of homosexuality in society is a statement of fact, not a smear. I don’t know if Santorum said anything worse than that.

[T]he Holy Bible, a tome that any reasoned person will admit is full of contradictions, and is little more then a really good book of fiction, none of which can be proved.

Speaking of intolerant, ignorant smears…

here’s a link about this issue for those who asked:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/14/kennedy_rips_santorum_comments

What Senator Santorum said was based on ignorance. Plain and simple. Labeling all Consrvatives is equally ignorant. I know several conservatives who are incredibly bright people who put alot of thought into the issues we debate.
Pedaphilia is a drive to have sex with children, regardless of their gender. Pedophiles have preferences. That does not make them gay or straight, just sick and evil.

I would think that his comments would be something all of us could agree upon were hateful and stupid.

V. Edward Martin,

I’m not saying the denigration of any person (or persons) should go unnoticed, but why this one thing about Santorum, and then the pot shots at conservatives and religion and the Bible ?
(BTW, I’m not conservative, and I’m agnostic).

While, what Santorum said is wrong, there are lots of other illegal behavoir, corruption, graft, and secret dealings happening in the federal government, other than Santorum’s non-sequiturs, that would be far better supporting arguments.

And, doesn’t Ted Kennedy have anything better to do than dig up stuff that happened two years ago?
Is that the best Kennedy can do? Was this just festering for a long time, or did Kennedy just now discover it, or is he reviving it ? And, why does anyone listen to Ted Kennedy. That drunk should be in jail for manslaughter, drunk driving, and hiding evidence about it (including his buddies that were accomplices and failed to report the incident).

By the way, isn’t it about time to bring up the issue of unaffordable Health Care, Social Security short falls, Medicare shortfalls, the Government Pension Benefit Group and pensions $1.6 trillion in the hole, $8T national debt, $40T personal debt, crumbling infrastructure, abused eminent domain, etc.? Now, there’s some meaty subjects sure to generate a lot of posts.

“The point is, with even a small degree of perspicacity, you can see that Santorum and Moore really aren’t doing the same kind of thing”

Moore is an idiot and I know nothing of Santorum but that is besides the point I was making.
Criticizing Santorum for whatever you wish is fine, but using the SAME tactics you are complaining about to do so, kind of negates your point.

It doesn’t make you a pervert if you choose to be gay and it doesn’t make you a racist is you choose to be a Republican.

“treating Republicans like a homogeneous group is arguably still the same kind of bad thinking in action”

There is no valid argument about it.

Chops
“Speaking of intolerant, ignorant smears…”

Tell me about it!

Edward:

As a Republican I am with you and Senator Kennedy on this one:

I wish we could narrow down child abuse to an ideology. That would make abuse easier to solve and reduce.

Unfortunately, all of our “isms” are tainted. I live in Spokane WA and am not very happy with my republican mayor right now.

In my experience there is evidence that men are far more likely to be abusive than women. If I were to guess the biggest largest group responsible for the most child abuse in our country it would be adult hetrosexual men, and teen girls.

The Senator needs to retract what he said because it is both wrong and improper.

Craig

Irrespective of what you label it, commiting unwanted sexual acts with someone who is vulnerable because you are an authority figure (ie Priest/Clergyman - Alter Boy) is a horrible thing and wrong on more levels than we can imaqine. This issue has haunted the Catholic Church for a long time and has led to costly settlements and, the loss of badly needed Priests.

It does not however detract from the fact that the Catholic Church has done far more for mankind than this issue can erase. I am not Catholic but I do not look at every Priest as if he might be a child molester. Unfortunately I know that there are people who do.

The fact that Santorum wrote an article with the content that is alleged is in very poor taste. However, politicians from both sides of the aisle have said similar (and worse) things in very recent times.

Senator Kennedy is from Massachusetts and he is a practicing Irish Catholic, as is his entire family I believe. It is natural for him to react in the way that he did.

The problem I have with all of this (this will sound political but it is not intended to be) is

Does Kennedy have so little to do that he is dredging up articles from three years ago to turn it into a political issue? That’s exactly what he has done.

Anyone who has counseled those who have been sexually abused by rapists or pedophiles will tell you that the perpetrator does so out of receiving a sense of control/power. It is NOT sexual. Sex is just the vehicle they use to convey that sense of power. Often, they have been abusive in other areas (eg. spousal abuse, child abuse, parental abuse, bullying behavior, verbal & emotional abuse, etc.)as well. They typically choose those who are unable to fight back.

As for Santorum, he should get his facts straight before speaking his opinion and not abuse his position of influence and power. As for Kennedy, I question why this is an issue now as opposed to when the original statement by Santorum was made.

Andre

Pedaphilia is a drive to have sex with children, regardless of their gender. Pedophiles have preferences. That does not make them gay or straight, just sick and evil.

How does that make them sick and evil? Under what authority can you call them sick and evil? That sounds awfully judgmental. And, as our friend VEM informs us, anyone who judges behavior is intolerant and ignorant.

Seriously, though: what makes homosexuals normal and pedophiles sick?

“Seriously, though: what makes homosexuals normal and pedophiles sick?”

Chops, I am quite certain that you will not find that everyone will agree with you that homosexuals are normal.

Far more people however, IMO are likely to agree that pedophiles are sick.

Unkind,

“even the most heterosexual among us have homosexual impulses, even if small.”

I must confess that I have a small thing for Angelina Jolie. If such a thing was possible, I could see myself turning gay for her. Hell, I’m woman enough to admit that I find her hot.

With Chops’ “serious” statement:

“what makes homosexuals normal and pedophiles sick?”

I’m now afraid that I might be a little sick.

;-)

As for Santorum, I think that the reason he’s in the news so much right now is ‘cause he just published a book.

As for santorum, whenever I read some of the more outlandish he says, I like to remind myself of the real meaning of the word Santorum.

Yes, it’s an old one. However, it’s the little things…

Since no one linked to it, I found Senator Santorum�s article myself. Here it is. Now, to answer your questions…

And is the good Senator insinuating that all priests who molested children were homosexuals, are homosexual?

Apparently not, although I would guess he thinks some of them are.

What’s the next step Santorum would have society take? Ban and or separate homosexuals and lesbians from heterosexuals? Should we create a state just for them, or perhaps banish them to Midway Island? Should be codify into law what so many conservatives advocate by word and deed, and relegate homosexuals and lesbians to second class citizenship once and for all for having the gall to love someone from the same sex?

None of this is implied in even the slightest bit. There is only one mention of �alternate lifestyles:�

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning “private” moral matters such as alternative lifestyles.

