Is Western culture being destroyed?

[Mare Tranquillity]

I should've guessed you're infatuated with me.

Actually, I'm happily and legally married, Nums. It wasn't me that started the discussion of "queens". In people exhibiting rabid homophobia there is very often an undercurrent of homosexual desire or at least curiousity and their extreme reaction to gay people is an attempt to deny something they find in themselves.

This a common over-compensation response found in people. Many of the male to female transsexuals got involved in the most macho activities they could find in an attempt to deny who they really were. You'll find us in the military, special forces, construction, logging, and the police. We often engage in dangerous sports too, I raced motocross and cross-country motorcycles for years, many of us practice martial arts. We struggle to be what our family's and our culture expects and demands of us till we simply get worn out and can't fight anymore. Nearly 1/3 of transsexuals commit suicide by the age of 30 because they simply cannot find a place for themselves in a culture that hates and fears them.

The website you're posting your stats from is not a dependable one. The statistics can be manipulated to prove almost anything if you're clever enough. The whole propaganda war about homosexuals being child molestors was started in the late seventies by Anita Bryant's Christian group in Florida. They did the same thing that the KKK did for black/jazz music. The storm of negative information about black people's music being Satanic was completely false and started by the KKK back in the 1920's when black musicians began to gain great popularity. The KKK applied the "Satanic" label to black music in an attempt to reduce its appeal to the general population--didn't work worth a durn though. But in the 50's and 60's Christian fundamentalist revived the idea of "Satanic" music and applied it to rock and roll. They were slightly more successful than the KKK, but in the end it didn't accomplish what they hoped.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I showed you an article - that came from a neutral source and showed that the majority of men in that one survey, who committed molestation against boys were heterosexual.

I am not arguing that females account for much of anything in this.

What you are trying to say is:

any man who commits any sort of sexual act with another male is a homosexual

does that mean any man who commits any sort of sexual act with a female is heterosexual?

what does that say about those who do both, or primarily one or the other?

for example - if a man is heterosexual in self-identification and adult relationships and molests a little boy - does that then make him homosexual?

Homosexual is both an adjective and a noun. The noun applies to a very small percentage of the overall population. The adjective describes the act, not the orientation necessarily.

The approach that Nums is using is very similar to the one that racists used. It used to be that if you had ONE drop of provable black blood in your body you were black. This completely ignored the truth that we are all mixed and the idea of racial purity is a complete fantasy.

Now, if you have any homosexual contact ever, then you are a homosexual. It's as fallacious a concept as racial purity. Sexuality is far more fluid than the "black and white" thinking people want to admit, it scares them. The claim that 1/3 of all child molestations are done by homosexual males is another example of "racial purity" thinking not supported by any of the real mainstream researchers, it's simply a "claim" by people with a religious axe to grind. Let's all remember that these same people will tell you that all transsexuals are homosexual too--more "racial purity" thinking.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It is a fact. However one wants to interpret fact is not my concern. My main concern is to demonstrate how mare interprets fact in a way that does not coincide with logic.

Mare assumes that my being catholic necessarily follows that I argue on the basis of catholic dogma. It doesn't matter how many times I post the udhr, I am still a bible-beater trying to impose my religion on everyone else.

You are a Bible-beater redefining the UDHR wording to bring it in line with Catholic dogma. You admit that it doesn't say anything about homosexual people, but yet you still want to use it to deny them equality.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well...I think you're doing a bit of that too...



That is true. I'll be the first to agree that you (and Pale as well) avoid bringing religion into your arguments. It's actually rather refreshing as there is nothing worse then the dead end of "well the bible says so so it's true" type of debate.

How many times has Nums mentioned the Pope and asked if someone has read that encyclical?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Not at all. I brought this child molestation thing up to demonstrate what I said I wanted to demonstrate. Nothing more.

I have said before that I have homosexual friends. Their sexual preference neither bothers me nor hinders my friendship with them.

But you would still deny them legal equality? Yes or no?

 

[Coyote]

How many times has Nums mentioned the Pope and asked if someone has read that encyclical?

I think he mentioned the Pope once in this thread and twice in the Traditional Family thread...lots of overlap in those threads.

I think you might be bringing the Pope up a bit more frequently then Numinus

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think he mentioned the Pope once in this thread and twice in the Traditional Family thread...lots of overlap in those threads.

I think you might be bringing the Pope up a bit more frequently then Numinus

Have you read what this Pope has said about us? He colluded with the Nazis during WWII I understand, so he must be a nice guy. Is Nums arguing for the Pope's religious perspective?

