A New Stance on Morality

[liberalogic]

Are all homosexuals pedophiles?
No, they aren't.

Are all heterosexuals pedophiles?
No, they aren't.

A pedophile is a pedophile regardles of sexual orientation and should be dealt with swiftly and justly.

To be perfectly honest, I do not know where some of these statistics come from, nor do I care. The intent of posting those numbers is to show that there are a lot of homosexual pedophiles. No one here is condoning pedophilia; but don't attempt to associate homosexuality and pedophilia in a generic sense. That really isn't fair and implies that all gays are pedophiles, which they are not.

Now I've written extensively about the difference between acceptance and tolerance. If you don't like gays, if you don't think it is natural, etc.; no one is forcing you to think otherwise. But the least that you can do, in order to show some shred of compassion for humanity in general, is to tolerate it. If two people of the same sex of consensual age love each other, why can't they get married?

And if this issue does not effect you (meaning, you are not gay), then why must you object if you have no involvement in it?

If someone can give me a direct answer without bigotry and with rational ideas, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Gunny]

I seriously doubt you have any clue what my political stances are outside the realm of the religious topics.

But let's get this straight

Me-for equal rights

You-homophobic bigot

We've at least got that one figured out in this thread.

Really? By what manner of "reasoning" do you come to your conclusion?

What we have figured out is that YOU are an egotistical, intolerant bigot against anyone who does not think like YOU. You came out of the chute throwing unwarranted insults.

That you for equal rights is quite a load. You are only for equal rights for those who you deem deserving of them. The rest of us, by virtue of disagreeing with your position, apparently are not even afforded the right to freedom of expression.

 

[Powerman]

And if this issue does not effect you (meaning, you are not gay), then why must you object if you have no involvement in it?

The answer is simple. People pay tribute to retrograde belief systems that say that homosexuals are sinners. But they don't really believe that. What they do know is that homosexuality seems unnatural to them and they're probably glad that someone 4000 years ago said that it is a sin because they don't much care for it either. Homosexual activity is repugnant to most straight people so they think it must be wrong. This of course is a very stupid and primitive way of judging whether or not something is morally permissible. It's a matter of repugnance more than anything else.

 

[Annie]

The answer is simple. People pay tribute to retrograde belief systems that say that homosexuals are sinners. But they don't really believe that. What they do know is that homosexuality seems unnatural to them and they're probably glad that someone 4000 years ago said that it is a sin because they don't much care for it either. Homosexual activity is repugnant to most straight people so they think it must be wrong. This of course is a very stupid and primitive way of judging whether or not something is morally permissible. It's a matter of repugnance more than anything else.

Why do you not include the poster, so those of us trying to make heads or tails of this can go back?

 

[Powerman]

Why do you not include the poster, so those of us trying to make heads or tails of this can go back?

Sorry. It's out of habbit of posting on a superior forum

 

[Annie]

Sorry. It's out of habbit of posting on a superior forum

So you've said. Why don't you just return and leave us dregs alone?

 

[no1tovote4]

Why do you not include the poster, so those of us trying to make heads or tails of this can go back?

The original in his post was liberalogic... It is at the top of this page.

 

[no1tovote4]

Sorry. It's out of habbit of posting on a superior forum

Really? Which? DU is certainly not superior....

 

[Annie]

The original in his post was liberalogic... It is at the top of this page.

I get that, so do all. I'm speaking of this, like No1 is being 'quoted.'

 

[Gunny]

Are all homosexuals pedophiles?
No, they aren't.

Are all heterosexuals pedophiles?
No, they aren't.

A pedophile is a pedophile regardles of sexual orientation and should be dealt with swiftly and justly.

To be perfectly honest, I do not know where some of these statistics come from, nor do I care. The intent of posting those numbers is to show that there are a lot of homosexual pedophiles. No one here is condoning pedophilia; but don't attempt to associate homosexuality and pedophilia in a generic sense. That really isn't fair and implies that all gays are pedophiles, which they are not.

Now I've written extensively about the difference between acceptance and tolerance. If you don't like gays, if you don't think it is natural, etc.; no one is forcing you to think otherwise. But the least that you can do, in order to show some shred of compassion for humanity in general, is to tolerate it. If two people of the same sex of consensual age love each other, why can't they get married?

And if this issue does not effect you (meaning, you are not gay), then why must you object if you have no involvement in it?

If someone can give me a direct answer without bigotry and with rational ideas, I'd like to hear it.

While you make the statement that it is the intent of the numbers to show that there are a lot of homosexual pedophiles, I see it just the other way around.

