Sign In
Register
Help
You make the outlandish claim that homosexuals comprise the "smallest minority on the face of the earth." But doing a quick google search, I find only 88,200,000 results for jewish, whereas I find 277,000,000 for gay! Let's get more specific. The 2008 CNN exit poll for the presidential election showed that 4% of the voting population identified as gay or bisexual. If we assume that this is at all representative of the country as a whole, that means that about 12,000,000 americans are gay or bisexual. Put into perspective, this is roughly equivalent to the number of asians living in the United States. Put into more perspective, the number of jews is around 2,600,000 and the number of native americans is about 2,000,000. Even if we reduce my estimate for the number of gays in the United States by half, the gay popuplation is still almost 3 times larger than the number of jews! It is definitely safe to decisively conclude that homosexuals aren't anywhere near being the "smallest minority on the face of the earth." Ultimately though, the size of a minority is irrelevant. Whether a minority is small or large does nothing to change the fact that they should be treated equally under the law.
I agree with you that hate crime laws are relatively pointless, but only because, as I explained in my previous response to you, the number of gay hate crimes comprises a mere 0.001% of serious violent crime. Something with so little an impact is hardly capable of creating the grand social divide you claim.
I also agree with you that the world doesn't owe anyone anything. But that does nothing to stop people from complaining when they don't get stuff, especially if they are left emptyhanded while their neighbor enjoys lavish gifts. The reality of the world is that it is a harsh, unfair place. But we should nonetheless continue to strive for the ideals so eloquently described by our forefathers: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Finally, you claim that morality in america is decaying. I disagree. I think we've come a long way from when slavery was sanctioned by god and it was socially accpetable to burn crucifixes in front of an african american's home.
Homosexuality "Does Not Exist" in Star Wars
MultiQuote
#22
squishie 
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 139
- Joined: 14-November 07
- Location:Orange, Calif.
Posted 29 April 2009 - 09:51 PM
A coalition of leading pro-homosexual activist groups has now admitted
in a legal brief that only "2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4 percent
of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or
bisexual."... in an amicus curiae (or "friend of the court") brief
filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. In
the case, which was decided in June of 2003, homosexual activists
successfully sought to have a Texas law barring homosexual sodomy
declared unconstitutional. The brief was filed by a coalition of 31
pro-homosexual activist groups, including some of the leading national
organizations like the Human Rights Campaign; the National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
(PFLAG); the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); and
the People for the American Way Foundation. The unusually candid
statement about the relatively low number of homosexuals in the
population appeared on page 16 of the brief. The text contains the
assertion, "There are approximately six million openly gay men and
women in the United States, and 450,000 gay men and lesbians in
Texas." After the national figure there appears a footnote, number 42
in the brief. The actual footnote at the bottom of the page reads as
follows (in its entirety): "The most widely accepted study of sexual
practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life
Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4
percent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian,
or bisexual. See Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex:
Sexual Practices in the United States (1994)..." Unfortunately,
despite their candor about the small percentage of the population that
is homosexual, the authors of the brief still managed to overestimate
the actual number of "openly gay men and women" by more than a third.
That's because the figures of "4 million openly gay men and 2 million
women who identify as lesbian" were apparently arrived at by
multiplying the 2.8 percent and 1.4 percent figures by the total
number of males and females in the U.S. population. Yet it hardly
seems reasonable to count any of the 60 million Americans who are
fourteen years old or younger (and particularly the 40 million who are
nine or younger) as "openly gay men and women." If one applies the
percentage figures from the NHSLS instead to only the population of
men and women 18 years old or more, one arrives at an estimate that
perhaps 4.3 million Americans (2.8 million men and 1.5 million women)
identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual. It is important as well
to note that the "bisexual" component in that is fairly high. In fact,
the percentage of the population that identifies exclusively as
homosexual (not bisexual) is only 2 percent for men and 0.9 percent
for women, or about 2 million men and slightly less than a million
women. And even an exclusive homosexual self-identification is not
always matched by similarly exclusive behavior. The NHSLS found that
only 0.9 percent of men and 0.4 percent of women reported having only
same-sex sexual partners since age 18, a figure that would represent a
total of only about 1.4 million Americans (men and women combined). In
fact, the book on the NHSLS that was cited in the homosexual groups'
brief refers as well to "the myth of 10 percent," noting that it was
probably drawn from part of the research of Alfred Kinsey. However,
even Kinsey actually concluded that only "4 percent of the white males
are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives." And the book by
Laumann et al. notes that Kinsey used research methods that "would all
tend to bias Kinsey's results toward higher estimates of homosexuality
(and other rarer sexual practices) than those he would have obtained
using probability sampling." [Two key reasons: Kinsey's research was
conducted exclusively with males, which has a higher rates of
homosexuality and bisexuality, and Kinsey's research was conducted
predominantly within prison populations.] The Laumann book also
mentions in a footnote that "Bruce Voeller (1990) claims to have
originated the 10 percent estimate as part of the modern gay rights
movement's campaign in the late 1970s to convince politicians and the
public that 'We [gays and lesbians] Are Everywhere.' At the time,
Voeller was the chair of the National Gay Task Force"--forerunner to
one of the groups represented by the recent brief.
