VOTE!!!
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 8th, 2005 at 2:05 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Election Day!
VOTE!!!
VOTE!!!
RA,
I agree (but the horns are showing.)
Based upon your argument, which I think is shared by others here, we simply cannot deny a “seat at the table” to our friends the polygamists.
We must not discriminate based upon our squeamishness, no? Therefor, we must be tolerant of our friends the practictioners of pederasty.
Am I being inclusive enough yet?
RA,
Ahhhh! I’m glad you brought us back to the pederasty issue. No, it is not child abuse according to the folks at Nambla. They have a point of view that may seem shocking, but I understand their argument and can see where they have a point. Hey! I’ve simply been doing what you prescribed – trying to see it from the other side!
The way I understand it, the folks at Nambla believe that boys between the ages of 12 and 18 are capable of entering into a loving, consensual relationship with an older man. Not only this, but they believe there’s nothing wrong with this type of arrangement at all. They can no doubt cite all manner of research and history to back up their claims. They truly believe that it is wrong to discriminate against their chosen lifestyle.
You might not be aware of this, but the mainstream homosexual agenda calls for lowering the age of consent. Big surprise! Now many of them will deny it, but it’s true. If they are successful, the folks at Nambla will sure be grateful!
Anyway, that’s it from the other side. I’ve researched it, I have a pretty good understanding of it and I’ve explained how it impacts the notion of “civil rights” for homosexuals here.
RA,
You expressed curiosity about why I continue to talk about these types of issues here.
You can rest now because I’m going to tell you the answer: It’s called debate! I like to debate. I find it satisfying to make my points and discuss issues.
There’s nothing more to it! There is no deep, dark secret! Just sit back, give that hyper-active noodle of yours a rest and enjoy!
Tim:
“Based upon your argument, which I think is shared by others here, we simply cannot deny a “seat at the table” to our friends the polygamists.”
No, we cannot deny the proponents of gay marriage a seat at the table. You’re equivocating again. We will cross the polygamy bridge when we get to it. Separate issue. It really does sound like that sound-bite I heard from Bill O’Reilly. Sorry.
“We must not discriminate based upon our squeamishness, no? Therefor, we must be tolerant of our friends the practictioners of pederasty.”
Listen up. Let’s straighten this out here & now.
Not everyone gets a seat at the table. But you want to deny them the right to ask for it.
Maybe I wasn’t clear about this. Apologies.
You can’t deny ANYONE the right to ask. Their day in court. No matter how repulsive you or I find their proclivities. KKK. Nazis. Pederasts. Necrophiliacs. No matter who, no matter what.
It will be decided upon, given the flux of society, the changing attitudes.
Because, 1 day (hopefully never), you or I could very well be considered the same, & then the shoe’s on the other foot.
Just because I condone gay marriage, doesn’t mean in any way, shape or form that I condone any of these other activities. So please stop w/the broad brush. It’s irritating, & unworthy of you.
There are standards. There are things that are intolerable. Harming others is the yardstick I apply. Apparently, you think us ‘liberals’ say, “Oh, everything’s all right! Go right ahead.”
A. Not a liberal, a centrist (a little left of center)
B. I have standards, thank you very much.
Note that the age of consent is 18 in the US (last I heard: 16 in Nevada? Unsure). It’s significantly lower in other countries (14, in Thailand).
Also, I defy you to name 1 senator, rep. or congressman/woman/person (whatever) who is in the pocket of NAMBLA.
Last I checked (been a while), the lobbyists have (far too much, IMHO) sway in DC.
Was reading ‘America’, by Jon Stewart (a little dated, 2000), & it states that all checks sent by NAMBLA return uncashed.
Care to offset that for me?
Now, don’t know offhand, but how many polygamy lobbyists have any representation in DC? Genuinely curious.
If Alito’s confirmed, I think you may have many worry-free decades ahead of you.
In short, cut the smugness, please. Tolerance isn’t some blanket carte blanche that ‘liberals’ spread over a large area of behaviors. Regardless of what you’ve heard.
Stay on topic, is all.