In pushing the homosexual agenda, you pro-gay types refuse to even address a REAL concern, and when and if you do, it is merely a dismissive wave of the hand.

I am not, and have not argued that homosexuality creates pedophilia. I am arguing that I think fear of a disfavorable conclusion prevents the issue from being honestly addressed, and that there may or may not be a correlation. I have made no absolute statement either way.

I just don't think it is right when making an argument to attempt to disassociate one with the other if they are in fact both factors in the crime.

 

[liberalogic]

While you make the statement that it is the intent of the numbers to show that there are a lot of homosexual pedophiles, I see it just the other way around.

In pushing the homosexual agenda, you pro-gay types refuse to even address a REAL concern, and when and if you do, it is merely a dismissive wave of the hand.

I am not, and have not argued that homosexuality creates pedophilia. I am arguing that I think fear of a disfavorable conclusion prevents the issue from being honestly addressed, and that there may or may not be a correlation. I have made no absolute statement either way.

I just don't think it is right when making an argument to attempt to disassociate one with the other if they are in fact both factors in the crime.

I see what you're saying, but why can heterosexual pedophiles marry?

And also, gay marriage itself and pedophilia are two totally separate subjects. By condoning gay marriage, you are not condoning pedophilia. And if you think that you are, then you are making the assumption that you just denied.

And it's not like I'm brushing pedophilia off, but I find that argument to be rather weak in denying gays the right to marry.

 

[Powerman]

Really? Which? DU is certainly not superior....

tigerdroppings.com

It's an LSU sports message forum. We have a political forum as well. It's killer sweet

 

[no1tovote4]

tigerdroppings.com

It's an LSU sports message forum. We have a political forum as well. It's killer sweet

Sounds way too state specific for my taste.

 

[Annie]

Sounds way too state specific for my taste.

Whoa, does LA only have 1 university? I thought it way too one school? In any case, if it's superior for PM, let him enjoy!

 

[musicman]

Are you going to start that argument again?

I most certainly am - and do you know why? Because these findings have never, ever been refuted.

You have shown NO link between homosexuality and pedophilia. All you have is an inferrence.

While homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they commit 20-40% of child molestations. That's a HELL of a link if you ask me, MissileMan. The inference is clear, for persons guided by reason and common sense, rather than blinded by an agenda.

For the latter, of course, there are the predictable responses: the number games - the pathetic parsing of language - and the ever-popular outright fantasy-deflection (homosexual pedophiles are more prolific solely because our bigoted society allows them to be; i.e., it's OUR fault). Why don't I let you take over? This seems to be your forte:

Why do you conveniently dismiss the fact that 60-80% of molestations are male against female.

There is only one fact appropriate to a discussion of child molestation. One hundred percent of the molestations are being perpetrated by pedophiles. While you are busy trying to convince yourself that homosexuality is bad because some pedophiles prefer same sex victims, there are hundreds of thousands of children being targeted by monsters. It's way past time to start worrying about the forest instead of targeting specific trees.

Ask yourself this also: Is it possible that homosexual pedophiles accrue more victims because they get away with it longer? Is it possible that they get away with it longer because the stigma that people like you have placed on homosexuality terrifies and shames the victims into silence?

Bravo. "Distract, deflect, misdirect" done to perfection.

Did you ever finish that link I gave you a few weeks ago?

I read it in it's entirety. I remain unmoved. While homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they commit 20-40% of child molestations. That's an ugly truth, MissileMan. It suggests disturbing things about homosexuality to any sane human being with eyes in his head. It has never been refuted. People aren't bigots because they refuse to delude themselves.

I will continue to make this argument. Knock it down.

 

[Gunny]

I see what you're saying, but why can heterosexual pedophiles marry?

And also, gay marriage itself and pedophilia are two totally separate subjects. By condoning gay marriage, you are not condoning pedophilia. And if you think that you are, then you are making the assumption that you just denied.

And it's not like I'm brushing pedophilia off, but I find that argument to be rather weak in denying gays the right to marry.

I do not believe condoning gay marriage is condoning pedophilia, nor have I used pedophilia as a reason for denying gays marriage.

"Marriage" is defined as between a man and a woman, and to an overwhelming majority of Americans the term has religious meaning. Agree with it or not, homosexuality is not accepted by any religion except those specifically tailored to cater to them.

Now, since I have not engaged you specifically in any separation of church and state arguments that I recall, I am not going to accuse you specifically of anything; however, when the anti-religious around here get on their rant, they demand an unbreachable wall complete with concertina wire, moats and minefields between church and state when it suits their agenda.

