Revenge of the Return of *Homosexuals are Gay* Reloaded

I got news for you guys and girls, you're not going to hell, so don't worry about having a party there.
There is no "Hell" anyway so.....
Even if you practice Pagan Heathen ways your still not going, but I promise you ain't going to heaven either. More like souls going for an eternal peaceful sleep, not so bad is it?

Good thing God can see all, and judge all, based on perfect justice, and can then decide our destinies.

And here is where the SW analogy comes in, God expects us to fight the dark side of moral degradation.

The dark side
It's faster & quicker.
It at times feels more powerfull.
It's more enjoyable.
It's the easy way out.

Sidious/Satan says give in to the dark side, it's better, it's right, it's the only way, "don't worry it's ok", he tries to fool people.

And that folks is why I like SW it's all about fighting the darkside of imperfect human nature.

And yes it can be faught, was Anakin born a Sith?
No, he choose the path to the darkside. With the help of an evil entity supporting his negative dark choices.

"Don't give into the darkside"

 

I got news for you guys and girls, you're not going to hell, so don't worry about having a party there.
There is no "Hell" anyway so.....

Jesus says otherwise.

 

Fireman

I know you mean well, you need to understand some Hebrew and Greek, She'ol & Had'es if you know what those are then you come to understand hell(buring torture hell) was something created to scare & extract money from the poor, by christendom.

So Homosexuals ARE NOT GOING TO Hell, but that doesn't mean that God lets them keep doing what they are doing. This is part of human imperfection, the same as if you accidently stubbed your toe, if you were perfect like Jesus you wouldn't do it. He will cause it to end like all other imperfections that we all suffer from.

 

I am rather disturbed by these calls for Bubba to apologise and/or be reported to the moderators for expressing opinions, which is surely what the Senate Floor is for. His opinions may be unjustified in the minds of certain people, but that is established through reasoned argument rather than the ban button.

Blue_Jedi33, I think your discussion of whether the New Testament provides a literal hell, interesting though it is, would be better suited to one of the many religion threads already in existence.

 

I am rather disturbed by these calls for Bubba to apologise and/or be reported to the moderators for expressing opinions, which is surely what the Senate Floor is for

False. I am of the opinion that religious people are brainwashed sheep living under a delusion. Yet, I am explicitly not allowed to express this opinion, and have been banned multipled times for doing so.

So your assertion is false. Watch me get banned for the above comment.

/Z

 

MasterZap, if you are banned for that, I suspect it will be for your choice of words rather than for the underlying opinions expressed. You've intentionally used insulting language, whereas Bubba merely expressed an opinion using a temperate form of words. It isn't comparable.

 

Why not? (Just playing devil's advocate here.) The result is still the same, while both persons are simply stating what they believe as truth, one truth insults people who are gay or who are sympathetic to the gay movement, the other insults people of faith.

I've always wondered why its ok to say any horrible thing you want about homosexuals, because its your opinion, but when you criticize people faith, its "labeling" and "intolerable."

Now, for the record, Kimball himself is a mod who seems to be on board with what Bubba has said, so I don't think complaining would do any good, and I don't think Bubba should be "disciplined" for stating an opinion.

However, I am just glad other people see that there is something wrong what was said.

 

Branthoris

I talk about hell in this thread, because the fundies think the Homosexuals are going there, and they are not going there. In fact if I gave a Homosexual a ride in my car to work for example, and we got wiped out(die)out by a semi on the highway, we would both be going to the same place even though are beliefs are quite different and I accept Jesus, hell which is just the common grave of mankind. People need to read the bible more and not get fooled by false teachings of christendom, that were designed to scare and extort money, when poeple couldn't read the bible.
No wonder the catholic clergy didn't want people reading the bible in the middle ages.

However when they get resurrected that's when they MUST change or else. See John 5: 28&29
It's a second chance where they can no longer deny God's purpose because they are alive because of it.

 

Obi-Wan McCartney, the distinction is between the underlying idea and the language used to express it. I see no problem with a person claiming that homosexuality is immoral, so long as they don't use language such as "evil gay faggots" in so doing. Similarly, I think it permissible to say that religious people are misguided, and that their beliefs are incorrect--but not that they are "brainwashed sheep", because that choice of words is insulting, and is not necessary in order to express the opinion concerned. It might be necessary for an expression of hate and contempt, but hate and contempt are emotions rather than opinions.