Reluctant
If you want to see the convoluted reasoning for why some people thing pederasty is OK, check this out:
http://216.220.97.17/historical.htm
Yes, Tim, it’s from NAMBLA.
Of course, some people think it’s OK to teach their kids to believe in an invisible man in the sky who occasionally decides to slaughter children, whole cities, or the entire population.
Go figger. And THEY get a seat at the table. In fact, they want to be in charge of printing the place ca_rds.
Tim:
“Hey! I’ve simply been doing what you prescribed – trying to see it from the other side!”
You’re joking, right? Was I unclear? No, still talking about gay marriage.
Stay on topic, fer cryin’ out loud.
“You can rest now because I’m going to tell you the answer: It’s called debate! “
Wheeww! Well, I’ll sleep better now! Crimeny. You do give yourself a smidgeon too much credit, methinks. I was just asking.
“You might not be aware of this, but the mainstream homosexual agenda calls for lowering the age of consent.”
Where? Who? Provide secular, mainstream sources. Otherwise, this is hearsay, plain & simple. Are you confusing NAMBLA w/gays again?
Quit muddying the waters, wouldja?
Your acrobats would do a gymnast proud, but in the end, everyone has to put their feet back on the ground.
karen:
No way am I, a single middle-aged man, going anywhere near that site.
Maybe I’ve watched 1 too many Law & Order SVU episodes, but I’m pretty sure that somebody keeps tabs on who goes there.
I’m probably on a # of lists anyways, don’t need to add to them.
Besides, there are limits I’ll go to prove my point.
Karen,
Here are some FACTS, although I already know you will simply choose to ignore them. Even homosexuals don’t agree with your assertion. REad on!
Retrieved from http://traditionalvalues.org 11/12/05
Karen,
Now I want to see you cite some facts yourself. You claim to be able to find them so put up or shut up.
In fact, I’ll make a challenge to you here and now. You find a fact, and I’ll either refute it, which is likely, or confirm it for you!
Put up or shut up lady.
Karen,
I can hardly wait to see the facts you say you can cite concerning the percent of homosexuals in the population. Can you do better than the N.I.H.? Did you take statistics in college?
I just showed you the REAL FACTS. You know, those pesky little things that won’t go away? The facts just aren’t going to disappear.
When I said you were disconnected, I may have been off-base. You are actually in worse shape than that – you are in DENIAL!
Tim:
Again, joking, right?
http://traditionalvalues.org? An xtian website, slanted towards turning back the clock? You’re citing that on an atheist blog? Using uppercase doesn’t make their findings FACTS.
Howzabout something from an actual census, non-biased, non-religious?
Wait, who am I kidding?
Bring me something more solid, please. Gallup, whatever. Secular, please.
Thought we were going to skip the stats thing.
Here’s 1 of the things about debate: it’s bidirectional. Just like the 1st amendment.
You’re the minority here, BTW. Onus is on you.
Do better.
Tim
from
http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm
from:http://www.gaytoz.com/bResearch.asp
from:www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=100049
How’s that for now? There may be more…I quit looking.
Tim
Want more?
from;
http://www.newamericandimensions.com/NAP/NAP_Demographics.html
from:
http://www.baywindows.com/media/paper328/news/2001/03/15/Columns/A.Different.Kind.Of.Mirror-55664.shtml
Can you see now that RA is right? You can get stats for whatever you want. At least two of mine were from the census and voter exit polls, which are less skewed than your family values or my pink pound sources.
Karen,
Well, the figures you cite are a lot less than 8% huh? Let’s examine what you did provide:
Arrrgggh, I messed up the blockquote. That’s what I get for typing too fast!
Karen,
I am impressed. You have done some research as I asked. So based upon all we have dug up so far, it appears the number could be between 2 and 10%.
I’m not sure if we can get it closer than that, but assuming either end of the range could be off we could estimate 5 to 6%.
So what does this mean? What can we do with the information we have?
Tim
They polled ALL the people exiting the voting areas and found 4-5% of them to be gay. This is as valid oas doing a telephone poll and talking to 1000 people and extrapolating it to the general population.
Yes Gallup asks for estimates, sometimes. But if you’d read carefully, you’d have seen that it says
I added the second quote about the undercount to show you what they did. Sounds reasonable to me. There’s still at least 4% pop., compared to your 1%. I’m trying to show you that you can get all kinds of numbers looking up statistics. Your source isn’t any more valid. In facy, it’s skewed horribly to the right.
Try googling Kaiser Foundation Gay Population Poll. It’s not my problem if you can’t get into it.
Tim
OK. I apologize to you also. It’s a subject close to my heart.
We WERE arguing about homosexual marriage. How we got onto population statistics, I can’t recall. Too lazy to look back through and find out.
Anyway, numbers, for us, shouldn’t matter. In a political agenda, they are important, but not for what we do here. What’s important to me is that you try to understand that gays don’t choose their sexuality, they don’t recruit, and they’re just regular people in every other way.
Peace.
karen:
you have done an excellent job refuting tim. notice, he has redirected once again.
i agree, stats can come from anywhere and support any side on any given day.
So, Tim, it is time for you to go out and actually discuss this issue with a live, human, gay individual.
It will do you a world of good.
Just wondering, has anyone gotten the impression that arguing with Tim is a complete and utter waste of time? He’s gone right out and said he doesn’t have to have a reason to make gay marriage illegal, so why is it again we’re bothering to “debate?” I’m really, REALLY curious.
TNA:
I don’t know. I guess it just feels good since I am constantly challenged by religious freaks to prove my anti-belief is not going to send me to hell. Most people never listen when I prove them wrong. Atleast Tim fights back.
Noodly
It IS frustrating, and can be pointless to debate with Tim. But I have a cold, I’m cranky, and it just seemed like the thing to do at the time.
Where did everybody go?
TNA,podry,karen:
“Just wondering, has anyone gotten the impression that arguing with Tim is a complete and utter waste of time?”
Oh yeah, I’ve gotten that impression several times
Still, he does tend to fill out the slower moments on the blog.
I have discovered (I think) the source of the polygamy/gay marriage nonsense. Thomas & Rehnquist.
Also found this on the web: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_prev.html#gal1_text
“In June of 2003, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overturned its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision and ruled that the Texas sodomy law was unconstitutional. Around the time of that ruling, a Gallup poll found that 60% favored legalization of same-sex relations, compared to 35% who opposed legalization.”
Public opinion is such a fickle mistress. It changes day-to-day, hour-to-hour, based on court decisions, presidential declarations, hell, who knows, maybe the weather has an impact on it?
If I relied on the majority as much as Tim does, I think I’d go a little bonkers.
Maybe that’s just me.
Tim said “Now before you folks start accusing me of being two-faced or worse, I will tell you not to bother. The folks I’m speaking of have way too much class to make an issue of their homosexuality. They don’t necessarily hide it either. They don’t rub it in everyone’s face or try to be confrontational.”
They have too much class to make an issue of their homosexuality? they don’t rub it in everyone’s face? Well I work in an office of primarily heterosexuals who are always making an issue of their heterosexuality and pushing it in my face by wearing wedding bands, talking about their spouses or opposit sex partners, and gasp! even having their partners visit the office. I just don’t understand why these radical straight activists have to take their *chosen* lifestyle and push it on everyone-what heterosexuals do in their private bedrooms is none of my business but why do they always have this overriding need to flaunt it? I really don’t mind straight people but I just wish they could act gay in public. (thats a joke Timmy so don’t get your knickers in a wad)…you then go on to state that gays make up a small percent of the general population by citing
“The truth is that homosexuals used the bogus 10% figure in order to inflate their numbers and their influence.The 10% Urban Legend has been effectively used by homosexuals to recruit children into the homosexual lifestyle and to lobby for legislation to provide special legal protections for homosexuals. Homosexual groups throughout the United States, however, continue to use this bogus 10% figure because it provides them with political power and legitimacy.”
Recruit children into the homosexual “lifestyle”? Yes because the sweet little innocent children are so easily influenced and swayed into the fantastically attractive gay “lifestyle”-Join the club! Get beaten up and estranged from your family! lose equal rights to heterosexuals! Sign up today! Get a free toaster oven for every ten people you recruit!
Give me a fucking break…even Tim can’t honestly believe that children can be “recruited”. Gay children are the product of straight parents and no amount of “recruitment” can alter a persons biological sexual orientation.
And as far as “special” rights go it is you heterosexuals who currently enjoy over 1,000 special federal rights not afforded to gay couples.
And why does it matter if gays are 2% or 10% or whatever percent of the population anyway? Jews are less than 2% of the USA population but we don’t deny Jews marriage equality just becasue they make up such a small minority. Numbers have absolutely nothing to do with it, Tim.
You are a bigot towards gay people for resons that you refuse to own up to and I just wish that you could be honest with us all in here. I admit that I am a bigot towards many religious people after I get to know them becasue of their INSANE beliefs that fly in the face of reason and cause so much misery in the world. I believe that my bigotry is justified because of what religious belief does to a person and a society. Now that I admit I’m a bigot why can’t you? with your resoning?
Alex.
alex:
I think Timmy-boy went to the NAMBLA site once too often, & he’s presently sweating under the phosphorescent lights at the precinct of the SVU task force.
“Seriously, officer, I was just doing research! I’m in this blog argument w/a bunch of atheists about gay marriage….”
“Save it fer the judge, short-eyes.”
Hehehehe……
No, wouldn’t wish that fate on anyone, except a guilty party.
Would be ironic, though….
RA
It disturbs me that we limit persuing research avenues for fear of being being labeled along with those we are researching.
I thought this was a free society. When did the thought police become so pervasive?
HZ:
I’m assuming you’re referring to my refusal to navigate the website Tim put forth?
Unclear as to what you otherwise might mean.
There are exceptions to any rule, free or otherwise. Were I a member of an SVU task force, I’d be keeping an eye on those individuals. Likewise, an Al-Qaida sympathizer.
Even freedom has its boundaries. Sometimes it can be defined by them.
Unless I was a psychologist, or a profiler, or something of that sort, it would be difficult to explain my interest away.
It’s vastly different, if I frequented a political website, or indeed, any other sort of information gathering (data mining) on a plethora of subjects.
As long as no one’s harmed.
Besides, I don’t trust the Republicans as far as I can sling a piano.
Rather err on the side of caution, these days.
Any other subject? They can kiss my…(you get the idea).
Isn’t it sort of morbidly, digustingly interesting,
that it is the proponents of biblically inerrent politics who lend sick things like NAMBLA credence?
HMDK:
For them, it’s the guilt of association sort of thing (I think). Or equivocation. Which fallacy is that, HZ?
I have pointed out a few times that the association in question has absolutely NO political power whatsoever. Probably never will. The NRA, & the RR (apparently 2 of Tim’s favorites)? Far too much.
It’s usually about money. But there ARE some scruples that can’t be bought. Even in America.
At least, that’s how I understand it. Lobbyists have a great degree of pull in DC.
I’m still waiting for Tim to bring forth evidence that the association (whom I’m sick of naming, let alone discussing) has any sort of representation whatsoever in our government.
Which he won’t.
Because they don’t.
It’s a war of attrition. Let’s repeat it all constantly, until someone gives up & goes away, & victory! I win, because the other side got sick of the discussion, got up, & left.
HZ:
Sack time. Off to bed. Long night. Be back soon (if my @#%^ing computer doesn’t finally completely fritz out on me!).
Night.
RA
Sleep well. What in hade’s name are you doing staying awake all night so often these days?
On the fallacy ident. I am not sure myself.
HZ:
Had to get a PT graveyard seasonal job, to pay the bills.
It’s awful, but hey, no free lunch as they say.
3 atheists have announced for public office, 2 in alabama and 1 in utah. the only contact i have is for Larry Darby for Attorney General, P O Box 3722, Montgomery, AL 36109 He has a great shot at getting the Democratic nomination. All atheists should get send money to him right away.