Previously, combining multiple sources, Schmidt arrived calculated
that 1.8% of the U.S. population is gay or lesbian. Schmidt, Thomas E.
Straight & Narrow: Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate.
Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press (1995), pg. 102-103.
[Original sources: P. Painton, "The Shrinking Ten Percent," Time,
April 26, 1993, pp. 27-29; P. Rogers, "How Many Gays Are There?"
Newsweek, February 15, 1993, pg. 46; A.C. Kinsey, W.B. Pomeroy & C.E.
Martin, Sexual behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B.
Saunders, 1948); J. H. Court & J. G. Muir, eds., Kinsey, Sex and
Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People (Lafayette, La.: Huntington
House, 1990); T. W. Smith, "Adult Sexual behavior in 1989: Number of
Partners, Frequency of Intercourse and Risk of AIDS," Planning
Perspectives 23 (May/June 1991): 102-7. See p. 104, table 2. Smith is
director of the General Social Survey Project at the NORC (University
of Chicago
I stand corrected, there are smaller tribes out there. But, I find 12 million in the US a little steep. I also know that these reports (I read a few) contradict each other and that they fully admit that their numbers are probably wrong. But none came up with 12 million. Could easily house the whole gay population in LA county alone.
in a legal brief that only "2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4 percent
of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or
bisexual."... in an amicus curiae (or "friend of the court") brief
filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. In
the case, which was decided in June of 2003, homosexual activists
successfully sought to have a Texas law barring homosexual sodomy
declared unconstitutional. The brief was filed by a coalition of 31
pro-homosexual activist groups, including some of the leading national
organizations like the Human Rights Campaign; the National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
(PFLAG); the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); and
the People for the American Way Foundation. The unusually candid
statement about the relatively low number of homosexuals in the
population appeared on page 16 of the brief. The text contains the
assertion, "There are approximately six million openly gay men and
women in the United States, and 450,000 gay men and lesbians in
Texas." After the national figure there appears a footnote, number 42
in the brief. The actual footnote at the bottom of the page reads as
follows (in its entirety): "The most widely accepted study of sexual
practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life
Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4
percent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian,
or bisexual. See Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex:
Sexual Practices in the United States (1994)..." Unfortunately,
despite their candor about the small percentage of the population that
is homosexual, the authors of the brief still managed to overestimate
the actual number of "openly gay men and women" by more than a third.
