- The Myth of Cavemen: My favorite troublemaker, mynym, has a nice post discussing the Darwinian notion of the primitive "caveman," and how evolutionists confuse technological advance with biological – except that the existence of modern "cavemen" refutes such assumptions
- Occult Symbols: Ever wonder how Christians and fundies view various symbols? Symbols and their Meanings is a start.
- Americans for Purity (Humor?): Winning the war on m*sterbation. Oh my goodness.
I'm not sure what you mean by Christian porn Seeker, but do you really object to couples viewing movies designed to help them have better sex? Is this REALLY a tenet of Christianity? You and Aaron claim to enjoy sexuality, yet you oppose those who want to explore it. Please explain.
Also, we are clear that the Christian porn site is a joke, right Seeker?
Well, the group putting up that site outlining these "principles" for xian porn is not joking, but I find it a bit silly. But it is interesting. I don't buy it, but I put it up just out of interest.
You and Aaron claim to enjoy sexuality, yet you oppose those who want to explore it.
Not at all. Now, those who want to sell sex or make sexual perversion the law of the land, that we oppose. Me, though, I've never thought to outlaw porno, only regulate it to protect children. I find the industry appalling, and I think it unhealthy for adults, both spiritually and relationally, but I'm not a crusader. But in the family of the church, I most certainly would teach it as a dangerous and sinful activity.
Personal sexual activities must be left up to personal conscience. In your home, you can do what you want, I don't care.
Seeker,
There is absolutely NO WAY that the site is real. Go and check the other essays. They can't possibly be serious.
I think that has to be a joke Cineaste, I would hope that would not be real.
Sam, I don't want to stop anyone from exploring sexuality within limits and you are the same way. We just disagree on the limits. You may only limit it with children and rape. I may say (but don't) that we should outlaw pornography because of links to violence against women. We are both limiting someone exploring their sexuality, both for reasons to protect other individuals, we simply place the limit at different places.
I think I agree pretty much with seekr. I think the industry is sickening and preys on young women and exploits women of all ages. I think it is destructive to a person's mind and marriage (future or present). I think it should be kept away from children at all costs. But I do not believe the government should outlaw it per se.
From a Christian standpoint within the Church, I do encourage all of my youth to avoid it like the plague. But that does not mean I want to outlaw it. I think drinking and smoking are harmful, but I don't want to outlaw them either.
For the millionth time – and I'm really not sure what the confusing point here is – the difference between children/rape and EVERYTHING ELSE is consent, and the ability to consent. Why is this so complicated?
I agree that those things are worse. There is no debate from me on that fact. But you find many that say children can consent. Some say rape is part of our moral and genetic evolution.
My only point was that you place limits on sexual exploration. I agree with your limits, but you cannot say you are for complete sexual freedom. Yet, you get so shocked that we offer limits different from yours.
Again, I probably don't want to outlaw anything that you don't want to, but personally I tell people not to get involved with things you see no problem with – why is that such a huge problem for you? Are you not a live and let live person?
Aaron,
I am for sexual freedom for ADULTS. Children cannot legally consent, and so they are not entitled to sexual freedom. Incidentally, some of the people who argue against those consent laws are Mormons and Christians who believe in young marriage. The rest are pedophiles. As far as I'm concerned, I can't tell the difference between polygamists, pedophiles, and those Christians who want to marry off their children.
What your side is proposing to limit is the sexual freedom that all adults ought to have. I don't believe that government knows better than me what my sexual pleasures are with other consenting adults. Your side does.
And as for living and let live, please. Do you support a ban on gay marriage? You do? Well way to go, you're not live and let live. I don't care that you're Christian, or that Jews are Jewish, or whatever. Your side cares about gays being gay, and legislates against it.
I am for sexual freedom for ADULTS.
Me too. But I am not for officially sanctioning every type of sexual arrangement that ADULTS engage in, be they open marriages, group marriages, homosexual marriages, or filial marriages. There is a difference between prohibition, tolerance, and sanction. You want the extreme of sanction, I want tolerance, fundies want prohibition.
Seeker,
You want tolerance? If you believe that "gays should be lucky they're not executed," I'd hardly call that "tolerance." And besides, do you really want societal objection to be the rule of law for what the government does and doesn't tolerate. Let's suppose I took away your freedom to worship. Would you go along with that?
gays should be lucky they're not executed
Sam, if you really think i said that, why don't you troll through our site (pun intended) and find the quote. You'll find that this is just one of your twisted, stereotyped, demonized versions of what was actually said.
Let's suppose I took away your freedom to worship. Would you go along with that?
Of course not. But your example would be criminalization, which I have already said is wrong. I am not advocating that. Toleration means not criminalizing or sanctioning, but being neutral. In fact, the government should be neutral on religion, don't you think?
Seeker,
Banning marriage for games is de-facto criminalization. The point is that gay relationships – just as valid as your own – are legally treated differently. As usual, you mandate a position in which gays aren't jailed for their behavior, but they, and their relationships, legally become second-class. You endorse this, even though, as we have established on numerous occaisons, homosexuality will not affect you. In any way.
As for your gays are lucky quote, I'm not spending my day searching through your archives. Because you're completely obsessed with homosexuality, you've got about 75 posts up. I'm not reading the comments from each one. Nor should I have to – I remember quite clearly your implied message, which was that gays have received enough from society.
Finally, calling me a troll? You're the guy who believes that your gay friends ought to be second-class citizens. That's far more trollish than me making sure you remember that there are those of us who support our gay friends.
Sam, do you believe polygomy, open marriages, etc. should be recongized by the government as equal to two person marriage?
I think that the logical restriction upon marriage is two-person marriage. That's how I would define it, and not because I object to polygamy, or open marriages, but because it is impractical to demand of insurance companies that they provide coverage for people with two, three, or more spouses. I think we can all agree that for practicality's sake, the line needs to be drawn at two-person marriages.
Incidentally, I don't object to polygamy per se (although I do object to the Christians who openly tolerate it while calling for the second-class citizenship of gays), or open marriages. Who cares what other people want to do with their lives? Certainly not me. I'm not offended that any of you are Christians, just as you shouldn't be offended that I have a child out of wedlock, and I live with my girlfriend (who isn't my daughter's mother).
That, whatever the reasoning, is limiting sexual freedoms for adults. I agree with you on your reasons not do allow it and I also object to anyone participating in polygomy and thinking they have any moral standing in condemning gay marriage. But you are for limiting those freedoms, just not for religious reasons (which we have stated non-religious reasons before, you disagree with those, so that puts us back at square one).
I could simply say, as you often fall back on, that despite your rhetoric you really hate polygomists and want to make them second-class citizens. Sure you may say you have no problem with them, but your actions speak otherwise.
I don't think that, but see how frustrating that can become.
I am not offended by your choices or anyone else's personal choices. I am not offended by the gay couple. Disagreeing with someone's decisions is not the same as being offended. I may find you and your girlfriend the gay couple down the street as wonderful people who I would go out to eat with, but I can still disagree with choices made. I can still believe that the best situation that should be encourage more is man/woman marriage for life. I can say why I don't think living together, gay marriage or divorce is the best thing, while not being offended by those people or holding any ill will toward them.
I think that the logical restriction upon marriage is two-person marriage. That's how I would define it, and not because I object to polygamy, or open marriages, but because it is impractical to demand of insurance companies that they provide coverage for people with two, three, or more spouses
You make Aaron's point. Using a financial explanation to justify a moral position is invalid. It's like me saying "if we recognize gay marriages, we'll have to shell out more in company benefits and insurance."
Your previous argument about "victims" in polygamy fails too, because there are victims in two person marriages, and theoretically, there can be polygamist situations in which everyone is consenting and happy.