Certainly not an over-the-top statement. Definitely not enough to label Saantorum a homophobe, as some of you seem to be trying to do. It brings us right back to what Chops asked: what makes homosexuals normal and pedophiles sick? Good question. Wish I had the answer.

Santorum continues:
Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected.

Where is the �sick� line drawn when it comes to sexuality?

what makes homosexuals normal and pedophiles sick?

Gee, could it be the same thing that makes lovemaking normal and rape sick? Consent? Wow, what a stretch it was to figure that out…

[Consent] makes lovemaking normal and rape sick

By that logic, it’s OK to have sex with kids if they consent to it. The same goes for animals. With children maturing sexually at earlier ages than every before, and with some children being more capable of rational decisions than others, surely “consent” ought to be considered on a case-to-case basis, don’t you think?

Seriously though, the common denominator among homosexuals and others with abnormal sexual interests (incest, pedophilia, multiple partners, abuse) is an uninvolved or abusive father. I have observed this to be true among everyone I’ve known with unnatural sex appetites. Abuse breeds abuse. I challenge anyone to produce a statistic refuting this.

Steve:

Chops, I am quite certain that you will not find that everyone will agree with you that homosexuals are normal.

Far more people however, IMO are likely to agree that pedophiles are sick.

I am not sure about the first part. I used to be a part of a gay forum several years back. I was amazed by how many lesbians had been sexually molested as children. I would not use the word “sick” in the context that it appears here. Maybe “abused” would be a better word. Nice people, they just had very painful pasts.

I can’t imagine a pedophiles that is not sick.

I am not so sure how much it matters. One is between consenting adults and one is not.

Craig

Gandhi:

Seriously though, the common denominator among homosexuals and others with abnormal sexual interests (incest, pedophilia, multiple partners, abuse) is an uninvolved or abusive father. I have observed this to be true among everyone I’ve known with unnatural sex appetites. Abuse breeds abuse. I challenge anyone to produce a statistic refuting this

The biggest common denominator in child abuse is heterosexual men. I challenge you to produce a statistic refuting this!!!

Because of low numbers the gay community isn’t close to the top on causing child abuse in America. Where they stand on a per capita basis, I have no idea.

Craig

Craig

By that logic, it’s OK to have sex with kids if they consent to it. The same goes for animals. With children maturing sexually at earlier ages than every before, and with some children being more capable of rational decisions than others, surely “consent” ought to be considered on a case-to-case basis, don’t you think?

No, it’s not, because neither kids nor animals are capable of giving informed consent by our laws. A move to repeal age of consent laws was nowhere implied in my argument. If you think that’s something we should consider doing, fine, but don’t put words in my mouth. My argument in no way implied children giving consent was acceptable.

Seriously though, the common denominator among homosexuals and others with abnormal sexual interests (incest, pedophilia, multiple partners, abuse) is an uninvolved or abusive father. I have observed this to be true among everyone I’ve known with unnatural sex appetites. Abuse breeds abuse. I challenge anyone to produce a statistic refuting this.

Well, now you’ve observed it to be false with me and my boyfriend. Neither of us had uninvolved or abusive fathers. Care to try again?

Criag, I didn’t make any sort of statement about homosexuals - just people in general who are abused and abusive. But to get closer to the issue, I might modify your statement to the following: “The biggest common denominator in child abuse is WEAK men.” And I mean weakness in a general sense - so insecure in one’s own manhood that one feels the need to get affirmation from someone in a nonconventional way. Or weakness by being passive, and not protecting children from abuse (from failing to teach them).

Kennedy’s pissed off because he focused on the charged adjectives from Santorum’s statement, and read it as “Boston = Politically Liberal = Bad”. And we all know that Kennedy is a one bad liberal :)

Jarin,

I challenged someone to produce a statistic refuting my assertion. Your experience may be an exception as far as abuse is concerned. However, fatherhood in our society has been so lost that many think of an “involved father” as simply being someone who pays the bills. We’ve defined involvement simply as not being an abusive deadbeat, rather than a role of selfless leadership, wild love and sacrificial risktaking. This absence of fatherhood is catastrophic; we are mostly a fatherless generation. To see abuse, we ought to look first for what’s missing.

Santorum’s comments are offensive to the good people of Massachussetts. Boston is a liberal enclave because it is an academic center, not because it is depraved. The worst thing you can say about Bostonians is that they are not intolerant people.

Boston was a more likely place for the scandals because it has a strong Catholic history and is a center of Catholic politics.

Michael Moore is definitely not an idiot. You may despise him because of his politics, but he got to where he is without any family or Saudi money to bail him out of any mistakes.

Loren,

The worst thing you can say about Bostonians is that they are not intolerant people.

…I’m not sure what you meant to say there. But if there’s anything that Boston is intolerant of, it’s probably anything to do with New York.

There’s enough religion bashing going on here already, so let’s avoid pointing out Catholic scandals before they actually happen. I am not a Catholic, but there has been much good done in the name of Catholicism, and there are plenty of Catholics on this blog. Santorum’s comments need to be taken in context - not as Kennedy has done.

I don’t see what Michael Moore has to do with pedophilia, although you are welcome to implicate him! You’re right about one thing, though. Moore, Anne Coulter, and their ilk are not idiots. They’re just really pathetic people who like to tear stuff down, and there’s something in that that we like - or else they wouldn’t be famous.

gandhi,

I think the connotations of “abnormal” make it a pretty offensive label to attach to perfectly acceptable modes of sexual conduct, such as homosexuality.

And I seriously doubt that homosexuality is predominately a result of abuse, insinuating that it has its genesis in the damaged psyche. I don’t think it’s impossible that such a thing can happen, but I think the propensities must already be in place.

Plus I’m not sure what kind of norm you are employing in order to brand other types of sexual behavior “unnatural”, but I think that’s a notion that toes the line before bigotry. Have a care.

Gandhi,

My comments about Moore were in response to earlier posts calling him a hate monger and an idiot.

The Catholic scandal already happened… And nobody is bashing Catholics.

Since when is being said to not be intolerant a bad thing?

Let us not forget that it was Gay Marriage Issue who got the DimBulb re-elected. No matter what Republicans say, the reality is they are more motivated by homophobia than Social Security, Economy or War.

Kind of sad really.

Unkind,

The majority constitutes what “normal” or “perfectly acceptable” is. Is beastiality normal just because someone thinks it’s OK? I refuse to play this PC game. Having said that, I wasn’t the one who singled out homosexuality (go back and read the earlier posts). You and Jarin did. Is that because you consider homosexuality to be morally superior to other deviant forms of sexual orientation?

