Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Florida's strict law banning adoption of children by gay people was found unconstitutional Tuesday by a state judge, allowing a gay foster parent to adopt children he's cared for since 2004. "There is no rational basis to prohibit gay parents from adopting," ruled Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

SanAntonioRogue

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Keep passing unconstitutional laws you right wing dummies and the rational and sane judges will keep overturning.

"...rejecting the state's arguments that there is 'a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children.' She also noted that gay people are allowed to be foster parents in Florida."

This law collapses under the weight of its own hypocrisy.

Florida should just have a referendum similar to California. I suspect the black churches will help reaffirm their Christian beliefs

Damned activist judges, following the Constitution and all.

Activist Judges don't care about the Constitution. They make it up as they go along

No one should express an opinion about this if they haven't looked into the horrors which have occurred due to this ban. Gay couples who took in very ill and handicapped foster children, cared for them, nourished them nurtured them for years but when they said they might like to adopt the children were brutally ripped from their homes. No decent, caring, sane person could support this ban. It is anti-child. It force many children to go from foster home to foster home instead of have a family that loves them adopt them. Religious arguments justifying such inhumane treatment make some of us fear religion and its proponents. It's just plain sick.

In my mind this is a no brainer.

What is better?

That a child should be raised in countless foster homes/group homes or by an individual who is willing to give the child consistent care and unconditional love?

The individual's sexual proclivities if not deemed detrimental to a child should not be a factor.

I imagine that there are some who would argue that exposure to a gay lifestyle would be detrimental in itself. If you believe that is so, then I would simply argue such exposure is far less a detriment to the emotional, psychological and physical health of a child than 18 years of the uncaring roulette wheel that is the foster care system of most states.

Children need consistent, unconditional love--not a social services system that ships them around and or warehouses them.

Cheers

Plus Grendel the state has allowed gay couples to be foster parents for years. The only difference is that adopted kids have a more permanent, more secure family and can even inherit like naturally born children. Like you said...a no brainer.

Like you said...a no brainer.

Yes, a no-brainer.

To suggest that a whirlwind of foster homes is a superior growing environment for a child than being raised in a home with loving, committed gay parents is absurd.

Well when you talk about no-brainers that would be any of the bigoted homophobes that push these laws.

"There is no rational basis"

Hence the GOP's opposition to it. That whole rational stuff just scares the crap out if them.

Might queer thing to do...

www.drudge.com

What am I, chopped liver?

"Rational"
Explain the rationality of homosexuals and child rearing.

Two homosexuals CANNOT naturally have children as the fruit of their relationship, so they must do so artificially either through science or through adopting children born through the fruit of a heterosexual relationship.

Explain the rationality to me.

I'm sure many of us just don't "get it" so please explain it to us.

Two homosexuals CANNOT naturally have children as the fruit of their relationship, so they must do so artificially either through science or through adopting children born through the fruit of a heterosexual relationship.


Which is no different than a heterosexual couple adopting a child, or using science if let's say the man is firing blanks.


Adoption is the best comparison though - if a heterosexual couple can adopt a child and raise him as their own, why can't a gay couple do the same?

How disgusting! These god damned gays have no business raising children. With their gayness being all catchy and shit.
Everyone knows living in an orphanage is better than having 2 of those people being all nice and loving you and providing a caring environment!

Outrage. Fucking OUTRAGE! Anger...grrrrrrr. GRRRRRRRRR! God damned Gheys....

I think I just heard murphy's head implode, same for kerrin and CC.

Explain the rationality to me.

I'm sure many of us just don't "get it" so please explain it to us.

Thousands of straight families medically can't have children either. I'm guessing you'd say they are unfit adoptive parents. Same with menopausal grandparents. Millions of men are mere sperm donors, with little interest in their spawn, but apparently would make perfect parents. There are tons of straight foster (and natural) parents out there who beat or abuse their children, but they are still qualified to be parents.

I imagine it would be tough on a kid to have gay parents/foster parents, but what they do in the bedroom doesn't define how they would raise a kid.
After all, kids have been raised by gays since the beginning of parenting.

I'm sure many of us just don't "get it" so please explain it to us.

#4 | Posted by kirk at 2008-11-25 03:31 PM | Reply |

Here's the first dose:

www.medscape.com


Tune in for more, but careful, it might change your shortsighted, bigoted views.

OMg, there seems to be some sort of left/right conscensus going on.

Must be the Obamaification of Drudge!

"'There is no rational basis to prohibit gay parents from adopting,' ruled Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman."

Dear Judge Cindy:

You know that, and I know that, but there's this fella named Johnson who's going to be in touch with you, very soon.

I do not envy you.

Damn link:

www.canada.com

If the State of Florida allows gays to be foster parents there should be no impediment to becoming adoptive parents.

Maybe a few post adoption home visits by DCFS will ease peoples minds.

www.tmz.com

This is where the lesbian "parents to be" stay the night before the adoption.

Moronic conservatives would rather see a child living with unemployed, abusive, drug-addicted straight parents than loving, responsible gay parents. If your argument against gay adoption is based on your faith, I wonder how you reconcile your opposition to any form of adoption with your supposed love for humankind. Our country has an unbelievable amount of children who need better homes and better parenting - and anyone willing to take them in should be praised. Anyone against that is a fucking chump, who, like, donnie, has no frame of reference.

"If the State of Florida allows gays to be foster parents there should be no impediment to becoming adoptive parents."

The state of Florida does allow gay people to be foster parents but if those same people try to adopt the children are immediately removed from the home. Even in cases where the children resided with the gay couple for years, knew no other home, were very ill when placed and not expected to live very many years yet thrived and became healthy and happy.
That has happened in many cases here.

Where else will we get our future scout masters and catholic priests?

God has been cranking gays out for millenia.

Rosie Ohateful is the poster child for not allowing gays to adopt.

One perspective on the debate:

Adoption means receiving a child as a member of the family, as one to whom you are committed in the way that a father and mother are committed to children of their own. It is an act of sacrifice, performed for the benefit of the child, and with a view to providing that child with the normal comforts of home. Its purpose is not to gratify the parents, but to foster the child, by making him part of a family. For religious people that means providing the child with a father and a mother. Anything else would be an injustice to the child and an abuse of his innocence. Hence there are no such things as "adoption rights". Adoption is the assumption of a duty, and the only rights involved are the rights of the child.

Against that argument the appeal to "anti-discrimination" laws is surely irrelevant. The purpose of adoption is not to gratify the foster parents but to help the child. And since, on the religious view, the only help that can be offered is the provision of a real family, it is no more an act of discrimination to exclude gay couples than it is to exclude incestuous liaisons or communes of promiscuous "swingers". Indeed, the implication that adoption is entirely a matter of the "rights" of the prospective parents shows the moral inversion that is infecting modern society. Instead of regarding the family as the present generation's way of sacrificing itself for the next, we are being asked to create families in which the next generation is sacrificed for the pleasure of the present one. We are being asked to overlook all that we know about the fragility of homosexual partnerships, about the psychological needs of children, and about the norms that still prevail in our schools and communities, for the sake of an ideological fantasy.

To oppose homosexual adoption is not to believe that homosexuals should have no dealings with children. From Plato to Britten, homosexuals have distinguished themselves as teachers, often sublimating their erotic feelings as those two great men did, through nurturing the minds and souls of the young. But it was Plato who, in The Laws, pointed out that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, must learn the way of sacrifice, that it is not present desires that should govern them, but the long-term interests of the community. And it is surely not implausible to think that those long-term interests are more likely to be protected by religion than by the political ideologies that govern the Democrat(Labour) Party. - By Roger Scruton

And since, on the religious view, the only help that can be offered is the provision of a real family,

So a single parent should give up their children? as soon as you throw religion into it, you admit defeat. Unless you believe Rev. Haagard and pedo-priests are great parental models.

"We are being asked to overlook all that we know about the fragility of homosexual partnerships"

Now you wait just a God-damned minute, straight boy.

Are gay partnerships more doomed to failure that straight ones? As matters stand, absolutely. But that is at least in large part due to societal pressures, not anything inherent in gay partnerships. If two straight people want to become man and wife, society showers goodies down on them. They get the societal and legal benefits of marriage, they get tax benefits, they get, get, get, get, get.

Now look at the gay partnership model as it now exists in most places. Societal opposition from the get-go, no legal protection for the most part (and what little there is changes from state to state, making a Thanksgiving trip home a legal nightmare if one partner gets seriously ill). No marriage, certainly. No joint-filing status with the IRS. No survivor benefits with Social Security. And lots more hurdles besides. If you are gay and partnered, it's you and your "special friend" against the world.

With such disparity, it's not surprising that gay relationships crack up more often that straight ones - it's amazing anyone has a successful gay relationship at all. I don't know if you realize it or not, El Cid, but you're playing a game that gays have caught on to, big-time - that of trying to deny gays the slightest semblance of a place in society and then blaming them for not being fully functional within it. It's not gonna work much longer. But of course, that's what you're afraid of, isn't it?

Thousands of straight families medically can't have children either. I'm guessing you'd say they are unfit adoptive parents. Same with menopausal grandparents. Millions of men are mere sperm donors, with little interest in their spawn, but apparently would make perfect parents. There are tons of straight foster (and natural) parents out there who beat or abuse their children, but they are still qualified to be parents.


I imagine it would be tough on a kid to have gay parents/foster parents, but what they do in the bedroom doesn't define how they would raise a kid.
After all, kids have been raised by gays since the beginning of parenting.


#8 | Posted by northguy

Look, I don't care one way or the other on this issue, but this argument just holds no water. You say there are thousands of hetero families who can't have children for one reason or another, but gay couples can't have children 100% of the time. The two are not alike in any way.

Argue all you want for gay adoption but don't compare straight couples to gay couples when it comes to their ability to procreate. Trying to justify gay adoption by saying some hetero couples can't have kids doesn't make any sense.

