Why Would Gays Want Children?

Townhall ^ | 12/10/06 | Kevin McCullough

[wouldntbprudent]

If I didn't state your position correctly, I apologize. It's been a while since I read upthread.

As I explained in a subsequent post, the point is (fill in the blank) with whatever your position is. Whatever it was you were arguing, you refused to consider anything that challenged it.

Now that you've read my post, can you see how, from my POV, you're really engaging in a tautology here?

[Major_Risktaker]

Why would any want to be a homosexual?

[Sunsong]

Look there are some pretty insincere people on this thread. I don't know you from Adam. I didn't know if you are like them or not.

To ask me if I have beliefs was not an appropriate response to my questions, imo. Everyone has beliefs. The question is ridiculous.

Then on what basis do you conclude born again Christians---and no other ideologies---want to "force" you to abide by their beliefs?

I don't think that only fundamentalist Christians wnat to "force" their beliefs on others. But I do think (and threads like this back me up) that they do want to force others to live by their beliefs. I think that many environmentalists want to force others to live by their beliefs. Socialists certainly do. And as I've said, Islamists absolutely do. No, I was talking about the similarity that I see between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims - the *purists* of the religious type, if you will.

[wouldntbprudent]

Of course, except that I would clarify my view on your statement that "a person's beliefs define the perimeters of what they can understand and imagine."

I agree with this only if one's beliefs include the belief that one never has the absolute truth. I believe that absolute truth exists, but I also am convinced that we as humans can err in understanding it and perceiving; that is, that it is necessary to continually review and examine that we are as in sync with absolute truth as we can be at this time in our lives.

So I conclude that a person can have beliefs that limit his understanding and imagination or he can have beliefs that allow him to grow in his understanding and application of absolute truth.

[bvw]

Homosexuals practise homosexual sodomy, fwiw. The male-on-male sex. Not the issue, btw, with the discussion -- which is about a child-born-out-of-wedlock by a woman acting out some currently (and foolishly) socially-tolerated selfishness.

Lesbians paired in loco parentis is a secondary issue, as are the slightly more general issues of homosexuals as parents and adoption by homosexuals.

Sodomy is not on the radar of this article and is a distraction from honest discussion of the article's points.

[durasell]

To quote to eminent philosophers, The J. Geils Band --


First I Look at the Purse
by the J. Geils Band
Some fellas look at the eyes
Some fellas look at the nose
Some fellas look at the size
Some fellas look at the clothes
I don't care if her eyes are red
I don't care if her nose is long
I don't care if she's underfed
I don't care if her clothes are worn
First I look at the purse!
Some fellas like the smiles they wear
Some fellas like the legs that's all
Some fellas like the style of their hair
Want their waist to be small.
I don't care if their legs are thin
I don't care if their teeth are big
I don't care if their hair's a wig
Why waste time lookin' at the waistline?
First I look at the purse!
A woman can be fat as can be,
kisses sweet as honey
But that don't mean a thing to me
If you ain't got no money
If the purse is fat....that's where it's at.
Some fellas like the way they walk
The way they swing and sway
Some fellas like the way they talk
Dig the things they say.
I don't care if they wobble like a...
or talk with a lisp
I still think I'm a good lover
if the dollar bills are crisp
First I look at the purse!
First I look at the purse!
First I look at the purse!
First I look at the purse!
I don't care if you got yourself a wrap
all I want is your pretty green cash
Bought me a suit, bought me a car
Want me to look like a hollywood star
Money, (Money!) I want money (Money!)
Baby, ain't no "why", baby (Money!)
I need money!
First I look at the purse!
First I look at the purse!
First I look at the purse!
First I look at the purse!

[wouldntbprudent]

The question was obvious, but not ridiculous.

It's only ridiculous if you are insincere, and I have not yet concluded that about you.

I explained why I asked the question.

But I do think (and threads like this back me up) that they do want to force others to live by their beliefs.

What form of "force" do you think would be utilized here?

[Sunsong]

No, but why would that be relevant anyway?

So what do you think it means or what do you think are the ramification of people believing that they are *entitled* to force others to live by their beliefs?

Even if we agree on this point, do you not see that your analysis applies to ALL ideologies? That ANYONE could believe they are "entitled to force others to live by their beliefs"---whether they are religious, environmental, vegetarianism, abortionism, whatever?

I've already addressed this. It DOES apply to all ideologies that feel *entitled* to force their beliefs on others.

Further, on what basis do you believe that even if there are Christians who believe they are entitled to force others to live by their beliefs, that they can or will gain the power to do so?

By making laws that restrict behavior they don't agree with...or passing laws requiring people to engage in behavior they desire.

Surely, you do not equate an effort to persuade the broader public, including influencing the legal and legislative processes, with "forcing" people to abide by their beliefs?

Yes I do equate it with that. Just as I equate socialists who want to tax everyone to death and have government control of everything as attempting to *Force* people to do their bidding by using government - which is force.

And surely you do not equate the process of winning in the marketplace of ideas, and thereby influencing the outcome of duly established constitutional legal and legislative processes, with "forcing" people to abide by their beliefs?

Law is force. Yes, people who want to make their religion or ideology *law* are trying to force everyone to live by their beliefs.

[bvw]

I'm Jewish. little jeremiah is Hindu. I guess in your amazingly "unique" way of looking at things we are both either *purist* Islamists or *purist* Christians.