The gay marriage argument coming from those same people is just proof of their hypocrisy. The church dare not even look at state property, but when the state wants to encroach on the church, well, that's okay.

Then there is the fact I do not believe the majority should be forced to suffer the tyranny of the minority. I prefer compromise if one can be reached, if not, the majority should prevail. The overwhelming majority is against gay marriage.

In ANY society, what is the minimum punishment for choosing to live outside the conforms of society? Being ostricized by that society. What you are basically saying is we should reward people living an aberrant lifestyle just for doing so. That is not conducive to a cohesive society.

Then, there is the fact I believe it is morally wrong. I don't go around telling people how I think they ought to live, nor hunting down gays to give them a beating, nor in any way go out of my way to discriminate against them.

But don't expect me to vote in favor of something I believe to be wrong anymore than I would expect you to.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sorry. It's out of habbit of posting on a superior forum

where is this pos forum you speak of? Give me the url so I can go kick your ass there too. that is, if they allow free speech there.

 

[no1tovote4]

where is this pos forum you speak of? Give me the url so I can go kick your ass there too. that is, if they allow free speech there.

He gave it earlier in answer to the same question from me. tigerdroppings.com some sort of LSU board... It sounds exceedingly boring.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

He gave it earlier in answer to the same question from me. tigerdroppings.com some sort of LSU board... It sounds exceedingly boring.

Woah. I might skip that. I'm sure there are intellectual giants over there. GO tigers! Theeeey're great!

 

[liberalogic]

I do not believe condoning gay marriage is condoning pedophilia, nor have I used pedophilia as a reason for denying gays marriage.

"Marriage" is defined as between a man and a woman, and to an overwhelming majority of Americans the term has religious meaning. Agree with it or not, homosexuality is not accepted by any religion except those specifically tailored to cater to them.

Now, since I have not engaged you specifically in any separation of church and state arguments that I recall, I am not going to accuse you specifically of anything; however, when the anti-religious around here get on their rant, they demand an unbreachable wall complete with concertina wire, moats and minefields between church and state when it suits their agenda.

The gay marriage argument coming from those same people is just proof of their hypocrisy. The church dare not even look at state property, but when the state wants to encroach on the church, well, that's okay.

Then there is the fact I do not believe the majority should be forced to suffer the tyranny of the minority. I prefer compromise if one can be reached, if not, the majority should prevail. The overwhelming majority is against gay marriage.

In ANY society, what is the minimum punishment for choosing to live outside the conforms of society? Being ostricized by that society. What you are basically saying is we should reward people living an aberrant lifestyle just for doing so. That is not conducive to a cohesive society.

Then, there is the fact I believe it is morally wrong. I don't go around telling people how I think they ought to live, nor hunting down gays to give them a beating, nor in any way go out of my way to discriminate against them.

But don't expect me to vote in favor of something I believe to be wrong anymore than I would expect you to.

A few things:

1) I am not "anti-religious" in the sense that I think people of faith are "wrong" or that they are not entitled to their beliefs. I feel, wholeheartedly, that if you believe in a religion, no one is to tell you that you shouldn't or you can't. At the same time, though, I am firmly for the separation of church and state AT ALL COSTS. I didn't understand the statement that you made (which I put in bold print), but I will say the gov't shouldn't have its hands in the church and vice verca.

2) The minority/majority argument makes sense logically, but what happens when the minority is being taken advantage of by the majority? For instance, why did slavery exist for so long? Because most people did not see blacks as "people" but rather as property. The rights of the minority were sacrificed for the despicable taste of the majority.

3) Any religious implications that you speak of with the tradition of marriage should not matter. No one is asking the church to recognize the marriage, just the gov't, which should not be affiliated with religious institutions. And also, if you value the sanctity or the "religious implications" of marriage, then why do we allow divorce? Why is adultery legal? Doesn't that strongly diminish those religious implications in the first hand?

4) I started this thread to show my side of morality. I become greatly offended when a devout Christian tells me that he/she has higher moral standards than me because he/she is religious. That is bullshit because they are no higher than my standards, they are DIFFERENT. I never asked anyone here to accept homosexuality-- you think it's immoral and that's okay. But when people are not doing anything to strip you of your individual rights or of the rights of your fellow Americans, then you are not being tolerable; instead you are denying people something because you are uncomfortable with it. Well guess what...I'm uncomfortable with it too! That doesn't mean, though, that I need to legislate my opinion between people who are of consent to marry.