Blue_Jedi33, you are wrong in your assumption that if people disagree with your version of the Bible, it must be because they haven't read it or are ill-informed. You have put forward an expression of arrogance rather than an argument.

 

I can dig it, Branthoris, but what I was trying to get at is the question of whether language should be the defining distinction when the result is the same?

And surely misguided sheep is certainly a lot tamer than evil fag, or unholy sinner?

My point is simply that if a person can make disparaging remarks about gay people, and it is considered simply their opinion, why can't another person make disparaging remarks about Christians? See, the problem I see with your method of distintion is that it becomes all too easy for some of the more clever members of the Senate to follow all the rules of decency yet still insult and flame in spirit.

 

There is no "Hell" anyway so.....

Jesus says otherwise.

Jesus is quite the Johnny come lately, as the Hebrews who proceeded him didn't believe in a Hell either.

He will cause it to end like all other imperfections that we all suffer from.

I don't suffer from homosexuality. I enjoy every minute of it, especially when I'm with my boyfriend.

 

Jesus is quite the Johnny come lately, as the Hebrews who proceeded him didn't believe in a Hell either.

False. Blue_Jedi33 is partly right in his statements, in that hell is the abode of the dead. It is hades, which can be good or bad, depending upon your righteousness and standing with God. The Jews believed this.

The only thing Jesus added onto it - and He actually did NOT add it, as it was prophesied several times in the Old Testament - was the Lake of Fire. The second death, in which death and hades themselves will be done away with.

Blue_Jedi, I'd like to discuss this some more, but we should probably do it in PMs.

 

Obi_Wan_McCartney,

Re: my previous post to you. I didn't mean to come across with a tone of condescension or lecture you about civil rights. My post was in response to your earlier reactions to Bubba, which could be construed as inflammatory. Your specific examples of Bubba's logic being "bigoted" and that "you clearly have an anti-homosexuality agenda", are the two that stand out most to me. So, if I came across a bit strong, I humbly apologize

And surely misguided sheep is certainly a lot tamer than evil fag, or unholy sinner?

That depends upon which side of the coin you fall. For someone who is devoted to their faith in God, this can be a very hurtful remark. Not entirely original or even unexpected, but still hurtful

My point is simply that if a person can make disparaging remarks about gay people, and it is considered simply their opinion, why can't another person make disparaging remarks about Christians?

If the remarks were truly slanderous or disparaging, then why lower yourself to the same level, if only to make a point? Again, it's counter to constructive debate, and looks like an affront to the other person.

Would it be possible to accept that the opinions of others, particularly from who don't believe what you believe, are meant in the spirit of healthy debate, and not slander?

See, the problem I see with your method of distintion is that it becomes all too easy for some of the more clever members of the Senate to follow all the rules of decency yet still insult and flame in spirit.

So, one should limit their vocabulary so as not to potentially offend? Personally I see that as purposefully reading more into the comments of others than might be present. What about taking the comments of other people at face value?

I'll have more to say on the topic at hand, but I must return to work for the time being (cat's away, mice will play...).

Best,

Tadji

 

Well, your reasoning has been sound throughout, and I pretty much agree with everything you just said.

What I meant to get at is not that we should allow people to insult and disparage people of faith, but rather there should be a single standard, if people are going to be allowed to make unsubstantiated opinion statements that paint homosexuals in a negative light, then I don't see why Christians deserve special treatment.

However, I agree, we should be moving towards non-disparaging comments towards Christians as well.

And you know what? I do feel for the more devout Christians who complain about the double standard they feel, that just for following their views they are ostracized, because it's ok to make fun of Christians in our society much more than Muslims or Jews or other religions. However, Christianity being the dominant religion and powerfully and historically rooted in our society and government, I don't fear a violent anti-Christian revolution, random acts of violence against Christians specifically (aside from the terrorists, who don't discriminate their terror and even attack people of their own faith), or even systematic discrimination. Yet, it is still wrong to belittle or begrudge someone on the basis of their faith, just as it is to do so with their sexual preference.

 

The mouse is still out and it's dead as doornails in my office today, so I'll post.

Well, your reasoning has been sound throughout, and I pretty much agree with everything you just said.

