I, for one, am PRO gay marriage...

[MCon]

Originally posted by Dark Angel Generally, I agree, but it's a grey line.

 

 

Not sure really how grey the line is. One involves choice and free-will (with limitations with regard to minor vs. adult status). The other does not for at least one of the participants.

[Loghead]

Originally posted by STEEL KAGE No argument here but throwing out the Grammarian thing is a bit grandiloquent Kage

 

 

Right, but I miss your point. Grandiloquence, bombast, parody, and hyperbole are all conventions of literary wit. Draelyc pointed out that I had split an infinitive, so I attempted a verbal gymnastic in order to play along with his ribbing. That extension of the joke seems to have rubbed you and Hairydangler the wrong way, but I have no idea why. See, I

[Loghead]

Originally posted by Dark Angel Generally, I agree, but it's a grey line.

 

 

There certainly is a grey line, and that's why the term "consenting adult" is so important. Adult sexuality is a very complex phenomenon. If we don't want to get hopelessly tangled up in sexual politics, we must separate rape from sex.

 

 

[Dark Angel]

Originally posted by MCon Not sure really how grey the line is. One involves choice and free-will (with limitations with regard to minor vs. adult status). The other does not for at least one of the participants.

 

 

I'm talking about the motivation of the offender, whether it involved sex or not. That's where there is a gradual progression of motive and outcome. I listed several acceptable behaviors motivated by the same desires satisfied by rape.

 

Obviously to the victim there is no grey line. They want it or they don't. There are the few girls though that like "pseudo-rape". There are many girls who enjoy enslavement, humility, dehumanization, and desecration.

 

Look at prison rape. It clearly has a some sexual component, but it is mostly about dominance and wanting someone or something "to be your bitch".

 

There's an acceptable level of that desire, and they usually manifest sexually. For some it doesn't, like the guys that really get off on getting in fights. They are doing very much the same thing as a rapist.

[Dark Angel]

Originally posted by Loghead There certainly is a grey line, and that's why the term "consenting adult" is so important. Adult sexuality is a very complex phenomenon.

 

 

Yep.

[MCon]

Originally posted by Dark Angel I'm talking about the motivation of the offender, whether it involved sex or not.

 

 

Gotcha.

[STEEL KAGE]

Originally posted by Loghead Right, but I miss your point. Grandiloquence, bombast, parody, and hyperbole are all conventions of literary wit. Draelyc pointed out that I had split an infinitive, so I attempted a verbal gymnastic in order to play along with his ribbing. That extension of the joke seems to have rubbed you and Hairydangler the wrong way, but I have no idea why. See, I

[NewYorkNewYork]

Originally posted by gdwill2u One might assume that from this board, but I don't think that is normative for our population as a whole. All sexual sin as equal in God's sight. A man who has sex with another man is no more a sinner in God's sight than a man having sex with his girlfriend before marriage. The farther away from simple decency and morality we get, the more complexity we can expect. Now, having said that...homosexual behavior is called an abomination in the bible. This is because it violates not only the law of adultery and fornication but also the commandment to be fruiful and multiply. The bible also says that sexual sin is very serious, it says that all other sins a man commits against others or against God, but the man who sins sexually violates himself. The implication is that sexual sin eats away at a man's integrity and compromises his spiritual well being in a profound and unique fashion. This issue has been ignored in this thread because it cuts across all sexual barriers equally, we are all screwed up because we live in a culture that has drifted so far from normal, and healthy that we have lost our vision for goodness. Our very natures and desires have been warped. God help us all.

 

 

Not everyone believes in God and/or the Bible. The bible was written by man! Not everyone believes that sex is a dirty, sinful thing. I honestly believe that sexual repression causes a lot of problems in society. People who have safe, consensual sex for nothing but a good time are doing absolutely nothing wrong in my eyes. Sex and love have nothing to do with each other, people are just conditioned to believe that the two are tied together. And religion is a big part of that.

 

Here are some other gems in the bible:

 

Matthew 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

 

Matthew 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

 

Deuteronomy 22:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die..."

 

Deuteronomy 22:23-26 God's law: a virgin raped in the city is to be given no pity.

 

Don't believe everything you read.

 

 

[SkidMarx]

Originally posted by the russ once again, skid misses the entire point. it was an analogy set up to expose the many faults in your reasoning. not only with the catholic church = homosexual rape conclusion, but also with the "no other religion has priests that molest young boys" conclusion. you caught the second fallacy in your logic, but missed the first. i'm sure the clergy of other religions have also molested young children, however, people seem to ignore that the same as you ingore the fact that straight men molest young girls. because really all you're doing here is attacking NAMBLA, not molestation in general, in an effort to somehow make a conclusion about all homosexuals based solely on the existence of NAMBLA. It's a logical fallacy called "Affirming the Consequent". I can tell you're fond of it.

 

 

you must have me confused with someone else, because I never said that ALL homosexuals wish to sleep with young boys nor did I say that straight men do not molest young girls. They do, of course. What I am trying to get Draelyc to understand is that pedophiles CAN be both pedophiles AND homosexuals simultaneously. He seems to be arguing that a pedophile is a pedophile and cannot be homosexual as well. Of course he can, just as a heterosexual can be a pedophile. REAL SIMPLE example: a straight man has consexual sex with an adult woman. Then he goes and molests a young girl. Does that or does that not make him both a heterosexual and a pedophile? Same goes for gay men who molest young boys and also have consentual sex with adult men. Pretty simple.

[SkidMarx]

Originally posted by MCon Skid, bro, the point I was making was that 'pedophilia' and 'child molestation' was not a factor of gender or sexual orientation. I'm not arguing that a homosexual can't be a pedophile, I'm arguing the exclusivity of associating the two.

 

 

sorry, that was more directed at those who think a pedophile cannot also be a homosexual.

[potaetoes]

Originally posted by Loghead rubbed ... Hairydangler the wrong way ...

 

 

 

tee hee

[Loghead]

Originally posted by STEEL KAGE Saying that the Grammarians sided with Chris insinuates superiority, to me anyway. That is what I took umbrage to. Kage

 

 

My saying that the grammarians side with Draelyc against me insinuates my superiority? Okay. I can see how someone might take this sort of self-deprecation as snobbishness, but it sure seems like a thin connection.

[SkidMarx]

Originally posted by NewYorkNewYork Not everyone believes in God and/or the Bible. The bible was written by man! Not everyone believes that sex is a dirty, sinful thing. I honestly believe that sexual repression causes a lot of problems in society. People who have safe, consensual sex for nothing but a good time are doing absolutely nothing wrong in my eyes. Sex and love have nothing to do with each other, people are just conditioned to believe that the two are tied together. And religion is a big part of that. Here are some other gems in the bible: Matthew 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Matthew 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. Deuteronomy 22:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die..." Deuteronomy 22:23-26 God's law: a virgin raped in the city is to be given no pity. Don't believe everything you read.

I am constantly flabbergasted at how Christians completely ignore things like what you have quoted. "Kill a stubborn and rebellious son" That's a good one. "Give no pity to a virgin raped in the city" another good one. There's more killing in the name of God in the bible than there is in your average James Bond flick. Here we are in the year 2005 and people still believe that stuff. Or worse, they say they believe what's in it, and then they sculpt scripture such as this into meaning something different, or they dismiss it as archaic, or they'll try to convince you that it doeasn't really mean what it says it means, or they'll inore it completely in favor of the things it says they DO agree with. Like the cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose which scripture they like and throw out everything else. I have a better idea: stop believing the dellusional, irrational ramblings of primitive human beings and leave your relationship with your creator between you and him. I find that far more rational than to continue to embrace the teachings of a 2000 year old book that instructs people that Jesus want's you to kill your kids if they misbehave or to have no pity on a young girl who gets raped. Unbelievable.

[potaetoes]

Originally posted by Loghead My saying that the grammarians side with Draelyc against me insinuates superiority? Okay. I can see how someone might take this sort of self-deprecation as snobbishness, but it sure seems like a thin connection.

 

 

thin... perhaps even... sinuous?

[potaetoes]

Originally posted by SkidMarx I am constantly flabbergasted at how Christians completely ignore things like what you have quoted. "Kill a stubborn and rebellious son" That's a good one. "Give no pity to a virgin raped in the city" another good one. There's more killing in the name of God in the bible than there is in your average James Bond flick. Here we are in the year 2005 and people still believe that stuff. Or worse, they say they believe what's in it, and then they sculpt scripture such as this into meaning something different, or they dismiss it as archaic, or they'll try to convince you that it doeasn't really mean what it says it means, or they'll inore it completely in favor of the things it says they DO agree with. Like the cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose which scripture they like and throw out everything else. I have a better idea: stop believing the dellusional, irrational ramblings of primitive human beings and leave your relationship with your creator between you and him. I find that far more rational than to continue to embrace the teachings of a 2000 year old book that instructs people that Jesus want's you to kill your kids if they misbehave or to have no pity on a young girl who gets raped. Unbelievable.

{censored}. i can't disagree with anything in this post. i feel so dirty... damn you, skidmarx... daaaaamn youuuuuuu

[SkidMarx]

Originally posted by potaetoes {censored}. i can't disagree with anything in this post. i feel so dirty... damn you, skidmarx... daaaaamn youuuuuuu

LMFAO!!!!

[the russ]

Originally posted by SkidMarx you must have me confused with someone else, because I never said that ALL homosexuals wish to sleep with young boys nor did I say that straight men do not molest young girls. They do, of course. What I am trying to get Draelyc to understand is that pedophiles CAN be both pedophiles AND homosexuals simultaneously. He seems to be arguing that a pedophile is a pedophile and cannot be homosexual as well. Of course he can, just as a heterosexual can be a pedophile. REAL SIMPLE example: a straight man has consexual sex with an adult woman. Then he goes and molests a young girl. Does that or does that not make him both a heterosexual and a pedophile? Same goes for gay men who molest young boys and also have consentual sex with adult men. Pretty simple.

 

 

nope, i'm not confusing you with someone else. you were the one who kept harping on NAMBLA as an example of homosexual 'perversity'. and i am one of the ones pointing out how spurious that is. i know it wasn't in the main line of discussion - whether or not one can be a homosexual and a pedophile at the same time - the answer being: of course.

 

but anyway, that was the point i was trying to make. NAMBLA doesn't prove homosexual 'perversity' any more than hetero incest or molestation proves heterosexual 'perversity'. all of the above acts are extremely perverse, but do not in and of themselves prove anything about either preference.

[ranalli]

Originally posted by SkidMarx I am constantly flabbergasted at how Christians completely ignore things like what you have quoted. "Kill a stubborn and rebellious son" That's a good one. "Give no pity to a virgin raped in the city" another good one. There's more killing in the name of God in the bible than there is in your average James Bond flick. Here we are in the year 2005 and people still believe that stuff. Or worse, they say they believe what's in it, and then they sculpt scripture such as this into meaning something different, or they dismiss it as archaic, or they'll try to convince you that it doeasn't really mean what it says it means, or they'll inore it completely in favor of the things it says they DO agree with. Like the cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose which scripture they like and throw out everything else. I have a better idea: stop believing the dellusional, irrational ramblings of primitive human beings and leave your relationship with your creator between you and him. I find that far more rational than to continue to embrace the teachings of a 2000 year old book that instructs people that Jesus want's you to kill your kids if they misbehave or to have no pity on a young girl who gets raped. Unbelievable.

Dead on. Couldn't agree more.

[Loghead]

Originally posted by potaetoes thin... perhaps even... sinuous?

 

 

How about we go for "sensuous"? Wouldn't that be more germane to the topic of the thread?

[Rosewater]

Im not gonna read this whole thread, im just gonna say this:

Religion and belief is nothing more than an opinion. There is absolutely no proof that god exists, the devil exists, or that heaven and hell exists. These are beliefs and opinions people have been taught by their parents. They are NOT fact. And remember that if christianity had failed to spread across europe, you christians might be beleiving in polytheistic (multiple gods, like the egyptians and greeks believed in) religions instead. "Success is the sole judge of right and wrong".

Now when the concept of religion first arose, life then compared to today, was pretty {censored}ty, particularly during the dark ages. Believing that an all powerful being (or beings) would reward you with infinte happiness if you conformed to a certain set of rules was pretty comforting and inspiring. This could be pretty useful to leaders, who didnt have to completely satisfy the population because they were already pacified by a religion. Religion was also law in many places.

Fastforward to modern times. Most places in the world, the standard of living is much higher. We have sports, TV, computers, video games, music (both instruments and playing devices), etc. And when we have all this to make us happy, why would we need to be subordinates to a god when we can make ourselves happy without him?

As our society evolves, so do our opinions. Religion just isnt an important factor to many people anymore. And one of the biggest problems we have encountered is the idea of homosexual marriage. We have the religious aspect and the legal aspect. What i think needs to happen is the legal aspect needs to get a new name for "marriage". Then gay couples can have the same marital rights as heterosexual couples, without being hassled by the religious zealots. As for the religious aspect is out of the law's hands. The religion can deal with this issue in any legal way they want (ie, they can ban gay marriages in their sect, but they cant go out and burn any gay couples at the stake). IF the gay couple dont like it, too bad.

[MCon]

Originally posted by SkidMarx sorry, that was more directed at those who think a pedophile cannot also be a homosexual.

 

 

No worries mang!

[MCon]

Originally posted by NewYorkNewYork Deuteronomy 22:23-26 God's law: a virgin raped in the city is to be given no pity.

 

 

What translation are you reading? You list 4 verses but only quote 1.

 

Here's the King James Version says about it... almost completely the opposite of what you have written here about forced relations:

 

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter

 

It's funny how different translations mean different things. This isn't a flame or anything, just an observation of how many things get totally skewed between tellings.

[SkidMarx]

Originally posted by the russ nope, i'm not confusing you with someone else. you were the one who kept harping on NAMBLA as an example of homosexual 'perversity'. and i am one of the ones pointing out how spurious that is. i know it wasn't in the main line of discussion - whether or not one can be a homosexual and a pedophile at the same time - the answer being: of course. but anyway, that was the point i was trying to make. NAMBLA doesn't prove homosexual 'perversity' any more than hetero incest or molestation proves heterosexual 'perversity'. all of the above acts are extremely perverse, but do not in and of themselves prove anything about either preference.

 

 

I have never argued to "prove" homosexuality is a perversion. I have always stated it as fact and nobody is going to convince me otherwise. It is, there is no argument to be had. It was those who disgaree with me who started the effort to "prove" it isn't. It is as much a perversion of human sexual behavior as beastiality is. I don't care if the two are consenting adults, they are still engaging in a perversion of human sexual behavior. And perverted sexual behavior is not exclusive to homosexuals. Lord knows there are plenty of heterosexual perverts. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

I posted the NAMBLA argument to "prove" that pedophilia isn't always about violence. It can be about SEX, and NAMBLA is about SEX, not violence. And I also posted it as a demonstration of how a pedophile can also be a homosexual, to which you agree. Tell that to Draelyc. Just so you don't continue to accuse me of something that isn't true, I realize that not ALL pedophiles are gay. And I realize that straight men and woman can also be pedophiles.

[SkidMarx]

Originally posted by MCon What translation are you reading? You list 4 verses but only quote 1. Here's the King James Version says about it... almost completely the opposite of what you have written here about forced relations: 23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter It's funny how different translations mean different things. This isn't a flame or anything, just an observation of how many things get totally skewed between tellings.

and it's even funnier how much killing you can find in the bible! Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, for i am the all powerful Wizard of Oz and I order you to do so! Actually, it's more like "I give you permission to do so", because in case you haven't noticed, in much scripture that calls for killing it is not God himself who kills(although he does too), he grants permission for MEN to kill. As in the stoning reference. I guess the Commandment "thou shalt not kill" should be "Thou shalt not kill, unless I say it's ok?" Right. That's what Muslims believe.

There's all kinds of stoning all throughout the bible. I guess God thought that was the preferred method to dispatch his creations who have been led astray of his teachings. There is one particularly violent story of a family who's father did not offer enough tribute to God(sorry, one of you biblical scholars are going to have to post the paragraph and verse, I can't remember it). Seems he was concerned that there was going to be a long, cold winter, and felt the amount of tribute he was to pay would unfairly punish his family and risk that they would have an even harder and longer winter. So he kept a little for his family, but still offered tribute. NOT ENOUGH, said the almighty and powerful Wizard of Oz! He ordered the family, husband, wife, and children, dragged into the village square and STONED until dead. What the kids did wrong is beyond me, but hey, he's God so they did it anyways. Isn't that wonderful!

Funny thing is, you won't hear any Christains quoting that one in Sunday School, just all the wonderful stories of "miracles" and baskets of fish feeding entire villages, etc. And people are worried about Muslims? Seems the Bible has its very own language that justifies killing, just like the Koran! The only difference is that Muslims actually embrace what the Koran says while Christians throw out what they don't like in the bible as if it isn't even in there at all. Pretty remarkable to me.

[STEEL KAGE]

Originally posted by Loghead My saying that the grammarians side with Draelyc against me insinuates my superiority? Okay. I can see how someone might take this sort of self-deprecation as snobbishness, but it sure seems like a thin connection.

Then I misunderstood and apologize. I had assumed that you were referring to Hairy's views and arguments vs Chris's

 

oops!!!

 

Kage