There are thousands of people chopping at the branches of the tree of evil for each person chopping at the roots. Religion is the justification for the hatred visited on us by this culture. Leaving out religion doesn't let us address the underlying motivation.

Have you seen any logical argument from Nums that convinces you that gay or transpeople should be denied equality? What do you see Nums presenting that is NOT based in religious bigotry, anything?

If I'm wrong, in your opinion, and Nums is presenting logical evidence to prove the propriety of denied equality then please show it to me. If it's correct I'll aplogize to Nums on the thread.

 

[Coyote]

Have you read what this Pope has said about us? He colluded with the Nazis during WWII I understand, so he must be a nice guy. Is Nums arguing for the Pope's religious perspective?

I can't answer as to that but Numinus did say:

I'm a nominal catholic. I simply cannot abide sitting in church for two hours every week. And if the present pope gets his way, I'll probably be among the first to get excommunicated.

It can't be helped, I suppose.

and

I'm not a fan of this particular pope but one simply cannot argue the impecable logic applied in the encyclical that this is based on.

And in latin, no less -- the language of god himself.

Which sounds as if he respects the logic of the writing.

There are thousands of people chopping at the branches of the tree of evil for each person chopping at the roots. Religion is the justification for the hatred visited on us by this culture. Leaving out religion doesn't let us address the underlying motivation.

Religion and logic are two different things though not exclusive of each other. I don't think Numinus is arguing from a religious perspective but from a logical one. We may not agree - I don't, but I see where he is coming from.

Have you seen any logical argument from Nums that convinces you that gay or transpeople should be denied equality? What do you see Nums presenting that is NOT based in religious bigotry, anything?

No - I have not seen anything exactly convincing me that gay or transexuals should be denied equality in terms of civil rights as I view marriage in some form as one of those civil rights. It doesn't have to be marriage per se - other societies who sanctified various same sex relationships gave called those unions by different terms then male/female marriages. As long as the union confers the same rights and priveledges and legal recognition that "marriage" does - then I'm fine with it. But I don't see Numinus arguing from religion but rather from logic. I don't agree with his conclusions, and I wish he were arguing from a religious doctrine because it is much easier to refute the blatent hypocrisy of religion.

If I'm wrong, in your opinion, and Nums is presenting logical evidence to prove the propriety of denied equality then please show it to me. If it's correct I'll aplogize to Nums on the thread.

Numinus is presenting a logical reason for marriage in that marriage is based on the natural rights of a woman to start a family. In a sense he is right - what other logical reasons for marriage are there? Yet - our society is based on equality and especially an equality of civil rights. Our state confers special benefits upon married heterosexual couples that are denied homosexuals without an arduous and expensive process. That is wrong. But that is my opinion. I can't refute Numinus' logic - only his conclusions because in the end, I feel it more important that compassion be exersized then logic. IMO

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Numinus is presenting a logical reason for marriage in that marriage is based on the natural rights of a woman to start a family. In a sense he is right - what other logical reasons for marriage are there? Yet - our society is based on equality and especially an equality of civil rights. Our state confers special benefits upon married heterosexual couples that are denied homosexuals without an arduous and expensive process. That is wrong. But that is my opinion. I can't refute Numinus' logic - only his conclusions because in the end, I feel it more important that compassion be exersized then logic. IMO

I know of no society with a legal requirement for the production of progeny and that will annul any marriage that does not produce them.

I know of no modern (or even ancient) marriage vows that require production of progeny, I've never even seen a marriage vow that mentioned children as a necessity.

This is an argument that is applied ONLY to homosexual and transsexual people, it is a double standard unless it is applied to sterile heterosexuals and people who simply don't want to have kids. The reason for this double standard is religious because there are no logical reasons why homosexual people cannot marry and raise children just like sterile heterosexuals do.

Are you really tellling me that you believe that the "natural right of a woman to start a family" is in ANY way affected by gay marriage? What about the rights of lesbian women?

And finally, to say that the only "logical" reason for marriage is this "natural right..." denies all the other reasons for which people have married all down through history. Love, companionship, committment, security, and all the legal rights and privileges that accrue to married people.

I'm sorry Coyote, but that's not logic, there are simply too many people who marry for too many reasons to suddenly decide that there can only be one logical reason to marry and that logical reason is the one dictated by the church.

If I was in Nums shoes I would deny my religious agenda too, you can't support it. I too, would try to use some specious reasoning to defend my viewpoint. Do you remember what the racists used when it was no longer enough to have the Bible justification for slavery? With the use of pseudo science that managed to show that black people were not as evolutionarilly developed as white people, they weren't as intelligent, they were closer to animals, etc. Some people bought that too, but we know better now.

(Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I had to go for a bike ride. )

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Coyote,
When there is only one God, our God.
When there is only one way to God/Heaven, our way.
When there is only one right, the way we do it.
When there is only one reason to exist, to worship our God.
When there is only one reason to marry, to produce progeny.
When there can be only ONE, that's religion. And it denies all the rest of us our humanity and our God-given free-will.

You can follow the "logic" of Nums' to the end that has been suggested by some religious folks. Logically there is no reason for homosexual people to live at all, the Bible demands their deaths. Why in the world would people like Nums who believe that all homosexuals are child molestors let homosexual people live if they had the chance to kill them with God's authority? The Bible credits God with commanding genocide many times. What keeps the "logic" from working to this end?

I think the idea that with more than 6 billion people on this planet that there can be only ONE reason for anything is not logical. And certainly something as personal and intimate as loving realtionships can have more than one logical basis.

 

[numinus]

I know of no society with a legal requirement for the production of progeny and that will annul any marriage that does not produce them.

I know of no modern (or even ancient) marriage vows that require production of progeny, I've never even seen a marriage vow that mentioned children as a necessity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullity_(conflict)

Impotence or willful refusal to consummate

This is an aspect of the general legal topic of capacity, and it affects essential validity because, in many states, the policy is that marriage is for the procreation of children. Thus, if one spouse has a permanent physical condition at the time of the ceremony which prevents sexual intercourse, this may void the marriage, make the marriage voidable, or require a divorce decree. The willful refusal by one party to consummate the marriage will not usually be a ground for annulment since this is a question of behaviour rather than capacity and so becomes a matter for divorce. Given the improvement in medical science, the number of conditions producing impotence which cannot be treated with some degree of success is declining. Hence, most modern legal cases must now rely on the ground of the affected party's willful refusal to seek remedial treatment and deal with the case to reflect the fact that the marriage has not been consummated. The fact that one of the parties may be infertile and so cannot produce children is not relevant under this heading although it may be relevant if specific representations have been made to induce the marriage and so affect the validity of consent.

Have it ever occured to you that if you know no such marriages, then perhaps you are merely ignorant about the marriage institution?

 

[numinus]

But you would still deny them legal equality? Yes or no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law

According to the eminent Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, equality before the law and material equality are incompatible, arguing that material inequality is a natural consequence of legal equality: "From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

The rule of law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will.

 

[Coyote]

I know of no society with a legal requirement for the production of progeny and that will annul any marriage that does not produce them.

I know of no modern (or even ancient) marriage vows that require production of progeny, I've never even seen a marriage vow that mentioned children as a necessity.

I think the argument is that one of the primary rational's for marriage is to start a family - and this is reflected in the legal reasons for dissolution of a marriage. That's one point.

But that doesn't mean that having children or starting a family is mandated as a requirement of marriage. And certainly in today's society marriage takes place for many more reasons then having a family. But Numinus (if I understand him) is arguing from the standpoint of the primary reason - throughout history - for marriage - establishing a family. That is logical and it is accurate.

What is inaccurate - in my opinion - is that this can never change. Concepts of what constitutes marriage have certainly changed though that foundational point - male(s)/female(s) has not. I guess the question is should it? Or, should we follow the lead of other societies that have recognized same sex bonds but given them a different term? When you come right down to it - do you have to have only one term for a union or can you have different terms to cover different unions?

This is an argument that is applied ONLY to homosexual and transsexual people, it is a double standard unless it is applied to sterile heterosexuals and people who simply don't want to have kids. The reason for this double standard is religious because there are no logical reasons why homosexual people cannot marry and raise children just like sterile heterosexuals do.

Coming from some - yes, it most definately is religious. But Numinus has said he is not opposed to recognition of same-sex bonds, just don't call them "marriage". Now my feeling is that it is an issue of equality and as such those bonds should confer the same priveledges and rights as the bonds of state recognized marriage. I'm not quite sure Numinus agrees with me there.

Are you really tellling me that you believe that the "natural right of a woman to start a family" is in ANY way affected by gay marriage? What about the rights of lesbian women?

Oh no, of course not. I don't believe gay marriage has any effect what-so-ever on the right of women to start a family. I think the argument against it is that marriage is to preserve the right of women to start a family and that was it's original intention thus gay marriage is changing the intention and definition. I think...I'm not altogether clear here.

And finally, to say that the only "logical" reason for marriage is this "natural right..." denies all the other reasons for which people have married all down through history. Love, companionship, committment, security, and all the legal rights and privileges that accrue to married people.

I'm sorry Coyote, but that's not logic, there are simply too many people who marry for too many reasons to suddenly decide that there can only be one logical reason to marry and that logical reason is the one dictated by the church.