Well as a heterosexual parent who adopted and knows many couples gay and straight, I honestly think that some of the straight couples are undeserving and some of the gay couples would be wonderful parents. Strangely enough, gay couples fall into the same categories as all other couples. Those who should have children and those who should not be let within a 1,000 miles of children. I'm all for gay couples adopting children as long as they are held to the same standards as straight couples. What's the big deal? Besides, have you looked at how many children there are out there without homes? Even the most homophobic people cannot honestly think that a child without a home and family is better off... That would be pure lunacy.

Trying to justify gay adoption by saying some hetero couples can't have kids doesn't make any sense.

Kirk was making the reverse arguement-that because gays can't procreate, they can't be good parents. i was pointing out that breeding ability and parenting abilty were two different things.

If everyone who calls for adoption over abortion adopted, there would be no one left for gay couples to choose from.


If everyone who calls for adoption over abortion adopted, there would be no one left for gay couples to choose from.

#26 | Posted by like at 2008-11-25 04:50 PM | Reply | Flag:


Yes, but we all know that they're mostly just lyin' bastages.

What am I, chopped liver?

Merged. Our posts crossed in the night.

Danni,
I know how Florida is - I served in the Navy in Jacksonville and saw first hand that their Foster Care System is substandard. There was a Christmas toy give away at the Gator Bowl I used to volunteer at every year I was there (can't remember the name but it was named after some lady). I also worked with poor/low income children here in Los Angeles along with DCFS (Dept. Children & Family Services) children attempting family reunification.

So I do understand this situation. I know all the home visits it takes to pass as a foster parent. Unfortunately I also know some people do it strictly for the money. I used to get calls from out of state with people asking "I am buying a house for X amount of dollars, how many children do I need to make my mortgage?" I kid you not!!

It's not easy but if you do eventually make the cut and are allowed to adopt, I have to believe it will be in the best interest of the child.

Mary,
I know I am going to get flack over this but here it goes.

The reason gay couples are more promiscuous is that they are consciously not fulfilling their biological imperative (the need to procreate) and it is causing disunity between their Id, Ego and Super Ego (needs, wants, desires).

It goes like this -

Need - I Need to procreate.
Want - I Want to procreate today
Desire - I Desire to procreate with X

In a hetero relationship this creates the greatest opportunity to meet the Biological Imperative.

In Gay relationships the biological Imperative is never met creating a disunity between the Id, Ego and Super Ego that will cause this behavior to repeat itself over and over until the Imperative is met which it never will be (naturally).

"""Trying to justify gay adoption by saying some hetero couples can't have kids doesn't make any sense."""

I agree. But the multiple studies that prove that kids raised by same-sex partners perform as well or even better than kids with hetero parents sure are a clue.

"In Gay relationships the biological Imperative is never met creating a disunity between the Id, Ego and Super Ego that will cause this behavior to repeat itself over and over until the Imperative is met which it never will be (naturally)."

Oh, I get it - it's like straights looking for the perfect zipless fuck.

Thank you ever so much for that little bit of enlightenment.

Merged. Our posts crossed in the night.

#38 | Posted by rcade

just don't try and adopt a kid then....

#40 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2008-11-25 05:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not the procreation argument again?!

Are you suggesting that all heteros have sex only to procreate? That want and desire is a gay thing? That heteros that don't want or can't have children are not fulfilled sexually? That their sexuality is therefore misguided and unsatisfying?

Your argument would also suggest that adoptive parents fall into the same category of "promiscuity" and "not fulfilling their biological imperative"?

Lame.

No Pancho-

All humans have a biological NEED to procreate, we do this by having sex with the opposite sex. That creates children.

Okay, you got that part.

We WANT to procreate (have sex) as much as possible or permissible by our own circumstances. in hetero relationships the woman always has the right of first refusal so men do not always satisfy their WANTS. If the WANT is met the chances of children become greater.

Are you still following me?

We DESIRE the partner of our own choice. I am not obligated to have sex with someone I do not find attractive and cannot arouse me. If my DESIRE is met, children could be in the offering.

Are you there yet?

Now, some people will not have children even by following their Biological Imperative, this is natures way of avoiding certain genes from being passed on. It does not mean that the imperative is not being met.

It may mean that in the future one or the other partner may seek out additional partners to attempt to satisfy this Biological Imperative. The cycle goes on.

But the multiple studies that prove that kids raised by same-sex partners perform as well or even better than kids with hetero parents sure are a clue.

#41 | Posted by panchovilla at


Your link is about liberals reviewing subjectively the results of a multiple studies to draw their conclusion.

They even admit it is faulty.


-----

Truth of the matter is that the best home for kids is with a Mom and a Dad. Traditional parents.

------


Our society has experimented enough on kids with no fault divorce.

Now we should go ahead and experiment some more with gay couples adopting?

Mary - what is "a perfect zipless fuck?"

and

My Pleasure. I thought you were asking a question above so I answered.

"Mary - what is 'a perfect zipless fuck?'"

Prolix (extremely apt handle, BTW):

If you don't know, you've never had one.

Truth of the matter is that the best home for kids is with a Mom and a Dad. Traditional parents.

------


Our society has experimented enough on kids with no fault divorce.

Now we should go ahead and experiment some more with gay couples adopting?

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-11-25 05:51 PM

Get back to us when the line of heterosexual couples who want to adopt children exceeds the line of kids needing good homes.

"We WANT to procreate (have sex) as much as possible"

Are you serious? When I was younger, I wanted to have sex as much as possible WITHOUT procreating!

Merged. Our posts crossed in the night.

#38 | Posted by rcade

just don't try and adopt a kid then....

#43 | Posted by northguy3

Very good! FF!

All the serial killers I have heard of were raised by heterosexual parents.

Zero serial killers raised by gays.

So far, the best riposte I've heard on the subject of gay adoption came from an adoptee of about sixteen. She has two daddies, and she was getting some heat about it from a kid in the neighborhood.

"Hey, at least my parents aren't screwing around on each other all the time the way yours are," came the rejoinder.

End of hassling.

Mary,
Maybe they call it something different in my neighborhood?

Thanks about the name ;>)

Danforth,
Yeah but those little spermies had other ideas. Unless they were victims of friendly fire...

"Yeah but those little spermies had other ideas."

Not after I burned the bridge!


So far, the best riposte I've heard on the subject of gay adoption came from an adoptee of about sixteen. She has two daddies, and she was getting some heat about it from a kid in the neighborhood.


"Hey, at least my parents aren't screwing around on each other all the time the way yours are," came the rejoinder.

#53 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Her reply sounds good, but is no doubt untrue. I don't believe it, and I doubt the 16 year old truly knows. Given the track record for lack of serial monogamy in homosexual relationships, even while in a supposed "committed relationship", I would bet the young lady is grossly mistaken.

"Her reply sounds good, but is no doubt untrue."

Who the fuck are you to pass judgement on what her parents did or didn't do? No doubt?!? WTF are you talking about?

"Given the track record for lack of serial monogamy in homosexual relationships..."

And you would know this...how?

"Her reply sounds good, but is no doubt untrue. I don't believe it, and I doubt the 16 year old truly knows. Given the track record for lack of serial monogamy in homosexual relationships, even while in a supposed "committed relationship", I would bet the young lady is grossly mistaken."

TheoNibs:

I know both the young lady's daddies, as well as the putain and the ho-dog who are the purported parents of the other kid. I am here to tell you that Miss Sweet Sixteen was spot on the money.

what is 'a perfect zipless fuck?'

S'rsly?

* and somewhere off in the ether Erica Jong is weep unconsolably *

Spud puts it down to a Fear of Reading on Airplanes or sommat.

/Aparently obscure.

Be Well.

"Spud puts it down to a Fear of Reading on Airplanes or sommat."

DAMN YOU, POTATO!

Now I have to spend the next twenty minutes cleaning Coke and snot off my monitor.


"Her reply sounds good, but is no doubt untrue."


Who the fuck are you to pass judgement on what her parents did or didn't do? No doubt?!? WTF are you talking about?


"Given the track record for lack of serial monogamy in homosexual relationships..."


And you would know this...how?

#58 | Posted by Danforth


One of the largest studies to date of the sexual habits of homosexual mn (nearly 5,000) was the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. It found that "a significant majority of these men...(69%-83%) reported having fifty or more lifetime sexual partners. By contrast, the National Health and Social Life Survey, which focused on the sexual habits of Americans reported that at least 83.4% of heterosexual males have had fewer than twenty one sex partners since the age of 18, nearly half had four or fewer, and nearly one-quarter had one or none.

Further, a 1997 study of 2,583 homosexually active men in Australia found that, of those over 49 years of age, one quarter (26.6%) had more than 10 male partners in the past six months alone, half (44.9%) had between 2 and 10, and a quarter had just one (28.5%). In the course of their lifetime, only 2.7% of the older men reported having just one partner. The percentages for the other response categories are astounding:

2-10 male sex partners - 10.2%
11-20 male sex partners - 14.1%
21-50 male sex partners - 12.9%
51-100 male sex partners - 11.8%
101-500 male sex partners - 21.6%
501-1,000 male sex partners - 11%
1,000 or more male sex partners - 15.7%

Thus, nearly 9 out of every 10 of those over 49 years of age had in their lifetime more than 10 male sex partners, and of these the majority had over 100 male sex partners. (Paul Van de Ven, "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34, 1997.

Further, even within the context of a relationship, homosexual males rarely exhibit serial monogamy, let alone lifelong monogamy. A Dutch study of the sexual habits of 156 male homosexual couples reported that, on average, each partner had seven other sex partners in just the one year preceding the survey. (A.A. Deenen, L. Gijs, and A.X. van Naerssen, "Intimacy and Sexuality in Gay Male Couples," Archives of Sexual Behavior v.23) Nearly two thirds (62%) of thes "close-coupled" gays were non-monogamous in that same one-year period they were supposedly in a "committed" relationship. The number of outside partners in the first year of their so-called commitment averaged 2.5; by the sixth year the number increased to 11.

However, the rates for the American adult population as a whole are the mirror opposites. 80% of heterosexual men and 90% of heterosexual women had only one sexual partner or none the the preceding year.

Thus the likelihood that Heather's two daddies are screwing around with other men is far greater than Heather's charge against heterosexual couples who are doing the same!

If you want to laud "faithfulness in marriage" as some homosexual virtue, you're going to have to go against the reality of this abominable abnormality which seeks validation and acceptance via the institution called marriage. But if you're gay, that's not so difficult. Evidence and proof aren't really matters for consideration when embracing the dysfunction takes priority.

"Thus the likelihood that Heather's two daddies are screwing around with other men is far greater than Heather's charge against heterosexual couples who are doing the same!"

But that wasn't what you claimed. You claimed there was "no doubt". That would make you a liar.

"this...abnormality"

Well, if you're talking abnormality, you're going to include green eyes, left-handedness, and height over 6'2", right?

"Given the track record for lack of serial monogamy in homosexual relationships..."


- Where are you getting this from? In all honesty between my wife and I we know 7 homosexual couples (one is my Sister-in-law and her Wife) and they have all been in long committed relationships. I can't say the same for all my Hetero friends. I don't think that argument holds much water at all... The simple fact is that the gay couples I know just want to get out and do crazy things like work, pay taxes, buy homes, maybe raise children, and generally be left alone to live their lives preferably free from discrimination. How nutty is that?

Nice try at deflection Danforth. I'll bet you're gay?

TheoNibs:

They can't get married; their attempts to attain stable relationships have been thwarted by unconstitutional subversions of process.

They don't get a normal dating process in adolescence; they're forced into furtiveness at an early age due to contempt from their peer group.

Some of the few places they get to go for social interactions are bars.

And you wonder why they're not monogamous? They have precious little incentive for it, seems to me.

You think about it. If we abolished marriage, beat up every straight kid who was known to be dating anyone, and replaced all our respectable community institutions with Hooters, how marriage-minded and monogamous do you think straights would end up?

"I'll bet you're gay"

Really? You'll bet? How much?

"Nice try at deflection Danforth. "

Pointing out your lie isn't deflection, Theo. It's pointing out your lie.


TheoNibs:

They can't get married; their attempts to attain stable relationships have been thwarted by unconstitutional subversions of process.

They don't get a normal dating process in adolescence; they're forced into furtiveness at an early age due to contempt from their peer group.

Some of the few places they get to go for social interactions are bars.

And you wonder why they're not monogamous? They have precious little incentive for it, seems to me.

You think about it. If we abolished marriage, beat up every straight kid who was known to be dating anyone, and replaced all our respectable community institutions with Hooters, how marriage-minded and monogamous do you think straights would end up?

#66 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Oh stop playing the victim! Blaming heterosexuals for your own promiscuity gets so tiresome! And granting marrital status to homosexuals isn't going to solve this problem, else why would you be pointing to heterosexuals who are guilty of the same? Did getting married prevent them from screwing around? Is their infidelity the result of being beaten up as children?

It's not my fault I screw around. My daddy beat me up when I was a kid! Yeah...right!

"Blaming heterosexuals for your own promiscuity gets so tiresome! "

Theo, like all closet latents, believes everyone is gay.

Except him...of course.

"Oh stop playing the victim! Blaming heterosexuals for your own promiscuity gets so tiresome!"

Your Nibs:

You do not know a God-damned thing about me, so stop making up shit to fit your feeble right-wing point.

I'm beginning to suspect you're really Newt Gingrich.

Theo, like all closet latents, believes everyone is gay.

Except him...of course.

~Danforth

We talking Theophalus Nebs again?

Yup, yer theory has resonance with Spud.

Another fun factois about Theo is that he also thinks that the continual, non-stop series of homo-erotic dreams he's been having all these years were obviously put inside his head by Satan Hisself!!!

You know, ...to test him.

^_^

Be Well.

"Another fun factois about Theo is that he also thinks that the continual, non-stop series of homo-erotic dreams he's been having all these years were obviously put inside his head by Satan Hisself!!!"

If, as I suspect, they're about Johnson, I would venture to say that in this one instance, Theo has a point.

So spud and Mary,
Am I to believe you had to read Erica Jong to understand sex? I am missing the reference. But good for you.

DAMN YOU, POTATO!

Now I have to spend the next twenty minutes cleaning Coke and snot off my monitor.

~MTW

Ha! Spud lives to make folks do spit takes on their keyboards!!

/Spud is merely a tool of BigKeyboard!

Am I to believe you had to read Erica Jong to understand sex? I am missing the reference. But good for you.

~Prolix

Zipless fuck

In the novel Fear of Flying, Jong coined the term "zipless fuck," which soon entered the popular lexicon. A "zipless fuck" is defined as a sexual encounter for its own sake, without emotional involvement or commitment or any ulterior motive, between two previously unacquainted persons.

The zipless fuck is absolutely pure. It is free of ulterior motives. There is no power game . The man is not "taking" and the woman is not "giving." No one is attempting to cuckold a husband or humiliate a wife. No one is trying to prove anything or get anything out of anyone. The zipless fuck is the purest thing there is. And it is rarer than the unicorn. And I have never had one.

Erica Mann Jong, Fear of Flying (1973)

en.wikipedia.org (novel)

Teh Googles! They do NOTHING!

Be Well.

"But I'm bettin' I'm correct."

Again...how much?

Danforth, Marytyler and Spud, nope I don't know you. But I'm bettin' I'm correct.

~Theophalos Nebs

If Vegas was even putting a line out of you being correct on anything EVAR then Spud would certainly take some of that easy money but alas and alack they is not.

A fridge doesn't fart when you take the meat out!

That's the second part to this old chestnut...

Q: Why is a woman like a frying pan?

A: Both work better if you heat them up before putting the meat in.

Super funny back in the early seventies not so much these days.

Spud is humour historian.

Be Well.

Spud,
I call them one night stands, much easier.

But...

Since I'm married now, I have never in my life heard of such a thing.

Spud,

I call them one night stands, much easier.

Yeah, but where's the poetry, where's the luff?

But...

Since I'm married now, I have never in my life heard of such a thing.

That's yer story and yer sticking to it.

Good man.

Spud sees you haff gained the wisdom of the ages.

Did you know the phrase "Yes, Dear" translates into every language on earth including sign language?

Not. A. Coincidence.

Spud has this theory that the reason the world is so fucked up is cos all womens is crazy and all mens is stOOpid.

Spud shared this theory with a GF once.

She yelled at Spud...

"THAT IS THE STOOPIDEST THING YOU"VE EVAR SED!!!"

"Alright, alright", sed Spud, "ya don't hafta get all crazy over it. Just another one of me stoopid theories. Yeesh!"*

/Still think Spud was onto sommat there.

Be Well.

/*That last joke was totally stolen from Matt Groening.
//Meh, that fucker's loaded nowadays so he prolly won't mind.

Spud,
I think you are on to something there.

Back to the topic at hand

Not a thing wrong with Gay folks adopting as long as they are held to the same standards straight folks are.

As far as there not being enough folks adopting I belive that is untrue. There are more people willing to adopt than children needing adoption, however our system is so screwed, it is so expensive and lengthy to adopt that many do not make it succesfuly through the process. That needs to be fixed. Putting an aditional hurdle of sexual preferance up seems to be a bad idea when there are so many hurdles already in place.

However what the hell do I know about adoption, It's not like I was adopted and then grew up to adopt a child of my own.

WOW wtf no one even blamed clinton or bush on this thread...

All this concensus is making me wanting to be the dissenter here... lol..

And the funny thing is I tried my hardest to google some opposistion argument, but failed miserably.

I even cross referenced pat robertson no joy... just how the fuck did they pass this in florida anyway ?!?!

Seems to me the only thing driving this law was pure and simple bigotry.

There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. Equal rights for homosexuals is pushing forward like a tsunami.

Mod,

Hate to disent on such a concensus thread but my fealings on gay rights has nothing to do with my fealings on gay adoption.

Adoption has nothing to do with rights black, white, straight, gay or anything it's about providing homes for children who desperatly need one.

Tao, I disagree with you. I believe it is equally about according all qualified adults the joy and happiness which accompanies being able to adopt a child.

On that one Mod we will just have to agree to disagree. IMHO adoption is only about the children. Any other factors are secondary and minor compared to making sure every child has a loving home to be raised in.

Oh and meant to add.

In the long view it doen't matter because the final goal of children in good homes is acheived no matter the motivation.

You might want to reconsider that, Taowarrior. After all, it IS in the best interests of the children if the parents have a legally recognized relationship between them, no?

31 years ago. That's when Anita Bryant discovered that bigotry could launch a political career.

Shame she didn't live to see her views repudiated.

Bob,

Yes that would be in the best interest of the child but not sure it really is all that important. Personaly I feel the love and nurturing is more important than the legal piece of paper.

Your not saying that Brad and Angelina's adopted kids are in worse shape today than before they were adopted just because they don't have a legaly recognized relationship are you?

Shame she didn't live to see her views repudiated.

#89 | Posted by BobSF_94117

She's not dead.

Also a report tonight that around 8% of those who voted for Prop 8 in CA say they made a mistake and regret their vote. Let's get that thing back on the ballot and knock it out, in case the courts don't.

I think that two adults in a stable relationship should be able to adopt.

Get back to us when the line of heterosexual couples who want to adopt children exceeds the line of kids needing good homes.

#48 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue


What is the percentage of heteros in line?

What is the percentage of gays in line?

How many kids are actually in the line?

Foreign adoptions do not count by celebrities.

And where is the dispute that a family with a Mom and Dad is worse than a two dads or two moms?