I don’t see any libs going after VEM for the flaming in his last paragraph. I find that pretty offensive.

Loren - ok, fair point on Moore; I missed reading some of the earlier posts. On the tolerance sentence, you have a triple negative - not a double negative - which was confusing, hence my joke on the Yankees.

Unkind,

Plus I’m not sure what kind of norm you are employing in order to brand other types of sexual behavior “unnatural”, but I think that’s a notion that toes the line before bigotry. Have a care.

I think pedophilia is unnatural. You wrote, “What’s wrong about sex with children isn’t the sex of the child, it’s the fact that it involves a child.”

Does that mean we�re both bigots?

Gandhi,

But if there’s anything that Boston is intolerant of, it’s probably anything to do with New York.

Very true. I dare anyone who thinks Bostonians are �tolerant� to wear any sort of Yankees clothing to Boston! Not that we New Yorkers are any better. ;-)

Aldous,

Let us not forget that it was Gay Marriage Issue who got the DimBulb re-elected. No matter what Republicans say, the reality is they are more motivated by homophobia than Social Security, Economy or War.

Typical. Conveniently forgetting that most Democrats who voted on gay marriage bans supported them (They passed overwhelmingly in blue states). That way, you get to blast Republicans. Hint, hint: you can’t fix a problem if you are only willing to recognize half the people involved. Aldous, can you at least post something factual? If I have to read another one of your posts that says, �40% of Americans think Saddam did 911,� I swear I�m going to put my foot through my computer! No one in the government has ever said that, and no one I have met has ever believed it.

Gandhi,

Oh, please. If your notion of what is perfectly acceptable is shaped by prevalence in society, that means that any behavior that wins a majority of the population is fine. Thus, by your logic, the second some act wins a statistical majority, it becomes fine. Ridiculous.

I asked nothing more than that people be aware that words have connotations beyond their fixed meaning. You’d have to be pretty naive to believe otherwise. “Abnormal” has an undeniable negative connotation, as does “deviant”. I believe in another thread you said you were (half?) Indian. If someone called being Indian “abnormal”, because Indians are a minority in this country, can you honestly tell me that Indian-Americans wouldn’t take offense? I doubt you could and keep a straight face.

Homosexuality came up, I addressed it once it was in the conversation. I did not bring it up. What caught my eye was YOU listing it among behaviors that are deemed reprehensible because they are harmful:

“…homosexuals and others with abnormal sexual interests (incest, pedophilia, multiple partners, abuse)…”

I took issue with fact that you regard homosexuality as a behavior that ranks with sexual abuse and pedophilia.

People act like the “PC game” is such a huge burden, when really all it does is ask you to think about what you say. Like all things, it can be carried to extremes, but don’t use that as a license to spew thoughtless crap.

Homosexuality isn’t “deviant” or “abnormal”, unless you are using strict denotations for one definition of those words; it’s just another mode of sexual conduct. What makes other forms of sexual activity “bad” is that they cause harm (e.g. abuse) or occur without consent (e.g. rape, beastiality, pedophilia). Homosexuality bears none of the indicia of harmful sexual activity.

And, once again, I don’t find “flaming” against conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) for beliefs they have as nearly on the same level of offensiveness as directing invective against homosexuals or minorities,for example. For reasons detailed in past posts. I don’t feel like getting into it again.

Gandhi,

Dick Cheney has a homosexual daughter. Are you saying that he is a “weak” father?

Are you hypocritical or is your theory just stupid?

TheTraveler:

The 40% of Americans think Saddam did 9/11 was part of a poll made by a respected organization AFTER Congress declared that it was not true. Maybe having Cheney directly contradicting the Report had something to do with it. Would you like a Link?

I never said Homophobia is a purely Republican Problem. However, only Republicans will vote based on Gay Marriage regardless of any other Issue. Homophobic Democrats may fear Gays but they don’t let it decide their vote.

PS Please feel free to break your Computer. I do not mind.

Traveler:

No, not at all. I was merely pointing out that the term “unnatural” is, first, a pretty nebulous critique, and second, is a word commonly associated with intolerant criticism of sexual behavior. My intent was to say, if you want to persist in that line of argument implicated by calling something “unnatural”, realize that you’re getting into some ugly and difficult to defend territory. In any discussion, everyone has to define their terms.

I think “unnatural” is an unusual choice of words in describing sexual activity. Aside from having sex with a robot or something, I have a hard time making sense of it. I definitely think pedophilia is wrong, but that has nothing to do with whether it is “natural” or not. I can’t think of any of my moral beliefs that are predicated on a thing’s being natural.
I think pedophilia is bad, because it frequently involves physical and emotional harm, and because I don’t regard minors as having the requisite capacity for consent yet.

So, no, I’m not a bigot. I think I can assume that, when you call pedophilia “unnatural”, you probably mean the same thing I described above. So you’re not one either. “Unnatural” is just a bad choice of words.

Donna said:

Anyone who has counseled those who have been sexually abused by rapists or pedophiles will tell you that the perpetrator does so out of receiving a sense of control/power. It is NOT sexual. Sex is just the vehicle they use to convey that sense of power.

I’ve heard lots of people tell me it’s not SEXUAL when someone is raped. Have you ever held a woman in your arms while she cries because she’s was raped (repeatedly) as a child? Then raped again as an adult, and she did nothing because she thought she deserved it? Have you ever tried to help a woman who cannot have a healthy sexual relationship because she’s been sexually abused so badly that she feels dirty whenever a man touches her?

I have. It breaks my heart. The biggest
“thrill” for the rapist may be power over sex, but rape is a sexual act. Anyone who argues differently seems VERY callous to me. I’m not a therapist so obviously I can’t appreciate the psychological intricasies of rape. But I understand the victim position a whole lot better than anyone who has studied it in a textbook.

Saying rape isn’t about sex is ignoring the effect rape has on the victim!

I apologize for the rant, but I really couldn’t resist.

Jarin, I challenged someone to produce a statistic refuting my assertion.

Yes, you did challenge someone to produce a statistic. However, you yourself only provided the anecdotal evidence that everyone you knew with “unnatural sexual desires”, including homosexuality, had a father of the sort you described. You provided no statistical evidence of this, only your own experience. I responded in kind. To demand me to provide statistics to refute your anecdotes is to bias the argument heavily in your favor.

Saying rape isn’t about sex is ignoring the effect rape has on the victim!

Stephanie, I think you misunderstood… no one was saying rape is not a sexual act, with sexual repercussions for the victim. The statement that rape is not about sex was made solely with regard to the perpetrator, and was made to refute the idea that a male raping another male must be homosexual.

unkind K said:

Homosexuality isn’t “deviant” or “abnormal”, unless you are using strict denotations for one definition of those words; it’s just another mode of sexual conduct.