Well, it IS logical - but again, logic isn't everything and people often don't act in accordance to what is logical. Marriage for love is relatively recent in the history of marriage. Many marriages were for political and property alliances rather than love or companionship and that has nothing to do with the church. However, these days - most marriages in western society are dictated by individual preferences and affections. I don't think Numinus is arguing from a religious point but from a logical one.

If I was in Nums shoes I would deny my religious agenda too, you can't support it. I too, would try to use some specious reasoning to defend my viewpoint. Do you remember what the racists used when it was no longer enough to have the Bible justification for slavery? With the use of pseudo science that managed to show that black people were not as evolutionarilly developed as white people, they weren't as intelligent, they were closer to animals, etc. Some people bought that too, but we know better now.

(Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I had to go for a bike ride. )

In fairness to Numinus, he hasn't used the Bible or religion as any sort of justification. In fact, he even agreed with me on recognizing same sex unions by a different term then marriage though I'm not sure if we agreed on giving them the same benefits as marriage....

Of course the other thing I'm not sure of is lesbian marriage which can naturally start a family....where does that fall in the realm of logic?

Hope you had a nice bike ride - I'm jealous! We had a blizzard.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote,
When there is only one God, our God.
When there is only one way to God/Heaven, our way.
When there is only one right, the way we do it.
When there is only one reason to exist, to worship our God.
When there is only one reason to marry, to produce progeny.
When there can be only ONE, that's religion. And it denies all the rest of us our humanity and our God-given free-will.

You can follow the "logic" of Nums' to the end that has been suggested by some religious folks. Logically there is no reason for homosexual people to live at all, the Bible demands their deaths. Why in the world would people like Nums who believe that all homosexuals are child molestors let homosexual people live if they had the chance to kill them with God's authority? The Bible credits God with commanding genocide many times. What keeps the "logic" from working to this end?

I think the idea that with more than 6 billion people on this planet that there can be only ONE reason for anything is not logical. And certainly something as personal and intimate as loving realtionships can have more than one logical basis.

I've never heard Numinus advocate anything like that, though I've certainly heard that kind of talk from die-hard bible-thumpers. I don't believe there is only one religion, one god or one way. But there are certain moral absolutes and they come down to one thing: compassion.

 

[numinus]

I think the argument is that one of the primary rational's for marriage is to start a family - and this is reflected in the legal reasons for dissolution of a marriage. That's one point.

But that doesn't mean that having children or starting a family is mandated as a requirement of marriage. And certainly in today's society marriage takes place for many more reasons then having a family. But Numinus (if I understand him) is arguing from the standpoint of the primary reason - throughout history - for marriage - establishing a family. That is logical and it is accurate.

What is inaccurate - in my opinion - is that this can never change. Concepts of what constitutes marriage have certainly changed though that foundational point - male(s)/female(s) has not. I guess the question is should it? Or, should we follow the lead of other societies that have recognized same sex bonds but given them a different term? When you come right down to it - do you have to have only one term for a union or can you have different terms to cover different unions?



Coming from some - yes, it most definately is religious. But Numinus has said he is not opposed to recognition of same-sex bonds, just don't call them "marriage". Now my feeling is that it is an issue of equality and as such those bonds should confer the same priveledges and rights as the bonds of state recognized marriage. I'm not quite sure Numinus agrees with me there.



Oh no, of course not. I don't believe gay marriage has any effect what-so-ever on the right of women to start a family. I think the argument against it is that marriage is to preserve the right of women to start a family and that was it's original intention thus gay marriage is changing the intention and definition. I think...I'm not altogether clear here.



Well, it IS logical - but again, logic isn't everything and people often don't act in accordance to what is logical. Marriage for love is relatively recent in the history of marriage. Many marriages were for political and property alliances rather than love or companionship and that has nothing to do with the church. However, these days - most marriages in western society are dictated by individual preferences and affections. I don't think Numinus is arguing from a religious point but from a logical one.



In fairness to Numinus, he hasn't used the Bible or religion as any sort of justification. In fact, he even agreed with me on recognizing same sex unions by a different term then marriage though I'm not sure if we agreed on giving them the same benefits as marriage....

Of course the other thing I'm not sure of is lesbian marriage which can naturally start a family....where does that fall in the realm of logic?

Hope you had a nice bike ride - I'm jealous! We had a blizzard.

The rule of law is based on logic.

The benefits that should be accorded to same-sex unions must ALSO be based on logic.

A married woman is accorded maternity leaves. Do you accord maternity leaves to men in gay unions as well?