What I meant to get at is not that we should allow people to insult and disparage people of faith, but rather there should be a single standard, if people are going to be allowed to make unsubstantiated opinion statements that paint homosexuals in a negative light, then I don't see why Christians deserve special treatment.

First off, I'm glad that that's cleared up, and I appreciate your response.

As regards a more uniform standard. I agree that we should all essentially be on our best behavior. However, I could also see the application of that standard being hard to maintain. This is due, in no small part, to the sensitivity of the issue. For people of either homosexual or heterosexual orientation (religious / not religious), there's a tremendous amount of internalization of the matter, from a variety of perspectives. This opens the topic up to not only personal introspection, but also heavy emotion. We're talking about fundamental beliefs on both sides of the coin, and sometimes that's hard to verbalize in a completely objective and level headed manner.

My only suggestion is that we try, but also not to walk on eggshells around each other. What good would that do?

However, I agree, we should be moving towards non-disparaging comments towards Christians as well.

Indeed. If our arguments can be in the line of specifics and not broadstroke generalizations, then it should be good.

And you know what? I do feel for the more devout Christians who complain about the double standard they feel, that just for following their views they are ostracized, because it's ok to make fun of Christians in our society much more than Muslims or Jews or other religions. However, Christianity being the dominant religion and powerfully and historically rooted in our society and government, I don't fear a violent anti-Christian revolution, random acts of violence against Christians specifically (aside from the terrorists, who don't discriminate their terror and even attack people of their own faith), or even systematic discrimination. Yet, it is still wrong to belittle or begrudge someone on the basis of their faith, just as it is to do so with their sexual preference.

I couldn't agree more.

More to come...

 

And yes it can be faught, was Anakin born a Sith?
No, he choose the path to the darkside. With the help of an evil entity supporting his negative dark choices.

Are you sure he made "negative dark choices"? He was heterosexual after all. He must have been OK, in spite of having that whole Vader-thing going on.

This is part of human imperfection, the same as if you accidently stubbed your toe, if you were perfect like Jesus you wouldn't do it.

Jesus never stubbed his toe? Working in a carpentry shop?

 

Let me try, one more time, to express my opinion on the benefits and risks of extending adoption to gays.

I will start by restating one thing I wrote earlier:

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.

Now, maybe I wasn't as explicit as I could have been, but I expected y'all to be able to connect the dots. I should have known better, so I'll be clear.

ADOPTION BY BOTH HETEROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES HAVE THEIR BENEFITS AND THEIR RISKS.

I wrote the following about adoption by gays: "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." I continue to stand by that statement, but it should be clear that I believe a parallel statement applies to adoption by straight couples.

To be explicit, one benefit of straight couples adopting is that a lot of children might loving homes. One risk is that it gives people like Fred and Rosemary West an easier opportunity to prey on children.


Now, what's the problem with what I've written?

I'll answer my own question: not a thing.

I apologize if my earlier posts weren't as clear as they could have been, but Kimball seemed quite capable of understanding my point. Why have y'all been so thoroughly incapable? Is it deliberate?


Let me move from restating older posts to going into more detail about this issue, by noting that we can assign values (or variables) to several subsets of orphans.

1. There's a group of children who are adopted because adoption is open to heterosexual couples. Let's call this group adopted-hetero.

2. There's a subset of these children who are abused by their adoptive parents. Let's call this group abused-hetero.

3. There's a group of children who are adopted because adoption is open to homosexual couples. Let's call this group adopted-homo.

4. There's a subset of these children who are abused by their adoptive parents. Let's call this group abused-homo.

We can guess that adopted-homo is going to be very small compared to adopted-hetero, so the benefits to extending adoption to gay couples is not very large. (Again, I'm addressing this issue from the perspective of the children; on the issue of adoption, I don't give two craps about the self-esteem of grown-ups.)

If the ratio of abused-to-adopted (e.g., abused-homo / adopted-homo) is higher for gay couples than it is for straight couples, the costs do seem to outweigh the benefits.


It's the big question: is there a higher incidence of abuse?

I don't know, but I'm not satisfied simply assuming that there isn't.

diz gave a couple quotes of the APA and other organizations, but color me unimpressed. A while back, Not George Lucas and I debated the claim that gay couples are just as good at parenting. The study he cited -- much more in-depth than the soundbytes diz quotes -- was glaringly incomplete. Most telling, most of the research compared the parenting jobs of gay mothers to single mothers, not hetersexual couples.

Further, anakin_girl attempted to re-frame the debate.

I think it is on you to prove that homosexual couples are more likely to molest children, as opposed to it being on

 

If the ratio of abused-to-adopted (e.g., abused-homo / adopted-homo) is higher for gay couples than it is for straight couples, the costs do seem to outweigh the benefits.


It's the big question: is there a higher incidence of abuse?

I don't know, but I'm not satisfied simply assuming that there isn't.

Why the hell not?

The math is pretty easy: men are the perpetrators in 86% of the cases involving boys, 94% of the cases involving girls.

Are all of these men homosexual? Are a great majority of them homosexual?

Following your logic, the only people who should be allowed to adopt children are single women.

Given that there is a difference in terms of incidence of abuse concerning adult men and women (i.e., men and women are different), I think people like anakin_girl bear the burden of proof.

Nope.

You're the one who insulted an entire population of people by saying that they are more likely to be child abusers, without providing proof (I saw no proof anywhere in your post that homosexual men are more likely to abuse children). The burden of proof is on you.

I don't think I should have to prove that a group of human beings do not deserve to be insulted. It's like saying that I should have to prove that African-Americans don't deserve to sit in the back of the bus.

 

I'd just like to point out that there are other forms of abuse that have just as much impact on a child's life such as neglect and emotional abuse. No-one has mentioned them and yet they are critically important (and at the same epidemic levels as sexual abuse) in determing the welfare of a child in any home.

I think Bubba, that the studies that you so easily dismissed as being imcomplete are probably incomplete simply for the fact that it is illegal for a gay couple to adopt a child in most countries and the number of relationships that break down (due to one partner being gay) where the gay male retains custody would be few and far between indeed. An sociologist, pyschologist or anyone else cannot study what currently does not to a very large extent exist in society.

It's a little unfair to dismiss something because you feel the study is incomplete. Perhaps if you allowed gay couples to adopt and then repeat the study in five years, you will have a much clearer and more 'complete' answer.

Kithera

 

Edit: Nevermind.

 

anakin_girl:

You ask why "the hell" I don't assume that there's not a higher incidence of abuse, and I explained it. Look, there are twice as many men in a gay-male relationship as there are in a heterosexual relationship. That's obvious and indisputable.

If gay men and straight men are even equally likely to abuse children, doubling the number of men in a household (and removing the watchful eye of a woman) will increase the likelihood of abuse.


Let's say that two percent of all men sexually abuse children and that there's no difference whatsoever between straight men and gay men on this issue.

Let's say that 0.1 percent of all women sexually abuse children.

(I'm clearly making up both numbers, but this make-believe argument does reflect the fact that men abuse children by a much higher margin.)

We have two adoptive couples, one gay-male couple and one heterosexual. Using the numbers above, what is the likelihood that at least one member of the heterosexual couple will be abusive?

2.098 percent.

What's the likelihood that at least one member of the gay male couple will be abusive?

3.960 percent.

The percentages are different, even assuming that gay males and straight males abuse children at the same rate of incidence. (Edited out a needless comment.)

I know you take the position that men and women are identical. At least on this issue, there does seem to be a difference that would affect the incidence of abuse. We should focus on what is, rather than what we would like.


Kit, I agree that there are probably very good reasons why the research is incomplete. I'm not sure that the need for research itself justifies opening the doors to gay adoption; we shouldn't experiment with human lives, particularly the lives of children, just to prove a point.

But my comments about evidence was in response to dizfactor's assertion that "the evidence is resounding." I don't think it is.

 

Your shock and outrage at my position is based on emotion and not intellect -- on the belief that men and women are identical, a belief that is not grounded in reality.

I'd like to see some proof that "all men" are a certain way and "all women" are a certain way (not stereotypes, but all of one gender acts a certain way due to biological differences they can't help). I'd like to see proof that we are all one way or another, other than genitalia.

It is not emotion, it is fact. Some women are macho. Some men play with dolls. You can't distinguish based on gender, other than to say all men have penises and all women have vaginas.

Your calling it "emotion" is an attempt to prove that feminism is illogical or irrational.