Sexual intercourse is naturally an act of procreation. By that definition, much of what goes on now can be considered unnatural, including both homosexual sex and heterosexual sex when birth control is used.

However, comparing homosexuals to ethnic groups doesn’t wash. A black person doesn’t choose to act black as there cannot be any viable definition of what acting black means. A homosexual chooses to act like a homosexual every time they have sex with a partner of the same gender. Whether they choose to feel homosexual attraction or not is not the issue, it is how they act that makes them homosexuals, not merely what they feel. I’ve known at least one person with homosexual attractions who has felt (after acting like a homosexual) that it is morally wrong. He’s learned to be attracted to people of the opposite sex and is much happier for it. His is not the only such story.

Since homosexual attraction can be overcome using the same techniques used to overcome addiction, I think that makes homosexual behavior pretty suspect.

Stephanie:

I do not mean to be callous but I have a question. There seems to be a rise in the number of women who claim they were molested when they weren’t.

What motivates women to do this?

Just curious.

Jarin,

Do you suppose that the men who are raped care whether the man who rapes them has homosexual feelings, either admitted or repressed? The man who is raped still has to deal with trauma of the sexual act that was committed upon him. The act of rape is still ABOUT SEX whether it is about sexual orientation or not. By concentrating on the perpetrator, even to make a valid point, you are neglecting to remember the traumatized victim.

As for you and your boyfriend, I’m quite happy for you that neither of you have been abused by your fathers. And that does refute the presented argument (sorry, I couldn’t find who presented the argument). However, it does not mean the consentual sexual acts you participate in are “normal” just because they’re not (or don’t seem) harmful to you.

Besides, something that (supposedly?) frequently draws blood would fall under my definition of harmful. However, I must admit ignorance as to whether anal sex frequently draws blood.

Aldous,

I’ve no idea where you’re coming from with that. The first time I’ve heard of a woman saying she was molested when she (probably) wasn’t was with Freud, and he (supposedly) played severe mind-games with her first. So “more”? I’m not sure.

However, if the amount of women who are coming forward (truthfully or falsely) is increasing, my guess would be because liberal lawyers are making it financially rewarding to do so.

Stephanie:

Sexual intercourse is also naturally a method of self-gratification. Which is the true end? There are no moral conclusions to be found by discussing what’s natural and what isn’t.

Of course it washes, when you consider that I was referencing the fact that both race and sexual orientation are groups that one is born into. They’re not the same type of group, but they share one same quality.

I think your story about a homosexual converting, or whatever you want to call it, is pretty silly. Maybe that kind of thing happens, but the occurrence is, I feel safe in guessing, ridiculously small.

Moreover, your attempt at using such an as scientific evidence of homosexuality as some kind of volitional act is a little bit silly, as well. Has anyone ever attempted the opposite? I bet that’s possible, too. Clearly, sexual orientation a combination of inborn and socialized factors, as most things are, but the fact that homosexuality is present even among animals, and in statistically significant numbers, and animals do not experience socialization like humans do, seems pretty conclusive on the issue.

The kind of situation you’re describing sounds like that great white hope that Christians have that people can be brainwashed straight. I wish them luck with that — they’re just going to make a whole lot of decent people miserable by trying to deny their identities. Then again, one thing Christians have never failed to do throughout their benighted history is make people miserable, so par for the course, I guess.

>Sigh

Your last sentence is preposterous. Most any behavior can be overcome by intensive reinforcement of one type or another. On the other hand, certain forms of sexual behavior (e.g. pedophilia) are nearly completely resistant to the kind of treatments you describe. Is it your contention that, since that behavior doesn’t respond to the same sort of treatments that help addicts, it is what we’re meant to do?

Oops… the melodramatic sigh was supposed to be followed by a disclaimer:

I think Christianity is a fine thing; unfortunately, its adherents usually aren’t.

As for those who wish to bash the Bible:

1) Have you read it? Or do you just like to take excerpts out of context (as Sen. Kennedy obviously did) and twist them to mean what you wish?

2) The Bible should NOT be taken literally before the point where Moses was born. Moses wrote the first four books of the Bible, and for those aspects preceeding his own birth he relied on the oral traditions of the Jews (and probably the Midians). Besides, can imagine anyone explaining the intricasies of how the universe was created to any people of that time period? I mean, without sounding insane. How the universe came to be is still a question that science cannot answer, they only theorize and disagree with each other.

3) There is proof that a flood, as described in the Bible, did happen. The main error is that only Noah and company survived. The Chinese kept records of such a flood. So did the Mayans.

4) If you are so dissatisfied with the Bible, then try reading the Book of Mormon. Pray to know for yourself whether or not it is true, then let your soul be comforted.

From the perspective of evolution: Sexual intercourse is an act of gratification because it ensures the continuation of a species. If it wasn’t gratifying why would non-intelligent creatures (the intelligent ones being those who can actually decide to have children) work so hard to procreate.

I’ve never heard of homosexual animals. Sorry. I’ve heard of far too many things that have been proven (and then disproven) in laboratories to find that credible on its own merits.

Lastly, I didn’t feel the need to lower myself to name calling to debate your point. The fact you did says something about your maturity level.

unkind K said:

I think Christianity is a fine thing; unfortunately, its adherents usually aren’t.

Christianity is about forgiveness of sins and loving despite sins, and I agree many, many Christians need to better understand that concept and to strive to live it. However, Christianity is not about accepting sinful behavior because… oh well, that’s how we were born.

We’re all sinful beings. If I seemed to imply that your sin is any greater than mine or anybody else’s, then I sincerely apologize. However, saying something isn’t a sin because you were born to it isn’t right. If you are a Christian, then you must admit we are all born into sin. Or else we wouldn’t need the redemption Jesus Christ offers us.

Saying you don’t believe homosexuality is a sin, because you don’t believe sin or God exist is your own business, of course. This is America and you do have the freedom of that belief.

Stephanie:

Oh, come ON. If you are going to profess any sort of viewpoint about homosexuality, you could at least do some reading. I found this in literally about 10 seconds, no exaggeration:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092821/posts

I’m sure there are even better links than this, but the ease with which I found this is telling. The information is at your fingertips, if you bother to look.

And I never called you a single name.

Yes, I have read the Bible. I probably know more about the Bible than most Christians who post here. As for the second part of the question, I leave twisting the Bible to fit predetermined ends to the fundamentalist right.