"And where is the dispute that a family with a Mom and Dad is worse than a two dads or two moms?"

As usual, you've got it backwards. This judge has said a family with two dads or two moms is not in and of itself worse.

Murphy,

Just wondering are you not willing to admit that two mom's or two dad's is better than no mom or dad?

We need more adoptions in this country, why can you not put homes for children in front of sexual preference?

@theoneBS

my great aunt and god-mother was lesbian and in a committed relationship withe same woman nearly all her life.

what you really are alleging is that sentiment that you and your kind (weirdo christian fascist), like Ted Haggard alleges, "I know what you did last night."

believe what you like but tis is country based on individual liberty, not any one persons particular religion or mores.

nor is the American concept of liberty, flawed is has been at times, up for a vote.

got that? this is war. it has been war. you want to spill blood? then stop spilling it. can't see it flowing? look around.

"Your not saying that Brad and Angelina's adopted kids are in worse shape today than before they were adopted just because they don't have a legaly recognized relationship are you?"

No, Brad and Angelina's adopted kids are in worse shape today because they're the "flavor of the month," adopted for publicity purposes by people who are self-centered, to say nothing of delusional if they think their fame and high-and-mighty incomes are going to last. Angelina's already looking very hard; I give her career three more good years, at best.

Kirk was making the reverse arguement-that because gays can't procreate, they can't be good parents.
#34 | Posted by northguy3 at 2008-11-25 04:48 PM | Reply

NO, I was stating that gays can't be parents NATURALLY.

Children are not the fruit of a homosexual relationship in nature--ever.

Children require a man getting it on with a woman in nature--a different concept.

A basic point, not really delving into the law NOR saying gays can't be good parents--CERTAINLY not saying that heteros are always or even usually good parents.

But feel free to spin this into "hate speech," "bigotry" and "homophobia."

And go get Danforth so he can throw some good name-calling in here too!

"Children require a man getting it on with a woman in nature"

Not everywhere.

Honestly, I am FAR more concerned that there are WAY fewer adoptions occurring because of the prevalence of abortion (legal or illegal). It has cut adoptions drastically.

I commend all who seek to care for children in a society where we suck out and burn up 3,000 children every fucking day. We'll have to pay for that someday, I'm sure.

Explain HOW children are conceived in nature OTHER than a man doing it with a woman, Danforth.

Can't wait to hear this queer explanation.

(That is "strange" explanation, classical definition)

en.wikipedia.org

"Explain HOW children are conceived in nature OTHER than a man doing it with a woman, Danforth.

Can't wait to hear this queer explanation.

(That is "strange" explanation, classical definition)"

Well, er, ah, God knocked up that little jewish virgin.

So Jesus had two daddys.

But that must not have been in Florida huh?

Explain HOW children are conceived in nature OTHER than a man doing it with a woman, Danforth.

To think, someone used a computer to get that message across.

Amazing.

"I commend all who seek to care for children in a society where we suck out and burn up 3,000 children every fucking day. We'll have to pay for that someday, I'm sure."

When asked his position on the pending abortion bill the esteemed senator replied, "The abortion bill? Pay it."

Hans

This subject has nothing to do with birthing children. It's about a human being taken care of another human being. So many kids that need someone to love and take care of them. Instead of sitting around in a orphanage feeling unwanted.

What is the percentage of heteros in line?

What is the percentage of gays in line?

How many kids are actually in the line?

Foreign adoptions do not count by celebrities.

#94 | Posted by MURPHY


Are you just trying to obfuscate the point, or is it your actual contention that there are more straight couples who want to adopt than there are children needing homes?

like i said before, let them , dont stop them, soon, they will bread them selves out of the gene pool ;) woot, then you wont have to worry about them anymore.

maybe you would not have so many kids in orphanages if you made those who had them accountable, but, thats not going to happen. is it.. its not their fault they are horny .. ;) keep paying for the mistakes of others, stop holding people accountable, the downfall of man kind.

dont stop them, soon, they will bread them selves out of the gene pool

Rome?

No decent, caring, sane person could support this ban. It is anti-child. It force many children to go from foster home to foster home instead of have a family that loves them adopt them. Religious arguments justifying such inhumane treatment make some of us fear religion and its proponents. It's just plain sick.

#6 | Posted by danni

Thought this should be said again.

1. It takes a male and female to make a child.

2. Homosexual couples cannot produce children.

3. Homosexuals demand the right to the happiness of raising children.

4. Homosexuals must rely on heterosexuality to have children.


Conclusion: A homosexual's happiness, in this regard, depends on heterosexual normality for his/her happiness and fulfillment.


Evil is defined as the privation of good. For evil to exist, good must first exist. Evil necessarily relies not on its opposite for its existence, but on its dependant for its existence. Evil cannot exist on its own, in its own right, or by itself. Good, on the other hand, can.

Homosexuality must rely on heterosexuality for its own validation and happiness. If it did not, then imagine where homosexuals would be if it weren't for heterosexual normality?



Conclusion: A homosexual's happiness, in this regard, depends on heterosexual normality for his/her happiness and fulfillment.

Evil is defined as the privation of good. For evil to exist, good must first exist. Evil necessarily relies not on its opposite for its existence, but on its dependant for its existence. Evil cannot exist on its own, in its own right, or by itself. Good, on the other hand, can.

Homosexuality must rely on heterosexuality for its own validation and happiness. If it did not, then imagine where homosexuals would be if it weren't for heterosexual normality?
#113 | Posted by TheOneBS


Just because you showed how two statements are logically equivalent, doesn't say anything about the equivalence of their constituents.

And in this case, there is none.

Just because you showed how two statements are logically equivalent, doesn't say anything about the equivalence of their constituents.


I don't need to demonstrate this, as this is already being played out in real time for all to see on this board, and in the litigation going on in our court rooms, and in our schools and other institutions.

Don't be stupid! Anyone can take a logic class. It's quite another thing to acknowledge reality!

Right, Mista Kurtz, Jesus was NOT born in Florida.

He also survived a wave of infanticide in his time, much like myself and everyone else under 36 years of age.

You DID make-a me raugh!

It's quite another thing to acknowledge reality!
#115 | Posted by TheOneBS

Self retorting retort.

But of course, that's what you're afraid of, isn't it?

#31 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2008-11-25 04:33 PM

Actually, I am afraid of what Dr. Ian Malcom said:

"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God."

Your on your way to step number 4. This judge is helping.

Adoption is the assumption of a duty, and the only rights involved are the rights of the child.

Instead of regarding the family as the present generation's way of sacrificing itself for the next, we are being asked to create families in which the next generation is sacrificed for the pleasure of the present one.

"The purpose of a man is to love a woman and the purpose of a woman is to love a man." Man is incomplete without a wife and family. Believe what you like - everyone on this site is passing through history mostly insignificantly. For most, the only true mark made on it will be what we leave behind - and for the majority it is our prodigy.

The "do it if it feels good" crowd here at the DR has been sold a pig in a poke for so long they have adopted it as their "religion". "Man" is a social creature. "Society" can only exist with that most basic of constructs - the family. Almost every problem mankind has created for itself stems from the divergence from the basic building block of society.


Instead of regarding the family as the present generation's way of sacrificing itself for the next, we are being asked to create families in which the next generation is sacrificed for the pleasure of the present one.
#118 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

In what way is the next generation being sacrificed if they are put in loving homes, cid?

"Society" can only exist with that most basic of constructs
#118 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

I don't think that anyone here is going to argue with you on this point. Everyone thinks that happy, healthy families are important. How a family is defined is another question entirely.

"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God."

Evolution created dinosaurs and evolution destroyed them. Man surely invented god, and as man gets ever closer to answering the Big Questions )realistically) man will find he can survive very nicely, thank you Cidney, without "Him." herm

"Evil cannot exist on its own, in its own right, or by itself."

Evil is a social construct, Theo. We should learn to transcend it. herm

"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God..."

...Man creates dinasours. Dinosaurs eat man; woman inherits the earth.


C'mon Herm!


That was from Jurassic Park.

Oops. I forgot. The Jurassic period was after your time.
;-)

Evil is a social construct, Theo. We should learn to transcend it. herm

You shall not murder!

"Don't be stupid! Anyone can take a logic class. It's quite another thing to acknowledge reality!"

What reality? That all heterosexuals are "good" and all homos are "evil"?

LOL.

What a tard. And I'm not using that as a figure of speach. You're full-blown tarded.


1. It takes a male and female to make a child.
2. Homosexual couples cannot produce children.
3. Homosexuals demand the right to the happiness of raising children.
4. Homosexuals must rely on heterosexuality to have children.
Conclusion: A homosexual's happiness, in this regard, depends on heterosexual normality for his/her happiness and fulfillment.

Substitute "infertile" for "Homosexual" in all of the above, and you'll see how hateful and wrong those statements are.

Evolution created dinosaurs and evolution destroyed them. Man surely invented god, and as man gets ever closer to answering the Big Questions )realistically) man will find he can survive very nicely, thank you Cidney, without "Him." herm


#120 | Posted by herm at 2008-11-26 12:53 PM

Denial is not a river in Egypt HERM - actually "people" like you do more to destroy the family than most others - you know - leading babies to the slaughterhouse and all.


How a family is defined is another question entirely.

#119 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Since most of the left prefers biological viewpoints over spiratual I offer this:

Many sociologists and anthropologists believe the primary function of the family is to perpetuate society, either biologically, socially, or both. Thus, one's experience of one's family shifts over time. From the perspective of children, the family is a family of orientation: the family serves to locate children socially, and plays a major role in their enculturation and socialization. From the point of view of the parent(s), the family is a family of procreation the goal of which is to produce and enculturate and socialize children.[1] However, producing children is not the only function of the family; in societies with a sexual division of labor, marriage, and the resulting relationship between two people, is necessary for the formation of an economically productive household.

Kind of hard to do with same sex "families".

