Theodore's World

I wonder how frequent were the similar incidents as racism was being phased out? How many parents were outraged when schools started teaching that its not acceptable to look down on blacks and restrict them? I am quite sure there were more than a few parent's upset that schools were undermining their moral values.

They dont have reasoning skills, true. But then, why would they need them? The anti-homosexual campaigners ive debated with have been universally lacking in reasoning skills, and rely mostly on either using promiscuity as a straw man or on such pathetic fallacies as 'its not natural.'

If schools are not allowed to teach anything that some parents disagree with, there isn't anything left that they can teach.

When I posted that I had only watched the first video. On seeing the second, I add that their reasoning ability is definatly there - and very good for their age too. It needs practice, but some of those students are going to grow up to be very skilled debaters :>

Finally, the words at the end.

"If suddenly everyone on earth were to turn gay, there would be no one left on earth to procreate. And within 100 years, everyone on the planet would be dead and humanity would cease to exist. A society that cannot bring forth a new generation through procreation is a society doomed to eternal extinction. How then can homosexuality be right, when it clearly leads us down the path of destruction and annihilation?"

This serves well as an example of the poor arguments I mentioned in my first post (I am sorry for giving you three in suscession). As an argument, its terrible. For a start, its factually wrong - homosexuals can raise children, they just need some assistance. Worse than that though, its premise condition - that everyone on earth could turn gay - is completly rediculous. By the same logic, if everyone on earth were to choose celibacy, they would destroy humanity - therefore the Catholic Church as well as many others are all teaching their priests to do wrong. Humanity does not act as one collective - we have individuality, and there is certinly no shortage of breeders. The argument is just rediculous in so many ways, I can barely begin to address them all here. Quite simply, homosexuality does not threaten the existance of humanity. And never will.

Suricou:

The simplistic argument that universal homosexuality would end in de-population provides you an opportunity for a post as fatuous as the claim itself. Your second post is the evidence. Several wild assumptions reinforced by your usual banalities.

We have no reliable data to prove or sustain the argument that children raised by homosexuals are unaffected by the arrangement. So the error is yours, as well. Very few cultures of any complexity, even if they've tolerated homosexual practices, considered them "natural". Ridiculous. They're marginal, which is a necessary assumption in the claims of your third post, so you have no idea what your even saying.

Your lapse into the stupidity...yes, stupidity, of equating racism and its consequences in the civil rights battles in this country, with the normalization of homosexual conduct by the schools, disqualfies you from the argument. Gay rights activists intentionally developed the tactic of converting the issue from a moral question to a civil rights issue. In the strictest sense, what's the right at hand? Marriage? They already have a right to marriage.

If you approve or homosexuality, who cares? Just don't pretend you have logical, moral, or civil rights concerns. You don't. In your case, it's more cheap righteousness.

And, there is one universal truth, as evident as gravity.

No smug liberal like Suricou Raven can EVER prove, or even describe in the simplest terms, why his/her liberal moral system is superior to any other.

They all believe in dozens of arguable and capricious things, they all malign others whose beliefs conflict with theirs, but NEVER can prove either a historical precedent or a practical imperative for the crap they present as proof of
the good live.

It's all a steaming crock of shit.

It seems like all good Libs, Suricou, has an aversion for this perversion. One must wonder about a person who writes three post on the subject, in defense of Homosexuality... indeed it makes one wonder

Liberalism is a set of ideas with no feedback loop. As a liberal, you never have to review the effect of your policies of the validity of your ideas. You just go on and on and on, yammering about the same old crap while perpetuating the stupidities and failures of liberalism.

In the bad old days of segregation, black Americans had a lower divorce rate, a lower rate of illegitimacy, a higher rate of business ownership and a lower per capita crime rate.

This isn't an argument for segregation, but forty-five years after The Great Society commenced its catastrophic destruction of the black family, only 33% of black females marry, over 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock (mostly to teenagers), fully 25% of all black males under the age of 25 are either in jail, awaiting trial
or on probation. Ask a liberal what to do about this? More of the same.

This didn't happen because of any innate tendency among blacks; it happened because liberals ALWAYS see life in terms of people like themselves, never consider that a bedrock of economic theory is the behavior of people at the margins. The civil rights revolution was necessary and good, but the policies of liberalism, created to correct the injustices, made black males irrelevant and prone to exploit black women, and therefore began to destruction of the norms and social habits that upheld black family life. Conservatives didn't do this, liberals did. Destigmatize something, and the next worst thing is then destigmatized, until moral codes dissipate entirely.

And if I hear any more bullshit from some pinhead British liberal about Christianity underwriting racism, IT WAS THE CHRISTIAN REFORMISTS AND ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT THAT LED TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT! It's the secular and officially atheist societies of the last century that slaughtered millions, not Christians. Suricou Raven has been prattling about religion since she first showed up here. She's utterly clueless about Christianty, Islam, too, for that matter.

Abortion and gay marriage are just such issues. White elite judges can't conceive of an epidemic of abortion because THEY and their kind wouldn't participate in it. They can't conceive of a corrosive effect of "marriage" (which is a institution of protection for women and children) by including gays in the system, because they don't understand the institution. There isn't a liberal on this green planet who understands that. Idiots. If you don't know why the fence is there, you have no right to knock it down.

Yeaaah! Go Army, Go Rhod ... and now a word from the Khe Sanh chorus:

Born on a mountain top raised by Bears, double jaw boned three coats of hair, cast Iron Ba**s and a Blue Steel R*d, I am a mean MF, I'm a Marine by God.

Oh and Sicko come back when you can conjure up a pair.

I'm almost afraid to come back here myself.

"If you approve or homosexuality, who cares? Just don't pretend you have logical, moral, or civil rights concerns. You don't. In your case, it's more cheap righteousness."

If you disapprove, why are you unable to back up your disapproval with any good arguments? The best you seem able to offer is an endless repetition of 'its immoral!' and the hope that saying so often enough will make it true. My rightousness may be cheap, but yours is no better.

"Gay rights activists intentionally developed the tactic of converting the issue from a moral question to a civil rights issue. In the strictest sense, what's the right at hand? Marriage? They already have a right to marriage."

They did. Just as their opposing counterparts developed the tactic of deliberatly ignoring the civil rights issue and endlessly claiming that homosexuality is inherently immoral. Though they never state exactly why this is. Any suggestion of the civil rights issue is rejected by simply denying the problem exists, as you just demonstrated.

A right to heterosexual marriage is about as much use to a homosexual as having th legal right to marry a plant would be to you. You would have the right to marriage, but you really wouldn't want to use it.

"And if I hear any more bullshit from some pinhead British liberal about Christianity underwriting racism, IT WAS THE CHRISTIAN REFORMISTS AND ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT THAT LED TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT!"

It was Christians on both sides! Do I have to dig up quotes? I shouldn't need to go to that much trouble. People decided if they were for or against slavery, and then regardless of their position they turned to their religion to find some quoteable verses to support it.

"Destigmatize something, and the next worst thing is then destigmatized, until moral codes dissipate entirely."

Only sarcasm is a fit response to this: Clearly, this all started when people stoped stoneing adulterers. I mean, if you make adultery no longer a capital offence, next you are encouraging pornography, homosexuality, rape and pedophilia! Only by killing adulterers can the collapse of society be avoided.

"It's the secular and officially atheist societies of the last century that slaughtered millions, not Christians."

And for all of recorded history before that? Lets not forget the on-and-off wars in the middle east, for which religion is a major cause. And, of course, there were the Nazi's... very much a Christian society, though religion was quite low-down on their list of reasons to have a go at taking over the world. The closest to 'officially' atheist major countries I can think of are soviet russia and China. An impressive death-toll between them, but one aquired in the name of power. Not religion, or lack thereof.

"They can't conceive of a corrosive effect of "marriage" (which is a institution of protection for women and children) by including gays in the system, because they don't understand the institution. There isn't a liberal on this green planet who understands that."

'If you dont agree with me, you must be incapable of reasoning.' This is not an argument. Would you try to explain exactly *how* including homosexuals will 'corrode' marriage? Just stateing that it will does not make it true.

Simple Sicko, can they reproduce themselves. That is the issue.

you insist on your perverted view of the issue and offer nothing more that Left-wing talking points, which tend to confuse the issue, by giving a 'Gay' couple credibility.

So you are the one with the ball in your court, now try to bat it back. Lets hear more of your left wing Nonsense and Nitwittery, so we can sling it back at you.

Back to front.

The reasons for concubinage, marriage and other forms of "families" has varied over the ages, but all the unions have attempted to protect the least capable of defending themselves, women and children. The purposes for that institution remains the same; redefining it to include other forms of union, including polyandry, polygamy, and polyamory, or homosexual marriage will all change the relationship until it means nothing. That you don't understand this is typical. You cannot prove that children will be unaffected by homosexual unions, and you avoid this topic because you have no answer to it.

You haven't a clue as to the reasons for the wars in the East, most of which occurred for territorial, water trade and tribal reasons...most of them were Muslim wars except for those where Muslims displaced Christians and other groups, for the purposes of conquest. Try to learn something. Salafism is the current jihadist trend, and is largely the result of political forces rather than religious ones.

The Nazi state was a proto-pagan state. Don't bore me with the cliche that it was a Christian state. Again, try to learn what you're talking about. Start with Dietrich Bonhoffer.

Bingo. China and the Soviet Union. Your conclusion that "power" was the reason for mass murder and not religion is ignorance of a colossal sort. Right. Power unrestrained by objectively morality. Try to learn what you're talking about. This is pathetic.

I have no idea how to answer your buffoonish comment about destigmatization. Try to be more precise. Read your own posts, and most of all, explain the process by which, for instance, crime is rampant in your country. Think about the complexities before you shoot your mouth off. My case about African-American culture stands.

Your remark that Christians "from both sides" were responsible for ending/continuing slavery is the kind of fautuous equivalence I would expect of a four year old swatting another four-year old and claiming "He did it first!" If you claim that some Christians were slave owners, what a dazzling conclusion! Christianity is therefore discredited! The Suricou argument can then be used to defame homosexuality because of the conduct of homosexual priests. You're utterly clueless about the implications of your own commentary.

The answer to your silly remark about homosexuals having no legitimate access to marriage is answered by gays themselves, many of whom have no interest in marriage but are resolved to the activist position. Even Andrew Sullivan has conceded that gay marriage is unlikely to alter the astonishing level of promiscuity among gays. It's largely an attempt to stick a thumb-in-the-eye to straight society.

I mentioned the moral issue twice, but to a fanatic like you, Suricou Raven, that's endless repetition. Let's just say you don't like the word because it points up the weird way in which you sanitize difficult human propositions of "morality", because you're an agnostic or atheist, and the whole question sticks in your craw.

You're essentially a nattering amatuer on questions of religion and questions of morality. The underlying morality against homosexual unions and actions (I couldn't care less about them) has descended from perception about the objective dangers and sinfulness (in some cases) of such unions, or discouraged by tribal sanctions where such unions were considered subversive for health reasons or for reasons of tribal stability. Whether any of this is functional now is up for debate, but people like you won't even enter INTO the debate. Again. YOU CANNOT PROVE THE OBJECTIVE SUPERIORIY OF YOUR "MORALITY" SO YOU DISPARAGE THE COMPETING MORALITIES. Admit it for a change.

The troubles in the Catholic Church recently were not cases of pedophilia, they were the result of widespread acceptance of homosexual conduct within a closed organization; it is fair to assume that these practices are risky enough to require some social considerations of the consequences of normalizing homosexuality. Neither you nor I know the answer to that. But I'm willing to consider it while you simply wallow in your dead-end sanctimony and pieties about racism and "morals" you find offensive. What a joke. You're the best argument AGAINST gay marriage. Your vapid defense of the issue leaves everyone in the dark, especially you.

Rhod and Mark, LMAO gosh I love you guys!

I'll employ Suricou logic for this question.

The first slaves purchased in North America (Aug 20, 1619) were bought by John Rolfe, husband of Pocohontas, from a Dutch slave trader off the coast of Jamestown. We're not sure how many were purchased, but fifteen were purchased by George Yeardley, the governor.

The government of Jamestown had been formed very closely upon the Westminster model, with a miniature Parliament.

No such transactions occurred later at Plymouth, which was founded by religious rebels and Nonconformists from England and elsewhere.

Therefore, the English political system is predisposed to incorporate slavery, the Dutch were responsible for bringing the slaves to this continent, and the religious predispositions of the New England settlers were anti-slavery.

Tell me which part is wrong, Suricou, and which part is right.