Jedi Council Forums - Revenge of the Return of *Homosexuals are Gay* Reloaded

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded
dizfactor Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 6/10/04 7:30am Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded
	Could the two men in fact have been a man and a woman, rendering your entire veiled gay-bashing argument completely logically fallacious? Of course. in college i was friends with a woman who was horribly abused by her father and his hetero female girlfriend. it was much worse than the Dirkhising case, from what i've seen, except that she lived through it (physically, anyway) and it was over a period of years and not days. i can vouch for Zap and say that this is an entirely plausible scenario. also, i might add that this is the only person i know personally who was abused by a hetero couple, but if i were to try to list instances of overtly hetero sexual abuse (of male children by female adults or female children by male adults) by individuals, i'd be here all day. -----signature----- "Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century." Julian Dibbell "You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat." Gryph
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 6/10/04 7:34am Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded
	Bubba, I'm sorry if I sound disrespectful, but I just don't understand how you can believe that gays should be scrutinized because of what two gay men did. Are you kidding me? Do you think hetero couples have NEVER EVER EVER abused a child they adopted? Are you kidding me? As for Hitler, you clearly missed the point. Using your logic, we should give serious pause before we allow heterosexuals to become heads of state, because Hitler was a hetereosexual! Just because two sick men committed a crime and happen to be gay doesn't mean you have to scrutinize all gays. That kind of logic is just plain disgusting to me. -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TadjiStation Registered: Jun '01	Date Posted: 6/10/04 7:44am Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded - Date Edited: 6/10/04 7:46am (1 edits total) Edited By: TadjiStation
	Could the two men in fact have been a man and a woman, rendering your entire veiled gay-bashing argument completely logically fallacious This is obviously a sesnsitive subject for many people involved here. However, to equate Bubba's viewpoints and arguments with "gay-bashing" is counter productive, to say the least. It's also not very open-minded. Be open to the fact that there are people that believe that homosexual activity is far different than the homosexual condition. Also be open to the possibility that we as sexual beings are not bound to act on our sexual desires. Finally, be open to the fact that there are those who have struggled with homosexuality and framed it within the context of their faith, and do so out of a genuine love for God, not some sort of pathological or brainwashed duty. In these cases, these people have dedicated their lives to chastity (which for some odd reason hasn't entered the discussion yet). Just putting this out there as a starting point. EDIT: Silly punctuation... -----signature----- No Signature Required
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 6/10/04 9:06am Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded - Date Edited: 6/10/04 9:07am (1 edits total) Edited By: Obi-Wan McCartney
	Look, I'm all for allowing people to think whatever they want, but when Bubba makes a wildly slanderous claim, like suggesting and implying that because two gay men did something terrible, ALL gay men should be scrutinized, well, that's just wrong. I don't care what you think of homosexuality, to say that gays shouldn't be able to adopt because two men raped a child is pure and utter lunacy. Its as if Bubba forgets that heterosexual couples abuse their children all over this country, why I remember a case here in Wisconsin where two parents would beat up their eldest child and segregate her from the other children, knocking out her teeth with hammers, chaining her up in the basement, not allowing her to go to school or to be seen by anyone else. Point is, I can deal with arguments that say homosexuality is a sin or that its immoral and inherently not right, I can deal with arguments that claim homosexual marriage is wrong, or even that gays should not be able to adopt because homosexuality is wrong. I may not agree, but those are at least honest arguments. Saying that gays should be scrutinized because of the actions of two gay men is like all the examples I mentioned, its like saying the ENTIRE UNITED STATES MILITARY is filled with sick twisted rapists because of the Prison Abuse scandal. It's just ridiculous and unjustified to say something like that. I think Anakin Girl said it best, that we should in fact be screening ALL couples for potential sickos, rather than associate the actions of those men with all homosexuals. -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DorkmanScott Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Mar '01	Date Posted: 6/10/04 9:39am Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded - Date Edited: 6/10/04 9:40am (1 edits total) Edited By: DorkmanScott
