Defending Marriage, After Massachusetts: What the Court Did and How We Should Respond

National Catholic Register ^ | November 30 - December 6, 2003 | EVE TUSHNET

[scripter]

Your initial question to my post #40 misrepresented my position and I encourage you to read my previous posts on this thread. In addition to your misrepresenting my position, I've repeatedly asked you to clarify an ambiguous statement (post 44) as I don't want to assume anything. Your unwillingness to clarify tells me you're not interested in a discussion and I'm not going to waste my time assuming what I think you said. Please clarify.

The pedophile sites I listed justify their actions by believing adult/child love is not detrimental to the child. The APA has also made a similar statement. Is this something you agree with?

[breakem]

I asked you a direct question about your evidence of the APA position. This is the third time I've asked. You seem incapable of giving a direct answer. I did not misrepresent your position I tried to clarify.

You have done nothing but attack. This tells me you are unable to verify your comment with facts. This is typical of propagandists. Attack when asked even simple questions.

I leave you to your followers.

[scripter]

I asked you a direct question about your evidence of the APA position.

Again, your question had a typo and didn't read too clearly so I asked you for clarification. It would be really easy for you just to retype the question and that's for what I'm asking... clarification.

You have done nothing but attack. This tells me you are unable to verify your comment with facts.

Oh boy. Please show me where I attacked you. And I'd be more than happy to verify my comment if I could just get some clarification from you. The ball is in your court. Please just clarify and/or retype your question and add anything else you think will help.

Again you didn't answer my question. Do you agree that adult/child sexual love is not detrimental to the child? A simple answer is all I'm asking for. How about: "Absolutely not" for an answer?

[scripter]

Your question follows:

I believe you are responding to a paper presented my 1 pysch and disavowed by the organization.

With your latest reference to the APA I take it the organization is the APA. I wasn't sure if you were referring to Paidika or the APA.

I wasn't responding to a paper. If you read what I wrote in that specific post you'd see I was trying to recall something from memory. And earlier in the thread I was referring to a paper/article from family.org, but not from the APA.

Your statement "my 1 pysch" must have at least one typo as it makes no sense to me, especially with what I wrote above.

So, please clarify so I don't waste any more of my time.

[breakem]

my=by

[scripter]

Okay. Let me help you out here:

I believe you are responding to a paper presented by 1 pysch and disavowed by the [APA].

The paper is what? I take it psych is a person? Who?

[breakem]

Many people refer to psychologists and psychiatrists as psychs. When people want an organization to adopt a poisiton it is frequently done by submitting a paper, making a speech or having a press conference. Then the organization may or may not adopt it as its position. For a person who makes comments about professional organizations, you really need to get around more.

Read the post I first replied to. Read my question. If you don't understand it now, then I am unable to teach down to your level.

[Kevin Curry]

For instance, if two gays split up after being together for years, they have a really hard time getting equitable property division by the courts.

This is far less of a problem than you are making it out to be. So modify the law of partnership to allow for social relations (which would not be limited to men and women whose sexual urges tend toward the perverse) as social partnerships subject to explicit agreements and equitable splits of property.

But let the law be clear: this is NOT marriage.

In truth, proponents of gay marriage are looking for a way to hijack the coercive power to government to force everyone to acknowledge their perverse relationships as co-equal with traditional marriage. That is also what fuels their drive to enact hate crime legislation.

[breakem]

Hey Kevin, let's get married.

My two neighbors, the women who got married by their minister, don't want the government to force you to acknowledge their marriage. They just want you to shut up and leave them alone. They want the benefits of a legal marriage and are not asking you to believe anything.

You see this as a power struggle. They see it as two people wanting what many others want and wondering why you want to stop them.

[scripter]

It appears you don't know what paper to which you were referring. And it further appears you dont know if it was a psychologists or psychiatrists. And with your typo I'm supposed to assume something you don't know for yourself?

You never answered my question about adult/child sex.

And now a personal insult? Thank you!

[scripter]

During our little exchange I found some material you may find interesting.

Will Pedophilia Be Next In Massachusetts Schools?

Is Adult/Child Sex Always Abusive?

APA pedophilia on the march

[breakem]

I clarified the typo and I can see that you cannot back up your original statement. You have not answered the question even though it has now been explained on the third-grade level. You accuse me of not knowing which level of psych submitted a paper, when I merely asked you IF a paper was submitted. You are a spinner of the third degree, but you are transparent. You spend a lot of bandwidth here posting links, propagandizing and wasting time, but you cannot answer one simple question about your own position.

You are correct, I have not answered your question. When I get a straight answer from you, I might consider answering your question if I'm bored and have nothing better to do with on a slow day.

[Kevin Curry]

They want the benefits of a legal marriage

Which benefits are they denied?

[scripter]

BTW, if you have a URL to the APAs fact sheet I'm more than interested. Every link I find results in: "Page Has Been Moved or Deleted"

[scripter]

Keep reading.

[Kevin Curry]

Which benefits are they denied?

[breakem]

I don't know, but they seem very happy. Go the church on Sundays also. Wouldn't you hate it if you couldn't marry the person you loved. Sad situation.

[Kevin Curry]

Which benefits are they denied?

[breakem]

Your problem. You made a comment and I asked you what was behind your comment. If you made it off the cuff then just admit it.

[Kevin Curry]

You don't know?

Does the law prohibit them from being with the "one they love"?