So now why do you stand against polygamy? I'd say your position must be surrendered, and using your logic, you MUST support it, or find a valid reason not to.
You are relegating polygamy to the same "second class" that you accuse us of regarding gays.
The fact is, the most logical, natural, biological and social stand is that lifetime heterosexual marriages are best. Others may be tolerated, but not promoted or sanctioned. The main reason that homosexuality persists is for the same reason that ADD or other personality disorders exist – biological mishaps, and emotional developmental problems.
In no way am I standing against polygamy. Did you even read what I wrote? As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason polygamous marriages shouldn't exist – it's just that requiring insurerers to cover an endless number of spouses is highly unrealistic. Which is why the law needs to be written in such a way as to allow for insurance companies to limit coverage on a single spouse.
And in no way am I standing against sexual freedoms. Again, I fully endorse the polygamist who wants 100 wives (if he can find 100 willing women). What I object to is a law requiring coverage of 100 spouses.
Here's the thing about my position on polygamists versus your position on gays: polygamists can have multiple wives, and one of them can receive insurance coverage (amongst all of the other benefits that accompany marriage). Gay couples can't get anything, because your side is busy writing discrimination into state Constitutions, which forever forces gays into second-class citizenship. Seeker doesn't care about that, but Aaron, from time to time you've hinted that you're aware of the pain that your position is causing. I think you're closer to understanding how declaring gays relationships to be totally worthless might be a sign of hatred. Deep down, I think you understand how deeply and righteously unfair it is to say that the love shared by two men (my members of my family, and probably yours, and by our neighbors) is worthless, whereas the love I share with my girlfriend is full of worth that the government is more than happy to protect. You understand what your position means.
If you genuinely believe that a man/woman marriage for life is the best, make that the law Aaron. Outlaw divorce. Take positions consistent with that belief. Don't just single out the gays and say, "Well, there's no chance with you, so you don't get any legal recognition." Go the whole hog and follow through with EQUAL support of laws that ban multiple marriages, divorces, and strengthen marriage laws so as to prevent people from being casually married. Or does your support end at what is, in essense, gay hatred?
Seeker meanwhile? He thinks he's helping gays by hating them viciously, so it's not even worth the effort.
In my perfect world, gay couples could get certain rights through other means – visitation, inhertance, etc. I agree with legislation proposed in CO that got James Dobson in trouble for supporting homosexuals. Yeah, it happens.
The legislation would allow couples of any sort gay couple, living together couple, two sister living together, etc. to get certain rights that it is only logical they have. I am not against that. I am against forcing the entire nation through judicial fiat to recognize same sex marriages.
As to what I would do as far as going all the way. If I said, I want to outlaw divorce you would rip me to shreds. Just as I don't think homosexuality should be outlawed, I don't think divorce should be outlawed. I belief divorce should be limitd, rare and for specific, good reasons. I hate when marriage is made a mockery of by people like Brittney Spears and others. I have said they have done more damage to the institution than a committed gay couple would. You are right in that heterosexuals have done a very poor job of upholding marriages, but that is not a reason to further dilute the institution.
I'm sure the position I take does hurt the emotions of gay people. Louis has ventured to hating me and other Christians for what he sees as our hatred or treatment of him and other gay people. This will sound condescending but I can't think of a better example – I hurt my son's feelings a good bit when I do something I know is right, but he doesn't know why.
If God created us to be in one man/one woman unions for life then we harm ourselves in some way by engaging in any other variation from that. That is my faith based reasoning behind not supporting divorce, living together or gay marriage. Not hatred toward the individuals involved or being offended by their behavior, but understanding what God has established as the best and seeing people settle for less than that.
But I do understand the personal feelings involved and the pain involved, especially for someone like Josh. Louis can hate us and move on. Josh is pulled in opposite directions and I feel for people like him even more so.
I can believe something to be true while still acknowledging the fact that the truth I believe hurts when people are confronted with it.
This will sound condescending but I can't think of a better example – I hurt my son's feelings a good bit when I do something I know is right, but he doesn't know why.
Aaron, Louis is an adult and for you to say this…
Again it was a poor example, that should not be taken any farther than I meant it and I was clear from the start that it wasn't supposed to be condescending, so don't try to push something that isn't there Cineaste.
No matter what example I try to give, it can be taken out of context and used to bash me over the head with. But if that's what y'all want to do – go ahead.
Aaron,
That's part of the problem right there, believing that Louis and your son are somehow comparable. Let's try a variation on that – I have to correct my daughter's opinions sometimes when she doesn't think them through, just like Aaron's. Do you enjoy it being believed that you're no more mature, or self-aware, than a child? Really? You don't? Unreal.
Also, enough of that "judicial fiat" card. Are you telling me that if a majority of Americans elected pro-gay legislators, and those legislators legalized gay marriage, you wouldn't be up in arms about it? Come on now. Of course you'd be.
Aaron,
We want to bash you over the head because we know that you're smarter, and more aware, than the position you're advocating. We hold out no such hope for Seeker, who long ago proved that he is so consumed with gay hatred – because of experimentation earlier in his life that he no regrets – that's there's no talking logically with him. But you're smart, and capable. You know that it isn't fair to tell gays that they're worthless legally, and you know that it isn't fair to support only anti-gay-marriage legislation. I'd prefer that you did advocate anti-divorce legislation, because at least you'd be consistent. But Christians don't support anti-divorce legislation, because they're fundamentally unserious about marriage. They only want to ensure that gays don't get in. And you know that.
Well, I can see now that this discussion is going to hinge on a poorly expressed example instead of my stated positions, so I'm not sure what is left.
As to judicial fiat – what do you think happened in Mass. when the court said the legislature had to pass gay marriage?
Would I oppose national gay marriage if every elected official supported it? Yes, that is not currently the case. Now, it is strictly judges that forcing gay marriage on states.
But if your scenario happened, I would oppose it, but I would not claim a judicial fiat, I would view it as another bad law passed by the legislature.
But again by the judicial fiat I mean only the current situation we have.
The court looked at legislation passed by the legislature and declared that it functioned in opposition to the state's Constitution. That happens all the time, and that's the way things should be. Also, since you're so keen on Massachusetts, what has happened there as a result of gay marriage? Pillars of salt? Rivers of fire? Upward ticks in child abuse? Is there any evidence from Massachusetts that supports your position? Any evidence at all?
No, what happens is that the Courts say this law is unconstitutional. Then the legislature writes another one and it is deemed okay or not, by the courts. In Mass, the courts told the Legilslature they had so many days to legalize gay marriage – that is totally different.
Did I ever claim that any of those things would happen? No, so don't label me with those. I'm not sure what the evidence from there indicates yet. It would be irresponsible to evaluate anything with the limited amount of data we have now – it may benefit "my side" or "your side" now, I don't know. But we should have a more long term look at the impac ton society and culture there.
Again, if Mass. wants it, then go ahead. I think it does serve as a good indicator for gay marriage on a larger scale. But the last time someone evaluated gay marriage and came away with results that did not support gay marriage, the researcher was attacked. What if the results looked bad for gay marriage, would you then not support it? Because on my end, I would most likely not change my position as to homosexual acts being a sin, but I could be persuaded to allow for gay marriage if everything shows that it does no harm to marriage or culture. Can you say the same?
which forever forces gays into second-class citizenship.
And polygamists, and bestialists, and polyamorists. So what? We can't approve of every deviance with the argument that to not include them makes them "second class." Gender and ethnicity are traits, homosexuality is a behavior. Guess what? Gays have all of the same ethnic and gender protections that everyone else has.
I think you're closer to understanding how declaring gays relationships to be totally worthless might be a sign of hatred.
No one is saying they are totally worthless. htey are sinful. I'm sure gays derive some comfort from such relationships.
If you genuinely believe that a man/woman marriage for life is the best, make that the law Aaron. Outlaw divorce.
Why would you want us to use such extremist logic? I assume you are saying that this is the logical approach, but of course, this is part of the liberal fearmongering, and the confusion between values and how they should be implemented.
As we have said, just because we hold a value about something doesn't mean we legislate. There are principles about what should and should not be legislated, and whether we need to prohibit, regulate, remain neutral, or support various activities through legislation.
That's why we have different rules for different "dangerous" or immoral actitivities. Why do we legislate differently for tobbacco than we do for the driving age? Why is theft more serious than, say, covething? What is the difference between sanctioning gay marriage and merely allowing it, vs. criminalizing it?
The simple answer to your question is an answer which you have already rejected. Christians aren't interested in creating an extensive penal code that punishes all sins. They ARE interested in laws which PRESERVE, including preserving domestic tranquility, and the integrity of the family. Rewarding good behavior (marriage) is a better system than penalizing bad behaviors, though you probably think they amount to the same thing. And Christians also understand the limits of legislation.
Christians are, however, working hard at limiting divorce, but they don't, like many liberals, look to the government to do all of their work for them. They actively offer workshops and counseling. And quite honestly, the only reason that they are pushing for a marriage amendment is not because they are intent on using legislation to MAKE people change, but to PROTECT the country from people who want to dilute and attack marriage, which is a key component of our civil society.
You might as well ask us to go back to polygamous clans if you want to go this route.
Seeker, you're such an asshole. How many times do you have to be told that comparing gays to beastiophiles is simply beyond the pale, simply cruel, simply simple? Quit being such an outright asshole. You claim that you don't hate gays, but you don't see any difference between consensual sex between adults and animal rape? Seriously? You're beyond comprehension sometimes. And homosexual being a behavior? You're such a liar. How can you look at the millions of gays who claim to have been born gay and claim to know better than them? How can you be so arrogant, so full of your own opinion?
And Aaron, I'm glad to see that you at least oppose the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. Or at least, that's what you seemed to suggest.
Finally, gays are trying to "attack" marriage? By participating in it? Are you serious?
OK, well, I’m done.
Seeker, you’re such an asshole. How many times do you have to be told that comparing gays to beastiophiles[The term is zoophilia or zoophiles, the behavior is bestiality.] is simply beyond the pale, simply cruel, simply simple? Quit being such an outright asshole. You claim that you don’t hate gays, but you don’t see any difference between consensual sex between adults and animal rape?
The structure of your argument is ironic because it is a basic appeal to conscience and consciousness based on sight (“Just look, see!”) and yet you’d reject its application thus: “You don’t see any difference between sex between a man and a woman and sex between two men and want them treated the same?”
You reject the same type of common senses combined with basic natural categories at times so it is not clear how you can rely on them in the case of zoophilia or any other sexual disorienation. A zoophile could make all the arguments of a homophile and in fact they do. Interesting to note that your notion of consent being at play in the proper relation of man and animal relies on anthropomorphization, unless you get the consent of every animal you’ve eaten. Humans never get the consent of animals for anything, so what is the real basis for your condemnation of zoophiles?
Seriously? You’re beyond comprehension sometimes. And homosexual being a behavior? You’re such a liar. How can you look at the millions of gays who claim to have been born gay and claim to know better than them?
Equivocation, it seems that most Gay© activists feel that they can define the term “gay” however they will at any given time simply because they choose to self-define as Gay©. Still, shifting the meaning of words as you speak is a form of lying. That’s probably why you’re projecting and say, “You’re such a liar.” just before you go into your version of the typical equivocation.
How can you be so arrogant, so full of your own opinion?
Hmmm….does he self-define by his own opinions, desires and so on?