	And if things keep going the way the are going, the cost to governments could be huge, as same sex marriages become legal with all the perks. Do I have the right to say thats not where I want my tax dollars spent? By that same token, why should MY tax dollars go to YOUR heterosexual marriages when I cannot partake of those perks? That's really the only thing in this thread that hasn't been addressed already, making a point I would have. I even agree with Zap on this issue! M. Scott -----signature----- Yes We Did http://www.ryanvsdorkman.com Check out my blog: http://dorkmanscott.wordpress.com
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 6/10/04 9:46am Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded
	Bubba, I have a question for you (or anyone who wants to answer it). Do you want people to base their opinion and ideas of Christianity on the basis of a few people? Note that this is not meant to bring religion back into the discussion, but is aimed at making a point. In essence, is it wise to base an opinion on an extremely small sample of the overall population (of anything)? -----signature----- Opposing Scrooge Economics since 2009
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TadjiStation Registered: Jun '01	Date Posted: 6/10/04 11:19am Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded - Date Edited: 6/10/04 11:41am (1 edits total) Edited By: TadjiStation
	Look, I'm all for allowing people to think whatever they want, but when Bubba makes a wildly slanderous claim, like suggesting and implying that because two gay men did something terrible, ALL gay men should be scrutinized, well, that's just wrong. It may be wrong in your eyes. but he still has the right to voice whatever he wants (just, incidentally, as you do). The burden of evidence for both arguments rests upon each of your abilities to back them up. Saying something is just plain wrong is reactive and doesn't do much towards forwarding the discussion, unless you can come up with a defensive argument as to why it's wrong. I don't care what you think of homosexuality, to say that gays shouldn't be able to adopt because two men raped a child is pure and utter lunacy. Its as if Bubba forgets that heterosexual couples abuse their children all over this country, why I remember a case here in Wisconsin where two parents would beat up their eldest child and segregate her from the other children, knocking out her teeth with hammers, chaining her up in the basement, not allowing her to go to school or to be seen by anyone else. Your example aside, I don't believe Bubba used the terminology that you describe. He used the words "should give us pause". This statement can imply a greater measure of care in the screening and the selection process, and not be a gay-bashing statement that categorically dismisses gay parent hopefuls from adoption. Point is, I can deal with arguments that say homosexuality is a sin or that its immoral and inherently not right, I can deal with arguments that claim homosexual marriage is wrong, or even that gays should not be able to adopt because homosexuality is wrong. I may not agree, but those are at least honest arguments. The let's go there! Saying that gays should be scrutinized because of the actions of two gay men is like all the examples I mentioned, its like saying the ENTIRE UNITED STATES MILITARY is filled with sick twisted rapists because of the Prison Abuse scandal. See above statement. I simply don't think Bubba was trying to be dismissive, just calling for a stricter set of guidelines. How they are defined would be the basis for another very good discussion. It's just ridiculous and unjustified to say something like that. In your eyes, it is, but he's still entitled to his opinion. The burden of explaining his position rests upon him. I think Anakin Girl said it best, that we should in fact be screening ALL couples for potential sickos, rather than associate the actions of those men with all homosexuals. I agree. -----signature----- No Signature Required
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Branthoris Registered: Nov '02	Date Posted: 6/10/04 11:20am Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded - Date Edited: 6/10/04 11:29am (2 edits total) Edited By: Branthoris
	Obi-Wan McCartney, I couldn't agree more that "the constitution is intended to protect the rights of all, but especially the tyranny of the minority by the majority". The trouble is that confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices have turned into mini-plebiscites on the direction the constitution ought to take. If the philosophy of the 'living and evolving' constitution continues, the constitution will eventually be rewritten so as to conform to the will of the majority--the very entity the constitution was supposed to protect against. This has already happened, for example, in relation to the right to confrontation--a categorical constitutional guarantee that the Supreme Court abrogated on the basis of 'widespread belief' that alleged sexual abuse victims should be allowed to give evidence by video link. The only reason the Supreme Court right now seems a firm, steadfast bastion of liberty, defining the liberty of all and carving out new freedoms for homosexuals and other oppressed groups in society, is that there have been no vacancies on the court since 1994. But in this era of making up the constitution, just wait to see what breathtaking constitution-writing