I find it difficult to aver that any part of the Bible should be taken literally. Hell, even St. Augustine in the early A.D. years cautioned against taking the Old Testament too literally.

I’m not going to argue with you about the historical validity of the Bible: clearly, some of the events in it did take place.

You said:

“We’re all sinful beings. If I seemed to imply that your sin is any greater than mine or anybody else’s, then I sincerely apologize. However, saying something isn’t a sin because you were born to it isn’t right. If you are a Christian, then you must admit we are all born into sin. Or else we wouldn’t need the redemption Jesus Christ offers us.”

Oh Lord, I love Bible people. It’s so easy to sit back and say, “Oh, we’re all sinners. You just have to realize that when I have sex, God thinks it’s OK, and when you do, he think’s it’s an abomination.” That’s really no concession at all, it’s still you placing yourself above homosexuals, even if it’s buried deep in your mind , beneath the obligatory self-congratulatory “humility”. You’ve just externalized your own judgments, projecting them onto God, making him the third party judging a person, instead of you. That way, your conscience is clear and you can say, “Oh, I don’t judge. We’re all sinners.” But really, you’re still judging, and moreover, pretending to know the mind of God. Just sanctimonious garbage masquerading as virtue.

But I’m sure you meant well.

And I’m assuming from your first sentence that you believe me to be gay just because I defend homosexuals?

d.a.n.—

When conservative Republicans stop acting as one I will stop treating them as one arrogant, self-serving voice; I promise. Why the Bible, because as I stated, it is the well from which most conservative drink, and from which they would have us all drink in order to conform the Christian dogma. It affects us all.

Traci—

Let’s not change the subject shall we. And what Dean said had a modicum of truth, whether you choose to believe it or not. Bush’s continued snub of the NAACP sort of proves his point.

Chops—

What would you consider “unorthodox sexualities?”

And my opinion of the Holy Bible is based on reading the book and drawing a conclusion that any reasonable, thinking, person would draw. Being a person of logic, I cannot bring myself to base my life on a book so filled with contradictions and fantasy. That does not make me intolerant, for I am not saying they you are not free to live your life invested in faith, nor dies it make me ignorant. Absence of belief in the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah for that matter, does not make one ignorant; in my book it makes one enlightened, and free to explore real spirituality.

What make heterosexuals normal and homosexuals sick? And judging another individual is not wrong if it done from a place of enlightenment.

Kctim—

What make Moore an idiot? Is it because he dare shed light on the underhanded dealings of those who are charged with our trust? And when Republicans stop walking in lockstep on every issue no matter how onerous, then perhaps I’ll stop seeing them as a beast with one eye.

Craig—

Well said!

Steve Smith—

What exactly has the Catholic Church done for mankind that is so laudable?

Gandhi—

Let me get this straight: if you had an uninvolved or abusive father, you are more likely to be a homosexual or have abnormal sexual predilections? What is the correlation between the behaviors, and are your conclusions based on facts with statistics and case studies to back them, or are you just tossing this one out? It is true that abuse does breed abuse if the abused is not treaded, but to make such a broad statement. My father was absence for most of my childhood, yet I nor any of my four siblings are into bizarre sexual practices; does that make us an anomaly? And by the way, I enjoy the occasional porn, but I still like the missionary position.

Stephanie—

“There is proof that a flood, as described in the Bible, did happen. The main error is that only Noah and company survived. The Chinese kept records of such a flood. So did the Mayans.”

If according to the Bible, life was wiped out in its entire by the great flood that gave birth to the fable of Noah and his Arc, how did the Chinese and Mayan record it? If we believe in the fable, mankind was destroyed and had to begin anew, which means learning had to begin anew. And if there was a great flood that covered the earth’s surface with water, how did the records survive? Arguably, there in no more destructive force on the earth then water. And did they write these accounts as the water was rising, or after it receded? And can you produce a link to these records?

Christianity, like all Institutions created to manage the masses by fear, is about power and control little else. Believing in something does not make it true. And like you state most Christians do not live their faith, perhaps if they did, our society would be far less corrupt.

Andre - I have no interest in defending Dick Cheney’s character as a father, as I do not know him personally. People have free will, but nurture is a significant factor in lifestyle shaping.

Unkind - how do you know that bestiality isn’t consentual? Why are you picking on bestial people? You must at least be consistent. (By the way, being half-Indian is not a behavioral characteristic - it’s an innate one).

Homosexuality is physically harmful, and is attributed to a much shorter lifespan (apart from higher prevelance of acquiring STDs). Should homosexuals have the same access to public health care when they incur higher costs than the average person? Yes, the majority does determine what is acceptable. (That doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to agree with the majority, but make your case).

The term “unnatural” is a form of the word “nature”, and in nature people reproduce. Homosexuals and bestials do not reproduce, so the term is perfectly valid. So is the term “deviant” - it would be quite hard to show that this behavior is ingrained in the human genetic code, and questions the theory of natural selection. Homosexuals and bestials are DEVIATING from what is conventional, and DEVIATING from the genetic code that tells humans to survive and reproduce.

Jarin, VEM, Stephanie - read http://www.narth.com/docs/1996papers/dickson.html on the correlation between homsexuality and paternal relations.

Stephanie - the stories told by the Chinese and other races about the flood are practically identical to the Biblical one. So it seems highly likely that the story is the same. VEM - take a look at Mt. Ararat for evidence of a flood. There was a dission on this the other week on Watchblog, I think in the left column.

VEM -

I enjoy the occasional porn, but I still like the missionary position.

Your very admission that you have to look at porn to feel like a man correlates to my earlier statements about parental involvement. Homosexuality is certainly not the only symptom of an uninvolved father.

“What makes Moore an idiot?”

He’s a liberal. ALL liberals are socialists. ALL liberals hate our freedoms and are trying to destroy the parts of the Bill of Rights that they do not agree with.
Oh, and the way he leaves things out in order to support his leftist agenda is also very liberal.
Doing that means he is a lying liberal and ALL liberals are idiots.

That is, IF I were to use the same logic as you.

unkind K said:

If you are going to profess any sort of viewpoint about homosexuality, you could at least do some reading.

I am. That’s why I’m here. Look at the “why” on the Watchblog home page please.

Unfortunately, I went to the website you found and agree that it is not a good example. It begs the argument that there is DIFINITELY something wrong with homosexuals because their brains are messed up. That is NOT my position. But, that’s the conclusion such an article would lead a true homophobe to make.

unkind K said:

And I never called you a single name.