That's because the figures of "4 million openly gay men and 2 million
women who identify as lesbian" were apparently arrived at by
multiplying the 2.8 percent and 1.4 percent figures by the total
number of males and females in the U.S. population. Yet it hardly
seems reasonable to count any of the 60 million Americans who are
fourteen years old or younger (and particularly the 40 million who are
nine or younger) as "openly gay men and women." If one applies the
percentage figures from the NHSLS instead to only the population of
men and women 18 years old or more, one arrives at an estimate that
perhaps 4.3 million Americans (2.8 million men and 1.5 million women)
identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual. It is important as well
to note that the "bisexual" component in that is fairly high. In fact,
the percentage of the population that identifies exclusively as
homosexual (not bisexual) is only 2 percent for men and 0.9 percent
for women, or about 2 million men and slightly less than a million
women. And even an exclusive homosexual self-identification is not
always matched by similarly exclusive behavior. The NHSLS found that
only 0.9 percent of men and 0.4 percent of women reported having only
same-sex sexual partners since age 18, a figure that would represent a
total of only about 1.4 million Americans (men and women combined). In
fact, the book on the NHSLS that was cited in the homosexual groups'
brief refers as well to "the myth of 10 percent," noting that it was
probably drawn from part of the research of Alfred Kinsey. However,
even Kinsey actually concluded that only "4 percent of the white males
are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives." And the book by
Laumann et al. notes that Kinsey used research methods that "would all
tend to bias Kinsey's results toward higher estimates of homosexuality
(and other rarer sexual practices) than those he would have obtained
using probability sampling." [Two key reasons: Kinsey's research was
conducted exclusively with males, which has a higher rates of
homosexuality and bisexuality, and Kinsey's research was conducted
predominantly within prison populations.] The Laumann book also
mentions in a footnote that "Bruce Voeller (1990) claims to have
originated the 10 percent estimate as part of the modern gay rights
movement's campaign in the late 1970s to convince politicians and the
public that 'We [gays and lesbians] Are Everywhere.' At the time,
Voeller was the chair of the National Gay Task Force"--forerunner to
one of the groups represented by the recent brief.
Previously, combining multiple sources, Schmidt arrived calculated
that 1.8% of the U.S. population is gay or lesbian. Schmidt, Thomas E.
Straight & Narrow: Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate.
Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press (1995), pg. 102-103.
[Original sources: P. Painton, "The Shrinking Ten Percent," Time,
April 26, 1993, pp. 27-29; P. Rogers, "How Many Gays Are There?"
Newsweek, February 15, 1993, pg. 46; A.C. Kinsey, W.B. Pomeroy & C.E.
Martin, Sexual behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B.
Saunders, 1948); J. H. Court & J. G. Muir, eds., Kinsey, Sex and
Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People (Lafayette, La.: Huntington
House, 1990); T. W. Smith, "Adult Sexual behavior in 1989: Number of
Partners, Frequency of Intercourse and Risk of AIDS," Planning
Perspectives 23 (May/June 1991): 102-7. See p. 104, table 2. Smith is
director of the General Social Survey Project at the NORC (University
of Chicago
I stand corrected, there are smaller tribes out there. But, I find 12 million in the US a little steep. I also know that these reports (I read a few) contradict each other and that they fully admit that their numbers are probably wrong. But none came up with 12 million. Could easily house the whole gay population in LA county alone.
#23
volin
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 30-April 09
Posted 30 April 2009 - 06:25 AM
Who cares? Right o wrong, this can be brought to a free speech issue. We all hold on to our right to be able to discuss issues freely (as this post is rapidly showing), and telling someone that something is undiscussable is kind of riduculous. Fact is that if a thread contains content you do not wish to read, you can stop reading it. Enough of that though.
Turns out bioware's own game line is the onl evidence I was able to find quickly that contradicts their point. According to them, same-sex relationship does not exist in Star Wars, which would imply that no one even considers the possibility that the same sex could be attractive (because given the billions of beings in that galaxy, no matter how many taboos there are, if a being finds the same sex attractive, there will be a relationship). However, in Knights of the Old Republic 2, the Zeltron from the exchange (her name was Luxa) is flirtatious with the main character, whether that character is male or female. Her speech is different depending on the sex, which shows that both simply did not get the same chat responses. Is this solid evidence for homosexuality in Star Wars? Nope. But it does put the subject on the table (in the OId Republic era no less) which Bioware had stated was its reason for removal in the first place.
Turns out bioware's own game line is the onl evidence I was able to find quickly that contradicts their point. According to them, same-sex relationship does not exist in Star Wars, which would imply that no one even considers the possibility that the same sex could be attractive (because given the billions of beings in that galaxy, no matter how many taboos there are, if a being finds the same sex attractive, there will be a relationship). However, in Knights of the Old Republic 2, the Zeltron from the exchange (her name was Luxa) is flirtatious with the main character, whether that character is male or female. Her speech is different depending on the sex, which shows that both simply did not get the same chat responses. Is this solid evidence for homosexuality in Star Wars? Nope. But it does put the subject on the table (in the OId Republic era no less) which Bioware had stated was its reason for removal in the first place.
#24
btinc
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 30-April 09
Posted 30 April 2009 - 10:19 AM
"I don't wear a banner saying, "hey world I'm straight".
Yeah, ya do. Unless you live a life wrapped in plastic never communicating with anyone, you telegraph your sexual orientation constantly. Gay people are very aware of how this works, because if you're trying to pass for straight there are a multitude of cues you have to make sure everyone gets.
When I hear this, it usually means "I don't want to know you are gay, if you are."
Too bad. This train has left the station, and the straight world is getting used to the open existence of gays and lesbians. The closet is no longer an option for most of us.
Yeah, ya do. Unless you live a life wrapped in plastic never communicating with anyone, you telegraph your sexual orientation constantly. Gay people are very aware of how this works, because if you're trying to pass for straight there are a multitude of cues you have to make sure everyone gets.
When I hear this, it usually means "I don't want to know you are gay, if you are."
Too bad. This train has left the station, and the straight world is getting used to the open existence of gays and lesbians. The closet is no longer an option for most of us.
#25
Rommel
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 533
- Joined: 22-March 09
Posted 30 April 2009 - 11:48 AM
My point with that comment was getting on a soap box and declaring it.
I do not wish harm on anyone who believes or lives differently than I do.
But what I find disturbing is that groups of people who find it morally wrong and feel it will in the long wrong have bad consequences get insulted and bad mouthed.
Then it is the alternative lifestylers who badger us. Who's intolerant now?
If the boy scouts live by a moral creed that views homosexual living contrary to what they believe in, why were they forced to accept it?
The TRUE CHURCH, based on God's word says the homosexual will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. So those who believe in ALL of God's word condemn this way of life. So again, if they reject a gay pastor or church leader the homo community needs to be tolerant of other peoples faith.
Keep in mind that the TRUE believers LOVE to gays and lesbians, they only condemn the lifestyle.
I do not wish harm on anyone who believes or lives differently than I do.
But what I find disturbing is that groups of people who find it morally wrong and feel it will in the long wrong have bad consequences get insulted and bad mouthed.
Then it is the alternative lifestylers who badger us. Who's intolerant now?
If the boy scouts live by a moral creed that views homosexual living contrary to what they believe in, why were they forced to accept it?
The TRUE CHURCH, based on God's word says the homosexual will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. So those who believe in ALL of God's word condemn this way of life. So again, if they reject a gay pastor or church leader the homo community needs to be tolerant of other peoples faith.
Keep in mind that the TRUE believers LOVE to gays and lesbians, they only condemn the lifestyle.
#26
JimH443
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,226
- Joined: 06-May 07
Posted 30 April 2009 - 12:07 PM
>Rommel wrote:
>
>But what I find disturbing is that groups of people who find it morally wrong and feel it will in the long wrong have bad consequences get insulted and bad mouthed.
What I find disturbing is the attitude: If enough people are doing it, it must be normal.
What's next, pedophile rights? Don't laugh, I've actually heard rumblings to that effect. Oh, nothing major - but it never starts out major. I'd be more specific, but I really don't remember any details. All I remember is my "You've GOT to be kidding" reaction to (I think) some news report where a psychiatrist or something was saying that it's not as "abnormal" as everyone makes it out to be.
Edit: I found an even better link than the one I edited in a few minutes ago. Check THIS out!
http://www.congress....3234266&contentdir=uacongressorg
>
>But what I find disturbing is that groups of people who find it morally wrong and feel it will in the long wrong have bad consequences get insulted and bad mouthed.
What I find disturbing is the attitude: If enough people are doing it, it must be normal.
What's next, pedophile rights? Don't laugh, I've actually heard rumblings to that effect. Oh, nothing major - but it never starts out major. I'd be more specific, but I really don't remember any details. All I remember is my "You've GOT to be kidding" reaction to (I think) some news report where a psychiatrist or something was saying that it's not as "abnormal" as everyone makes it out to be.
Edit: I found an even better link than the one I edited in a few minutes ago. Check THIS out!
http://www.congress....3234266&contentdir=uacongressorg
#27
Dvorjakque
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 28-April 09
Posted 30 April 2009 - 01:09 PM
Acceptance of homosexuality does not lead to acceptance of pedophilia. The difference is that pedophilia (much like incest, rape, etc) has been clearly shown to be harmful to society. Homosexuality, in contrast, has not been shown to be harmful to society. In fact, it is the opinion of the modern health and physciatric community that the exact opposite is true... that the supression of homosexuality is harmful to society.
Ultimately, laws exist to prevent harm upon society, and this is directly dependant upon what society views as harmful. Since society is currently trending toward acceptance of homosexuality, laws against it are being dissolved. In contrast, the entire globe intensely and universally condemns pedophilia, and pending some cataclysmic cultural revolution, this will not change.
Ultimately, laws exist to prevent harm upon society, and this is directly dependant upon what society views as harmful. Since society is currently trending toward acceptance of homosexuality, laws against it are being dissolved. In contrast, the entire globe intensely and universally condemns pedophilia, and pending some cataclysmic cultural revolution, this will not change.
#28
BGG001
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 552
- Joined: 24-March 09
- Location:Wisconsin
Posted 30 April 2009 - 01:15 PM
The fact that you are even comparing pedophilia and homosexuals shows your intolerant being. God forbid that someone chooses to be gay, as long as two lovers consent, shouldn't that be legal? There's a huge difference. Pedophilia exposes innocent children to harsh realities long before they have the ability to make a rational choice; whereas the option to be homosexual is typically made after the age of majority, sex before the age of majority (at least here in Wisconsin) is illegal anyways.
The fact that you compare two adult humans consenting to have sex to a adult forcing a child to sexual contact is outright sickening.
The fact that you compare two adult humans consenting to have sex to a adult forcing a child to sexual contact is outright sickening.
#29
Rommel
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 533
- Joined: 22-March 09
Posted 30 April 2009 - 01:29 PM
I believe the point he was trying to make is that now that we have come this far with gay rights and the momentun is growing.
There are a small group that advocate for pediphelia. I have heard this in the media some time ago. So as one, in my opinoin, perverse group gains rights and exceptance, is it only a matter of time before we sink lower in depravity and the other gains acceptance?
Our morals are in decline dispite the claim by a previous post.
Again, I don't wish harm on the gay community. I just don't agree with the life style and view it as harmful to family structure.
There are a small group that advocate for pediphelia. I have heard this in the media some time ago. So as one, in my opinoin, perverse group gains rights and exceptance, is it only a matter of time before we sink lower in depravity and the other gains acceptance?
Our morals are in decline dispite the claim by a previous post.
Again, I don't wish harm on the gay community. I just don't agree with the life style and view it as harmful to family structure.
#30
Dvorjakque
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 28-April 09
Posted 30 April 2009 - 01:51 PM
Your use of the slippery slope argument is quite flawed in this case. There are groups out there that advocate for everything under the sun, but that doesn't mean anything. Just because a group such as NAMBLA advocates for pedophilia, does not in any way indicate that acceptance of pedophilia is inevitable. I mean seriously. The number of people in NAMBLA is around 1,000. In contrast, there are millions of gay people in america, and significantly more than that that support gay rights. I bet if you were to do a meaningful poll asking people what they thought of pedophilia, 99% if not 100% would disapprove. In contrast, in many areas of the country, the support for gay rights is in the clear majority. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill here.
You also say that you view homosexuality as something that is harmful to family structure. However, it is the opinion of the modern health and psychiatric community that there are no meaningful developmental differences between children with straight parents and children with gay parents. Ultimately though, the existence of gay families is a reality, and any denial of rights to these families only serves one purpose... to hurt children.
You also say that you view homosexuality as something that is harmful to family structure. However, it is the opinion of the modern health and psychiatric community that there are no meaningful developmental differences between children with straight parents and children with gay parents. Ultimately though, the existence of gay families is a reality, and any denial of rights to these families only serves one purpose... to hurt children.
#31
JimH443
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,226
- Joined: 06-May 07
Posted 30 April 2009 - 01:52 PM
Acceptance of one sexual perversion opens the floodgates to all of them. Oh sure, homosexuality isn't accepted as a perversion now - but long that ago it was. Just watch, you'll see. I can remember when it was beyond laughable to think that homosexuals would ever be allowed to marry.
#32
JimH443
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,226
- Joined: 06-May 07
Posted 30 April 2009 - 01:54 PM
BGG001 said:
The fact that you compare two adult humans consenting to have sex to a adult forcing a child to sexual contact is outright sickening.
Just as it was once generally considered sickening to think that two adult humans of the same gender would...
#33
JimH443
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,226
- Joined: 06-May 07
Posted 30 April 2009 - 02:01 PM
Dvorjakque said:
Your use of the slippery slope argument is quite flawed in this case. There are groups out there that advocate for everything under the sun, but that doesn't mean anything. Just because a group such as NAMBLA advocates for pedophilia, does not in any way indicate that acceptance of pedophilia is inevitable. I mean seriously. The number of people in NAMBLA is around 1,000. In contrast, there are millions of gay people in america, and significantly more than that that support gay rights. I bet if you were to do a meaningful poll asking people what they thought of pedophilia, 99% if not 100% would disapprove. In contrast, in many areas of the country, the support for gay rights is in the clear majority. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill here.
Compare NAMBLA's membership today to gay rights groups 40 years ago. Although I don't know where you'd find them, I suspect the two would have similar numbers. And back then, if you asked people what they thought of gay rights, I'd bet that 99% or more would say they're against them (even if they were gay... or else their support of them might "out" them)
How long will it be before pedophiles "come out of the closet" and can accurately be numbered? NAMBLA's membership includes only those who are willing to be identified with them. There are untold numbers who have not joined due to fear of ostracism - or worse. Sound familiar?
#34
BGG001
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 552
- Joined: 24-March 09
- Location:Wisconsin
Posted 30 April 2009 - 02:10 PM
Children cannot experience love like adults can, therefore they will not want to have sex willingly. Gay couples are mature enough to feel love for each other and can both give consent. This is a very simple concept to understand, no?
The fact that children cannot make a rational decision to have sex, then this would be forcing them to consent. Forcing someone to do something would be borderline slavery; what you suggest will never be viewed as acceptable in any normally functioning society.
Look to the past for proof in homosexuality's natural acceptance in human life: The Greeks are the most notable. What previous civilization allowed pedophilia in their society? I'm intrigued to see this.
The fact that children cannot make a rational decision to have sex, then this would be forcing them to consent. Forcing someone to do something would be borderline slavery; what you suggest will never be viewed as acceptable in any normally functioning society.
Look to the past for proof in homosexuality's natural acceptance in human life: The Greeks are the most notable. What previous civilization allowed pedophilia in their society? I'm intrigued to see this.
#36
Dvorjakque
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 28-April 09
Posted 30 April 2009 - 02:40 PM
You seem to be inferring that there are millions of pedophiles "living in the closet" today, as there were millions of gays living in the closet 40 years ago. This is ridiculous. Regardless, the reasons for outlawing homosexuality in the past have been shown to be vaporous and flawed, just like the reasons that women were not allowed to vote, and that blacks were to be enslaved. In contrast, the reasons for outlawing pedophilia are rock solid and irrefutable. Just like the legalization of gay marraige will not open the door to the legalization of murder, theft, or fraud, so too will the legalization of gay marraige not open the door to pedophilia.
#37
Dvorjakque
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 28-April 09
Posted 30 April 2009 - 02:59 PM
You ask what societies ever approved of pedophilia? Ironically, the ancient greeks did. They celebrated a cultural institution known as pederasty (I'll let you look this up on your own if you want to know more). But remember, they lived in a completely different culture than we do today, which included the absolute oppresion of women. Societies have evolved greatly since the time of the greeks, most notably in our ability to make meaningful arguments based on a massive quantity of objective, scientific fact. So do not worry, for the world has learned to validate its laws, and laws against pedophilia are undisputably valid.
#38
Rommel
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 533
- Joined: 22-March 09
Posted 30 April 2009 - 05:30 PM
I agree with Zoso.
We all have expressed our views and neigther will convince the other.
Lets end this and make sure we stay friends in the computer community and continue to help one another with PC issues and questions.
Thanks everyone who responded directly to my post, your point of views have been read.
We all have expressed our views and neigther will convince the other.
Lets end this and make sure we stay friends in the computer community and continue to help one another with PC issues and questions.
Thanks everyone who responded directly to my post, your point of views have been read.
#39
twist
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 05-May 09
Posted 05 May 2009 - 09:25 AM
Unfortunately, it would appear the life lessons in "Star Wars" have been lost on more than a few people here. If I had to place intolerance somewhere on the scale, it would be on the dark side, no? Ahhh, movies... my only form of escaping reality, where the forces of good really do triumph over oppression...