powers the President and Senate will wield when the current justices begin to retire. In the era of the war on terrorism, installation of the next few Supreme Court justices will be a highly dangerous moment indeed. The judicial appointment process has become an accepted substitute for the constitutional amendment process, and so it would be highly convenient for the next few Supreme Court appointments to be used to bring about a dramatic narrowing of constitutional rights. All thanks to the living constitution. It may produce good results--but not for long. Bubba_the_Genius, anecdotal evidence has its uses, one of which comes from the proposition that if something is possible in a meaningful range of circumstances or cases, then there are likely to be examples of it occurring. Not one reliable example has ever surfaced of a homosexual 'reorienting' himself. The absence of anecdotal evidence, in other words, says more than its presence, and it's reasonable to conclude that since we have not one example of 'reorientation' occurring, it doesn't occur. What anecdotal evidence cannot do is indicate what effect certain factors have on certain occurrences (e.g. homosexuality on child abuse). That is the proper role of statistical evidence.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_Fwiffo Registered: May '01	Date Posted: 6/10/04 11:42am Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded
	In essence, is it wise to base an opinion on an extremely small sample of the overall population (of anything)? But wait, isn't this, in essence, what Homosexuals want? Not to not answer your question, but this is a double edged knife =-) -----signature----- ------------- Just remember this one constant: Bonecrusher Hates You
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 6/10/04 11:48am Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded
	Tadji, if Bubba openly claimed to hate gays and the like it would be another story, but that is not what he was saying. He is trying to act as if there is a justifiable reason for believing that because two gay men committed a terrible act, we should pause and consider the implications, that we should now question the decency of ALL homosexuals. In addition, of course he has the right to speak and to say whatever he thinks is right and wrong, and I am doing nothing less, obviously the perspective is from my own eyes...I never claimed otherwise! I don't know why you felt the need to lecture me on civil rights! Regardless, if it makes you feel better, I BELIEVE that Knightwriter asks the apropriate question. Why should we give homosexuals a "pause," why single them out? Why not give ALL potential parents a moment of "pause," why not scrutnize them ALL to see if they are fit parents? In short, how is homosexuality relevant to that child abuse case? -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 6/10/04 11:54am Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded
	Tadji, if Bubba openly claimed to hate gays and the like it would be another story, but that is not what he was saying. He is trying to act as if there is a justifiable reason for believing that because two gay men committed a terrible act, we should pause and consider the implications, that we should now question the decency of ALL homosexuals. In case you didn't notice, he also said this: But let's say there's a legitimate heterosexual counter-example to the Dirkhising case: a heterosexual couple that kidnapped, raped, and killed a child. Do I think that couple should give us pause? YES, I DO. In this way, I am unbiased. All I've been attempting to say is this: letting gay couples adopt presents both benefits and risks. One benefit is that more children might find loving homes. One risk is that it gives people like Dirkhising's killers an easier opportunity to prey on children. Do the benefits outweight the risks? Maybe, but it's foolish (and a disservice to the children in our government's custody) to ignore the existence of such risks. He's hardly limiting his statements to only homosexuals. In fact, he clearly states that the same standards would apply to heterosexuals. However, homosexuality is the topic of this thread, so that is the aspect that would be brought out the most in this discussion. You've been misrepresenting his position a bit. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 6/10/04 12:24pm Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded
	I don't think so. Perhaps, but let's look at the statement you cited: letting gay couples adopt presents both benefits and risks. One benefit is that more children might find loving homes. One risk is that it gives people like Dirkhising's killers an easier opportunity to prey on children. -Kimball Kinneson, are you really going to stand by that statement? Isn't that the everloving point I have been trying to make, that it is wrong to associate Dirkising with homosexuality? I mean, essentially he is claiming that we should associate the abuse of Dirkhising's killers with homosexuality, even if he is doing so in the most innocent way he can! It is wrong to make such an implication, to flat out advocate the idea that a negative consequence of letting gays adopts is rape and torture. The negative consequence comes from letting unfit parent get the child, Bubba is saying that because two people who are homosexuals did a terrible thing, that is grounds to question whether ANY homosexual should be allowed to adopt. (Kimball Kinneson and Bubba, both of you seem like you are intelligent people who happen to be religous, as such you believe your religion dictates that homosexuality is immoral, wrong, and a sin. Thus, I challenge you to question whether or not you are somewhat sympathetic to the anti-gay agenda movement.) -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
dizfactor Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 6/10/04 1:10pm Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded
	He's hardly limiting his statements to only homosexuals. In fact, he clearly states that the same standards would apply to heterosexuals. However, homosexuality is the topic of this thread, so that is the aspect that would be brought out the most in this discussion. You've been misrepresenting his position a bit. it's not misrepresentation at all. he clearly argues that the Dirkhising case casts doubt on the suitability of any gay couple as adoptive parents, on the grounds that people like the people who killed Dirkhising might be masquerading as otherwise fit gay parents. however, while he claims that the same standards apply to heterosexuals, he clearly does not apply them to heterosexuals in the same sense, as he's never argued that sexual abuse by heterosexual adoptive parents casts doubt on the fitness of heterosexuals to adopt, and i can't possibly imagine him accepting that abuse by biological heterosexual parents casts doubt on the entire institution of hetero marriage. simply put, while he takes the Dirkhising case as indicative of a problem with gay adoption in general, he treats abuse by heterosexual couples as an aberration from the otherwise healthy norm which he actively champions at every opportunity. simply put, he applies different standards to different sorts of people, which, frankly, makes him a bigot. a well-intentioned bigot, i'm sure, but a bigot nonetheless. i'm sure opponents of interracial marriage really thought it would cause the collapse of civilization and that they were acting sincerely in the best interests of all parties. that doesn't make them any less bigoted. -----signature----- "Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century." Julian Dibbell "You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat." Gryph
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 6/10/04 1:22pm Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded
	I'm just saying that we shouldn't let political correctness blind us to the possibilities, and we shouldn't let the self-esteem of grown-ups trump the welfare of the child. I think it is on you to prove that homosexual couples are more likely to molest children, as opposed to it being on us to prove that they don't. If I made a blatantly insulting statement such as "people from Alabama are more likely to molest children", you could definitely believe that it would be my job to prove that was true, not your job to prove that it isn't. Re: Families Men & Women are the very basis for the family unit. Messing with that changes the very fabric of society. So Britney Spears and her 55-hour husband is the "basis for the family unit"? What about Liz Taylor and her ten husbands? J-Lo and her three? We heterosexuals have "messed with that" far more than homosexuals ever pretended to. Until Britney and J-Lo and Liz's behavior is outlawed, I don't think we heterosexuals have any business pretending that we're upholding the sanctity of marriage. Do I have the right to say thats not where I want my tax dollars spent? Do I have the right to say that my tax dollars shouldn't pay Bush's or Ashcroft's salaries? I don't think so. Sometimes we don't get a choice. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi_Learner Registered: Jul '02	Date Posted: 6/10/04 3:19pm Subject: RE: Revenge of the Return of Homosexuals are Gay Reloaded
	"At any rate, the case of Jesse Dirkhising should give us serious pause about letting homosexual couples adopt." I came late to the discussion, but I am complexed by what you have written Bubba_the_Genius. Basically, what your saying is that the action of one homosexual couple should give serious pause to letting homosexuals adopt? Judging from that sentence and assuming you reply yes to the question I asked you, would you also give serious pause about letting hetrosexuals become leaders after Hitler and Saddam Hussein? I would love for you to answer this question as I am puzzled by this type of logic when people apply something to one thing or group but not another which you seem to have done here. When a Hetrosexual couple torture their own children or ones they have adopted, should we not give serious pause about letting hetrosexuals adopt? That is basically what your telling us but you've avoided the other side for your argument. Either explain in detail what you really meant Bubba_the_Genius or you should withdraw that part of your post and apologize or I'll complain to one of the Senate Moderators. I agree with you Obi-Wan McCartney when you think it is wrong when someone bases one terrible case then gives the impression that all homosexual couples wanting to adopt are dangerous and serious pause should be given.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 » - Previous | Next | Reload