No, you merely called my arguments silly and preposterous. My one example was much along the same lines as Jarin’s (who I had you briefly confused with) one example. i.e. The exception that proves the rule. If he wants to draw conclusions from his small example, then I can provide contradicting small examples.

unkind K said:

“Oh, we’re all sinners. You just have to realize that when I have sex, God thinks it’s OK, and when you do, he think’s it’s an abomination.”

Actually, as per my own definition, my sexual behavior is equally unnatural because I use birth control when I have sex with my husband. That is a sin that I have to deal with and I admit it freely. My reasons for using birth control (my husband and I are naturally a very fertile couple) does not justify disobeying the commandments of God. As a sinful creature, my faith that God will not give me any more children than I can handle and/or would help me handle more children when my current gaggle is pushing me to the limit of my endurance is obviously lacking. I don’t have enough faith not to use birth control. There’s my sin. The ivory tower you see is created only in your own mind, not mine.

unkind K said:

You’ve just externalized your own judgments, projecting them onto God, making him the third party judging a person, instead of you.

I didn’t project my judgements on God. If anyone is guilty of that it would be St. Paul. You continue to insist on seeing malice where none exists. My best friend is an example of someone who tried “going gay” (her own words). The best she ever reached was bi, which she continues to practice to this day. I still love her and respect her and appreciate her for the wonderful person she is. She knows I don’t agree with her sexual behavior, but that has NEVER interfered with our relationship. That is her choice and I know it. Some of things I do (like choosing not to get a tatoo despite the fact that I would like one, or the fact that I continue to smoke despite the fact that I should not) bothers her. But she does not JUDGE me for it, nor do I JUDGE her. I feel no malice towards homosexuals as a group and “judge” homosexual individuals on the same basis as I “judge” anyone else. i.e. If you screw me (or somebody I’m close to) over I’m not going to like you.

As for thinking you were homosexual, I didn’t assume you were because you defend their position. I confused you with Jarin for a moment and didn’t catch it when I edited my comment. For that, I apologize.

Gandhi~

“Homosexuality is physically harmful, and is attributed to a much shorter lifespan (apart from higher prevelance of acquiring STDs). Should homosexuals have the same access to public health care when they incur higher costs than the average person? Yes, the majority does determine what is acceptable. (That doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to agree with the majority, but make your case).”

Thank~you for pointing this little blunder out, because (being a smoker) the left is constantly screaming at us that we are costing to much money in medical bills, same argument when I don’t think I should be forced to wear a seatbelt also!

Someone explain to me the difference here.

Gandhi—

I do believe I ever stated that I have to look at porn in order to feel like a man; how did you draw that conclusion from my statement? My enjoyment of the (occasional) porn has nothing to do with my father, and a lot to do with a healthy sex life.

As for the great flood, Mt Ararat is hardly proof of the so-called Great Flood any more than the Great Lakes are. Are we to believe that Noah gathered to of every species on the face of the earth into an arc and then set sail for 40 days and forty nights? There 300 breeds of dog, 40,000 known spider species, some 274 breeds of cow; the logistics of the operation alone defy logic.

KcTim—

Sorry you did not make your point, care to try again?

Traci—

Huh? I personally have nothing against smokers if they keep their smoke to themselves. They have the right to slowly kill themselves, but not me and mine with their second hand smoke. As for the seatbelt, we agree (I think), you should not be forced to wear them, you have informed consent; children on he other hand should be strapped in.

VEM, man does not live by sex alone. Broken marriages and wimpy men are a product of easily available porn and an increasingly sex-saturated culture, where men aren’t giving themselves fully to their wives as they ought. If your wife doesn’t agree with me, I suspect most of the women here would. Porn is a cheap cop-out to real relationships, and robs women of what they deserve.

Samples on the wood of the ark on Mt. Ararat indicate that the wood is extremely old and from an extinct tree type. Not all species needed to be in the ark to survive the flood. The many cow and dog breeds could easily have come from the same ancestor without compromising genetic codes, just like we have yellow, brown and pink people from the same genetic code. There are some interesting theories on this if you have a look around on the Net, and the Watchblog archives.

VEM said:

Absence of belief in the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah for that matter, does not make one ignorant; in my book it makes one enlightened, and free to explore real spirituality.

VEM, are you a Buddhist? If you’re not you’ve made another intolerent blunder. Enlightenment is the religious goal of the Buddhist faith. It involves seeking a relief from the throes of passion through sacrifice and self-denial. In that sense you are not the least bit enlightened, as you are very passionate about your beliefs, whether you are Buddhist or not. The Europeans stole the idea of enlightenment from the Buddhists and secularized it. You are ridiculing religious beliefs by saying you are enlightened, yet ignorantly and intolerantly butchering the religious beliefs of yet another group of people in the process.

If you want to preach tolerance then you HAVE to live it. Otherwise you’re just a hypocrit. To put things in perspective, as per the link the Traveler provided, Santorum didn’t say anything about homosexuals. He made a comment questioning the motives of the media, using the example of alternative lifestyles. Yet you berate him as being intolerant, quoting Kennedy as your proof. The statements you’ve made against religion have been much more intolerant than what Santorum said. And, you didn’t provide a link to what Santorum actually said.

As for my argument in support of the flood, and thus giving an example of one “myth” the Bible got right, read my statement again. Think about it. I already answered your questions.

Also, my inability to provide links to this information (or find articles about homosexuality in animals for that matter) just proves that I am not as internet-savvy as many of you are. Not that my information isn’t based on research.

Gandhi,

Thanks for the link. I still haven’t learned how to search the internet without getting a whole bunch of junk that then takes me hours to shift through to find what I was looking for. Your efforts are appreciated.

Gandhi—

And man can not live without sex! My marriage is not broken and I am far from a wimp so…porn can add spice to a healthy, mature, respectful relationship. If the relationship is solid, both partners can enjoy the show with either feeling threatened, cheated and or degraded. The suppression of the natural sex drive I believe can and does lead to deviant sexual behavior. Sex is natural, and it was meant to be enjoyed by all.

Extinct trees are not proof of Noah’s Arc. And I do not buy the many from one or two theory, which is why I do not buy the story of Adam & Eve. To be sure there are many shades of human being, but there is only one species of human walking the earth. All animals are a product of their environment, and it is a stretch to believe that all the animals in the far flung places of the plant evolved from just two of their kind after a great and life altering flood. If this were so, how then to explain the indigenous animals of Madagascar and the Galapagos Islands, not to mention species of animals found no where else but the Amazon River basin? After all, the dinosaurs by-and-large, did not survive their brush with disaster, and there were millions of them walking the earth.

Speaking of not being inter-net savvy. Does anyone know if you can donate to Watchblog via check? I sent an e-mail to the Editor but haven’t gotten a response.

Stephanie, Google is a great resource when used with the right word combinations. For this particular one I searched for homosexuality AND parent AND causal relationship. To show my impartiality, here’s a dissenting opinion from another doctor. I ought to point out, however, that the former source has actually conducted his own research in a very scientific manner, verses the latter who has mainly rehashed other sources, and openly admits that “I claim no expertise as a clinician or behavioral scientist”. The sources that the latter source cites, however, may be of interest to some on this site.

VEM,

Your argument shows your assumptions. You believe in dinosaurs, yet the same type of tests that proves the flood was real proves that dinosaurs existed. Yet the proofs on the flood aren’t credible because you don’t like the Bible. Hypocrasy.

If someone disagrees with the bible, it doesn’t neccessarily mean they’re bashing it.

Stephanie, you say the bible should NOT be taken literally before Mosses was born, yet creationists beleive the world was created in seven days. Are they wrong and you right?

I think the problem many have including myself, is that when using the bible as a source of what is right and what is wrong, who’s interpretation do we use?

Thank you Gandhi. I typically use “a AND b NOT c” and get garbage. I’ll try three ANDs next time and hopefully get better results.

Monkeywerks,

I have two answers to that question.

1) Honestly pray about your questions regarding the Bible to God and wait for an answer.

2) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormon church) believes there is a living prophet, Gordon B. Hinkley, who receives direct revelation from God.

Also, my statement was a logical argument, not about religious beliefs. Refuting the entire Bible because the beginning is in mythos form is not a logical argument.

And yes, I stated my case too strongly. I apologize. I should have said, “I believe you should not…” Thanks for pointing out my own blunder.

Stephanie,

No I am not a Buddhist. And intellectual and or spiritual enlightenment are not now, nor were they ever the sole province of the cohorts of Buddha. Human being no matter their stripe should always seek the light of understanding and knowledge; as higher thinking being we owe it to ourselves. I have not stated anything about religion in general that is not born out by human history, etched in pain across the souls of the innocent, and blowing in the dust of the many, many civilizations religious zealotry have caused to be destroyed. I do not prescribe to the dogma of any religion because I do not need to believe that there is anything else to life then what it is. Might there be an all knowing being? Perhaps, but if he is up there I serious doubt he care about the comings and goings of humans.

Speaking out against religion does not make one intolerant; you are free to worship as you will, but do not seek to paint my life with your Christian brush, for then you infringe upon my right to live free as I will.

We all know that alternative life-style is a euphemism for homosexuals, gays, and lesbians, let not play naïve. And how are my statements about religion intolerant? Again, a dispassionate study of the world’s faiths through human history will bear out the truth of my statements.

VEM, explain to me why fossils have been found all over the earth from species not indigenous to that area. I’m not continuing a discussion here about the Ark as it is off subject. Read through the archives and start a new post, and I’ll discuss it with you.

Sex is natural, and it was meant to be enjoyed by all.

…including children and animals? Each to his own, I guess. But what you’re doing sounds really unhealthy to me. To include porn with lovemaking is to elevate the experience beyond the importance of the relationship as a whole, demanding ever more satisfaction, while being able to acquire less as (with age) you and your wife become less able to perform physically. From a utilitarian view, that’s a setup for failure and dissatisfaction.

Here’s a link to support the Chinese/Noah argument. Not great, but the best I could find without trying to read them all.

Hidden Story

As for your intolerance:

Why the Bible, because as I stated, it is the well from which most conservative drink, and from which they would have us all drink in order to conform the Christian dogma.

First of all, not all conservatives are Christians. Some are Jewish or Islamic or Bahhai or Agnostic or, well…you should get the point by now. Secondly, nothing I’ve said has asked you to conform to Christian doctrine. I have, however, refute your unfounded attacks against religion and put your tirade against Santorum in perspective. He was making a comment about the MEDIA. Why is that so hard for you to grasp onto? The alternative life-style angle was just an EXAMPLE said to an audience that UNDERSTOOD him. You are taking it out of context and making it out as if it were hate-speech, which it wasn’t in the least.

VEM said:

What’s the next step Santorum would have society take? Ban and or separate homosexuals and lesbians from heterosexuals? Should we create a state just for them, or perhaps banish them to Midway Island? Should be codify into law what so many conservatives advocate by word and deed, and relegate homosexuals and lesbians to second class citizenship once and for all for having the gall to love someone from the same sex?

NOTHING in the link the Traveler provided would lead any REASONABLE person to think such fear-filled thoughts. Santorum didn’t say (in this article) what you said he meant. And, you’ve yet to provide a link where he does say what you claim he meant.

Stephanie

“I typically use “a AND b NOT c” and get garbage.”

typeing not c ino google
won’t work. google searches each word indivually. Typing in not c will make you more likly to get c

That would be the problem then, wouldn’t it. Thank you.

Where to begin?

Gandhi —

Regarding your “innate/abnormal” argument:
Sexuality, I would argue, is not based on action, either, or choice, for that matter, and is innate. A celibate person with a desire to have sex with only the same sex, is still a homosexual. By your logic, a celibate person is asexual. Sexuality is determined by whom you WANT to get down with, no with whom you DO get down with.

Moreover, if you say being Indian is innate, fine then — your parents are abnormal, in that interracial mating is uncommon. And Indians are abnormal, in that Indian-Indian mating is uncommon statistically in this country. Being a man might be called “abnormal”, because there are more women than men in the world. This is all according to your definition; I would never call any of these things abnormal.

The point, which you missed, was to be mindful of connotations. And even if you say you are using it in some sort of “connotation-free zone”, which I don’t believe is possible, calling something unnatural in that sense is just irrelevant.

The same goes for your discussion of “deviant”. I know what deviant means, but the connatations are offensive to a great many people. I would never call Indian culture “deviant” because the great majority of people in this country don’t share it, simply because it carries a negative connotation.

Regarding your “homosexuality is harmful” argument:

Actually, it’s widely known that STD transmission is far higher among heterosexuals. Care to try again?

Regarding the “unnatural” argument:

The word “unnatural” comes from “nature”??! Wait a minute….holy crap, you’re right! Well that changes…nothing, actually.

The point is that a thing’s being natural has nothing to do with its being moral or immoral. Morality itself is an unnatural construct imposed on the world by man.

Lots of things happen in nature: things get cancer and die, for instance. Since cancer is natural, does that make it “unnatural”, and therefore wrong, to try to cure it? Of course not.

Moreover, humans are not alone in engaging in recreational sex: dolphins do it, too. Does that mean that sex maybe isn’t entirely intended for procreational purposes?

I’ll say it again, nature has nothing to do with morality. Nature is amoral.

Stephanie, your turn:

Nothing wrong with the article. I find it telling that you called the homosexual ram’s brain “messed up”, when all the article said was that they were different. A little glimpse into your inner homophobia, perhaps?

As for my critique of Christians, I apologize if it doesn’t apply to you. It does apply to the rest of fundamental Christendom.

Moreover, I think it’s sad that you regard homosexuality and taking birth control as sins. Nobody should have to feel bad for things they do that don’t hurt themselves or anybody else. I don’t imagine that I’ll ever convince you otherwise.

Unkind K,

The reason I used “messed up” AND the emphasis that it was not my position was because I have three sons on the autistic spectrum, and have been told (by doctors no less) that they are “messed up” because their brains are different. I do NOT make such arguments. Arguments like that are designed to be hurtful and if you give someone an easy-in like that you should be braced for the consequences.

More to the point, the fact that their brains are different proves nothing. You can get diseases that changes the appearance and functioning of your brain. Does that make the things you do then good, bad or indifferent? A difference in the brain doesn’t justify homosexuality anymore than a lack of difference in the brain would. It’s irrelevant that the brain is different.

unkind K said:

As for my critique of Christians, I apologize if it doesn’t apply to you. It does apply to the rest of fundamental Christendom.

Well, I must say I’m glad to finally have met someone who’s met and gotten to know all of fundamental Christendom. How many countries did you have to go to? How many people do you know? Come on, you can tell us.

No, really. You can’t say that without showing your own intolerance because you’re judging an entire group of people on the words and actions of the loudest of them.

By that line of thinking, all liberals are intolerant and anti-religious. Which, I personally know several exceptions, so they’re not. Neither are fundamental Christians what you claim.

BTW, I never said I felt bad for using birth control. If I felt bad about it, I wouldn’t use it. The not feeling bad for something you know you shouldn’t do is part of the nature of sin. The most effect forms of birth control do/will hurt any developing fetus who’s conception isn’t controlled. For example, since an IUD is the only effective method I can use without having a severe reaction I have to be careful to “rush to the doctor” should I show any sign of pregnancy or the IUD could kill my baby.

Stephanie:

Wait, wait, wait. We’ve gotten off subject. Whether or not the brains were different means nothing to me. You just wanted proof that homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, and I furnished it. End of story.

And again, I think it’s generally OK to characterize an entire group as thinking a certain way if two prerequisites obtain:
1) Members choose membership in that group
2) Membership in that group is BASED on what the member thinks

When I say it’s OK, I mean only that generalizations are not in poor taste, and may even be warranted. And that goes both ways: I don’t care if people rip on Republicans, Christians, liberals, atheists, etc. But it’s especially true when what a person believes is laid down in one document! It’s not like I’m making some outlandish claims about them, like they breathe fire and eat babies. Maybe they do, I don’t know. But it’s pretty well known that fundies aren’t wild about the gays.

Stephanie,

Let me start by saying that I am not a religious person. That said, you are welcome to your beliefs what ever they may be. Please just don’t ask me to belive it too.

Are you aware of the “Epic of Gilgamesh”?
This is a Sumarian text found writen on stone tablets. These tablets predate the writers of the Bible by nearly half a millenia.

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

This is another flood story. The Sumerians were around starting about 3800BCE.

BTW the Sumerian Genesis also predates the Biblical version, as does the Babylonian Genesis.

Rocky,

That’s a pretty long reading assignment you’ve given me. It’ll take me at least a few days. Before now the only Gilgamesh I’d ever heard of was from the Smurfs.

Personally, I prefer to do my reading in books (at least partially because I can rarely find what I’m looking for on the internet). Call me old-fashioned. Oh, and scientists figured out years ago that such a devastating flood could occur with the right catalyst. But, alas, that’s irrelevant because I can’t find a link.

Maybe someone will actually start an appropriate thread for this. As for now, I’ll leave it alone.

unkind K,

Homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, and so does cannibalism. So, I’ll concede. Homosexuality is natural. And thus, by your own words, amoral. Americans have the right (as the rest of the world should) to choose to do that which is amoral as long as it doesn’t break the law (or they can change the law). Yet such choices, as do all others, have consequences. The homosexual community has worked very hard to negate the consequences of their choices (they want children and spouses which their choices have thus far excluded, spouses being an unnatural construct of society designed by heterosexuals).

I’m not intolerant of homosexuals, whether I agree with their justifications or not. I just don’t support them in their decisions. That seems to be your real problem, that I don’t support them and you do. We’ll just have to agree to disagree here.

Stephanie,

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

The point wasn’t to read the whole thing.

Noah’s flood wasn’t the original story. Whoever wrote took it from somewhere else.

Stephanie

Amoral doesn’t mean the same thing as imm-

You know what? Never mind…

Gandhi,

“Each to his own, I guess. But what you’re doing sounds really unhealthy to me.”

What are you talking about?! What world do you live in? it is a given that with age comes a less active sex life, but viewing porn (occasionally, I said occasionally) has nothing to do with that!

viewing porn (occasionally, I said occasionally)

Is the person who steals for a living worse than the person who steals when compulsion strikes?

Oh brother…

Abnormal vs. Normal
Let me get this right.
If a man sleeps with another man that is “Abnormal.”
Man with woman = “Normal”
So no matter what a man or woman do together it is “Normal?”

So if I go home tonight and have my girlfriend hang upside down from the ceiling fan wearing a chicken suit while I rub a midget down with butter,all the while capturing this romantic moment using a trained
chimpanzi with a camera,I can still call myself “Normal?”
I’m leaving work early and calling my sweetheart now!

“IMHO”
What “John Wayne” movie contains this line Spoken by a priest or vicar? “Religion is a fine thing son,(as he takes a nip from a flask) in moderation”, Was it “The Quiet Man”? The priest and vicar engaged in such Frowned upon “Sins” or “Acts”: Such as Drinking, Gambling, Smoking and Filandering.
The Europeans, Are miles ahead of us in terms of Religious Tolerance. That was my experience in the 10 years, I was stationed there. The two exceptions: Bosnia and Kosovo.
Had to share my thoughts.

As Always,
Wayne

Wayne,

This country has never been a hotbed of religious “tolerance”. I suspect that it won’t be anytime soon.

The Puritans left England because of their own religious intolerance. They felt that the state religon shouldn’t change with the change of the monarch.

Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

um…

just my two cents here…

rape, in any form, is about power.

it is about control and fear and domination of another living being.

sex is merely the weapon.

men or women who act out thier inner turmoil with rape have far more serious issues than their sexuality.