Let me offer this disclaimer to my posts on this thread - although I am against gays adopting or marrying, I find the concept of actual violence or animosity towards homosexuals intolerable. That being said homosexuality serves no constructive purpose what-so-ever in society. There is no benefit to it. If the world would get over the political correctness retardation we have slipped into, we might find a cure for it - just like any other birth defect.

"I find the concept of actual violence or animosity towards homosexuals intolerable. That being said homosexuality serves no constructive purpose what-so-ever in society. "

Classic self-retorting retort.

And blasphemy to boot.


1. It takes a male and female to make a child.
2. Homosexual couples cannot produce children.
3. Homosexuals demand the right to the happiness of raising children.
4. Homosexuals must rely on heterosexuality to have children.
Conclusion: A homosexual's happiness, in this regard, depends on heterosexual normality for his/her happiness and fulfillment.


Substitute "infertile" for "Homosexual" in all of the above, and you'll see how hateful and wrong those statements are.

An infertile couple and a homosexual couple are not comparable. One is still heterosexual, the other is abnormal. Muddying the language with moral equivalency is the tactic of the liberal.

Children do not exist to make homosexuals happy, or transgenders happy, or pedophiles happy, or any other deviant happy. For that matter, children do not exist to make legitimate parents happy.

What is truly hateful is subjecting a child to such deviancy, insisting that such a deviant pseudo-family is no different than the natural family born of nature's male-female complimentarity. This pseudo arrangement which attempts to mimic nature's intent is cannot be sustained. Forever it will rely on the natural to maintain its pseudo status. It is thus an abomination, for it is a parasite on the good. Calling deviancy good does not make it so!

In the same way the homosexual is seeking validity for his/her pseudo-arrangement via the institution of marriage, homosexuals now "use" children to do the same. In this way "having children" is just one more rung in the ladder to validation of homosexuality. In a word, having children is self-serving and just another way this inordinate self-absorption of homosexual deviancy seeks validation in the culture.

Evil is the privation of good. Calling evil good does not make it so. Neither does pointing to a good homosexual person make homosexuality good.

Hey, did you know that Hitler had a very endearing way with children? There are many heart-warming pictures of him playing with toddlers He sure had a way with kids! I guess that makes his nouveau soical constructs pretty good too!





"One is still heterosexual, the other is abnormal."

When you use the word "abnormal" do you also include left-handedness, green eyes, and height over 6'2"?

"Muddying the language with moral equivalency is the tactic of the liberal. "

Whereas pretending inequality isn't inequality is the purview of the narrow-minded.

"This pseudo arrangement which attempts to mimic nature's intent is cannot be sustained."

Well, lucky for you gay parents raise straight children, and vice versa.

" did you know that Hitler..."

Thank you for invoking Godwin's Law, and conceding the argument.

And as to the bigger question: if gays are against God's plan, why does he keep cranking them out every day? Seems to me the error is man's perception, not God's.

Prolix,

"""All humans have a biological NEED to procreate, we do this by having sex with the opposite sex. That creates children.


We WANT to procreate (have sex) as much as possible or permissible by our own circumstances. in hetero relationships the woman always has the right of first refusal so men do not always satisfy their WANTS. If the WANT is met the chances of children become greater."""

Humans have the biological need to have sex, which leads to procreation. The prior is not interlocked with the latter, which is why your reasoning is faulty. Your reasoning that wanting to have sex is equal to wanting to have kids is an oversimplification of human behavior.


"""Are you still following me?"""

I'll humor you, but no.

"""We DESIRE the partner of our own choice. I am not obligated to have sex with someone I do not find attractive and cannot arouse me. If my DESIRE is met, children could be in the offering."""

It's circumstancial. Think deserted island as an extreme.


""Are you there yet?""

No. Are you back from where you were?

"""Now, some people will not have children even by following their Biological Imperative, this is natures way of avoiding certain genes from being passed on. It does not mean that the imperative is not being met."""

What about the people that just don't want kids. Free will, not dictated by "nature's imperative". Still having sex, still possibly as promiscuous or more than homosexuals.

"""It may mean that in the future one or the other partner may seek out additional partners to attempt to satisfy this Biological Imperative. The cycle goes on.""

It can also mean, excluding your hypothesis of "nature's imperative", that some folks will cheat on their partners because they want to, not because they need togay or straight.


And as to the bigger question: if gays are against God's plan, why does he keep cranking them out every day? Seems to me the error is man's perception, not God's.

Danforth, you might want to stay away from theology. You'll hurt yourself. Besides, you don't seem to believe anyway, so why invoke the deity?

But a simple answer to your charge - The creation story states that God made all things and called them "good." This, unfortunately, is where proponents of homosexuality end the discussion, forgetting the rest of the story of humanity's fall.

If you're going to say that homosexuality is ok cuz God keeps cranking out homosexuals, then you're going to have to say the same for everything else that is "cranked" out.

A homosexual says, "I was born this way and did not choose my orientation. Therefore God thinks I'm ok just the way I am, cuz he cranked me out with this orientation."

WRONG!

A pedophile can also say the same. I guess pedophilia is part of God's plan then, cuz why else does he keep cranking them out? Maybe there's an error in man's perception, not God's?

Only if you're not serious about God in the first place. Hence, let those with integrity speak on theological matters.


Your link is about liberals reviewing subjectively the results of a multiple studies to draw their conclusion.

They even admit it is faulty.


-----

Truth of the matter is that the best home for kids is with a Mom and a Dad. Traditional parents.

------


Our society has experimented enough on kids with no fault divorce.

Now we should go ahead and experiment some more with gay couples adopting?

#45 | Posted by MURPHY at 2008-11-25 05:51 PM | Reply |

By the same standards, you're statement that the nuclear family is the best model is faulty. Prove it. There are a multitude of studies that will argue both sides, and true, longitudinal studies are not yet available to confirm beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is now negative impact. But all available studies DO indicate that there is no particular impact for kids from same sex families...the guiding principle is a nurturing environment which can provide the child with the love and safety it needs to prosper.

Hence, let those with integrity speak on theological matters.


Posted by TheOneBS


Thus spaketh yet another tunnel-visioned idealogue who has allowed his narrow understanding of God to become God.

"""A pedophile can also say the same. """

No they can't. Consensual adults you fucking idiot.

tunnel visioned? Can you tell us why God keeps cranking out persons with a pedophile orientation Rogue? Try to do so without using the "mutual consent" dodge. It is obvious there are persons who have an orientation toward children. Since God keeps cranking out such people, shouldn't we conclude that such orientations are part of God's plan? If not, show us why you too aren't tunnel visioned.



"""A pedophile can also say the same. """


No they can't. Consensual adults you fucking idiot.

#134 | Posted by panchovilla

Hey dipwad, you're predictable. The pedophile orientation exists...long before your "mutual consent" construct came along.

If people are born with such an orientation, as the homosexual supposedly is born with his/her orientation, are you suggesting that such an orientation can still be a deviancy, regardless of "being born this way"?


Murphy,

I tried to post another link to a medical journal that might interest you, but there seems to be a registration protocol if you access it directly, so here is the google results page that will lead you straight to it:

www.google.ca

It's one of the first results, from webmd.

Hey dipwad, you're predictable. The pedophile orientation exists...long before your "mutual consent" construct came along.

If people are born with such an orientation, as the homosexual supposedly is born with his/her orientation, are you suggesting that such an orientation can still be a deviancy, regardless of "being born this way"?


#136 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2008-11-26 02:27 PM |

WTF?!

Homosexual activity = 2 consensual adults.

Pedophile = predator + victim.

The concept of predator or consent has been around forever.

I do not equate homosexuality with a deviancy, so your specious linkage of homosexuality with pedophilia is stupid at best, insulting at worst.

"""Since God keeps cranking out such people, shouldn't we conclude that such orientations are part of God's plan?"""

In any case, your "god" has no impact on this argument until you prove that it exists. Good luck buddy...you might need to change your goggles for a pair that gives you a bit of a peripheral view.

"She's not dead."

Oh, good! (and I really do mean it)

"She's not dead."

Oh, good! (and I really do mean it)

#140 | Posted by BobSF_94117


But she HAS had a severe pie phobia the past few years.

TaoWarrior: "Your not saying that Brad and Angelina's adopted kids are in worse shape today than before they were adopted just because they don't have a legaly recognized relationship are you?"

No, I'm saying that they'd be even better off if the parents would marry each other.

Besides being a good example, there are legal considerations in the event something unfortunate happened to either parent. In Brad and Angelina's situation, it's not as much a concern, of course, as they're both wealthy.

Theonebs, you insist that all society is and must be organized around the heterosexual ideal.


Who's the one seeking validation?

" you don't seem to believe anyway, so why invoke the deity?"

Do you ever tire of being wrong all the time? I believe, but what I don't believe in is idiots who either didn't read the Bible, or don't understand it. For example...if Jesus were telling the story of The Good Samaritan today, who would "The Samaritan" be?

"Therefore God thinks I'm ok just the way I am, cuz he cranked me out with this orientation. WRONG!"

Say, expert, do you realize you just blasphemed?

"let those with integrity speak on theological matters."

So you're going to STFU?

I do not equate homosexuality with a deviancy

adjective 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
noun 2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.


Which one do you not equate with homosexuality? It is by definition deviant behavior.

Technically true - just like being left handed, red haired, or Republican.

The word has come to have a negative connotation because it has so often been used as a club. It is not necessarily a negative thing.

Say, expert, do you realize you just blasphemed?

#144 | Posted by Danforth


Its OK Danforth - Theo is one of those who fills his spare time by thumbing through the Bible and penciling in corrections as he goes.

"1. deviating or departing from the norm"

If "deviating or departing from the norm" is the bar, then every left-hander, everyone with green eyes, and everyone 6'2" and taller is a deviant.

Are you still comfortable with your definition?

WTF?!

Homosexual activity = 2 consensual adults.

Pedophile = predator + victim.

The concept of predator or consent has been around forever.

I do not equate homosexuality with a deviancy, so your specious linkage of homosexuality with pedophilia is stupid at best, insulting at worst.


Again, you dodge the question. Is the pedophile's "orientation" a bad thing or a good thing...or something else, and why?


adjective 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
noun 2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.


Which one do you not equate with homosexuality? It is by definition deviant behavior.

#145 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2008-11-26 03:01 PM |

5% to 10% of the population is no longer "deviating from the norm, it's deviating from the majority.


" you don't seem to believe anyway, so why invoke the deity?"

Do you ever tire of being wrong all the time? I believe, but what I don't believe in is idiots who either didn't read the Bible, or don't understand it. For example...if Jesus were telling the story of The Good Samaritan today, who would "The Samaritan" be?

"Therefore God thinks I'm ok just the way I am, cuz he cranked me out with this orientation. WRONG!"

Say, expert, do you realize you just blasphemed?

"let those with integrity speak on theological matters."

So you're going to STFU?

I noticed you didn't answer my question. Could you re-read my post and try again?


Is the pedophile's "orientation" a bad thing or a good thing.

Any circumstance where someone in a position of strength preys upon someone physically or mentally weaker is a "bad thing".

Beyond that, your point is ludicrous.

Again, you dodge the question. Is the pedophile's "orientation" a bad thing or a good thing...or something else, and why?


#149 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2008-11-26 03:10 PM | Reply |

Wasn't dodging. The wtf was an actual admission that I couldn't understand what the fuck you were writing.

As I explained, it is bad because there is a victim directly involved in the equation. It's like rape. How you can possibly try to link rape with homosexuality is beyond me.


Is the pedophile's "orientation" a bad thing or a good thing.


Any circumstance where someone in a position of strength preys upon someone physically or mentally weaker is a "bad thing".


Beyond that, your point is ludicrous.

#152 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue


But that isn't my point. You simply continue to force it in that box. So let's try again:


A PEDOPHILE SAYS HE IS BORN WITH SAID ORIENTATION, THAT HE CANNOT HELP THE FACT HE IS SO ORIENTED, THAT HE DID NOT CHOOSE HIS ORIENTATION. IS SUCH AN ORIENTATION A GOOD OR BAD THING? AND WHAT DO YOU TELL THE PEDOPHILE WHO COMES TO YOU WANTING TO BE ACCEPTED AND AFFIRMED?


Wasn't dodging. The wtf was an actual admission that I couldn't understand what the fuck you were writing.


As I explained, it is bad because there is a victim directly involved in the equation. It's like rape. How you can possibly try to link rape with homosexuality is beyond me.

#153 | Posted by panchovilla

I haven't linked anything. I'm asking only about the orientation of the pedophile and how such an orientation should be addressed?


As has been pointed out to you time after time after time... comparing someone who claims they are "oriented" to commit crimes or harm others to sexuality is a false premise.

You keep insisting on trying to push it, but no one is buying.

Back to the drawing board Theo.


#154 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2008-11-26 03:21 PM | Reply |

I think you're being deliberately obtuse: the answer to your question has been answered twice. It seems like the answer given doesn't fit your little Socratic model so you keep on keeping on.


As has been pointed out to you time after time after time... comparing someone who claims they are "oriented" to commit crimes or harm others to sexuality is a false premise.

You keep insisting on trying to push it, but no one is buying.


Back to the drawing board Theo.

#156 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-11-26 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv e

#154 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2008-11-26 03:21 PM | Reply |


I think you're being deliberately obtuse: the answer to your question has been answered twice. It seems like the answer given doesn't fit your little Socratic model so you keep on keeping on.


#157 | Posted by panchovilla at 2008-11-26 03:25 PM


No, it hasn't been answered. Truth be told, you don't want to answer my question because you know where it's going, and you have nothing to stand on when we get there.

If a person who has a "heterosexual orientation" someone, we could not conclude that a heterosexual orientation is a bad thing. In the same way, if a person with a "homosexual orientation" were to rape someone, this too doesn't mean that a homosexual orientation is a bad thing, nor to be equated with rape. One might simply conclude that the act of rape is inappropriate, regardless of one's orientation, and that one's "orientation" simply IS. It is neither good or bad, desirable or undesirable. It simply is!

How about the pedophile orientation? Can the same be said?

But since YOU are the one who has paired up pedophile and orientation then it is still a bullshit premise.

And repeating bullshit ad nauseam does not change it into something sweeter smelling.

"""One might simply conclude that the act of rape is inappropriate, regardless of one's orientation, and that one's "orientation" simply IS. It is neither good or bad, desirable or undesirable. It simply is!

How about the pedophile orientation? Can the same be said?"""

You're getting pretty close: pedophilia by definition requires a rape, requires a victim.

Heterosexuality doesn't, nor does homosexuality.

You can't disassociate pedophilia from rape or sexual abuse.

If you have a point to make, now would be the time to make it, this is getting lame.

Some would argue that homosexuality exists elsewhere in nature, not just in humans, and that this means homosexuality has a "purpose" in nature. What that purpose is many are guessing. Perhaps it's nature's built in "population control" some would say.

So nature apparently has some "purpose" it plants in itself to keep things as nature intends. One who has a homosexual orientation has so because he/she "was born this way." Nature has determined it. And since nature has determined some should be homosexual, then homosexuals should be able to act according to the way nature intends...to act homosexually, to engage in homosexual behavior.

But there are other things that also exist in nature. There are those who are oriented heterosexually, and those oriented homosexually, as nature dicates. But there are also those oriented with pedophile desires, who are sexually aroused by children. Certainly nature has placed them here with this orientation for a purpose?...else they wouldn't be here. And since nature has placed them here within our population, should they not also act accordingly?

Or is there perhaps something more than nature that speaks here? For example, where in nature do you find any supporting evidence for this human construct called "Consenting adults?" You don't find that in nature. Indeed, you find quite the opposite in a world ruled by tooth and claw. I can't seem to find anywhere in nature the law that says, "You have been given a certain orientation, but you shall only act upon that orientation with another consenting adult!" Can you tell me where in nature such rule is found? Show me where nature supports this idea that the homosexual can act out according to his orientation, but the pedophile cannot.

And if you find yourself unable to go forward on this question knowing where it will lead; if instead you want to call me the fool, you might want to do a google search on the phrase "kicking against the goads" to get at your real issue!

Theonubs seems determined to paint himself -- and others -- into a corner.

He seems bound and determined to persuade us that the hardwiring of orientation at birth is not, in and of itself, sufficient to determine the morality or desirability of an orientation. That's fine by me.

Now, let's get on the morality and desirability of heterosexuality, shall we?

Show me where nature supports this idea that the homosexual can act out according to his orientation, but the pedophile cannot.

Uh... are you saying you're not aware of any species which exhibits homosexual behavior and also protects the young from harm?

You must not be looking very hard.

"""But there are other things that also exist in nature. There are those who are oriented heterosexually, and those oriented homosexually, as nature dicates. But there are also those oriented with pedophile desires, who are sexually aroused by children. Certainly nature has placed them here with this orientation for a purpose?...else they wouldn't be here. And since nature has placed them here within our population, should they not also act accordingly?""""

Nature also allows for psychopaths and mass murderers. Why should we not let them act accordingly? C'mon theo, the ice, she is getting thin and this is getting boring.


"""You don't find that in nature."""

Take a biology class..it might open your eyes. Start with the peacock, it's an easy one to figure out.

In an overpopulated world it occurs to me that homosexuality causes no additions to the population yet some gay folks are willing and able to care for the children that their heterosexual parents couldn't or wouldn't nor would other heterosexual couples yet some would still deprive them of the opportunity to do so. It makes me think that their objections are more to do with the denial of a privelege as a punishment for their orientation than it is out of sincere care for the children's welfare. Otherwise, they'd be down at the adoption office doing the adopting themselves of the many handicapped, sick, or emotionally disturbed children that many gay folks volunteer to adopt and care for.

"Start with the peacock, it's an easy one to figure out."

Peacocks are so fabulous.

Are you still comfortable with your definition?

#148 | Posted by Danforth

They are abnormal not deviant

adjective 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
noun 2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.

behavior, not physical attributes. An individual who eats his own shit is also a deviant. A woman that has sex with two men at the same time is a deviant.

Yes I am still comfortable with my definition. Why aren't you? Oh, I forgot - if it feels good, do it.

In an overpopulated world - DUMMI

At least by one for sure. Get off the pot DANNI.

At least by one for sure. Get off the pot DANNI.

#168 | Posted by ELCIDCE90


Perhaps. But it sure as hell ain't Danni.

Nature also allows for psychopaths and mass murderers. Why should we not let them act accordingly?

#164 | Posted by panchovilla

Good question Pancho! There seems to be certain orientations found in nature that should not be esteemed as "good." Indeed, they should be shunned.

I wonder where this moral compas within us comes from? Certainly nature itself pays no attention to such things as proper behavior, rewarding it or thwarting it. Nature pays no attention to this artificial construct called "Consenting Adults." It's a world of survival, where the fittest survive and the unfit do not. That's about as close to a moral dictate that we can find in nature. So where do we get such arbitrary notions as "Sex is proper only when conducted between consenting adults."? You've created that notion, but on what basis from nature?

I know this grates against your emotional sensibilities, but let's remember people were once as emotional against homosexuality as you are against pedophilia...even using the same arguments.

I wonder where this moral compas within us comes from?

You don't really wonder much, at all. You assume it comes from god. Or perhaps the bible. You're so convinced that that is the case that you can't even see animals as they really are, let alone other human beings.

It's sad. Sad and several centuries behind the times.


All the serial killers I have heard of were raised by heterosexual parents.


Zero serial killers raised by gays.

#51 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

This is supposed to be an argument for gay adoption?

"They are abnormal not deviant "

Not according to your definition, Webster.

#1 | Posted by JimmyWallback at 2008-11-25 12:27 PM

Keep passing unconstitutional laws you right wing dummies and the rational and sane judges will keep overturning.

It's interesting that people don't seem interested in living in a democratic society, but rather an idealized Platonic world governed by the elite.

For centuries, English Common Law (on which tradition and precedents our system largely is based) involved judges ruling on justiciable issues, determining the facts of a case, and applying existing law to them.

Then "for the greater good," judges became tyrants, and undertook to be legislators as well as judges. They arrogated legislative powers, and governed by fiat.

A democracy - demos = people, kratia = rule of, is supposedly predicated on the rule of the people, the laws they enact and the society they want to live in, being determined by them, and not by some "higher authority."

Nowadays, a "higher authority" has deemed it incumbent upon itself to order people to live according to their determination of what is virtuous, good, proper, and right, rather than discharging their duties to maintain the law as enacted by and understood by the people.

This sense of deference to someone with a Juris Doctor nowadays, and appointed to a job usually based on his political position, is unseemly in a democracy. But the posture has become so ingrained that in my State, a Judge who was appointed by the Governor to the State Court of Appeals, was rejected by the State Senate. And the hullabaloo raised by the elites, who took umbrage at the idea that a Judge would not be seated because of his prior rulings, demonstrated their sense of outrage as they found the rejection unacceptable.

This Judge had ruled that despite State law to the contrary, a State University could declare that guns could not be carried on to campus. Without taking any position on the propriety of the ruling as a matter of general principle although contrary to a law enacted by the State legislature, it seems that the people would want in office a Judge, whose rulings were consistent with their belief systems. Why should the legislature approve someone, who not only is tyrannical in attitude, but also is someone who would make decisions they don't like? What is sanctified about the person so that he should be enabled to rule "ex cathedra?"

Pancho -
"Humans have the biological need to have sex, which leads to procreation. The prior is not interlocked with the latter, which is why your reasoning is faulty. Your reasoning that wanting to have sex is equal to wanting to have kids is an oversimplification of human behavior."
#130 | Posted by panchovilla at 2008-11-26 02:04 PM


You have this backwards - the human species has sex for procreation primarily and enjoyment secondary. The advent of contraception enabled couples to forgo procreation otherwise every time you have sex you may procreate. Did you ever take biology or anthropology? Or are you attempting to ignore simple science to condone your way of thinking?

Also,

It can also mean, excluding your hypothesis of "nature's imperative" that some folks will cheat on their partners because they want to, not because they need to gay or straight.

#130 | Posted by panchovilla at 2008-11-26 02:04 PM


You cannot exclude my hypothesis of "Biological Imperative" and continue the same argument "duh." You can only try to disprove my thesis which you have not even attempted.

You cannot escape nature right? Doesn't the gay community say they were born that way as a justification for normalcy?

Or by your statement you are saying it is free will? Gays choose to be gay?

What I am saying is nature is at work whether you acknowledge it or not.

#92 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-11-25 11:08 PM

Also a report tonight that around 8% of those who voted for Prop 8 in CA say they made a mistake and regret their vote. Let's get that thing back on the ballot and knock it out, in case the courts don't.

Ah yes, the local yokels in Utah were more adept than the media moguls, who supported 8, and convinced "the people" to vote contrary to their intent, sort of mesmerized them.

That poll makes little sense, Rogue. Why do you think that people would have "regrets?"

Also, your self-centered position is interesting in that you seek recourse to the tyrannical courts to overthrow the democratic decision of the people of the State of California.

As I understand the law in California today, homosexuals can engage in just about any consensual acts inspired by their sex drives, which is the nexus of their existence, their attraction to same sex people, which they proclaim. This freedom is not enough for them. They want to enlarge their ambit to have the government pretend that their inclinations are equivalent to biologically based attraction on which social units are formed. And they seek to have this declaration made through enactment of laws misrepresenting the fact that our current social structure is based on the physical reality of heterosexuality.

But I suppose that fantasies are prevalent among all people. They just differ from person to person. Many people create subjective realities that are not congruent with the external physical world. But instead of seeking to engage people in a folie a deux, they are satisfied to conform their behavior sufficiently to physical reality so as to be able to function with their delusionary impediments. Homosexuals seem to be demanding that the external world modify itself by pretending that the illusions of homosexuals concerning their place in the world, is other than what they are.

The affliction of the impairment sometimes takes very compelling forms as with homosexuals undertaking to care for handicapped children otherwise deprived of equivalent nurturing. It seems that the initial concession to homosexual caretaking as acceptable is what has led to this emotional debacle when the relationship was denied extension into adoption. Homosexuals seem to get so enmeshed in their illusions that they confuse function, and complicate their situations by trying to mimic behavior of heterosexual couples.

#156 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-11-26 03:24 PM

As has been pointed out to you time after time after time... comparing someone who claims they are "oriented" to commit crimes or harm others to sexuality is a false premise.

You keep insisting on trying to push it, but no one is buying.

Back to the drawing board Theo.


You're being deliberately obtuse, Rogue, and it's transparent.

You are focusing on "criminality" as the distinction. If homosexual acts were again criminalized, then would you be willing to accept the disparagement of such conduct? I don't think so.

We are discussing the behavior in se, and your proposition that it not only merits, but demands approbation. Why?

Now, I'm not one to intrude on what your personal preferences are, and declare that because I find them repugnant, you shouldn't indulge in them. I consider your predilections a matter of personal choice (whether predicated on genetics, learned behavior, or a combination of both). Do what you want to do, Rogue, and obtain the most personal fulfillment that you can during your life, but subject to the constraints of the reality that your life style is not based on the normative biological foundation around which the institution of traditional marriage developed. Don't intrude your impaired function upon society to the extent of demanding the sham and pretense of equivalency.


"Why do you think that people would have "regrets?""

Once the protests started, maybe they realized these were actual people who were being harmed, instead of an abstract concept.

I don't believe this poll is accurate.

The sentiment would cut both ways. Some people might change their minds to support the ban since the loosing side acted out in a stereotypical gay fashion shedding support along the way.

Does anyone think that the image of gay men ganging up on an old lady carrying a cross won't come back to haunt them?

Or the blocking of traffic at the evening rush hour when people just want to get home? there were supporters in that traffic burning gas which costs money people do not have these days?

Lets face it polls are like opinions and A**holes, everyone has one.

"Why do you think that people would have "regrets?""

Because once the machinations of the Catholic hierarchy and the Mormon leadership were exposed, perhaps they realized they had been conned and that what was at stake was a bit more important than whether a seven-year-old might learn that a princess could marry a princess.

"on the normative biological foundation around which the institution of traditional marriage developed"

Uh... that men are generally stronger than women and, therefore, society must generate a structure with which to both channel and control their lust?

By the way, Johnson, how much did you pay for your wife?

"Doesn't the gay community say they were born that way as a justification for normalcy? Or by your statement you are saying it is free will? Gays choose to be gay?"

Why would either be a justifiable basis for discrimination?

Seriously...let's say it's the former: is that justification to make them second-class citizens in the eyes of the law?

Now, what if it's the latter? Good enough reason to deny gays what my wife and I get to take for granted?

#182 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-11-26 09:30 PM

Why would either be a justifiable basis for discrimination?

Seriously...let's say it's the former: is that justification to make them second-class citizens in the eyes of the law?

Now, what if it's the latter? Good enough reason to deny gays what my wife and I get to take for granted?


Danforth, the constant repetition that gays are being denied their "constitutional rights" is just a bunch of hooey. The reiteration is intended to convert the supposition into a fact.

Nor are gays being treated as "second-class" citizens. They have the same rights as anyone else. That they choose for whatever reason, not to exercise those rights is a matter of their free choice. Their choices cause them to ignore the opportunities for them to avail themselves of the right to form a biological union with a member of the opposite sex. Fine. I'm for their exercise of free choice.

"By the way, Johnson, how much did you pay for your wife?"

Upon reflection, I realize this was a really rude thing to ask. I failed to take into account Johnson's deep conservatism and adherence to tradition, qua* tradition, and his strong belief in family values. Of course he wouldn't have bought his wife. That would be a truly dishonorable thing for a man to do and would be an insult to the dear lady. It would make a mockery of all that has come before.

So, Johnson, how much did your dad pay for your wife? What was the marriage broker's cut?


* extra points for the use of "qua", a traditional, dare I say, even stodgy way of saying "as".

Well if Johnson says so it must be true.

#180 | Posted by BobSF_94117 at 2008-11-26 07:41 PM

"Why do you think that people would have "regrets?""

Because once the machinations of the Catholic hierarchy and the Mormon leadership were exposed, perhaps they realized they had been conned and that what was at stake was a bit more important than whether a seven-year-old might learn that a princess could marry a princess.

Interesting. I'd think the criminal behavior and violence that accompanied the "protests" against the democratic choice, would have turned people off rather than generating sympathy for the perpetrators of vandalism and arson.

And "what was at stake" that was so important? To whom? What was at stake was the declaration that the sham and pretense "of equivalency" between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, were not a sham and pretense by putting the government imprimatur on homosexuality as if it were based on a biological reality.

Do what you want to do, Rogue,

#177 | Posted by Johnson

I most assuredly will. And I don't require the permission of someone suffering from congenital pompassity.

Does anyone think that the image of gay men ganging up on an old lady carrying a cross won't come back to haunt them?

Or the blocking of traffic at the evening rush hour when people just want to get home? there were supporters in that traffic burning gas which costs money people do not have these days?

#179 | Posted by Prolix247

Well first of all the incident with the old lady was reprehensible without a doubt.

But beyond that, it seems that just asking for things politely then waiting for someone to hand them to you historically hasn't worked very well in the history of civil and equal rights.

Civil disobedience has been, and will continue to be required.

#184 | Posted by BobSF_94117 at 2008-11-26 10:48 PM

"By the way, Johnson, how much did you pay for your wife?"

Upon reflection, I realize this was a really rude thing to ask.

Not at all since I am not compelled to answer the inquiry.
I failed to take into account Johnson's deep conservatism and adherence to tradition, qua* tradition, and his strong belief in family values.

Oh, but I'm at times an adventuresome fellow, Bob, and not particularly conservative in many aspects of my life.

And pray tell, why would opposition to recognition of homosexual relationships as farcical require an adherence to "family values." I just may have an affinity for biological reality, and to reality per se as simplifying adaptation to the vagaries of existence.

Of course he wouldn't have bought his wife. That would be a truly dishonorable thing for a man to do and would be an insult to the dear lady. It would make a mockery of all that has come before.

So, Johnson, how much did your dad pay for your wife? What was the marriage broker's cut?


Alas, if I had but secured expert advice, I would not have made impetuous choices based on sexual attraction. The libidionous urges of youth cause one to act in disregard of right reason. In the United States, Bob, the man usually "pays" for the relationship on an after the fact basis. It's a back end payment made not in contemplation of future use, but as compensation for imputed prior enjoyment. As "they" say in the trade, the compensation to the distaff side in some way or other is "the screwing you (the male) get for the screwing you got."

And unfortunately, I married after I was discharged from the Army, and after being orphaned, so that I had the unenviable onerous task as the oldest surviving son of being the paterfamilias. My father was not available to provide his sage advice on assessment of both female puchritude and the virtues associated with demeanor. I, a callow youth, was burdened with providing advice that I was unqualified to give, to myself and to other younger members of my family.

* extra points for the use of "qua", a traditional, dare I say, even stodgy way of saying "as".

I thank you for your graciousness in providing me with the definition of a word in your anticipation that it might be one with which I was unfamiliar.

Their choices cause them to ignore the opportunities for them to avail themselves of the right to form a biological union with a member of the opposite sex.

#183 | Posted by Johnson

Ahh the "biology" meme.

What a cold a dismal world Johnson must exist in where a relationship can and must be built solely upon biology.

And all the more dismal that he seems to have to seek some source of pleasure in hearing his stubby fingers clicking out excessive and repetitive verbiage on a hapless keyboard.

By the way BobSF_94117, I am so emancipated from the bonds of tradition, that I did not even require my wife's family to pay a dowry.

Maybe if my father had lived to participate in the transaction, I would not have been so foolhardy and relinquished payment due me from her family for taking her off of their hands, and undertaking to support her.

But then, males in my family have always been noted for their compassion, and also their willingness to flout tradition. Why when my paternal grandmother bore her six children, my grandpa immediately unhitched her from the plow when she went into labor, even if it was in mid-furrow, and after delivery, allowed her to have the rest of the day off if it was a boy, and four hours off if it was a girl. That's just the kind of folks that we are, Bob.

A PEDOPHILE SAYS HE IS BORN WITH SAID ORIENTATION, THAT HE CANNOT HELP THE FACT HE IS SO ORIENTED, THAT HE DID NOT CHOOSE HIS ORIENTATION.

#154 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2008-11-26 03:21 PM | Reply

Pedophiles deal with children who can not give consent.

Gays deal with adults who can give consent. Giving legal consent makes a big difference.

Even if your point were correct, and pedophiles are "born that way"--it makes no difference since the same could be said for murderers--they were "born that way"----too bad. Sex with children is against the law--born that way or not. Adults who have consentual sex are not doing anything illegal.

Your point is refuted.

"Actually, I am afraid of what Dr. Ian Malcom said:

"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God.""

El Cid:

If you have reached the point where you are quoting Michael Crichton to bolster an argument, I submit that you are seriously, seriously out of gas.

#190 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-11-26 11:24 PM

What a cold a dismal world Johnson must exist in where a relationship can and must be built solely upon biology.

And all the more dismal that he seems to have to seek some source of pleasure in hearing his stubby fingers clicking out excessive and repetitive verbiage on a hapless keyboard.


Thank you for your condolences, Rogue.

You misinterpret what I have posted in this regard. I am not a dualist, and my view is that our existence and actions are predicated upon our physical being. I recognize the psychological aspects of experience, but they do have a physical basis.

I don't deny you the existence of your homoerotic experiences. They constitute your world, and have a reality for you.

You are, however, maintaining that your psychological experiences, which are the result of something equivalent to short circuitry or other malfunction giving rise to misdirected emotional experiences, somehow requires that the verities of of the physiological underpinnings of society be denied by society. The unit on which society has developed throughout the world and throughout history has been the biologically complementary male-female union.

You want to pretend that the claim of equivalency based on your feelings, exists in actuality and provides the necessity that society cater to the homosexual dysfunction.

And again, Rogue, it isn't built "solely" upon biology, but is consistent with biology, and elaborates the biological reality.

As to the repetitiveness of my input, it is only in reply to the repetition of the "big lie" introduced by the homophiles that biology is unimportant, when the biological nexus is the crux of the biological relationship. My answers are usually in the form of ripostes to baseless assertions made in attempts to rationalize the demands for provision of equivalent consideration for homosexual relationships as for heterosexual relationships, when there is no equivalency, and the assertions are bogus.

"Thank you for your condolences, Rogue."

Please, be assured that I was offering none.

...your life style is not based on the normative biological foundation around which the institution of traditional marriage developed. Don't intrude your impaired function upon society to the extent of demanding the sham and pretense of equivalency.
-- #177 | Posted by Johnson

Yeah, SA, until you guys are willing to accept marriage as a loveless business partnership arranged by your parents...

Johnson:

I swear, more homocentric content comes from your keyboard than can be found in the Advocate.

Gays should thank you for all the free publicity.

"the constant repetition that gays are being denied their "constitutional rights" is just a bunch of hooey."

There is no stated right to marriage in the constitution, for anyone, straight or gay. However, Loving v Virginia stated marriage is a "basic civil right of man". And the 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law. That seems pretty clear cut to me.

"They have the same rights as anyone else."

Oh, the cruelty stance: a gay man can marry a woman, so it's all okay and equal. Not surprising. You'll allow them the "right" to marry, as long as they marry whom you want, and not whom they want.

"That they choose for whatever reason, not to exercise those rights"

As Jon Stewart said, it comes down to whether you believe being gay is part of the human condition, or just a random fetish.

"the opportunities for them to avail themselves of the right to form a biological union with a member of the opposite sex. Fine. I'm for their exercise of free choice."

No you're not. You're for the exercise of your choice.

"Nor are gays being treated as "second-class" citizens."

Social Security survivors benefits alone prove you're an idiot. As does the denial of unlimited gifts, the ability to be forced to testify against a partner, access to second-to-die pensions, rights of first refusal on 401(k)s, Keoghs, and other pensions, the right to make medical decisions, the ability to jointly adopt or parent, and another 1,000 or so rights, protections and privileges my wife and I got the moment we said "I do". You willful ignorance notwithstanding, the fact remains: the law currently treats gays as second-class citizens.

You = Your

If you have reached the point where you are quoting Michael Crichton to bolster an argument, I submit that you are seriously, seriously out of gas.

#193 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2008-11-26 11:54 PM | Reply |

Especially since the character he's quoting was whacked out of his gourd on pain meds at the time.

Warning to the Gay community.

I would be careful that you don't fan the flames of PAYBACK!

Yep, the constitution rules the day, to bad the christian righties can't seemed to understand.

Theo,

"""I wonder where this moral compas within us comes from? Certainly nature itself pays no attention to such things as proper behavior, rewarding it or thwarting it. """Nature pays no attention to this artificial construct called "Consenting Adults." """

It does. Any species that has any type of social construct will shun those that do not contribute to the group, or that can damage the social dynamic.

"""It's a world of survival, where the fittest survive and the unfit do not. That's about as close to a moral dictate that we can find in nature. So where do we get such arbitrary notions as "Sex is proper only when conducted between consenting adults."? You've created that notion, but on what basis from nature?"""

If you fail to understand the difference in the capacity to understand relational concepts between animals and humans, you've got a long way to go. If you're looking for nature for moral dictate, you're fucked. There is a basis for what is deemed acceptable in different animal social constructs, but the ability to determine what is moral, what virtue is, what esthetics and intangible concepts are what define us as human beings (along with self-awareness etc.etc.).

"""I know this grates against your emotional sensibilities, but let's remember people were once as emotional against homosexuality as you are against pedophilia...even using the same arguments."""

So in the end, you've contributed nothing more to this discussion. Answer these by a simple yes or no: can you understand that pedophilia requires a predator-victim dynamic? Can you understand that the act of homosexuality does not? If you answer those questions with a minimum of honesty, you'll understand why you can't compare homosexuality to pedophilia.

in the end, you've contributed nothing more to this discussion. Answer these by a simple yes or no: can you understand that pedophilia requires a predator-victim dynamic? Can you understand that the act of homosexuality does not? If you answer those questions with a minimum of honesty, you'll understand why you can't compare homosexuality to pedophilia.

#201 | Posted by panchovilla


Obviously you're not familiar with ancient Greece where man/boy relations were regarded as the highest form of love? Look up the name Alcibiades (student of Socrates) and see if you can find any of his writings. You might find the words of this young man as who attempts to seduce his teacher....something many young boys did to gain the favor of their teachers. It was legal AND consentual. Of course, Socrates realized there was a higher good which many of his contemporaries failed to see, as they indulged their base desires. But the behavior was quite common and esteemed.

But I guess because American law has spoken pedophile relatins are now to be regarded in terms of predator-victim. Are you saying American Law is an absolute, and thus pedophile orientations are thus evil?

You need to get out more. Amercian jurisprudence is Johnny come lately to the world scene.



-

#202 | Posted by TheOneBS

*big time eye roll

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable