Isn't the whole Massachutes pamphlet thing grossly off-topic?

No, because one of the arguments against the homosexual redefinition of marriage is the bagggage that would ultimately come with it. This is an example of that. Unless of course you believe that the homosexual community will stop with the redefinition

Well... I'm not in favor of gay marriage, but you're a making a stretch if you're equating the pamphlet incident to some sort of indication that homosexuals are actively trying to change people's sexual orientation.

Or am I missing something?

NCB, I'm not going to lie.

If on a gay marriage/gay rights issue IL doesn't agree with you and can't see your point, you can safely assume that you're on your own.

I can accept that.

However, the homosexual redefinition of marriage debate boils down to govt acceptance of their lifestyles. Thus, you can logically conclude that they will insist on homosexual issues in the public school system's sex education curriculm. Do you not agree with that?

Of course I agree with that, and I expect it will be limited in much the same way heterosexual sex education is limited. I'm not at all sure what sex education program you or your kids went through but mine was pretty much limited to, "Use a condom. Use birth control." As many straight couples as gay couples engage in oral sex, anal sex, rimming, mutual masturbation, fisting, toy usage, bondage, dress up, etc. They're just things people do in their bedroom and you can guarantee that none of them are taught or talked about in sex ed at schools. Sex ed in schools is mostly a "This is how things down there work, use a condom" routine. I see no reason why that would change if gay marriage and culture were more prevalent.

You seem to assume that the gay community has an entirely different set of cultural norms compared to the straight community about what is and is not acceptable for kids to hear about. I don't know where you got that idea.

Nope. SCOTUS has not addressed the status of marriage rights for homosexuals in any way, so we don't know what their view on it is.

I think you're not quite understanding how a "suspect classification" works--it creates a burden on the state to prove that a law represents a compelling state interest, not simply that there is a state interest in the issue.

I agree that it's a social injustice, but SCOTUS has yet to rule on whether marriage as a civil right extends to homosexuals.

Marriage, is, however, a civil right in the US. SCOTUS didn't restrict that right to heterosexuals in Loving, so the issue there is still open.

Gilda

To be fair to NCB, I do often get the impression that the 'gay community' - in general (please note the emphasis) - has much more relaxed sexual mores. It's plausible to me that they might be proportionately more likely to favor pamphlets such as the one NCB displayed.

To be fair to Frosstbyte and every other dissenting voice, a single pamphlet incident doesn't even come close to making NCB's case.

And it still seems like a big leap to draw the conclusion that gay marriage will make these pamphlets acceptable to the status quo. Sounds like a slippery slope to me. And the thing about slippery slopes: if they really exist, then there's NO safe place to rest. You might as well restrict marriage to Christians, for if marriage under the wrong or no God is acceptable, then why isn't polygamy? Neither "polygamy is different because x, y, and z" nor "polygamy is also okay" actually does anything for the anti-same sex marriage side.

Nevermind that we make and stick to arbitrary standards all the time.

"If we raise the drinking age to 21, what's stopping it from going to 22 or 25?"

"Um, people who don't want it that high, that's what."

Slippery slope isn't always a fallacy. It's reasonable when the person making the claim can show a logical connection between A and predicted subsequent outcome B and provide evidence that this is likely.

The problem is that the closest you can usually get is possible, which really doesn't cut it.

Would this have been okay if the teachers added the phrase "and we must remember that they gays are gross" to the end of every explanation? I'm just trying to figure out how you can believe that the mere act of telling kids what fisting is(if they have the internet they probably already know) is an act of forcing values. Do you have kids? Do they know what fisting is? If they know what fisting is, are they also gay? Can you know what fisting is and be a completely normal hetero person? Can you learn about the different ways that all people have sex and still be a hetero person?

My wife's sister married a young man who later went to Iraq. While he was there she got pregnant with another man's baby. Before they could get divorced, he went on his second deployment and was killed by an IED within weeks of coming home where he hoped to finalize the divorce and marry his new girlfriend.

Guess who collects a check every month now and won't marry the freak she is dating because she will lose the benefits.

Benefits go to the wrong person all the time. It is just that it is too easy to sit on a moral high horse and decide that two homosexuals can't be as in love as heterosexuals and that our civilization will end if gays are afforded the same rights as the rest of us.

If Tom and Bill or Janet and Chrissy love each other give them same rights to benefits and decisions as my wife and I have.

No, I don't, because that's a totally unfounded assertion of asinine proportions containing no logic, whatsoever.

First of all, amending the definition of "marriage", or allowing for a secondary term to be created, to grant the same rights and privileges to same-sex couples as hetero couples, would mean that the government is finally recognizing the legitimacy of the rights of individuals to be unified through civil law, without regard for the sexes of the two people.

Every piece of legislation which has expanded the rights of individuals, has done so because the government recognized the legitimacy of that right.

At points in history, the government has recognized that men who do not own land should have the same right to vote as those who do, that people have the same right not to be slaves or the property of another person regardless of their skin color, that those ex-slaves (men only) should then be given the same right to vote as white men, that people who could not afford an attorney would be given the same rights and privileges as those who could afford them for representation in court, and eventually that women should be afforded the same rights to vote as men already had.

This is just another step in the growth and maturation of a society which progressively recognizes that all people- ALL PEOPLE- should be granted the same protections under the law, and the same rights and privileges the laws afford them.

Second of all, humanity is rife with examples of some yahoo or small group of yahoos who do stupid shit that messes up the image of the larger subculture they claim to be a part of or represent, who act on their own and do not in any way represent the general viewpoint of the rest of the subculture they identify with.

It seems in this case, however, that any time a person who is gay says x, y, or z about anything, or does anything, you take it as "the word" of *"the gays". You then take one random instance of a pamphlet sitting on one table at a G/L/B/TG conference and extrapolate that it's 1. public school curriculum for middle school students (which was patently false, despite your initial assertion that it was a fact) and 2. that "the gays" are trying to pervert "our kids" with their "homosexual agenda", teaching 12 year olds about rimjobs and fisting.

In conclusion: time erodes those opinions that withhold rights from the people of America. Time creates better understanding, allows for education to reach those still clutching at the issue by the puppet-strings of ignorance handed down to them, and sees to it that the rights and privileges of every individual are equal, and guaranteed by law.

*Note: Use of quotations around certain phrases is used to recreate the language used by the side i'm debating against, and are not my intentional or normal lexicon on this subject.

Bravo, analog, and well said. :icare:

We are all in a big fat group of people headed towards tomorrow. Some people are bound to be in the front of the group, and some people are bound to be in the back. By their very definition, liberals are always at the front, and conservatives are always at the back. Neither is always right or wrong, as they exist as opposing forces that keep the ultimate flow of the group steady...the thing is, that liberals always get there first.

Add my applause to Analog for the clarity of his analysis.

' how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

An extraordinary event has occured! How do we celebrate this event? Obviously, it can't involve virgins. :)

For once I actually see myself agreeing with Ustwo....... :hmm:

Anyway... supporting it or not are some of you actually going to lose sleep over it? Is it that big of a deal? Homosexuality isnt going to go away if the laws dont pass. Your kids will still end up finding out about it eventually.

Let them be, let them have a civil union or a marriage or become life partners, whatever! Your lives will still go on, I promise!

Can we please stop fighting now and just be happy? (No Sage) OK, well I tried... carry on.

I wanted to respond to this earlier, but this is the first chance I've had to get in here since this thread exploded.

First let me assure you that I have no intention of flaming you. I think you bring up good points that are worthy of discussion.

People often share similar viewpoints for exceptionally different reasons. Allow me to give you an example if I can find one that makes sense. Let's use the historical example of the abolitionists. Some abolitionists argued that slavery was wrong from a moral standpoint, claiming that the enslavement of any person or group of people is and was unjust. Others argued that slavery gave the South an unfair economic advantage but had no problem with laws that treated black Americans as less than citizens. Within historical context, our society views the second group as racists, even though they favored an end to slavery.

Now, you argue against gay marriage under the same reasoning for maintaining the illegality of polygamy and incest. I can understand why you would argue this and while I vehemently disagree, I can at least see where you are coming from. However, others are arguing against equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians because they think homosexuals are deviants and not "normal". They piggyback on the arguments of others because they have nothing outside their own bigotry on which to state their case. They're bigots, plain and simple.

As to why the term "bigot" is not used to identify those against polygamy and incest I would say: polygamy and incest are lifestyle choices. One is not born a polygamist nor an incesticist (I may have made that word up). There is evidence - thoughly hotly debated - that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Therefore, we are placing limits on what they may or may not do based upon something over which they have no choice. Marginalizing and castigating a group of people based upon a genetic trait is bigotry. Of course, many people firmly believe that homosexuality is a choice, so that makes the argument moot. Until there is definitive proof that homosexuality is either a choice or a trait, this argument will continue.

As far as putting it to a vote, the only issue I have with this is that rights are rarely granted to protect the majority. They are there to ensure that the politically powerless are not treated unjustly by the politically powerful.

Protecting the minority is central to the ideas present in the Bill of Rights.

Thank you, JJ, for pointing out something that is so incredibly important to us, whether we realize it or not.

[MOD EDIT, please see a few posts down]


That aside, if the legislature chooses to make civil unions I can easily see it getting overturned by the supreme court. Brown v. Board of Education and Bolling v. Sharp outlaw seperate but equal laws.

Thus I believe givien 1-5 years gay marriage will be legal in NJ. And hopefully the rest of the states will follow suit within 10 years of that.

Uh oh. I hear a black helicopter. :lol:

cut for brevity

Interesting, but yet, flawed argument. Its not unfounded at all. The Texas case that threw out sodomy laws led to the intensity in the homosexual redefinition of marriage debate. However, when conservatives made the claim that the case would lead to HROM, people such as yourself declared it to be a "totally unfounded assertion of asinine proportions containing no logic, whatsoever". And yet, here we are.

Perhaps its your youth, but to not recognize that issues like this affects other future issues is naive. I'll put it this way: If the govt legitimizes the HROM, how could they possibly deny the sex education to students from the homosexual perspective? Its not that much of a leap.

Our government 'advocates' for many abominations listed in the bible.

Eating food that blood in it, like hamburger "shall be cut off" (Leviticus 17:14);
Eating fruit before a tree's fifth harvest.
Tattoos.
Shaving your sideburns.
Harvesting all the fruit in your fields (you leave some for the poor).

I'm betting everyone here seeing Homosexuality as a sin have committed or condoned every sin listed above.

It's amazing how some cherry pick the sins they want out of that book and ignore the rest.

Perhaps you should actually read the thread before knee jerking a post to it. Not a single relgious argument has been referenced by those oppossed to the homosexual redefinition of marriage.

Possibly not specifically referenced, (I haven't read every single post in the thread), but that is the bedrock reason behind the opposition to it.
Lots of code gets spoken, but 'traditional meaning of marriage' is a reference to the religious aspect of it.
There is NOTHING behind the opposition to gay marriage and even civil unions, save an opinion that it's a sin and that our government shouldn't be advocating it.
If you just think two penises are 'icky' and not that it will tear apart the very fabric of reality, you wouldn't have a problem with two consenting adults entering into a relationships with benefits.

Just because you aren't a 'strong' christian, doesn't mean it's value system isn't one of your building blocks.

:lol: :lol:

Wow, this is a heck of a thread! My contribution is a quote from a comedian MC-ing the Mexican wrestling show I attended last night:

"If you're against gay sex, then you should support gay marriage. That's the *only* thing that will stop gay sex..." Bwahahaha!

Good point. Guess I'm just used to the slopes that either have no backing evidence (other than "it's logically plausible") or rely on shaky studies with questionable statistical conclusions. coughnetherlandscough.

Even in the case of a valid slippery slope, though, you still have to weigh that risk against the benefits of taking that risk. Not to mention, in this case, explain why the bottom of the slope is a bad place to be.

Well, and when it's shameless fearmongering (i.e. the bottom of the slope is "Next you'll have people marrying goats!"), the whole thing goes out the window as a logically valid argument.

Wow ... just, wow to certain responses on this thread.

I remember a discussion on these boards awhile back about the term fearmongering. Depending on how it's defined, I'm not sure that fearmongering is always logically invalid, or even always a bad thing to do. At any rate, I don't think it's sufficient merely to label such an absurd argument 'fearmongering' and then walk away from it.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why this is a bad thing, though i won't hold my breath.

Because the govt shouldnt be encouraging homosexual activity

wow. that's totally insane. Bunch of perverts running things. :eek:

The statement "You have no choice over whom you fall in love with" is a staple of the homosexual community's arguments for legalizing gay marriage. The simple fact is that two homosexuals falling in "Love" is no different than two family members falling in romantic love or man/woman falling in love with two different people of the opposite sex. It's absurd to reason that the "Love" which two homosexuals feel for each others is stronger and/or more real than the love anyone else can feel. Find a practicing polygynyst and ask him if he "Loves" his wives; Now find a practicing polyandrist and ask her if she "Loves" her husbands; Lasly, find an two people in a consenting incestral results and ask them if they "Love" each other. I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that they all feel an amount of uncontrollable "Love" for their partner(s). The only reason many things are outlawed is because society considers them taboo; Not because there's any good reason to do so.

The politically powerless in this case (Homosexuals) aren't treated unjustly. There are a slew of laws aimed specifically created to protect homosexual's rights. People seem unable to realize that simply because homosexuals aren't allowed to mary doesn't mean they are being treated unjustly. In the United States, different social groups are allowed certain privileges which other groups are not.

Yeah, you're right because learning about an activity automatically encourages someone to engage in that activity. Wait, do you have any idea how ridiculous that notion is?

The preferred committed relationship form that the vast majority of homosexuals would prefer, same-sex marriage/union, is treated differently under the law than different-sex marriage/union. For what appears to be no good reason. (At least no good reason that stands up to scrutiny, from what I've seen.)

It's possible that you could define 'just' so that this falls outside the realm of 'unjust', but it's unfair at the very least, and needlessly so.

Filth, I agree with you in general, but don't you think NCB's pamphlet was a bit too explicit? I don't consider the parents objecting to it unreasonable. Shouldn't individual parents of public school students have some control over indecency standards of the school?

You are a TFP 'junkie'.
Your presence here encourages homosexual activity. Or do you ignore that we have a 'Titty Board' where half the threads are lesbian in nature. A Full Monty that has fabric-of-reality-tearing gay sex. Off the Wayside that is virtually no holds barred. And the Links and Requests board where many are encouraged to view or request gay and lesbian content.

Why then, are you here?
You support this board by either adding your own content, such as your posts in this thread, or by giving money to help it run.

You, NCB are encouraging homosexual activity here. For SHAME.

Yeah, the pamphlet was a bit gaudy, but i doubt that's the kind of thing upon which a sex education curriculum will be based.

Parents never have ultimate control over what their children are exposed to. A parent's role should ultimately be to help the child interpret what s/he is exposed or equip the child to deal with the things the child is exposed to.

TADA!...*trumpets blaring* *WAIVING HANDS!!!*

SOMEBODY mark this date on the calendar!!!!!

Ustwo and I have actually agreed on a point in a thread!!! OMG!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

( I hope you got the humour in that Ustwo! ):thumbsup: