Gay Republicans! Noooooooo!

[wingnutx]

Previous mayor of Tempe, too.

[Cosmoline]

I've heard that defense from pedophiles, too.  Maybe it's true, maybe the pedophile by his nature is unable to choose anything else.  But that doesn't change anything in related to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of pedophilia.

If "it's my nature" is an affirmative defense, then all manner of crimes could be justified.

Lots of things that most people feel are "wrong" in a broad sense aren't illegal.  My wardrobe, for example.  But that doesn't mean there's a justification to outlaw it in the penal codes.  In the case of pedophiles, the state has an interest in safeguarding minors.  So it outlaws a range of conduct from child abuse to stat. rape.  With adults, who is the state trying to protect? 

[Guest]

I've heard that defense from pedophiles, too.  Maybe it's true, maybe the pedophile by his nature is unable to choose anything else.  But that doesn't change anything in related to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of pedophilia.

For the record, its not illegal to be a pedophile. It is illegal to molest children, but the desire to do so is not.

One can (theoretically) have a desire to have sexual contact with children, and so long as they do not act on that desire they are not commiting a crime, the "crime" in pedophilia is the actual act of victimizing a child. This is where laws concerning sodomy become different, there is no victim.

[Hugh Damright]

Would an openly gay Republican be able to win an election?

Yankees would elect a homosexual in the name of their false religion of egalitarianism, but I think Southerners would reject homosexual representatives in the name of Christianity.

With adults, who is the state trying to protect?

I think the intent is to protect us all from a valueless, cultureless, and Godless society.


And by the way, that Bill Maher guy seems like a flaming homosexual to me.

[Perd Hapley]

Hugh, you remind me of a certain Southern luminary I studied briefly.  Was it John Taylor of Caroline?  Help me out here. 

Bill Maher does seem a little femme, but I hesitate to guess at his sexuality.  To consider it makes my skin crawl. 

[Hugh Damright]

Hugh, you remind me of a certain Southern luminary I studied briefly.  Was it John Taylor of Caroline?  Help me out here.

I don't know ... I had to Google "John Taylor" to see who he was ... my interest in government sprang from trying to understand what the Confederate flags that fly here represent, and also from trying to understand the Second Amendment and specifically the term "free State" ... and lately I get the impression that I am genetically predisposed to have a Southern view ... so although I am not familiar with John Taylor, he was a South Carolinian, so I would expect to have something in common ... in contrast, if you find someone from Massachusetts who I agree with then that would be shocking. 

And I just figured if that Maher guy was going to call all the Republicans "homosexuals", that I'd turn it back on him. I think he must be a flaming homosexual man.

[grampster]

 ..."that was a put-up job by homosexual activists." 

Freudian slip?   

(Now that was funny....forgive me lord and all the little pygmies in Africa.)

[Perd Hapley]

Put-up?  Must be some double-meaning there that only you queers understand, grampster. 

[wingnutx]

Yeah, that one is totally lost on me.

Crazy kids and their slang these days.

[The Rabbi]

So, if people don't "choose" to be pedophiles, then pedophilia should be legalized?

Sure.  It's all about diversity and tolerance and not discriminating against anyone based on sexual preferences they didn't choose.  [/sarcasm]

Seriously, the argument against pedophilia is that it violates the rights of the child, even if the child wants to participate.  The child is considered incapable of giving consent.  That means that all acts of pedophilia are unconsenting, thus pedophilia is a violation of the child's rights.

An interesting and prickly question arises when you accept the premise that homosexuality is beyond the choice of the homosexual.  If this is the case, then the homosexual is incapable of giving consent to acts of homosexuality, much as the child is incapable of giving consent in acts of pedophilia.  That would tend to make all acts of homosexuality unconsenting, thus a violation of the homosexual's rights.

Discuss.

I'll mention that the assumption that people under 18 cannot give consent, which translates into they have no free will, is contradicted in law where minors can be tried for crimes like adults.  But that's another discussion.
I'll go further, if homosexuality is not a choice then it must be a disease.  Who would choose such a lifestyle, the gay activists constantly ask us.  So if it is so that no one would choose it, and they do so anyway, then it is obviously a disease that needs a cure.  And it was so classified by the AMA until the mid-70s or so when the homosexual activists/terrorists invaded the AMA convention and pressed for a change in the language.
So if homsoexuality is a free choice, then it is wrong and worthy of moral censure.  If it isn't, then it is a disease.

[Joe Demko]

I'll go further, if homosexuality is not a choice then it must be a disease.

False dichotomy.  All the rest of your line of reasoning is, therefore, not worth the bother of refuting.

[The Rabbi]

I'll go further, if homosexuality is not a choice then it must be a disease.

False dichotomy.  All the rest of your line of reasoning is, therefore, not worth the bother of refuting.

Nothing false about it.
And if you cant refute it then stay out.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Another interesting tidbit:  Given the dramatic prevalence of HIV among gay men, acting on one's homosexual impulses could well result in eventual death.  Worse, there is an alarmingly high incidence of HIV infection among gays who don't know that they're infected.  Permitting homosexual acts could be construed as a public health risk, in that there is a dangerously high risk of spreading a lethal infection.

We have laws in place to protect people from the dangerous consequences of many activities.  For instance, laws against smoking or driving without a seatbelt are justified under the grounds that they represent a risk to the individual who practices those behaviors.  Banning homosexual acts can be justified similarly.  Also, there are all manor of laws and ordinances that exist to protect the public health from the high risk of disease that certain actions might present to the public.  Prohibiting male homosexual sex could be argued as being in the interest of preserving public health.  Had such laws been in place in the 1980's, countless deaths from HIV and AIDs may well have been prevented.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not personally opposed to homosexuality.  Nor am I especially supportive of homosexuality.  I'm just trying to play devils advocate, pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies in the accepted and prevalent PC views on homosexuality.  Many of the arguments in favor of pro-gay lawmaking are convoluted, and many that aren't have interesting interactions with other convoluted law from other aspects of public life.  It's an interesting mental exercise to trace out their full implications.

[Trunion]

I've heard that defense from pedophiles, too.  Maybe it's true, maybe the pedophile by his nature is unable to choose anything else.  But that doesn't change anything in related to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of pedophilia.

If "it's my nature" is an affirmative defense, then all manner of crimes could be justified.

Lots of things that most people feel are "wrong" in a broad sense aren't illegal.  My wardrobe, for example.  But that doesn't mean there's a justification to outlaw it in the penal codes.  In the case of pedophiles, the state has an interest in safeguarding minors.  So it outlaws a range of conduct from child abuse to stat. rape.  With adults, who is the state trying to protect? 

Your wardbrobe cannot be "wrong" as there is no moral issue surronding "style".

The State is trying to protect the State!  Faggotry is an abomination for judgement will (and may already be) fall on a land. 

How can the act of one man screwing another man in the butt be right?  Bunch of sickos, fags are, and so are those who accept what they do.

That wasn't civil...(OV)

[The Rabbi]

Wow, first post and you're already spewing emotional hate mongering.  Welcome to the board.

[Guest]

Nothing false about it.
And if you cant refute it then stay out.

False Dichotomy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

Saying that something must be either a choice or a disease *is* a false dichotomy. By your logic being tall would be a disease.

To put it simply, you say that if a thing is not white it must therefore be black, when in truth it can also be yellow.

[The Rabbi]

Someone is either right handed or left handed (excepting ambidextrous of course).  Please show why that is a false dichotomy.
Ditto with my assertion.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

http://www.hetracil.com/index.html

[Guest]

Someone is either right handed or left handed (excepting ambidextrous of course).  Please show why that is a false dichotomy.
Ditto with my assertion.

Well the inclusion of being ambidextrous means it isnt a false dicotomy because people do only have two hands.

The assertation that anything that isnt a choice is a disease and visa versa is deeply flawed because there are several other posibilities. I already gave you one example of a flaw in this reasoning, it is obvious to me that you have chosen to be willfully ignorant rather than have a discussion like an adult. That is of course your choice, but it makes having a discussion with you pointless. I think you would prefer to play in your own sandbox, so I will just leave you to it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Someone is either right handed or left handed (excepting ambidextrous of course).  Please show why that is a false dichotomy.
Ditto with my assertion.