That may suggest something for you to work on, by the way. And that would be to put away that excessive need to typecast, to stick with opinions so prejudiced and bigoted that you are unable to see the reality instead of imagining it per the foolish whimsy's of the times.

[Sunsong]

I agree with this only if one's beliefs include the belief that one never has the absolute truth. I believe that absolute truth exists, but I also am convinced that we as humans can err in understanding it and perceiving; that is, that it is necessary to continually review and examine that we are as in sync with absolute truth as we can be at this time in our lives.

I agree that absolute truth exists - and I agree that humans don't know it or understand it. I do think we are bettered in continuing to seek for it even though we are not capable of really grasing it at this point.

So I conclude that a person can have beliefs that limit his understanding and imagination or he can have beliefs that allow him to grow in his understanding and application of absolute truth.

Yes, I essentially agree with that. I would word it differently.

[Sunsong]

Thanks! I enjoyed that.

[durasell]

One of the lost classics of rock 'n roll.

[Sunsong]

The question was obvious, but not ridiculous.

No, my view is that the question is ridiculous. As I said everyone - every singel, solitary person has beliefs. So why ask if I have beliefs. It is ridiculous, imo.

What form of "force" do you think would be utilized here?

As I have said - the force of government.

[wouldntbprudent]

Thank you. Now we can see what the disagreement is.

You say you do believe that even using the constitutionally enshrined process to govern our society is, when used by Christians acting on their beliefs, a form of "forcing" others to abide by their beliefs.

Let's not go into the semantics of what the word "force" means. For purposes of this discussion, I'll accept that you feel laws enacting moral viewpoints with which you disagree "force" you to abide by someone else's moral viewpoint.

Given that, on what basis do you conclude that that use of "force" (as you have defined it) is inappropriate?

I understand that you disagree with some moral viewpoints, as do I. And I understand that you disagree with some moral viewpoints being urged as legal standards, as do I. But if an idea---regardless of what it is---makes it all the way through our constitutional and legal processes, and thereby becomes a "force of law," how is that illegitimate?

Please note that I carefully chose the word "illegitimate." I am asking how the *process* that is "forcing" a particular idea upon us is illegitimate so long as the process is constitutional.

I agree certainly that the idea that is "forced" upon us by law may be morally wrong or illegitimate and in need of change. But if a whole bunch of people back the idea and it becomes law and passes constitutional muster, then isn't this only the "force" we agreed to live under in the social contract that is America? How is this "force" like the force used by the Taliban?

So if you disagree with a particular moral viewpoint, fine. Argue and wail against. Work to keep it from becoming an accepted social norm. Work to keep it from being enacted in legislation. Work to keep it from becoming the "force of law." But don't say that it is illegitimate for others to work in the opposite direction because their efforts are "forcing" their viewpoints on others.

As I have said, for purposes of this discussion, I will give you your definition of "force" as the "force of law." So, yes, a law does exert some "force" on people. But that is quite different from the law itself *being forced on people.* Have I been able to make the distinction here?

In America (apart from the Roe v. Wade situation, and even there there are processes for redress that start with creating a social consensus against the ruling), laws are not *forced* upon us.

Even wild usurptions of power by the judiciary still have roots---however tenuous---in our consent because we collectively elected the individual who nominated the judges and who allowed, supported or were unable to persuade enough people to pull the nomination. And because we have agreed to be bound by the judiciary and resolve problems with the judiciary, however egregious they may be, through processes established by the Constitution.

In sum, it seems to me that you are confusing the "force of law" with laws *being forced upon us* and that is not the case.

As I've said before, if a particular POV wins in the marketplace of ideas and is enacted into law, then that idea won and if you don't like it, work to change it.

But don't claim it is illegitimate for those propounding that particular POV, and attempting to persuade others to that POV, and attempting to win in the marketplace of ideas, to do so.

[wouldntbprudent]

Please accept that I was trying to start our conversation on this point. I did not mean it in a ridiculous way.

[Sunsong]

Ok no problem.

[scripter]

Your patience with that poster is truly commendable.

Thank you!

[Sunsong]

Thank you. Now we can see what the disagreement is.

I think the disagreement is right here:

Once people accept the belief that they are *entitled* (for whatever reason) to force others to live by their beliefs – they have started down a particular road of thinking that has to do with control and domination. Would you agree with that?

You have said that you don’t agree.

That’s a big deal. I think once people have crossed the threshold of believing that they have some *right* some dominate and control others – that the possibility of tyranny comes closer. And further – if that inclination is not corrected or changed – tyranny is inevitable.

Why do you think the Taleban is a tyranny? Because they believe that they can *force* everyone to live by their beliefs.

I want to put a bit about *force* in:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

government is force

I am going out now for the evening. I will write more when I return.

[trisham]

I couldn't care less what Andrew Sullivan thinks about it.

**************

Quite right. Andrew Sullivan is an intelligent, but disturbed man. I can't imagine using him as an authority on any issue.

[scripter]

I wonder why so many "conservatives' are so defensive of gays.

I've heard various reasons. Some have gay friends and insist I don't know any gays. They're wrong. Some insist I (and others) hate gays and they're wrong so they jump to the defense of their gay friends when we point out the facts about homosexuality. I find it quite a compliment when they call me a closet gay, as that tactic is straight from the homosexual agenda playbook by Kirk and Madsen (After the Ball: How America Will Concquer It's Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s). There are a number of reasons, but please don't take this as a defense of their position!