Posted on 03/17/2004 9:33:04 PM PST by little jeremiah
The problem is that you don't know that. There isn't a repeatable experiment we can do with two cultures where the only variable is that one supports homosexual behavior and one does not. So we can't know.
But there are some things we can know.
The first experiment we ran in the U.S. to change the nature of marriage - the free love movement - has cost dearly. There are plenty of people who died in the streets who might not have if the traditional family had been upheld by our culture instead of caving into the "consenting adult" argument. I was there when the argument was going on, and the "live and let live" argument was exactly what you are espousing now. Unfortunately, and with apologies to Sir Paul McCartney, it became "live and let die."
The Neatherlands legalized Gay marriage. I can't remember the exact percentage, but I just read recently that the number of people getting married, as opposed to cohabitating, is down something in the neighborhood of 50%. There is NO EXISTING CULTURE which accepts gay marriage.
That last one should be huge. You are asking us to simply accept a huge change in the very foundation of our society, and YOU CAN'T POINT TO A SINGLE WORKING EXAMPLE.
It's as if I asked you if I could replace all the load bearing walls in your home with a new "lumber" made out of pressed, recycled newspapers. I offer to do that at no cost to you, and put you up at the Ritz while the project is performed.
You ask me how I know the new "lumber" will work, and I say "there's no reason why it won't." You ask me if I have built any houses with this lumber before and I say, "No, I want to use your house to prove it can work."
Only a maroon would say, "Sure, I'll try."
Yet, that's what you're asking us to say in accepting homosexual marriage. We have lots of valid reservations. We can't prove they will come true, but we aren't the ones asking for a radical change to the "load bearing walls" of our society.
Show me a working homosexual society somewhere else, one that's been around for long enough to matter (at least a century) and we can talk.
Until then, try the experiment on someone else's house.
Shalom.
Let me add one more thing. (The consumption of) Fast food, tobacco and alcohol are not trying to force their way into our lives and are not trying to recruit our children into their chosen lifestyle. None of these behaviors claims to be any more than a choice and none of them claim to desevre special rights. You are comparing apples and oranges. Homosexual behavior has far more in common with child molesting than it does with the consumption of alcohol
You mean like the disease free and monogamous couple that tortured raped and murdered Jesse Dirkhising? There is no such thing as a monogamous 'homosexual' couple. It is as much a figment of your imagination as the easter bunny.
That's a pretty black and white assertion. All it would take to put the lie to it is to find a single homosexual couple anyhwere in the world who are monogamous. No matter what you think of homosexuals, I think that shouldn't be a terribly difficult task.
So what you say is untrue.
You couldn't be more incorrect. Do you know how many billions are spent marketing these products? Their visibility is ubiquitous. Their images enjoy paid placement in TV and movies. Their desireability is promoted universally.
The cartoon character Joe Camel was the basis of major objections that "Big Tobacco" was marketing its products to children. Internal tobacco company memos have shown a deliberate effort to recruit "replacement smokers" for those who die off or quit smoking, and children as young as 15 were the target of the effort.
Sorry, John, you just keep making shallow and weak assertions that are too easy to shoot down. Get yoru facts straight and strengthen your argument before you venture into this topic again.
Sorry, but we can and do know. There is a legal definition of "harm". Homosexual conduct does not meet that definition, no matter how detestable you find it. However, if you disagree, find a lawyer who will file suit against all known homosexuals. If there truly is actual harm from their behavior, it ought to be easy enough to suss out the case in court and win a legal judgment. Go for it. Let me know how that turns out.
You are asking us to simply accept a huge change in the very foundation of our society
I'm sorry, could you point out exactly what I've asked and where I asked it? You've completely lost me with that assertion.
Yet, that's what you're asking us to say in accepting homosexual marriage.
You're either confusing me with someone else or making preconceived assumptions that aren't, in fact, the case. I've never advocated for homosexual marriage. Maybe you should begin reading a little closer and getting your facts straight. It looks a little foolish when you attack someone for holding a certain position, when they don't actually hold that position at all.
Sorry, John, maybe that was the case in your unfortunate experience, but that's not a scientifically supportable assertion.
According to the "Gay report" (Unfortunately I've not been able to find an online version and the book itself cost over $40) 73% of homosexuals have molested children under the age of 18.
The "Gay report"? What is this "Gay report"? Statistics like that are marketed to the true believers of the anti-gay crowd who will accept it at face value without any kind of critical examination. If you have a conclusion to support, there are statistics somewhere to support it. I don't believe any kind of cite of statistics like this without a hard look at who did the study, their study methods, and their affiliations.
The greatly increased risk of child molestation by those who also practice homosexual behavior is enough to outlaw this deviant behavior by itself.
You assert incorrectly that homosexuals molest more children than heterosexuals. But logically, if we outlaw homosexuality (nevermind how we could go about that!) because homosexuals molest children, then we must also outlaw heterosexuality Heterosexuals also molest children.
You're letting your passion overtake your logic.
No it's very much not immaterial. I can only surmise from your repeated avoidance of telling me the source of the tape, that I am indeed correct about it's origin.
And look what happened to him.
Shalom.
I do not accept the fact that you are too stupid to understand what I am trying to say. However, I am unsure how to say it better.
You can't sue someone for destroying society. They can still destroy it.
Like it or not, that is a harm. I believe it is a harm worth fighting against, like Joe Camel.
That's what distinguishes a conservative from a libertarian.
Shalom.
Why?
If I have a photograph of a man killing a woman, would it matter whether you like me or not?
To be honest, I can't remember the source of the tape. I can remember the video footage. I don't want to see that.
Shalom.
More correctly, I'd say it's what distinguishes an authoritarian social conservative from a libertarian fiscal conservative.
That's a pretty black and white assertion.
You and I both know what I mean. fidelity is not highly regarded in the 'homosexual' community. While monogamy is the accepted pattern and majority practice for mentally healthy people (hetersexual) promiscuity is the pattern for the vast majority of mentally diseased (homosexual) people whether they are in a 'monogamous' relationship or not.
Oh really? when was the last time that the consumers of fast food, tobacco or alcohol filed suit against someone for saying that these things were evil?
When did they last force the schools to preach that these things were to be celebrated and that you didn't really know if you were a smoker until you tried it? And sometimes you'd have to practice it before it felt really good? When was the last time a McDonalds manager chased down a child and shoved a big mac down his throat (or in his bottom?).
When was the last time these things came all out against Christianity as being narrow minded and hateful?
Apples and oranges here. None of these three things recruits children like the 'homosexuals' do
you->Sorry, John, maybe that was the case in your unfortunate experience, but that's not a scientifically supportable assertion.
read scripters database. The data overwhelmingly supports my contentions here.
The "Gay report"? What is this "Gay report"?
Jay, K., and Young, A. (1977). The Gay Report: Lesbian and gay men speak out about their sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.
Both authors are 'gay' men. more detail can be found but I'll let you look for yourself. I can't force you to learn
You assert incorrectly that homosexuals molest more children than heterosexuals.
Read scripter's databse. Or read CDC numbers on molestations. Over 30% are same-sex molestations. yet 'homosexuals' comprise only 2-3% of the population. Looks pretty clear that 'homosexuals' molest more than non-homosexuals do (on a per capita basis)
But logically, if we outlaw homosexuality (nevermind how we could go about that!) because homosexuals molest children, then we must also outlaw heterosexuality Heterosexuals also molest children.
Molestation is illegal and should be prosecuted to the extreme whenever proven. Since the odds are far greater that someone who practices homosexual behavior will also molest homosexual behavior should be outlawed (this is not the only reason however, just one of many).
Heterosexuals on the other hand have an incidence of molestation that is in the noise comparatively. While every population will contain some aberrant individuals every person who practices homosexual behavior is aberrant. You're letting your passion overtake your logic.
Logic says that you shouldn't use an exit as an entrance. Logic states that two men (or two women) cannot reproduce and hence what they are doing is unnatural. Logic states that a person known to perform behavior which is highly concurrent with molestation cannot be trusted
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.