War over boy raised by gays

New York Post ^ | May 30, 2004 | By Brad Hamilton

[John O]

A mother who runs a prostitution business out of her home is not only an unfit parent but also a criminal.

So put the woman in vegas where prostitution is legal. Now what's your complaint?

But the bottom line is that as long as both people are willing participants of of legal age the activities are legal.

Disagree. There's a case in germany (I think) where 1 man killed and ate another and both were willing participants. This behavior is wrong and illegal no matter if both agree or not.

Some activities are wrong and should be illegal no matter if both agree or not. (Abortion and homosexual behavior both come to mind here)

[John O]

A mother who runs a prostitution business out of her home is not only an unfit parent but also a criminal.

So put the woman in vegas where prostitution is legal. Now what's your complaint?

But the bottom line is that as long as both people are willing participants of of legal age the activities are legal.

Disagree. There's a case in germany (I think) where 1 man killed and ate another and both were willing participants. This behavior is wrong and illegal no matter if both agree or not.

Some activities are wrong and should be illegal no matter if both agree or not. (Abortion and homosexual behavior both come to mind here)

[Ciexyz]

What's wrong with a trio as a marriage? Rosie and Madonna and Britney all together raising a kid...that's progress! (/sarcasm off)

[Ciexyz]

The kid will experience significant problems all his life, and if he doesn't kill himself as he's threatening, will probably end up on SSI.

[pete anderson]

Their activities were against the law in all fifty states until liberal judges violated the constitution and over ruled the people's voice. Their activities should still be against the law. perversion and child molesting (and unfortunately you can never separate sodomy from child molesting) should never be tolerated either in society or in the GOP.

Actually, no. Their activities were not illegal in all 50 states prior to Lawerence v. Texas and the Lawerence decision was based on Equal Protection.

Equal Protection was considered due to the fact that in the State of Texas a Man and a Woman could legally participate in Sodomy while two men could not.

Now, if the State of Texas would have had a prohibition on heterosexual sodomy, Lawerence would not have won the case.

Now perhaps all states could ban sodomy both homosexual and heterosexual and the Federal Govenment could install video cameras in everyone's bedroom to make sure we are all compliant.

However, I think that would violate the 4th Amendment.

[John O]

Their activities were not illegal in all 50 states prior to Lawerence v. Texas and the Lawerence decision was based on Equal Protection.

I never said just prior to Lawrence vs Texas. Homosexual activtiy was illegal in all fifty states. Usually prior to 1960. The legislatures didn't change the law the judges did. The supreme court is not the only bench upon which we find liberal terrorists

[pete anderson]

And how do you feel about the Equal Protection aspect of the Lawerence case? Should sodomy be illegal for all or just certain American Citizens?

[pete anderson]

And how do you feel about the Equal Protection aspect of the Lawerence case? Should sodomy be illegal for all or just certain American Citizens?

[Kozak]

I'm enjoying watching the fabric of their agenda come unraveled

Too bad a 6 year old has to suffer to provide your enjoyment.

[Aquinasfan]

But the bottom line is that as long as both people are willing participants of of legal age the activities are legal.

The bottom line is that sodomy is intrinsically evil and should be criminalized. The nature of the penalty is a matter for debate.

Although sodomy may not be your cup of tea, you must concede that the term covers a great deal of ground including many things that most married couples have at least tried. I for one am not willing to condemn all who have committed sodomy as evil

Either sodomy is unnatural, disordered and intrinsically evil or it's not. Whether particular sodomites are responsible for sin is a different matter, depending on their knowledge of the gravity of the evil. However, ignorance of the nature of the evil is hard to imagine. Three abominations in particular brought down divine wrath in the Old Testament, sodomy, infanticide and worship of a satanic diety.

...and do not want legal authorities in my or anyone else's bedroom approving and disapproving of what is done.

Separate issue. I don't either, because no one, including the police, should be peaking in people's windows. This would represent voyeurism. The ends do not justify the means.

What is clear and unarguable is that homosexual "couples" should never be allowed to adopt children. Such an arrangement is utterly unnatural and wholly destructive to children.

[softengine]

Yeah. It is sad and horrible.

But I have to say, instances like these prove the point we've been trying to make with regards to this issue for a long time. One would hope this (and a couple others that have made the news lately) will spur change.

[John O]

And how do you feel about the Equal Protection aspect of the Lawerence case? Should sodomy be illegal for all or just certain American Citizens?

What a man and the woman he's married to do in the privacy of their own home is their business. It always has been. (It's even sanctioned in the bible)

Homosexual behavior should be illegal wherever it takes place, just as murder or child molesting is illegal under any circumstances. It has been illegal for most of our history and should be illegal again.

This is not an equal protection issue, and the ruling by the court was a tragedy and wrong. People who practice homosexual behavior have and had all the same rights as I do. They had the right to marry same as I. The thing they don't have the right to do is to commit illegal behaviors such as child molesting (or in a rational world, homosexual behavior).

[BSunday]

#18 Excellent Post.

[BSunday]

And if the mother is a crack wh#$% and dad is a gay professional with a study job and household? Where would you put the kid?

SOMEWHERE ELSE!

[anarabismybrotherinlaw]

The following computer file that I was working on this morning regarding Artificial Intelligence is long, but eventually gets to the same point that you make:

AI info 040607

A couple of random thoughts regarding design considerations for sensible artificial intelligence applications:

In the movie Rainman, Dustin Hoffman plays a character named Raymond who is an “idiot savant”, i.e., capable of performing amazing mathematical feats, but incapable of making rational decisions. He is like a human computer – and an AI has to be able to make and act upon decisions, perhaps by slowing down and “fuzzing up” its ability to perform precise calculations rapidly as part of the trade-off. But there’s a lot more to making good decisions than this simplistic observation about a movie character.

