Arkansas Blog

I know what they need- More electricity running thru their pickles.

Pickles smickles, I need more electricity in my house!!!!!!!!!! off and on off and on alllllllllll
morn....third day in a row.....think I'd get better service in Baghdad....

That is good news, let loving people adopt needy kids..........JERKS

Know what you mean jazzy. NWA has thunder storms coming our way from both sides, West to East and now one is coming East to West. Trapped in the middle here. I'm using the laptop on battery power and the wireless card. Last round of thunder storms took out most of my desk top accessories.

I figured along and posted on here this act would not fly. It interferes with family arrangements.
And just how is the state going to affirm that any couple is having a "sexual relationship?" If a 59 yr old grandmother wants to adopt her grandson and she is living with 70 year old fellow with a heart condition who can say with certainty the couple is has a "sexual relationship?" This is a tremendously flawed act and most Ark voters can recognize it.

Ahhh...feel so bad for the Family blah blah gang...ha!

Yes, the pickle did it, eLwood, I now see the light...

LOL Ms Z !!!

How would one go about challenging some, any, or all of the signatures that have been gathered thus far?

In my Baptist Church, a petition was left unattended on a stand in the entry foyer and a request was made by the pastor from the pulpit for voters to sign it.

I know for a fact that many people signed the petition and that no one was officially checking and observing the signings.

If this happened in my church, it is bound to have happened statewide.

Just say no, and keep saying no, to religious bullies.

Here's an article published yesterday, written by a male senior high student adopted by two moms, about his and his little brother's lives.

This senior writes the truth: religious "leaders" and faith-based politicians are hate-filled liars.

>>Many children are raised by single parents, unmarried parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and more. What makes these families real is the love and care they have for each other, their commitment to seeing each other through good times and bad<< NormaBates link

If an 17/18 year old can comprehend this simple fact what does it say about Family Council's values? Their
entire prohibition of cohabitating persons right to adopt would be based upon sexual intercourse or having a "sexual relationship."

Makes you really wonder about the obsessions Family Council holds. I wonder how many pervs inhabit their ranks?
.

The statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual."

"Senator McCain's position is out of sync with the research and science and out of step with what is in the best interests of children waiting for a home and a family," said Jody Huckaby, PFLAG executive director. "We implore Senator McCain to take a serious look at the overwhelming evidence and listen to the stories of the countless children raised by loving lesbian and gay couples."

Kara Suffredini, director of public policy for the Family Equality Council, a national LGBT parent group, said her organization is "disturbed and disappointed that a presidential candidate would make such a biased and ill-informed statement about the most 'successful' kind of family."

"Thirty years of scientifically valid research universally demonstrates that LGBT families are just as nurturing for children's growth and development as heterosexual families," said Suffredini.

Suffredini said that not only the pediatrics group but also the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers "have all issued statement supporting same-sex parents."

So it appears Arkansas, as it has in the past (all together, now: "Central High!") is once again determined to legislate ignorance, fear and religious bigotry and preserve our national reputation of backwardness and hate.

>>How would one go about challenging some, any, or all of the signatures that have been gathered thus far?<<

Welcome back Old Blue Eyes. No see for a long time.
I'm not certain but I think you would need to contact the Ark Sec of State.
Try this:

Elections and Voter Services
Phone: 501-682-5070 or toll free outside of the Little Rock area 800-482-1127
Email: electionsemail@sos.arkansas.gov

.

Again....Why do we need so many foster homes? Why are there so many adoptable children?? Because hetrosexuals [who sometimes were NOT married] had children they were ill equipped to care for, were not financially ready or emotionally stable enough to provide a nuturing home.

I see it every day in my work...Oh if I ruled the word.....there would be a lot of straight folks childless!

Pedophiles are loving people. Wouldn't they be the perfect candidates for adopting children? Obviously exposing children to peversion is not a concern as long as there is 'love' present. I find your logic 'interesting'.

Why yes, strange, let's hand our children over to pedophiles...it'll be good training for when they work hard and go to DC to be the playthings of the Foley's of the Republican Party.

Hey, pal, democrats have had that piece of action as well. I don't think you should limit to a certain political party. After all, peversion is peversion whoever practices it.

I know Arkansans. They have absolutely no use for anybody who wants to hand over innocent children to homosexuals. Exposing a young impressionable child to that peversion is beyond the tolerance level for the majority of Arkansans outside of the Hillcrest area.

strangelove and chasv MUST be the same person. neither one can spell worth a shit.

"Pedophiles are loving people. Wouldn't they be the perfect candidates for adopting children? Obviously exposing children to peversion is not a concern as long as there is 'love' present. I find your logic 'interesting'." - Strangelove

I find your LACK of logic and facts appalling. Then again I've always found that bigots, no matter how smart and accomplished they may be in other areas, are stupid and frightened and totally uninformed in their particular area of bigotry.

"Pedophiles are loving people." That's an utter lie, Strangelove. Pedophiles are adults who cannot relate satisfactorily to another adult, so they victimize smaller, weaker, helpless children to gratify themselves sexually. Pedophilia is about power and control, not love.

While sexual abuse of children is indeed a "perversion," homosexuality is not. Same-sex activities and even lifelong partnerships are ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom (which, honey, includes homo sapiens). Read Dr. Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance" from 2000, documenting (and photodocumenting) homosexuality and lifelong same-sex partners in over 450 species. Including lifelong same-sex bonds between elephants, whales, giraffes, apes, rhinos and on and on.

Despite what religious bigots say, homosexuality is not a perversion. It's perfectly natural across all species studied. It occurs throughout God-created nature, in other words, much to religionists' dismay.

What's ugliest and MOST insulting about your post is your inference that pedophilia is in any way connected with homosexuality.

Here are the facts about child abuse, Strangelove. Direct from the DHS Child Services Division.

What's the most prevalent form of child abuse?

Oh, right. I forgot, Strange. You don't know because you don't inform yourself.

It's "neglect." Almost 60% of child abuse is neglect. Followed by physical abuse, psychological abuse and, finally, sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse of children constitutes exactly 5% of all child abuse.

Of THAT 5% . . . 95% is heterosexual men victimizing underage girls. That's right. 5% of child sexual abuse is homosexual.

"You can't handle the truth." - Jack Nicholson, "A Few Good Men"

No matter what anyone states as to the development of the children in homes with a gay/bisexual parent, in allowing this action we create an atmosphere where the children ARE affected by their upbringing. Nothing in nature is gay except mankind. Nothing in nature is bysexual except mankind. Considerng we are supposedly the only "thinking" organism on this rock, what makes anyone "think" it is okay to be gay or bysexual? Why would we be the only creatures to be this way? Probably because mankind has an inner driver towards self destruction. In allowing upbringing of the children through a gay/lesbien/bysexual home system, we allow the children to believe this being gay is an accepted action. It is not accepted by any other creature on this planet, so why should we accept it in mankind? Vote your soul for this law to pass, if it fails, it gives lee to those who would lead our world to self destruction through perversion.
The Thought, From Phoenix!

Pedophiles are already parents, Strange...as well as sexual and physical abusers.

At least with adoption and foster care there are home studies, back ground and financial checks!

NormaBates -

You go, girl!! Three snaps in a Z-formation!!!

It would serve you well to read the initiated Act the Family Council proposes. As I mentioned above it doesn't punish gays exclusively. In fact it doesn't mention homosexuals at all.
Their test for adoption is if an unmarried couple is living together in a sexual relationship. Period.

That's going to exclude many family members from adopting nieces/nephews, grandchildren, second cousins, etc.

For example if a 45 year old single woman, A, is sharing a home with another adult woman, B, and A wishes to provide a home to her runaway niece whose father kicked her out the home:
1) How does the state go about proving the two co-habituating women are NOT involved in a sexual relationship?
2)Or how does the state establish they are in a "sexual relationship?" For adults do we really want the Sex Police?
Have we gone that far into authoritarianism? Sexual relationship and co-habitation are the only two test for this initiated Act.
It doesn't pass the stink test imo.
.

Strangelove.........another boring repug 3' incher.
Visiting hours are over, go on back to your bunk and play with LARGEASSHOLE, another
3' incher.

The only people who should be adopting children are a man and woman who are married to each other.

Strangelove.........another boring repug 3' incher.
Visiting hours are over, go on back to your bunk and play with LARGEASSHOLE, another
3' incher.

JNYJ -

You are uninformed. I suggest you read Biological Exhuberance. Homosexuality is present (and has been documented) in over 450 species.

If you are mentally challenged you always resort to name calling because that is all you have.

"Nothing in nature is bysexual except mankind." - JNYJ

You know, precious, when you lie your nose grows longer.

Better back off from your monitor and increase the font size.

Oh, yeah: remedial spelling will improve your job chances.

Homosexuality is a peversion and is not a fit for environment to raise children.

Sorry for double post......don't know how that happened........

NOT GUILTY

Strangelove-

It's peRversion, dumbass.

JNYJ -

It's bIsexual, dumbass.

"No matter what anyone states as to the development of the children in homes with a gay/bisexual parent, in allowing this action we create an atmosphere where the children ARE affected by their upbringing."Posted by: JNYJ

Well, your intro indicates you are opened minded about the testimonies of others who differ.
I always do a roll of the eyes when I see such introductory remarks. I have a feeling you're about to have a head-on collision with reality.

.

It ain't just Hillcrest. Hell, I'm here in the country (Conway) and I've got so many damn tomatoes falling off the vines I need some extra helpers. Where in the hell that grass is gettin enough water to grow that quick I'll never know. Send em my way. I'll adopt em and put them sumbitches to work; teach em a thing or two about earning a dollar.

Can we start a fund to snail mail each and every person who signed the petition the papers to adopt a child at their listed home address? Certainly to keep the kiddies out of queer hands they'd be willing to step up to the plate and care for a foster themselves. Certainly they would. I'll start the pot...

"The only people who should be adopting children are a man and woman who are married to each other."--strange

Says you...and your rep, Monkeyboy, pretty much crapped all over your brand...pretty much exposed all that Republican propaganda (i.e. small-government, balanced-budget, no-nation building, states' rights/etc. etc. etc...) as nothing more than election-stealing, empty tools.

A loving/healthy home is where every child deserves to reside. Gay couples are every bit as capable of providing children with such environments (I'd argue more so...given the hurdles they have to overcome).

Pedophiles are criminals...perverted, sick people...thus your suggestion/correlation, strange, is idiotic and juvenile. It's homophobic/cruel and ignorant to compare a gay home to that of a pedophile's.

Look, if you called everybody who misspelled or made a typo that entered comments in this blog you would be doing nothing else. I type fast---too fast.

Homosexuals were once considered criminals by the state. Why are you advocating they adopt children? If pedophilia is finally recognized as legal by the state would you then advocate that they be allowed to adopt children?

My first go round with this issue was about fifteen years ago when I started coaching Little League baseball.

I somehow got paired with an old jerk and his son(who was also a jerk). We had a little boy who was either 9 or 10 and his mother had a partner. These two guy's made it a point not to play this kid. Never said anything. Mom finally approached me after a game and stated that she had tried to talk to both of these coaches and they wouldn't even acknowledge her. Now I must say that if practice was at 5:00, Mom, partner and son were there at 4:45. If someone yelled " need another hand in the concession stand" Mom and partner were off to help out the best they could. My comment to Mom was, if you have a little boy who wants to play baseball, I'll be happy to work with him.

Taught Mom and partner and son at the same time how to throw a baseball properly and then we moved on to fielding and hitting. Also worked on what practice needed to be done during the week at home. The kid became a quite proficient ball player. And he played up until he went to High School.

Now I'm the one who learned a lesson from all of this. My oldest son who was 9 at the time said, "Dad I understand how you are with commitments and I plan to honor my commitment to this team, but after the last game I want to go play ice hockey". Kids can see discrimination from a mile away. And they can certainly identify jerks. That season I learned a very important lesson, you never put a kid in the middle of this issue.

Jazzy is not the happy little camper, Jazzy is just sad because Jazzy doesn't fit in with reality. A Homosexual most likely wrote the reference you refered to. Go somewhere else and have a happy Gaety. Part on Fairy princess!

Jazzy is not the happy little camper, Jazzy is just sad because Jazzy doesn't fit in with reality. A Homosexual most likely wrote the reference you refered to. Go somewhere else and have a happy Gaety. Party on Fairy princess!

strangelove -

a "typo" doesn't occur multiple times in multiple posts. just admit you can't spell.

"Homosexuals were once considered criminals by the state." - strange

And Christians were once considered criminals by the state also (Roman Empire). So your logic dictates that Christians shouldn't be able to adopt either. Bravo!!

It was once legal to own slaves and once women weren't allowed to vote...good times are in the eye of the historical perverter. Homosexuality is not illegal; and the label of 'wrong' is a religious one that should stay within the cult rather than becoming everyone else's law.

I'm referencing this statement by strange: "Homosexuals were once considered criminals by the state. Why are you advocating they adopt children? If pedophilia is finally recognized as legal by the state would you then advocate that they be allowed to adopt children?"

Jazzy -

WTF is JNYJ talking about?

A Jazzy, Sly Dog, with Strangelove? Sounds too true to be blue, but I bet the doors blue! Advocates for perversion are usually perverse themselves. Why elkse would they argue the perverted side of the coin?

