Re: Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'

jesshc <jesshc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:
:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:> jesshc <jesshc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> : Louis Epstein wrote:
:> :> jesshc <jesshc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> : Louis Epstein wrote:
:> :> :> I said a SOCIALLY useful purpose...as in "ask not what your country
:> :> :> can do for you,ask what you can do for your country."
:> :> :
:> :> : So it is socially destructive to promote stable, loving relationships?
:> :>
:> :> It is socially destructive not to discourage SAME-SEX SEXUAL relationships...
:> :
:> : Yes, you keep saying that. What evidence lead you to that
:> : conclusion? What is it about same-sex relations that damages society?
:>
:> Busy adjusting your blinkers so you can keep missing the point,eh?
:
: It's funny you should say that, while once again not actually
: presenting any evidence to support your assertions.

You keep ducking the point so you can pretend it's not there.

:> THEY ARE SAME-SEX!
:> THAT IN ITSELF IS HARMFUL!!
:
: Maybe if you say it a few more times, it will magically become true
: without your ever having to actually present any evidence.

No matter how many times you deny it,
it won't magically become false or
lacking in being self-evident.

:> Am I shouting loud enough to get past your earplugs?
:
: Everyone is well aware of your bias. Shouting doesn't make you
: right. Repeating your assertions doesn't make you right. What I'm
: asking for is EVIDENCE of your ASSERTIONS. Something like, say, a
: peer-reviewed article demonstrating a correlation between homosexual
: marriage and social harm.

And I keep telling you,
merely BEING a homosexual marriage CONSTITUTES social harm.

You're like someone who demands proof water is wet.


: Understand? I'm not asking you to REPEAT your assertion, I'm asking
: you to SUPPORT it with objective, verifiable evidence. I don't think
: you can. I'll accept your continued repetition of your assertions as
: admission you can't, but might not stop making fun of you for it.

I won't consider your denial of the obvious any more sensible
than I already do.

:> :> society's obligation to those in such relationships with regard to those
:> :> relationships is to help them LEAVE AND END those relationships.
:> :
:> : WHY is it "society's obligation" to do that? So far, all we've got is
:> : "because Louis says so."
:>
:> What we've got is screamingly obnoxious defiance of the
:> most fundamental biological norms that you are trying to
:> pretend is inoffensive.
:
: Dodge noted.

YOU'RE the one who refuses to see facts.

:> :> The analogy,again,is to alcoholics and drinking...
:> :> they'd love to have more drinks but what they need
:> :> is to be sober!
:> :
:> : Yeah, too bad that analogy doesn't work, since you haven't actually
:> : demonstrated that homosexuality harms society in any way. You just
:> : keep repeating the assertion.
:>
:> You keep denying the harm homosexuality causes just by existing,
:> and you don't reduce it one iota through your wilful ineducability.
:
: I reject your assertion because I've never seen any evidence
: supporting it.

I'm sure you've seen it...just denied that it is evidence.

: If you've got some, let me repeat my invitation to you:
: please support your assertion with objective, verifiable
: evidence, or I will accept your failure to do so as admission you
: can't.

I doubt there's anything you'd ADMIT is "objective,
verifiable evidence",because your mind is made up
that wrong is really right.

:> A society that does not exclusively prefer opposite-sex relationships
:> is damaged thereby.
:
: You're lying.

Your own attitude is evidence of the damage!

:> :> :> A same-sex couple having a relationship doesn't do as much for society
:> :> :> as an opposite-sex couple (per se),and seeing such a relationship
:> :> :> treated as if it were equally worthy is intrinsically harmful.
:> :> :
:> :> : Can you be a little more specific about how that would be
:> :> : "intrinsically harmful" about same-sex couples, or what you think
:> :> : the difference in terms of benefits is between that and opposite sex
:> :> : couples? Maybe provide some support for your assertion?
:> :>
:> :> Once more...BEING SAME-SEX is what makes the relationships bad,
:> :> and it's really that simple.
:> :
:> : Repeating your assertion isn't supporting your assertion, but neither
:> : is it a surprise. Admit you can't be more specific, and can't support
:> : your assertion.
:>
:> Repeating your denial doesn't discredit my assertion.
:
: Of course it does. You haven't supported it; it is therefore an
: "unsupported assertion." Unsupported assertions are rejected because
: they're unsupported. YOU are making the claim that "homosexuality is
: harmful;" it isn't up to me or anyone else to make any effort to
: support your assertion.

There's no RATIONAL basis to see homosexuality as other than harmful.

:> Admit you don't have any reason to defend same-sex relationships!
:
: Why would I do that? What others do is of no concern to me as long as
: it doesn't harm me. On the other hand, the attempt to deny people
: their rights IS a threat to me, if for no other reason because of the
: possibility of becoming denial of MY rights. YOU wish to deny
: homosexuals the right to love and marry whomever they happen to fall
: in love with.

You wish to invent a definition of "marry" that permits its extension
to persons not of the opposite sex,when the persons being of opposite
sexes is THE MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTIC of marriage.

You are essentially denying MY right to marry someone I might fall in
love with by substituting something other than marriage for marriage.


:> The only argument seen in favor of them boils down to a spoiled
:> toddler's scream of "But I WANNAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" as if
:> this can justify anything if shouted loud enough,long enough,
:> self-righteously enough,and with enough blindness to the unworthiness
:> of the desire.
:
: It's amusingly ironic that you use the term "self-righteous" in your
: zeal to deny people the right to marry and love whom they chose.

People all have the same right to marry and love
PERSONS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX...and that's as it
should be.

Take out that cornerstone and the institution becomes
of no positive value...and to the extent that it fails
to provide needed discouragement of same-sex relationships,
of NEGATIVE value.

:> :> Sexes exist for each other.
:> :
:> : No, people exist for each other. Sex exists to propagate the species.
:>
:> Not all species use sex to propagate.
:> Where the species do have sexes,
:
: Lose your train of thought?

was editing back and forth.

Where species do have sexes,they exist for each other.
They don't constitute the species within themselves.

:> :> Same-sex couples are bad role models for those struggling
:> :> to suppress same-sex attraction,
:> :
:> : Are you speaking from experience? How many same-sex couples have you
:> : observed, and what did your observations reveal about the impact on
:> : society of those relationships? What was your methodology?
:>
:> I'm speaking from rationality,
:
: So far, you've demonstrated otherwise.

Quite the opposite.

:> something hated and feared by all
:> who crazy-glue their eyes shut to
:> the intrinsic irrationality of
:> homosexual activity.
:
: Did you chose to be heterosexual?

Non sequitur.
Heterosexuality is normative for all sexually dimorphic species.

:> :> and suppression is the only responsible reaction to same-sex attraction.
:> :
:> : Because Louis Epstein, the arbiter of responsibility, has deemed it
:> : so, apparently.
:>
:> I do hope I'm not the last,
:> I certainly wasn't the first,
:> person to understand this fact.
:
: Hardly a "fact," unless you've got more than your bigotry to support
: your assertions.

Truth and standards of conduct are not "bigotry".
Telling alcoholics to be sober isn't "bigotry".
It's not "bigotry" that puts a note on my driver's
license that my INFERIOR vision must be CORRECTED
to the only kind people SHOULD have for me to be
allowed to drive.

Some traits have normal and SUBnormal forms....
when it comes to sexual orientation,it's an
objective fact,not "hatred" toward anyone,
that homosexuality is the WORSE kind.

:> :> :> We need to help people in same-sex relationships LEAVE AND END
:> :> :> those relationships,not provide assistance in persisting in them;
:> :> :> same-sex marriage is like subsidizing drinks for alcoholics.
:> :> :
:> :> : No, it's like people in love getting married. You want to prevent
:> :> : that because you don't like it.
:> :>
:> :> No,it's like people who don't understand what kind of love
:> :> justifies sex trying to get their poor judgement endorsed
:> :> by those who ought to be correcting it.
:> :
:> : "What kind of love justifies sex." "Those who ought to be correcting
:> : it."
:> :
:> : It's good you're the arbiter of what other people should or shouldn't
:> : be doing. I imagine the world would fall apart if that job fell to
:> : someone else.
:>
:> It's in bad enough shape with people making wrong choices as it is.
:
: "Wrong" in this case being "that which offends Louis."

I think my judgement is clearly better than yours.

:> :> (And no,race [which has nothing to do with a sexual relationship]
:> :> is not at all analogous to sex [which is the foundation of it] in
:> :> terms of qualifications to have a sexual relationship).
:> :
:> : Used to be. Fortunately, laws were passed to rectify the situation.
:> : Too bad for you.
:>
:> Baloney.
:
: Not in the least. Just inconvenient for you.
:
:> A law that treats race as a factor has never been justifiable,
:> for all that they have existed.
:
: Of course it was "justifiable." It lead to the "mongrelization" of
: the races.

Nonsense argument.

:> A law that treats sex as if it ISN'T a factor will never be justifiable,
:> for all that some now exist.
:
: Again, the only thing you have to justify that is your bigotry.

Nothing bigoted about it.

Being black is in NO way about CHOOSING TO DO SOMETHING STUPID;
but being "gay" is about nothing else!!

:> :> :> : But where I do draw the line is when a private party is forced to
:> :> :> : recognize any such union, contrary to their own values. People should
:> :> :> : not be forced to act against their own values system, even if the
:> :> :> : majority thinks that values system is wrong.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Of course the "equality" crowd regard any exercise of freedom
:> :> :> of association that does not unconditionally welcome them as
:> :> :> "discrimination".
:> :> :
:> :> : You're free to associate, or not, with who you want. You should not
:> :> : be allowed to deny others their rights based upon your religious
:> :> : preferences.
:> :>
:> :> I think you'll find that in many cases they will insist on
:> :> the "right" to oblige others to associate with them when they
:> :> would rather not.
:> :
:> : Do you have a real-life example of this, or are you just asserting
:> : again? Gays come knocking on your door and insist you let them in?
:> : Force you to go to gay bars? Invite you to gay weddings?
:> :
:> :> I am not nor have I ever been religious!
:> :
:> : You're lying.
:>
:> Now I KNOW you're not worth arguing with!!!
:
: Then support your assertion without reference to religious bigotry.

Neither religion nor bigotry plays any role in
the obvious determination that heterosexual
relationships need to be upheld as the preferred
form for sexually dimorphic species.

:> I have never believed that the Infinitely First Cause of Existence
:> writes books about itself,founds official fan clubs for itself,or
:> picks favorite ethnic groups...and my life history bears this out
:> completely.
:
: Then upon what objective, verifiable evidence do you base your
: objections to homosexuality?

There is no objective reason on which to base FAILURE to object
to homosexual activity.

:> But because you can't bear to imagine that any argument against
:> the total sacredness and infallibility of homosexuality can come
:> from anything but "religious" reasons,you will not face any reality
:> that doesn't suit your preconceptions.
:
: Your unsupported assertions do not reflect "reality."

The unsupported assertions are entirely on YOUR side.

:> Reality is,two persons being of the same sex should forbid sexual
:> activity between them and that's simple secular common sense.
:
: No, unless you can provide objective, verifiable evidence otherwise,
: that's religious bias.

Not a religious issue,
and not subject to RATIONAL doubt.

The denial you revel in is anything but rational.

:> Reality is,arguing with you is a waste of time
:> but letting people who share your delusions totally
:> control public policy on homosexuality is worse.
:
: You should move to Iran. They hang people for being homosexual.

They're religious bigots,
I'm not.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Light speed in emission theory
    ... Please produce the empirical evidence to support your assertion ... Newtonian equations fail. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Light speed in emission theory
    ... Please produce the empirical evidence to support your assertion ... Newtonian physics does not support a finite speed of light. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Report: Pedophilia more common among gays
    ... presenting any evidence to support your assertions. ... You mean your unsupported assertion? ... :>: demonstrated that homosexuality harms society in any way. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Report: Pedophilia more common among gays
    ... You have yet to provide ANY evidence that there is ANY harm resulting ... from same-sex marriage or homosexuality. ... assertion, it is rejected as merely an example of your bigotry. ... merely made another unsupported assertion. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: For new head of Boy Scouts, mentoring is key
    ... I didn't ask for the basis of an assertion. ... not 'evidence' given that you clearly disagree with me. ... I defy you to find any such quote which would directly support the ...
    (rec.scouting.issues)
Loading