My next thought regarding making good decisions contrasts milieu versus meme. Literally, milieu means “in the midst” – but this term is used figuratively to denote environment or setting – primarily in a cultural setting, or in other words, the middle-of-the road of the status quo of the culture. It is thus a framework indicating what’s accepted as normal or typical in a given culture. The word meme is so new that it’s not even in my fairly modern dictionary; i.e., the word meme itself is not yet accepted in general culture. The concept of meme originated in genetics and refers to how information is stored in and by genes. So, to compare and contrast the two, milieu represents the macrocosm of life (as in culture) and meme each bit of the microcosm of life. The meaning of meme has been expanded a bit, especially within the fields of psychiatry and AI. For example, from: http://www.provide.net/~dougklim/Memedna.htm
“A meme is an idea or a unit of thought. This essay is a (large) meme as is each sentence and each word. A word is not an actual meme, but the representation of a meme. A meme is not tangible in the same way computer software is not tangible, and memes can be thought of as software or programming or as instructions for action or thought. Humans transfer memes everyday by conversation, mass media, books, the Internet, and any other way an idea can be conveyed. By coming in contact with a meme, one’s thought process, and therefore oneself, is usually changed in some (usually slight) way. Ethologists use the term "fixed action pattern", which is a good definition of a meme when dealing with instinctive behavior. Some memetists have a more precise definition such as a meme must be transferred by imitation. [Susan Blackmore, "The Meme Machine"] For the specific purposes of this essay, I am using a broad concept of a meme. Although mine is not the normal use of the word, meme was coined by Richard Dawkins to correspond to gene, so the use of the word to represent thought stored in DNA seems quite appropriate.”
Thus all ordinary memes, even as their meanings change and grow, lie within the setting of current culture, but extraordinary ones push on social and cultural boundaries, some succeeding in enlarging them and some failing horribly, like some genetic mutations. Memes and their mutations are vital for cultural progress and societal evolution, but some attempts at progress, such as Communism, are doomed to failure because they conflict not only the milieu, but also go totally against the grain of the very underpinnings of the culture, i.e., ordinary human nature.
Memes that are malign cultural mutations obstruct and frustrate man’s search for happiness so harshly that eventually they are utterly rejected. Unfortunately, like cancer, a form of genetic mutation, malignant memes kill and sicken many cultures before being conquered. I’m not sure why we don’t just say “very bad idea” instead of “malignant meme” or “great idea” instead of “greatly beneficial meme”, but I think it has to do with the fact that a meme is an idea put into action. An idea has to be put into action before we can see its full result – including all unintended consequences. There are so many good-sounding ideas like Communism or Socialism that utterly fail in practice, but I feel that we could never have known that with certainty unless we had experienced it, or had carefully recorded and studied the terrible experiences of others. Conversely, now that we have several thousand years of recorded history, it is appropriate to reject some ideas out of hand before they can ever blossom into memes, lest we become addicted to the poisonous fruit thereof. Homosexual “marriage” comes to mind as a very malignant meme, but only because it is being trumpeted so much in the contemporary press and other media. Of course, history has already declared that it is a very bad idea, but some in authority have failed to learn this vital history lesson.

[pete anderson]

What a man and the woman he's married to do in the privacy of their own home is their business. It always has been. (It's even sanctioned in the bible)

You are not only missing the point but you are obscuring the facts.

First, many state governments have legislated what a husband and wife can and cannot do in their bedroom. For example, sodomy (I hope I do not have to explain the explain the details of heterosexuals sodomy) many states prohibited heterosexual sodomy between a husband and wife.

However, Texas permitted Sodomy between heterosexual couples while prohibiting it for same sex couples. Georgia, for example, prohibited Sodomy for both gay and straight couples.

If you recall, the last Sodomy case to be brought to the SC was a case out of Georgia and was upheld because the Georgia law did not make a exception for same sex couples.

Second, where exactly does the Bible Sanction heterosexual sodomy?

[John O]

me->What a man and the woman he's married to do in the privacy of their own home is their business. It always has been. (It's even sanctioned in the bible)

you->However, Texas permitted Sodomy between heterosexual couples while prohibiting it for same sex couples. Georgia, for example, prohibited Sodomy for both gay and straight couples.

Heterosexual sodomy (including in this definition all sexual activity outside of coitus) between monogamously married man and wife, while personally distasteful (some acts anyway), has no public health concerns. 'Homosexual' sodomy spreads disease and sexual deviancy.

Part of the disease of homosexual behavior is the rampant promiscuity. The two cannot be separated.

Second, where exactly does the Bible Sanction heterosexual sodomy?

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

I can supply a transcript of a one hour lesson on it but it will take me quite a while to transcribe it. Basically anything that a man and his wife choose to do with and to each other that both consent to and take pleasure from, that does not involve using anything but themselves, is OK. Lots of input from Song of Solomon also applies here.

[TheLurkerX]

Good point. Trial by error and implementation, with wholesale rejection for ideas proven to be anaethema to our culture. Trial by fire, but it sure sucks muddling through it in the meantime.

[BoggiSam]

This mother and her child are very dear to me. She has been a friend of mine for ten years, and I have been close to this kid for all of his life. She is a wonderful mother and her child needs to be with her. He wants to be with her. She is not a sicko or crazy - and she needs support instead of criticism.

[BoggiSam]

This mother and her child are very dear to me. She has been a friend of mine for ten years, and I have been close to this kid for all of his life. She is a wonderful mother and her child needs to be with her. He wants to be with her. She is not a sicko or crazy - and she needs support instead of criticism.