Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

And, as regards your point on the issue of pederasty and man-boy relationships as emblematic of homosexual activity. I think a long ignored valid point is that if it were due to genetic factors as alleged and not proven, there would have been no such major decline as evidenced in Western culture. Reflectively of the apparent allegations of a third sex (homosexuals of either gender), one must wonderwhat happened to the gene in the intervening 2000 years. Did it go underground only to emerge in the mid-1950's? That is very doubtful prima facie. More likely it is a cultural aberration encouraged by a climate of permissivity. Clearly it would have been (relatively) safer prior to the advent of syphillis and gonorrhea and HIV and Hepatitis B - D, etc.

Just because something is not apparent does not mean it does not exist. The recent "climate of permissivity" has only allowed something that has always been present to become more visible. This is true of much of the "darker side" of human nature that was highly suppressed by society until relatively recent history (i.e. spousal abuse, pornography, violence, etc.)

The genetic/learned debate is also irrelavent as I argued many months ago because we as a society haven't really figured out how things that are "learned" effect how people act to any real extent. Some feel that exposure to a certain type of behavior can encourage it, others feel that completely shielding someone from a certain type of behavior can lead to a situation where they make uninformed choices when the behavior inevitably presents itself, or our even drawn to it because of it's "forbidden" nature.

When you make the claim that something is "learned" there is the hidden implication that we can somehow change the environment in which a person is raised to avoid this "learning". The problem is, we don't know what the right changes to make are. And we know even less if we encourage an atmosphere of suppression.

The recent issues in the catholic church involving pedophelia is just one example of that. One would assume that what these priests "learned" would have had at least some effect on how they acted, but obviously, it did not.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The possibilities of gay's marrying, not of gay's having relations. You miss the distinction. From my POV, It's not a matter of tolerance or non-tolerance of gay marriage, but of gay's.

Thats double talk. Thats the equivalent of saying we like blacks very much but we dont want them mixing with the whites. Thats just as intolerant. When you say I dont want you to have the same rights I have you are being intolerant of that group you are discriminating against.

but what does matter is that it implies a societal acceptance and approval of the union.

It does no such thing. Is your signed name on their marriage certificate? All it says is that they are recognized as married. Not that Gwaimir approves. Or that even the majority of the citizens of the state approve. I can think of quite a few marriages (between men and women) that I wouldnt approve of... But if i was to ban these certain people from marrying I would be committing an intolerant act against those people no matter how pathetic they are or how ridiculous the idea of a marriage between them is.

I didn't see a source that specified what age exactly, except that it was the same age Greek girls were married.

Well that’s entirely critical. The difference between an 8 year old and a 16 year old is enormous.

I'm looking at wikipedia which has an extensive article on the subject; it says in the first sentence that "The term pederasty embraces a wide range of erotic relations between adult males and adolescent boys."

The link again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

Iinteresting to note that if you follow the link given there for “adolescence� it leads you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescence where it says “Adolescence is the period of psychological and social transition between childhood and adulthood�. Pretty broad definition there. Whats childhood? Whats adulthood?

And when I think of groups like NAMBLA I think of a 50 year old trying to get with an 8 year old.

But the question that was brought up was pederasty

Actually Rian said “boy� when she was talking about NAMBLA. Not adolescent. So yes I think the term “children� can be used in the same context as the term “boy�. Now if you want to have an argument about adolescent-adult sex we can do that but its not what was originally said.

so to then rant about child-molesting, and equating gays with child-molestors, etc., seems not to have been called for, as it simply was not discussed.

Incorrect. See above. Also note that the whole pedophile/child molester link has been used many times here when discussing gays and their unacceptable behavior so I think its perfectly reasonable to call it out when it is attempted.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yup - Romans 2, and other places.

In that case, I disagree, for now at any rate.

Gwai, Gwai, Gwai - there are at least two things that every atheist I've ever known worships ... (PM me if you want )

There's a difference between theism and worshipping something. Theism is belief in God(s). Anyway, you're equivocating on "worship".

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Thats double talk. Thats the equivalent of saying we like blacks very much but we dont want them mixing with the whites. Thats just as intolerant. When you say I dont want you to have the same rights I have you are being intolerant of that group you are discriminating against.

Re: blacks, Non sequitur, IR.

Re: rights: No, I am not. You're not making important distinctions. First, there is a distinction between toleration of people and toleration of actions. If I didn't tolerate gays, then I would take a shotgun and go out and shoot them. That is monstrous. You are arguing sophistically, and fudging barriers to make things sound very different than they are. I don't really think gay marriage is a matter of tolerance, as I laid out before. Marriage takes three; if it didn't, then everyone who cohabited would be married. They may have a stable relationship, but

It does no such thing. Is your signed name on their marriage certificate? All it says is that they are recognized as married. Not that Gwaimir approves. Or that even the majority of the citizens of the state approve. I can think of quite a few marriages (between men and women) that I wouldnt approve of... But if i was to ban these certain people from marrying I would be committing an intolerant act against those people no matter how pathetic they are or how ridiculous the idea of a marriage between them is.