Homosexuality was a criminal offense in most states at one time. It is now acceptable to the liberal community and legalized. You can not guarantee that this same situation won't also happen in regards to pedophia. It is repugnant now to the overwhelming majority of people but it too could be 'legitimatized by the state in the same way as homosexuality. Now, would you also embrace their rights to adoption? It is pretty straightforward. What is your answer to this specific scenario? Please don't obfuscate. Just answer the question as posed without any name calling.

JNYJ -

You need to put your crack pipe down. Give it a rest. You can't even put out a coherent thought. BTW, how are things in Malvern?

JNYJ -

You need to put your crack pipe down. Give it a rest. You can't even put out a coherent thought. BTW, how are things in Malvern?

"...Advocates for perversion are usually perverse themselves. Why elkse would they argue the perverted side of the coin?"--JNYJ

Absolutely...and explains why DC Republicans let Foley frolic with all those young pages all those years.

"Why elkse would they argue the perverted side of the coin?"

Receptive audience

pedophia??? is that another typo due to your incredible typing speed?

You didn't answer my question. Christianity was also illegal under the Roman Empire. Should Christians - an illegal organization - be allowed to adopt?

Homosexuals were once considered criminals by the state.<<

Yes, if they acted upon their desires. Even when it was an illegal act you had to participate to be guilty.
So your statement is not entirely true.
However, the Supreme Court has ruled sodomy laws unconstitutional. Matter is closed. Blacks were once, in the USA ,not considered "persons," hence the entitlement of slavery.

Now any bets on how fast the conservative arguments become 'argumento ridiculo' ??

.

Calmwriter, sounds like a nice place for a kid to be.
Whenever I talk to these ANTI people I lock eyes and ask..........
.....and, how many babies have you adopted, who would otherwise have been aborted?????
Far as I'm concerned every home of an ANTI should look like a Dugger compound, but full of
other peoples babies.
If they really want to save babies it would be reality......
.....bet a lot of Black and Mexicans would relish growing up in a mansion and going to an
Ivy league school.

strangelove -

is it still a crime in Magnolia or El Dorado?

slavery was never considered a criminal act. You can't compare the two. Homosexual acts were once considered criminal acts. Sexual assualt on a child is now considered a criminal act (until liberals are successful at getting it decriminalized as they did homosexuality).

slydog----would you like me to waste your time and everyone else's time and start identifying EVERY typo or misspelling I have see just on this subject? Let me see some good arguments not pointing the dirty end of the stick at me.

slydog----we are talking about this country not the roman empire.

Well, at least chasv will have company at the home. The ignorance on the right side of the isle is amazing. Do you all know it is 2008? If the truth was known strange, Large, chasv and Mr. Elkse would all love to see slavery come back, women revert to cattle status, and homosexuals burned at the stake. That's what they're really saying between the lines. They sure as hell won't be adopting anyone and WHOOPEE.....best thing for kids I've ever heard of.

Most of the pedos of the world are heterosexuals, no amount of lying about it will change the fact that straight men are doing most of the abusing. Just this weekend a straight man beat a little girl's brains out against a wall. Pedo.....probably not....straight...you bet. Too bad the little girl wasn't placed in a home with 2 gay guys week before last. We're minus another little girl thanks to a heterosexual man.

In every instance in my life, gay friends came from straight parents. Why? Because you're born with your sexual preference. I can't make you gay.....no one can make Richard Simmons straight. So believing that gay foster parents turn kids gay is as much a medieval thought as turning straw into gold with hocus pocus. Evolve damn it! Goofy old dinosaurs getting their facts out their ass instead of using their brains. You are a dying breed......good!

They'll get enough names and then we'll vote to stop queers from adopting.
Queers are like bad apples in a barrel. They rot so and they cause other apples to take the trip of rottening..
That is why God said if a man lie with man as with a woman to put them to death.............................................................................................................................................................................................He made man and he has the right to do with man as he wants.
He destroyed whole cities of homos.

I am still waiting for an answer to my very straightforward question. DBI, you have a selective memory. You forgot about the Arkansas case where two homosexuals raped and killed a teenage boy right in our own state. Selective memory loss for the left. I am still waiting on an answer.

Zelda,
I am talking about the right of any child to be able to understand that homosexuality is considered one of the worst perversions in this world. A child has the right to be taught the truth that Homosexuality cannot be correct, as the sexual act is for mating purposes in the context of breeding. Homosexuals cannot breed, then why are they practicing a pervers act? There is no other reason for their actions. Children raised in an atmosphere of teachings that being a homosexual is normal, is not normal. It would degrade the childs thinking patern into a state of confusion, like all the homosexuals are, and want the children to be. Homosexuals will inherently raise more homosexuals. Monkey see, Monkey do!

dbi is saying that some people are born to lust after their own gender which is an obomination.
Sex, if dbi didn't know, was made by God for man to reproduce not to sodomize each other....
dbi the homos can go down to the cesspool to see their pffspring floating around.

Slydog, who the fk knows what JNYJ, strange, LARGEASSHOLE....all the trolls..have in their
pea brains?? glad I'm not paid to figure it out.
Can't understand why they want to be on this blog, altho they are good for laughs.
I would never dream of signing up to be on a neo-nazi blog........
.....but, that is just me.

Jazzy - he's back!

Cooty alert! Cooty alert! Cooty alert!

Chasv, strange, JNYJ, LARGEASS are taking over!

The 3 inchers are everywhere.

OMG

(And none of them can spell).

Isn't this a fun thread?

I haven't had this much fun since I bought a buttload of Escada half-off at B Barnett! Or was it Barbara Jean? Hard to tell when you're having an acid flashback whilst wielding your AmEx Platinum card.

"Christianity was also illegal under the Roman Empire. " - Slydog

Yes, until it wasn't.

Once Roman Emperor Constantine's Constantinople Congress codified the bible and declared Christianity the state religion, they began slaughtering "infidels" and "heretics," just like every other religion does.

They're still doing it. Only, since they can no longer get away with murder, they're concentrating on making "blasphemers'" lives, especially the lives of gays and lesbians and their children, as miserable as possible by trying to legalize their religious bigotry.

Like they've always done and will continue to do.

What hateful conformists to fascist authority these Xtians really are, underneath their robotic Stepford smiles and "love and peace" posturing.

Is American Family Association founder Donald Wildmon preparing to concede in the war against gays?

"If we lose California, if they defeat the marriage amendment, I'm afraid that the culture war is over and Christians have lost," the Evangelical leader told columnist Bill Berkowitz. "That's just the reality of the fact."

THis has been a really interesting evening. As i sat here reading the posts by strange, JNYJ and chasv I don't think I have ever seen so much ignorance displayed in one place at one time in my life. It is truly amazing because I was under the mistaken impression that the dinosaurs had all died out millions of years ago.........guess I was wrong. At least three are still alive and well on this blog.