We have two adoptive couples, one gay-male couple and one heterosexual.

And gay female couples? Or are you assuming that most gay people are men?

I'm not sure that the need for research itself justifies opening the doors to gay adoption; we shouldn't experiment with human lives, particularly the lives of children, just to prove a point.

Adoption itself is experimenting with human lives. Do we want to outlaw adoption, period?

Also, if men are such perverts, why do we allow heterosexual couples to adopt children? You're not assuming that the "good" woman will "calm" the perverted man, I hope?

If gay men and straight men are even equally likely to abuse children, doubling the number of men in a household (and removing the watchful eye of a woman) will increase the likelihood of abuse.

The "watchful eye of a woman"?

 

If gay men and straight men are even equally likely to abuse children, doubling the number of men in a household (and removing the watchful eye of a woman) will increase the likelihood of abuse.

By the same token, that means that a lesbian couple is even better than a heterosexual couple.

Or even better, have all children raised by single females, since that reduces the possibility of abuse even more.

Makes sense to me.

Seriously though, while you are correct at your above assertion that the chances are increased, they are increased at such a minute level that I do not think it is enough to descriminate.




b4k4^2

 

anakin_girl, I edited out the bit about emotion, just as you were apparently posting your reply.


I'll once again assert that I don't need to prove that every man is different from every woman. It could be the case that, along many dimensions, men and women form two distinct Gaussian curves. There may be some overlap at the fringes, but the location of the means may still be different.


On this issue in particular, it doesn't matter what the individual's behavior is like. If we want to study or predict the overall effects of letting gay couples adopt, we can deal with what is typical or average.

I'll say it again: 86% of boys that are sexually abused are abused by men. 94% of girls that are sexually abused are abused by men.

If you want to ignore that fact because they're may be a handful of women who act like men and vice versa, feel free. But it's irresponsible to ignore that fact and take a position on public policy.


You bring up lesbian couples. With the hypothetical numbers that I gave, what's the likelihood that at least one member of the gay male couple will be abusive?

0.1999 percent.

(As with the other two numbers, I can show my work if asked.)


To summarize the hypothetical example:
- Gay male: 4.0%
- Hetero: 2.1%
- Lesbian: 0.2%

That's not the only stat we need to worry about. There's also the size of each of those populations. The size of the population of each type of couple gives us an indication of the benefits -- that is, how many kids will be adopted. The benefits may well be worth the risks in the cases of both heterosexual and lesbian couples, but maybe not in gay male couples.


Adoption itself is experimenting with human lives. Do we want to outlaw adoption, period?

Sorry, but no: adoption is not an experiment. It is an attempt (however flawed) to deal with the serious sociological problem of orphans. I don't see how you can seriously suggest that adoption's an experiment.


Also, if men are such perverts, why do we allow heterosexual couples to adopt children? You're not assuming that the "good" woman will "calm" the perverted man, I hope?

First, your hope is not entirely founded. I do believe that one of the effects women have on men is to "domesticate" them, for lack of a better term.

Second, it should be damned obvious why we allow heterosexual couples to adopt. There are a lot of heterosexual couples, and without them a large number of children would go unadopted.

(Or, if single mothers picked up the slack, great, but we already know that -- compared to heterosexual couples -- single motherhood is associated with a greater incidence of crime and poverty.)


The "watchful eye of a woman"?

Yes. The watchful eye of a woman. Many (if not most) women I know are fiercely protective of the children in their custody. Sorry if that offends you.

 

JFT, you're right that single motherhood may lead to less abuse, but there's also a statisical correlation between single parenthood and an increase in crime and poverty.

It is possible that those ancient ideas about children needing a mother and a father aren't idiotic despite their age.


Seriously though, while you are correct at your above assertion that the chances are increased, they are increased at such a minute level that I do not think it is enough to descriminate.

That is a fine assertion. If we were policy makers, we would probably need actual numbers instead of the hypothetical numbers I provided, but what you've written is good enough for this type of discussion.


JFT's admission, which I just quoted, is really what I've been trying to get at all along: an admission that there indeed might be risks to opening adoption to gay couples.

If y'all think the risk is worth the benefits, fine. We'll agree to disagree.

It's only the assertion that there are no risks that I find laughable.