But there's no such as some vague recognition in general; it has to be recognition by some entity. In this case, that entity is a state, and I have a right to voice my opinion that that state should not recognise such unions. For better or for worse, we live in a (representative) democracy,

Well that’s entirely critical. The difference between an 8 year old and a 16 year old is enormous.

Brilliant observation.

Iinteresting to note that if you follow the link given there for “adolescence� it leads you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescence where it says “Adolescence is the period of psychological and social transition between childhood and adulthood�. Pretty broad definition there. Whats childhood? Whats adulthood?

They stated two different sources; one said adolescence was from 13-21, the other from 10-19, IIRC. But the fact that it was the same age as the girls were married leads me to believe it must have been at least 13.

Actually Rian said “boy� when she was talking about NAMBLA. Not adolescent. So yes I think the term “children� can be used in the same context as the term “boy�. Now if you want to have an argument about adolescent-adult sex we can do that but its not what was originally said.

Well, that's because you don't read the right books. Throughout ancient Greek literature, they use the term "boy" when identifying the loved one in the pederastic relationship. Or at least, the translations I've read say "boy", but since I don't know Greek, I have to rely upon that. In fact, relations between a man and a man in antiquity seem to be generally referred to as with "boys".

Incorrect. See above. Also note that the whole pedophile/child molester link has been used many times here when discussing gays and their unacceptable behavior so I think its perfectly reasonable to call it out when it is attempted.

But again, it's merely an erroneous understanding of the (admittedly very vague) term "boy". Anyway, even if child-molesting were the issue, no one would be saying that gays and child-molestors are the same.

Originally Posted by BJ

The recent issues in the catholic church involving pedophelia is just one example of that. One would assume that what these priests "learned" would have had at least some effect on how they acted, but obviously, it did not.

If you want, we can have another discussion on that.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Atheism is a belief system, just like Christianity, Buddhism, etc.

But agnosticism is not. It's a lack of a belief system. And the lack of the need for one.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But there's no such as some vague recognition in general; it has to be recognition by some entity. In this case, that entity is a state, and I have a right to voice my opinion that that state should not recognise such unions.

I personally can not think of a good reason why the state should be in the business of recognizing any marriages (homo or hetero). I think the best solution is to do with marriage as we did with religion, leave it to the individual and remove it from the government all together.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

If you want, we can have another discussion on that.

I think I already did more than enough time on that subject.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Thats double talk. Thats the equivalent of saying we like blacks very much but we dont want them mixing with the whites.

That's not the equivalent at ALL. Homosexuals are so called because of a certain BEHAVIOR or predilection towards a certain BEHAVIOR. Being black or white is not a BEHAVIOR or a predilection towards a BEHAVIOR.

Actually Rian said “boy� when she was talking about NAMBLA. Not adolescent. So yes I think the term “children� can be used in the same context as the term “boy�. Now if you want to have an argument about adolescent-adult sex we can do that but its not what was originally said.

I'll clear it up myself. I am NOT talking about molestation, ok? I am NOT talking about molestation. I am talking about adult/child sex, with both parties consenting.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

In that case, I disagree, for now at any rate.

Could you please PM me (so we won't get off-topic) - I'd be interested in hearing your reasons

There's a difference between theism and worshipping something. Theism is belief in God(s). Anyway, you're equivocating on "worship".

Ah, but what is the definition of a god ... anyway, I'm not entirely serious, but I"m pretty serious. (and the name of one of the gods is "Delta", to give him/her a nice Greek name (think how it's used in math) ... )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But agnosticism is not. It's a lack of a belief system. And the lack of the need for one.

I disagree. It's the belief that there is insufficient evidence to make a conclusion about other belief systems. It, like atheism, is an extremely comfortable belief system - they're both based on "it's not my fault". And there is no "lack of the need" - the need is very strong in both cases, and atheists and agnostics are usually very passionate about their belief systems. I think agnosticism is usually NOT about truly searching - it's an entrenched belief.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

That said, I wish I had a pound for every time I'd heard someone say "I'm not a racist but...[racist comment]". So, there is an important project to identify things like intolerance and prejudice which lie hidden.

But you didn't answer my question about tolerance - here it is again:

Well, someone that tolerates an even broader range of sexual behavior would be "more tolerant" than someone that just favors adding gay marriage to the definition - is "more tolerant" always better? I would think you would disagree at some point along that line. So again, it's just a matter of differing opinions.

oh, and right and wrong DO exist, just not written in some divine statute book somewhere, which IMO makes them all the more real!

Where are they defined? Are they always the same? Why should my "right" be any less right than your "right" or TWfM's "right"? If "right" changes, maybe people that we think are "wrong" are just ahead of their time, right? If something is written in "some divine statue book somewhere", does that necessarily make it wrong?

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That's not the equivalent at ALL. Homosexuals are so called because of a certain BEHAVIOR or predilection towards a certain BEHAVIOR. Being black or white is not a BEHAVIOR or a predilection towards a BEHAVIOR.

Maybe it's not exactly like Blacks, but it seems to me like a discrimination nonetheless. Rian, you don't think that being Homosexual is a crime, do you? Then forbidding homosexuals from marrying - just because they're homosexuals - is unfair... especially if we agree that sexual orientation is not something you choose, and therefore should not be badly treated only because of it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I personally can not think of a good reason why the state should be in the business of recognizing any marriages (homo or hetero). I think the best solution is to do with marriage as we did with religion, leave it to the individual and remove it from the government all together.

Well, marriage is a state approval of a union, or else a religious one. If you take the state out, then religious will be the only opportunity, which would effectively eliminate the possibility for nonreligious persons, which I think would be wrong.

But anyway, I think that the state should recognise heterosexual marriages, because they are ordered to family, which is the building block of society, apart from offering a nonreligious option.

I think I already did more than enough time on that subject.

It's a much deeper issue than you realise, I suspect.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'll clear it up myself. I am NOT talking about molestation, ok? I am NOT talking about molestation. I am talking about adult/child sex, with both parties consenting.

Oh, child?

*washes his hands of Rian*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Where are they defined? Are they always the same? Why should my "right" be any less right than your "right" or TWfM's "right"? If "right" changes, maybe people that we think are "wrong" are just ahead of their time, right? If something is written in "some divine statue book somewhere", does that necessarily make it wrong?

And of course, the biggest question is: If not divine statute, then who or what has the right to determine right or wrong? If not God/gods/, then what is the standard? A Form of Good? If so, where does it come from?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Oh, child?

*washes his hands of Rian*

You have to remember how old I am, you young whippersnapper! I have a "child" that is 16, after all!

So I"m talking about adult and youngster/child, whatever - but consensual.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

*Processing request*

Well, all right then.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

But anyway, I think that the state should recognise heterosexual marriages, because they are ordered to family, which is the building block of society,

How do you define family here, Gwai? Sorry to start yet another definition tangent, but this one seems to me important.

Your wording implies that you refer to the 'traditional' family. One father, one mother and however many children they like, right?

It's a very pretty concept, and some people achieve it, but more and more it's seems to be the exception rather than the rule, and in an over populated world it is perhaps not the most useful definition of family.

Heterosexual marriage is ordered towards procreation, with the assumption of a family happening.

But viable families can also be formed in many other ways:
by a single parent with a child,
by homosexual or heterosexual couples who adopt or who aren't naturally fertile and use artificial insemination...
there are children who are raised by grandparents, aunts/uncles, godparents, older siblings or cousins

I would argue that in the current era, 'family' should refer to any group of people who willingly live together for significant amount of time, and are emotionally, legally, or genetically connected to eachother in generally positive manner.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I disagree. It's the belief that there is insufficient evidence to make a conclusion about other belief systems. It, like atheism, is an extremely comfortable belief system - they're both based on "it's not my fault". And there is no "lack of the need" - the need is very strong in both cases, and atheists and agnostics are usually very passionate about their belief systems. I think agnosticism is usually NOT about truly searching - it's an entrenched belief.

So if agnosticism is a belief system and atheism is a religion, what party do apoliticals belong to and what type of sex do asexuals practise?

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Well, marriage is a state approval of a union, or else a religious one. If you take the state out, then religious will be the only opportunity, which would effectively eliminate the possibility for nonreligious persons, which I think would be wrong.

Yes, but if the state doesn't give certain privileges to married people and deny them to others, then it doesn't matter, does it?

But anyway, I think that the state should recognise heterosexual marriages, because they are ordered to family, which is the building block of society, apart from offering a nonreligious option.

"Ordered to family"?? What exactly does that mean? I may be overly cynical, but I suspect it's something along the lines of "the family is established for the production of children, but since we don't want to ban heterosexuals who can't have children from enjoying the privileges of marriage, we'll use a vague word like 'ordered' that let's us have it both ways."

Waiting for further clarification.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Maybe it's not exactly like Blacks, but it seems to me like a discrimination nonetheless. Rian, you don't think that being Homosexual is a crime, do you? Then forbidding homosexuals from marrying - just because they're homosexuals - is unfair... especially if we agree that sexual orientation is not something you choose, and therefore should not be badly treated only because of it.

It's more like the difference between the Nazi attitude toward Jews and the historical Christian attitude.

To the Nazis, Jews were a racial group, whereas to the Christians Judaism was a certain behavior that was seen as damaging to the moral standards of the community. If the Jews stopped practising that behavior, they would be accepted as full members of society- therefore it's not discrimination.

Just like Christians in Muslim societies aren't discriminated against.