Sorry I can't stay up and see more of the ignorance displayed but this old man is tired and is going to hit the sack for the night.

Obviously, being a lefty doesn't make you immune from spelling errors and typos.

I'm still waiting for an ANSWER to my straightforward question.

"Once Roman Emperor Constantine's Constantinople Congress codified the bible and declared Christianity the state religion, they began slaughtering "infidels" and "heretics," just like every other religion does."

Yes, but the next great slaughter will be of Christians and Jews.

It is fairly easy to answer your question, strrangelove, since it is based on a bad comparison. You are saying that pedophilia = homosexuality. Such is not the case.

You're saying homosexuality was once a crime, but now isn't. It used to be a crime to be poor, for a man to harbor a runaway slave, to be Jewish, to speak Italian, to drink or sell alcohol in America, for a black man to be out after dark, etc.

We mainly make things criminal that violate the personal rights and space of others. (I'm no lawyer, so forgive me for such a simplistic definition). You state that homosexuality is a perversion when in actuality your bible only says that it is forbidden.

Rabbi Navon says, "This insight is foreign to many seculars. Regrettably, it's also foreign to many religious. Many religious people think that if the Torah forbade homosexual relationships, it is necessarily because homosexuality is a despicable and unnatural perversion. Yet our faith in the Creator requires us to recognize that we cannot grasp the depth of his considerations. There are many bans in the Torah that do not feature any deviation from nature. For us, on the most primal level, we must not say that "it's forbidden because it's unnatural," but rather, it's forbidden because it's forbidden. "

In other words it is a religious view, not a legal view. You often warn of the Muslim terrorists making us follow their laws. Among those laws is one making homosexuality a perversion. Are you saying that you'd prefer the Muslim way?

Homosexuality, unlike pedophilia, is not a mental disorder. Gay men are no more likely than heterosexual men to be pedophiles. Most pedophiles are heterosexual. Homosexuality is a choice, not a crime. It's similar to choosing between being left-handed or right-handed and doing what feels most natural for your body.

It may not be a sin to be born black, but the Bible takes a very friendly attitude toward slavery, frequently commanding slaves to obey their masters in both the Old and New Testaments. If we followed the Bible to the letter, without picking and choosing, slavery would still be a respected institution, women would still be completely subject to the authority of their husbands, divorce would be outlawed, and adultery would be punishable by stoning-for the woman, anyway.

The old joke says the religious right is neither. I'm afraid it's still true.

Strangelove, when Jesus Christ was asked what was the greatest commandment, he answered, "HEAR O' ISRAEL. LOVE THE LORD THY GOD, WITH ALL THY HEART, WITH ALL THY SOUL, WITH ALL THY SPIRIT. LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. ON THESE HANG ALL THE LAWS, THE PROPHETS, & THE COMMANDMENTS." Saint Matthew 22:37-40

Now, there are many things Jesus Christ, only begotten Son of God, part of the blessed and holy Trinity. Yet nowhere....nowhere does he condemn, speak out, or even mention homosexuality.

So pray tell, dear Strangelove, who are you....the creation....one to add to the words of the creator. I remind you of what Revelations 22:18-19 says clearly. I warn you to read those words carefully.

Also, I think you should go to http://www.SoulForce.org/

The fact remains that your lies and your bastardization of the sacred texts of God no longer find favor with many.

Homosexuality is not the same thing as Pedophilia. The Association of Psychiatric Medicine agrees with me on this premise.

You can call homoseuality a perversion until you're blue in the face and the only thing that will be true is that your face is blue.

For those who want to read it, there is a wonderful justification andwell-reasoned argument for Christians to accept homosexuality. It calls homosexuals the new "Gentile- Christians" referring to early Christian times when many biblical laws were overturned for the Gentiles in order to reflect more Christian principles.

For homosexuals marriage and its many legal benefits are the Holy Grail. Gays know that most people disapprove of gay marriage - it's an abomination to many. The only way to get it legally is to use the courts to thwart the will of the people. Let's be perfectly honest about the amendment. Very very few gays are interested in adopting anything other than a lily white perfect baby. This amendment has more to do with blocking gay marriage in the future than adoptions/foster parents. If you want to block gay marriage, it logically follows that you have to block gay adoptions.

It's sad because there are probably around 20 gay or lesbian couples in the state of Arkansas who would be competent parents, and I hate to see them denied. However, gays and lesbians see adoption as a legal stepping stone to marriage.

Acts 10:28

He said to them, "You know better than most that a Jew is strictly forbidden to associate with a Gentile or visit him; but God has taught me to call no one unholy or unclean."

I'm still waiting for an ANSWER to my straightforward question.
Posted by: strangelove<<<

Do you run your life on anecdotal evidence? Few on here do. You gave one example of homos being murdering pedofiles. One. That's as thin as piss on a rock.

"Here are the facts about child abuse, Strangelove. Direct from the DHS Child Services Division.

What's the most prevalent form of child abuse?

Oh, right. I forgot, Strange. You don't know because you don't inform yourself.

It's "neglect." Almost 60% of child abuse is neglect. Followed by physical abuse, psychological abuse and, finally, sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse of children constitutes exactly 5% of all child abuse.

Of THAT 5% . . . 95% is heterosexual men victimizing underage girls. That's right. 5% of child sexual abuse is homosexual.
NormaBates.

Looks as if you've had your ass handed to you by a girl.
.

Pretty sad when Amerian citizens "holy grail" is simply hoping to someday have the right affirmed by the State to be able to see their loved ones in the hospital.. and stuff like that.

I swear it feels more and more like we are worse than our imagination allows us to think radical islam is.

"Homosexuality is a choice, not a crime." - Jake da Snake

Your statement is a lie, Jake. Homosexuality is neither a choice nor a crime (anymore).

Thought you were more intelligent than that statement.

Guess not.

Forgive me for spending the evening watching a way too filthy movies with my kids who I spawned using strictly heterosexual sexual acts. Super Bad is funny, but gee...I remember sitting in the same room with my parents 35 years ago watching The Wizard of Oz.....my how times have changed.

Our wingnut friends have failed to change with the times. They're still spouting garbage from the most schizophrenic book ever written, The Holy Bible. How come you never talk about the daughters in that book trying to scoop up some of their father's seed. We call it sperm these days and even those old pornographers, Scooter Libby and Mrs. Dick Cheney didn't stick daddy sperm hunts in their trash books. The Bible is full of the most twisted shit ever written, most of it so mixed up it has no meaning or it has any meaning a hater wants to give it. Forget banning Hustler......that crazy Bible ought to go.

I scrolled up and I'll be damned if I can find hater/strangelove's straightforward question. Your question is queer strange......If you are saying that if you dig hard enough you can find where a gay person or a gay couple has committed a crime, any crime....I'm 100% sure many can be found. No one said every gay person was hunky dory, like all straight people aren't so wonderful either.....so what's your point? There's some pervert school teachers in the world, does that make you one? How many preachers and priests have been caught with their penises in the wrong hole? Every example of human being can be fitted with a horrible crime. My kids figured that kind of shit out about the 7th grade. Why not you?

You haters just can't quit hating. I know a very nice man who was a hero in WWII and yet he grabbed my arm and told me as serious as cancer that America is gone if that nigger gets in. As good as he's been all his life, he just can't let go of his hatred for black people. What a sad bunch of hateful old man you 4 or 5 are. I wish like hell you could listen to the things your friends and relatives are gonna say as they file past your casket. You're blind to what you look like to the world. Your type is far more dangerous to humanity than gay couples. The only bright spot is that in a few years you dinosaurs will be gone. I wish for your sake, I believed in a burning hell.

Hate on, cause I know you will anyway. But as pride goeth before a fall, somehow, some way your hate is going to come back on you. I sincerely hope you each have a long rest home stay in your future. Be sure to advertise your views there.....as loud as you can. Oh don't worry, God will protect you.....trust me fellers.....

Thank you, DBI.

I lost a dear and truly beloved Aunt a few years ago. We'd stopped speaking in her final months. Not on my part, but hers. All my life, she and I had talked about EVERYTHING. One night on the phone, we were engaged in a discussion of same-sex marriage and the same religious arguments against interracial marriage that finally ended in 1967 with Loving vs. Virginia.

"Same-sex marriage is different," she said.

"Really? How?" I asked.

"My blood pressure monitor is going up. I have to hang up now." And she did.

Later, her son (my cousin) asked me what had happened.

I told him and he said, "But she was 84."

Here's what I heard myself say.

"That's the weakest excuse I've ever heard, for bigotry. She had 84 years to find out the truth. Did she? No. She bought the bullshit she was taught in church since she was a child and never thought to investigate it for herself. She was willing to vote against equal rights for all Americans according to her bigotry. Look. She was a wonderful woman. A wonderful wife and mother. A community leader. Yet in the end she learned NOTHING about her religion and where it originated? She never questioned her beliefs or her bigotry? At 84 she died believing the same crap she was taught at 5?"

Who was it? Bette Davis? Who said, in "All About Eve," "I detest cheap sentiment?"

Old age is no excuse for bigotry.

In fact, bigotry of any kind in old age is self-damning.

You've learned NOTHING in all your years? Never asked questions? Never investigated?

Then what the fuck is the purpose of your 84 years if you die a bigot?

Lessons I learned from this thread:

Home schooled people can't spell, and they spend a lot of time in closets.

"The only people who should be adopting children are a man and woman who are married to each other."

But they're not. There are children that need adopting. Leaving a child without any parent is a perversion.

Sorry Norma. It was a typo I didn't get.

I meant to say homosexuality is a choice NOT a crime.

mea culpa/

Ooops, I just aint awake yet. I do stand corrected. Are you certain that for all people, that homosexuality does not involve choice?

No need to cast aspersions on intelligence either because of one statement. I'm sure you're not perfect either Norma, so calm down a bit and be a bit more civil. If I misspoke, understand it was in the heat of battle. I'm open to information proving me wrong or correcting me (most of the time, at least) and appreciate the thought, if not the gesture accompanying it.

See you after breakfast when I'm more awake. It's the wife's 60th so we got to do it up big!!

"slavery was never considered a criminal act. You can't compare the two..."--strange

I can compare the two because you said this: 'Homosexuals were once considered criminals by the state' in grasping for something to substantiate your nonsensical correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality. There have been many, many horrid, inhumane laws against minorities/women in our, well, colorful history. So bringing up a horrid law from years ago means diddly.

"I am talking about the right of any child to be able to understand that homosexuality is considered one of the worst perversions in this world. A child has the right to be taught the truth that Homosexuality cannot be correct, as the sexual act is for mating purposes in the context of breeding. Homosexuals cannot breed, then why are they practicing a pervers act? There is no other reason for their actions..."--JNYJ

And we are patiently (extremely so) reminding you and yours that labeling homosexuality as perverse is just your personal (and more than likely religion derived) opinion...just like me thinking most Republicans are mean, prejudiced, women-hating, god-using, hypocritical money-loving old farts (and Ieven base my opinion on my talks with my goddess, like y'all).

Yes, a child should be taught the truth...about the age of the earth, homosexuality, gender, sexuality, birth control, Monkeyboy, Republicans, Lu Hardin...

Obviously...to most of us sex is more about fun/human need than breeding...thank you goddess!!!! So that only-screw-to-breed crap has no place outside of a few extreme religions.

1. Click on name for one report that says homosexuality is both, inherent and learned.

2. Click on this site for viewpoint that homosexuality is genetically inherent:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm

3. Go to the following ProCon.org site called "Born gay?" It brings both opposing sides together in a Pro team vs Anti- team format.

http://borngay.procon.org/viewtopic.asp

4. A science blog debate on the topic in which the initial statement says: "I'll confess to my own position on that nature-nurture debate: it's both and it's neither, and the argument is misplaced. There is no template on the Y chromosome that triggers a sexual response when Pamela Anderson enters the visual field, but there almost certainly are general predispositions that are a product of genetics, development, and learning. Even if there were no genetic component at all, it shouldn't matter in social policy or in our interactions with other people: my own heterosexuality is fairly strongly fixed and was acquired before I was really aware of it, and I'm willing to see other's homosexuality, no matter what its source, as equally fixed, and changing it as both undesirable and unjust."

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08/homosexuality_nature_or_nurtur.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link

Am open to research that is more recent, more concrete, etc. Interesting topic to check into.

It is a great relief to hear that the 2 petition drives led by the Religious Right fundies have not had enough steam to get over the first hurdle.

The Courts and HUman Services must have options for children left exposed in a neglected or abused situations. How is it that we can possibly endorse the ideal that Children are better off in a Foster Home environment, or placed back into their orignal hurtful environment in leiu of a partnership between same sex adults? This is the only issue? You have got to be kidding me, right?

:rolleyes:

Admittedly, I've come awfully late to this party, but would y'all indulge me a few comments?

First, just to be up-front about it, I'm both Christian and straight.

But I think Christians and straights have as much obligation to be honest as anyone else.

That said, here're my observations:

1. If homosexuality is a "choice," then I must assume/conclude that sexual preference in general is a choice. If so, I want all you other straight people out there (such as I) to tell me when you CHOSE to be straight. I don't remember ever choosing. When I was a little boy, I was attracted to little girls. When I was a big boy, I was attracted to big girls. All my adult life I've been attracted to age-appropriate people of the feminine persuasion. I don't remember ever making a choice.

I was all set to weigh in on this more heavily, but by the time I could get set to post, Jake had already made a much better post just above. Thanks, Jake.

2. To JNYJ, who posted: "Nothing in nature is gay except mankind." Simply not true. Got my eyes opened to this the first time I saw a couple of male pigs on our farm "going at each other." I'm told that naturalists have made similar observations among many other species. But I'm no expert.

3. To Severus, who posted: "This amendment has more to do with blocking gay marriage in the future than adoptions/foster parents. If you want to block gay marriage, it logically follows that you have to block gay adoptions."

If you're telling the truth, this is the most inhumane initiative I've ever seen offered. Basically you're saying that you want to block gay marriage so you're willing to do it at the expense of defenseless and innocent children. You're willing to deprive children of a home in order to prevent two people of the same gender from being married. People who would use innocent children as a tool to achieve their own ends are beyond respect. That puts you in the same category of pedophiles: adults who abuse children for your own satisfaction.

4. I know two lesbians who raised a son. He's now cohabiting with his girl friend. Guess their lessons on being lesbian and gay didn't take. Incidentally, both of those lesbians are children of straight parents.

Thanks for letting me have my say. I'll go back to my room now.

Just FYI for anyone on both sides of this hotbutton issue. There is a wonderful doccumentary out called "For the Bible Tells Me So". It approaches the debate on homosexuality from the perspective of five families that are dealing with the issue, and how religion has helped and hindered them. I urge everyone to watch it. It was a real eye opener for me.

That being said, I know of at least two families in my church that are raising young children. One couple from Canada are raising a young asian boy they adopted before they moved here, and the other couple are raising both a 5 year old and a one year old. Both couples are same sex couples, and as best I can tell, their children are active, wonderful, well-adjusted kids.

Let's face facts here. In the entire world, there are more children without loving parents than there are loving heterosexual parents to take care of them. Should these children be denied loving, healthy families in order to "punnish" same sex couples? Who is really being punnished here? What about single Aunts, Uncles, or Grandparents who wish to adopt family members after their parents die, or if the birth parents are deemed unfit? The law as written would prevent them from adopting as well.

The whole debate on homosexuality, IMHO, is perverse to begin with. Why is it any of our government's, church's or our own business what two CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Same sex couples are not going to be having sex in front of their children, just as my wife and I don't have sex in front of our child! The whole "Gay Agenda", as far as I am concerned, is only that they be accepted as human beings with the same rights as we straights have. I don't have a problem with that, my church doesn't have a problem with that, and I don't think Christ has a problem with that.

Arkansas Hillbilly: Don't be surprised if someone accuses you of having MSD.

"Making Sense Disorder"

Sky pilot said: "3. To Severus, who posted: "This amendment has more to do with blocking gay marriage in the future than adoptions/foster parents. If you want to block gay marriage, it logically follows that you have to block gay adoptions."

If you're telling the truth, this is the most inhumane initiative I've ever seen offered. Basically you're saying that you want to block gay marriage so you're willing to do it at the expense of defenseless and innocent children. You're willing to deprive children of a home in order to prevent two people of the same gender from being married. People who would use innocent children as a tool to achieve their own ends are beyond respect. That puts you in the same category of pedophiles: adults who abuse children for your own satisfaction."
****************************************************************************************

I will ignore your unfounded insults and help you to find some clues.

First of all, the American Family Conference has been working very hard to promote adoption and foster parenting within churches. They have increased the number of placements. I have a neighbor who has adopted two black crack babies due to her churches promotion of foster parenting. Based on this, I think the AFC does have good intentions.

I'd suggest that you gays and lesbians develop a petition providing names, addresses, etc of gay/lesbian couples that are COMMITTED to adopting or fostering a child. IF you can come up with more than 100 couples who sign the pledge, I'd be willing to vote against the amendment. I suspect you'll be lucky to find more than a handful. Heck I may vote against the amendment on the grounds that I think gay couples should have to suffer through raising kids. If they're busy with kids, there's a lot less time for sex.

Given that the AFC believes in their hearts that all gays /lesbian are unqualified to be parents, it logically follows that they oppose gays/lesbians from being parents. I'm not stating my opinion, I'm commenting on theres. It's called commentary. I have no connection to the AFC, and I certainly don't speak for them.

I have commented in the past that I think gays would serve their cause better by going for Civil Unions and making it clear that civil unions and marriage are two different things. They would gain points by making it clear that they have some respect for the traditional sacrament of holy matrimony between and man and a woman.

Back to my commentary of the issue. Are you arguing that adoption and marriage are not related? Why do you think there are special tax benefits for families? Why do you think an illegal alien with a child can get a $1000 earned income credit because he has a child?

"It would degrade the childs [sic] thinking patern [sic] into a state of confusion..." ---JNYJ

and so YOUR excuse would be...????

I heard Jerry Cocks has a wide stance, and it appears that strange, JNYJ & chasv do also! Self-loathing is a terrible burden to bear! We will pray for you Morons.
|

Severus: "Are you arguing that adoption and marriage are not related? "

I wasn't. But I will, if you like. Is there some law that prevents a single person from adopting?

What I was commenting on was your statement: "This amendment has more to do with blocking gay marriage in the future than adoptions/foster parents."

What is the aim of the amendment: to block gay marriage in the future or to prevent adoptions and foster parenting by couples of the same gender now?

If the "real reason" for it is to block gay marriage, then it is a dishonest initiative.

I don't particularly care what the American Family Conference's record on adoption is. That has nothing to do with this issue.

And at the moment we're discussing the petition that has been presented, not one that you think someone else should submit. So far as I know, it is ALREADY legal for gay and lesbian people to adopt. They don't need a petition for an initiative to permit it.

The American Family Conference is attempting to PREVENT it.

In other words, the AFC is attempting to deprive certain citizens of a constitutional right that they now have.

And THAT'S the issue. Do all citizens have equal rights in this country or do they not? Are some of you supposed to be granted rights that others are not?

You addressed me directly, so I resent your statement, "I'd suggest that you gays and lesbians develop a petition," when I made it expressly clear in my initial post that I am both Christian and straight. Please do not address me as "you gays and lesbians."

Ah, SkyPilot - you make the mistake of thinking that Severus and his (wingnut) ilk deal in logic and reason. NOT!
|

Larry: You're probably right. But I never claimed to be perfect (i.e., never made a mistake).

AFC=Arkansas Family Council (not conference).

OBE: Duly noted. I was discussing with Severus in the terms as presented. Didn't want to agitate him by correcting him on the basics.

Some people don't appreciate being told they're wrong. In public.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Arkansas_Unmarried_Couple_Adoption_Ban_%282008%29

So at the bottom of this little web page they said that they already have 1/2 of the 4,000 signatures they need to try again....

Let me warn everyone....
I will personally burn off your hand if you put your name to the ballot petition.

Okay, I'll piss and moan about it and then find you and burn your hands off...

Then I'll go try adopting some kids....

Well....my lover and I will...

or we'll just get me prego and I'll raise another normal healthy kid in a lesbian home and rub that in the religious right's faces....
yeah I like that idea better...but I'm still wanting to burn something....

I am thrilled to see Strangelove has joined the Reader's Digest National Word Power Challenge program. Let's applaud, proudly, his correct usage of "obfuscate" in the next-to-last sentence of his paragraph:

"Homosexuality was a criminal offense in most states at one time. It is now acceptable to the liberal community and legalized. You can not guarantee that this same situation won't also happen in regards to pedophia. It is repugnant now to the overwhelming majority of people but it too could be 'legitimatized by the state in the same way as homosexuality. Now, would you also embrace their rights to adoption? It is pretty straightforward. What is your answer to this specific scenario? Please don't obfuscate. Just answer the question as posed without any name calling." - Strangelove

Now, sweetness, going forward with your adult educational goals, you might consider a couple of semesters in Debate 101.

First, it really helps and scores points in debates, peapie, when you can actually spell and pronounce the straw man you're erecting, pardon the expression.

Namely, "pedophia." Accent on the second syllable.

I'm pretty sure "Pedophia" was either a planet in a remote galaxy on "Star Trek" or the name of a black servant in one of those benignly racist '30's films. You know. "What's for dessert, Pedophia?"

But I've a hunch you meant "pedophilia," precious. In which case your debate coach would remove you from the team and send you to the back of the class to start working your way up again.

Except that setting up straw men is ALSO a debate no-no, dearest. Big-time.

You posit the rhetorical hypothetical (I paraphrase), "What's to prevent pedophilia from being legalized like homosexuality, and pedophiles allowed to adopt?"

Uh, here's why, Chucky.

Sexual assault of a child (or an adult) is a crime of violence exactly like rape. Pedophilic assaults have NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Instead, you erect your straw man and proceed, in the rest of your paragraph, to challenge people to answer it. "It is pretty straightforward," you lie.

No it isn't. You just veered off the debate (same-sex marriage and adoption) down the twisted disturbing lane of your own imagining that somehow envisions same-sex equality leading to legalizing child sexual assault. Then you beg us to engage you in a debate about your own lurid criminal fantasies of adults sexually assaulting children.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with the topic. So your coach kicks you off the debate team for the duration of the semester, dumpling.

(By the way, cupcake, is pedophilia a particular preoccupation of yours? Because if it is, as seems the case, I'm happy to forward you Dr. Phil's cell number.)

As you know, Strangelove, I approach this blog with all due respect and sensitively eschew (which is MY Reader's Digest National Word Power Challenge program word-of-the-week, you snot-for-brains fact-challenged toothpick-dicked poo-eating goober) name-calling.

I mean that in a nice way, petunia.

One of your best, Norma!! It is strangelove's weakness that he can't debate and doesn't know it. Save this entry because I'll guarantee you that he'll use it again the next time.

Norman Bates----It's pretty simple to follow the logic, honey. If you recognize what was once a crime as now acceptable (homosexuality) why would you not, at some future date, also recognize pedophilia (not a planet on Star Trek)? It is not a debate tactic. It is called logic.

Norma: Surely you can follow strangelove's logic.

Homosexuality was once illegal, but now it's legal.

Pedophelia is now illegal, so what's to keep it from becoming legal?

Murder is now illegal, so what's to keep it from becoming legal?

Rape is now illegal, so what's to keep it from becoming legal?

Bank robbery is now illegal, so what's to keep it from becoming legal?

Treason is now illegal, so what's to keep it from becoming legal?

Don't you see the unassailability of his impeccable logic?

It doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand, but it is impeccable logic.

At least it is if you live in strangelove's mental world.

skypilot, I think that you had a 'flameout' but haven't figured it out yet. Homosexuality is a moral aberration that is repugnant to most religions including Christianity and the Jewish religion. Once it was repugnant to most of society regardless of one's religions affiliation or non affiliation. Today, it is still considered immoral to many but it has become more acceptable to the culture as a whole. Currently, pedophilia is generally repugnant to most regardless of religion or non religious affiliation. If you find it acceptable to allow homosexuals to raise children then the logical progression is to one day find it acceptable for pedophiles to raise children. Both homosexuality and pedophilia are moral aberrations regardless of their legal status. Race and gender have never been considered issues of morality but rather physical characteristics.

strangelove: I can almost agree with your description of homosexuality as a "moral aberration," at least in the dictionary sense, except for a crucial detail I'll discuss later.

But that's not the stasis in this debate.

Morals are the acknowledged province of institutions such as churches and synagogues. Most of those institutions have sacred writings compiled as their holy books to which they look as their moral authority.

Your post: "Homosexuality is a moral aberration that is repugnant to most religions including Christianity and the Jewish religion."

No argument there (except on one specific point of definition).

But, "Once it was repugnant to most of society regardless of one's religions affiliation or non affiliation."

Not sure when the "once" is that you have in mind. But ancient Greece was rampant with homosexuality. So in that "once" it certainly wasn't "repugnant to most of society regardless of one's religions affiliation or non affiliation."

So there's room for debate there.

But that isn't the stasis on this issue: The stasis on this issue is the right of citizens to adopt or serve as foster parents to children.

You may not approve. Your religion may not approve. Your holy book may not approve. Your God may not approve.

But that's not what this debate is about.

The laws in the United States of America must conform to the provisions of the United States Constitution.

The laws in the United States of America do not have to conform to the provisions of your holy book.

The Constitution of the United States of America does not have to conform to the provisions of your holy book.

When it comes to the stasis in this issue, I find a peculiar circularity in the resoning advanced.

The American Family Council's position seems to be: Gay and homosexual people should not be allowed to adopt or serve as foster parents.

OK. Why should they not be allowed?

Because gay and homosexual people are not fit to be parents to those children.

OK. Why are they not fit to be parents to those children?

Because they are homosexual and gay.

At the root of this issue is the question of whether a class of people, based upon their sexual orientation, is to be deprived of rights under the Constitution of the United States of America that other citizens are allowed to enjoy.

The effort of the American Family Council is to have included in the secular Constitution of the United States of America a provision based upon the moral positions of its holy book. And if the AFC has the right to have provisions from its holy book, then all the other religions of the United States have the right to have provisions from their holy books.

Another issue in the discussion--one of definition--is this: There is a distinction between homosexuality (one's sexual orientation) and homosexual practices.

I am heterosexual. That's my sexual orientation. But there are certain heterosexual practices that are off-limits for me: pre-marital sex; extra-marital sex; incest; fornication; adultery; and the list goes on. Some religious orders acknowledge heterosexuality but require celebacy. It's OK for people in the orders to be heterosexual, but not to engage in heterosexual practices.

I recognize homosexual practices as a sin, just as I recognize certain heterosexual practices as a sin. But I do not regard homosexuality (one's orientation or attraction) as any more a sin than heterosexuality (one's orientation or attraction).

But remember, now we're discussing the definition of what we're debating. And that's one of the first responsibilities of a debater in his/her opening remarks: to define his/her terms.

So the proposition of the debate seems to be, "Resolved: Gay and lesbian people should not be allowed to adopt children or serve as foster parents in the United States of America."

If that's it, bring it on.

I'll catch you in the morning. As for now, it's time for me to go to my heterosexual bed.

Uh, what part of "assault" and "crime" don't you get, Strange?

And no, Sky, Strange's "logic" isn't "impeccabale." It's stupid, hateful, ugly and bears false witness.

Basically, Strange is trying to equate same-sex love and equal civil rights with sexual assault against children, (and adults).

That's pretty fucking ugly.

You BUY this shit, Sky?

You believe legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to increased child sexual abuse?

In the face of voluminous contradictory scientific studies across decades?

You BELIEVE that?

Wow.

Norma, Norma, Norma: No.

Don't go overboard on me here, sweetness.

Read carefully, and think hyperbole.

Then pay special attention to that last line.

And there's a difference between "logic" and "truth."

And there's a difference between "logic" and "reason," or "reasonable."

Technically, any law that can be made by humans can be changed by humans.

So if homosexual behavior can be made legal, so can pedophelia.

But, (1) you've already pointed out to strangelove that that is a straw man.

(2) It is a diversion, which is a debate tactic; although strange calls it "logic," not a "tactic."

(3) It has nothing to do with the current issue, which is whether some class of citizens can rightly be deprived of their constitutional rights.

The debate is about constitutional rights. Strangelove's argument is about morality.

But in logic there are two conditions: validity and truth. For logic to work, both are required. A statement must be both valid and true.

A statement can be valid but not true. Or it can be true and not valid.

For example:
All men are women.
John is a man.
Therefore, John is a woman.

This is a valid syllogism, because it meets the structural rigor of the syllogism.

But the presumption in the major premise is not true.

The Greeks were onto something in their belief that logic could lead to truth--which was the objective of the philosophers, and later the sophists.

It CAN; but not necessarily. Because if there is a flaw in the process, it will lead to a flawed result.

Consider this example:
Some Democrats are left-handed.
Bill Clinton is a Democrat.
Therefore, Bill Clinton is left-handed.

This syllogism is not valid; the subject of the major premise is not universally distributed.
But the conclusion is true: Bill Clinton IS left-handed.

But we can't prove that by this syllogism. We have to prove that by watching Bill Cllinton write--for example.

So, while strangelove's contention MAY be true--that since homosexuality became legal, pedophelia could also become legal--may contain a grain of logic and truth, (1) it is irrelevant to the current discussion, (2) it is unreasonable, and (3) it is a diversion in this discussion.

As you know, "shifting the premises" is a tactic as old as debate. If strangelove can get us off the topic with his straw man, then he doesn't have to deal with the stasis in the issue at hand.

In case you missed it, I'm on YOUR side, NOT HIS!

Norma: Oops. I got distracted and posted before I included another point.

Strangelove's APPARENT argument is technically correct: If one behavior that is illegal can be made legal by changing the law, then another behavior that is illegal can be made legal by changing the law.

The logic is there.

But his ACTUAL argument is that homosexual behavior is the same as--or to be equated with--pedophelia, which is a premise contrary to fact. [One is a mutually consensual act, the other is a violent act of abuse imposed by a perpetrator upon a deceived or resisting victim.]

Or his ACTUAL argument is that homosexual people are also pedophiles, which is a premise contrary to fact.

Or his ACTUAL argument is that homosexual behavior leads to pedophelia, which is a premise contrary to fact.

Or his ACTUAL argument is that since we have made homosexual behavior legal we will also make pedophelia legal, which is a premise with an unsupported conclusion.

In fact, it is not really clear exactly what strangelove's argument is, other than that he doesn't want a certain class of people to be able to adopt or become foster parents. And the REASON is that he doesn't approve of them.

Which may be "true," but not valid or reasonable grounds for the legislation he supports.

Ever since the Greeks started practicing it, unwitting or devious people have been attempting to use logic to make desirable causes appear undesirable, or make undesirable causes appear desirable. "There is no good thing that cannot be abused."

...geez....I really dislike narrow-minded people.

Now, you guys are missing the obvious. The real message is not decriminalizing pedophilia but something more important. Following weirdlust's logic, I'm surprised that you haven't seen the real need in all of this. If we must be concerned abut the 5% of pedophiles who are homosexual, then we absolutely must rush to halt the main cause, those 95% of pedophiles who are heterosexual.

The solution: make being heterosexual a crime!! They are 19 times more likely to commit pedophilia, as research shows. They are the overwhelming miscreants whose sexuality should be banned and made illegal. They are solid proof that the real evil is being heterosexual. Why even the Catholic church has long held that it was a sinful but necessary evil.

Well, maybe it's no longer necessary, especially given its known link with pedophilia. You guys are barking up the wrong logic tree. The real villains are those heterosexuals!! And goofygenitals is defending their civil liberties nonstop.

Ah, the wonders of unrestrained and unchecked logic. Ignore the real criminals no longer. The logic is unassailable. Pedophilia equals heterosexuality equals criminal.

Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!!

Well, Jake, you do have a knack for piercing right to the heart of an issue.

Congratulations. And thanks.

You're welcome, SP. Am waiting for a Jerry Lewis telethon, a musical version of Pedophilia showing off-Broadway, and a Congessional investigation a la Whitewater level of intensity and scrutiny.

I get your point, SkyPilot, just as I understand that rape and homicide could be made legal.

And I LOVE your debate background and tactic.

Mostly, though, I think I love YOU. Any man who's a pilot and uses the word "syllogism" correctly in a sentence . . . I don't know, Sky, there's just something about that word that makes me all tingly.

Can't quite put my finger on it. But I WOULD if, you know, we like met in a bar or something.

Norma, this is completely off topic, but your remark, ". . . if, you know, we like met in a bar or something," reminds me of an old joke that my wife and I re-tell to each other on occasion--at least the punch line.

This couple who had been dating for quite some time were out for a romantic evening, toward the end of which he gazed into her eyes and murmured, "Let's get married, or something."

She looked back into his eyes, fixing him with a steely stare and replied, "Let's get married, or nothing!"