Well the inclusion of being ambidextrous means it isnt a false dicotomy because people do only have two hands.

The assertation that anything that isnt a choice is a disease and visa versa is deeply flawed because there are several other posibilities. I already gave you one example of a flaw in this reasoning, it is obvious to me that you have chosen to be willfully ignorant rather than have a discussion like an adult. That is of course your choice, but it makes having a discussion with you pointless. I think you would prefer to play in your own sandbox, so I will just leave you to it.

Are you this rude, hostile, and insulting towards everyone you disagree with, or just to Rabbi and myself?

[Guest]

Are you this rude, hostile, and insulting towards everyone you disagree with, or just to Rabbi and myself?

I dont really think I was rude, hostile, or insulting towards Rabbi. He is an intelligent man and almost certainly does understand the simple concept of a false dichotomy, he is trying to illustrate a point through pretending that he doesnt understand it. Like I said, thats a valid choice and I choose not to participate in it as I think its childish.

The reason I was firm with you in the past should be obvious, but if you have any questions about it feel free to PM me and I will spell it all out for you.

[Cosmoline]

If it isn't, then it is a disease.

But not a *crime* 

Anyway, I can give you hundreds of pages of proof positive that hetro marriage itself is a mental illness.  What else would drive otherwise sane adults to act like screaming children.  And I don't mean that in some metaphoric sense.  They SCREAM LIKE CHILDREN.  And cry, and hit each other.  Do divorce work for a year and you'll be ready to put them all in the funny farm 

[Stand_watie]

I'll weigh in here.. (as a caveat for those who wish to know my stand on the topic to use as a measuring tool for the validity of my opinion),  I'm something of a centrist regarding the morality of homosexual acts.

I'm not sure of the exact meaning of "false dichotomy", but the notion that that which is not choice is "disease" is faulty logic. My eye color is neither choice nor disease.

That said, if we were to assume that homosexual orientation were of nature rather than choice, it isn't a proof that homosexual (or any other) actions are moral.

I personally believe that there is a distinct possibility that the "thorn in the flesh" that St. Paul constantly wrestled with was the physical lusts of a homosexual orientation. I say that not as a slur against Paul -wrestling with a temptation (even if you sometimes fail) is a greater moral accomplishment than being lucky enough not to have that temptation to start with.

Moses was a murderer, king David an adulterer and a murderer. Paul a murderer and possibly homosexual. Martin Luther a heavy drinker and an anti-semite of the first order.

Many humans have murderous and rapist orientations by nature, just as many humans have benevolent, and kindhearted orientations by nature. How we act with or against our natural orientation (with the exception of the severely retarded and the genuinely crazy) is what defines us morally. All of us have failed miserably except one.

Different people have different lusts.

James 1

But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

[Cosmoline]

But how far can the moral yardstick take us?  By a conservative Muslim's standards, no infidel can be moral.  I know hardcore socialists who firmly believe going to church and believing in the divine is itself immoral, because it distracts from your duties to the state.  You have to use some other set of considerations besides simple morality to determine what is actually illegal. 

[Perd Hapley]

I started this thread to talk about whether conservative Republicans would run screaming from the party if a few of the leadership were outed.  I'm starting to think I should delete the whole thing.  

1.  Headless Thompson Gunner, I like you man, but please chill on this grudge with c_yeager.  C, you were a little harsh on Rabbi, and it's "vice versa" and "assertion."  Isn't it?

2.  Rabbi, I agree that homosexuality is a disorder of some kind, which was well-recognized prior to this benighted and regressive era.  However, you do suggest a false dichotomy.  If homosexuality is not a choice, there exists the theoretical possibility, for the sake of discussion, that it is a naturally-occuring and healthy condition.  

3.  Trunion, as a deacon of an unbelievably conservative Holiness church (some of you really have no idea), let me just say that your comments, while essentially true, are expressed in an ugly fashion.  Christ himself was blunt at times, but without being so crass.  And I'm sure you're aware that he aimed his invective at the self-righteous, not the flagrant libertine.