Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 09-12-2012, 05:48 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
Answer this question: "Why did the founding fathers put the establishment clause in the constitution?"
(I know, not necessarily an all ending source, but...) From Wikepedia:
"The Establishment Clause was established mainly as a consensus among all of the religious groups in America during 1787, to prevent one religion from having too much influence."

It was againi, primarily a response to previously being required by the king of England to adhere to one government endorsed religion only.

Quote:
You are right, they are two different things, but BSA policy is internally inconsistent. You can't respect another person's beliefs and determine their human worth based on those beliefs. The second you say "I hold belief X" and BSA says "We don't tolerate belief X; you may not join." they have violated their own principle.
Please enlighten me... If there is in fact a quote in the BSA bylaws saying "we will determine ones human worth based on our beliefs..." or where that has been said by anyone in their ranks (verbatim)... You can spin almost anything by placing your own working on it. If they fully accept "gays" into their ranks they are not respecting one's beliefs and practices they are ENDORSING those beliefs.

This goes back to our fundamental disagreement as to what is natural and nature intended. (Or as I would say, what GOD intended for His people)

Another quick question... Just curious as to how you would answer this...

What if everyone had been gay since the beginning of time?
__________________

__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 08:38 AM  
American
 
leadarrows's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 251 | Kudos: +61
What if everyone had been gay since the beginning of time?

Obviously there would be no people unless some crossed lines. Need I tell you 2 men or 2 women can not reproduce?
__________________

__________________
Life's A HOOT!
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 08:50 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by leadarrows View Post
What if everyone had been gay since the beginning of time?

Obviously there would be no people unless some crossed lines. Need I tell you 2 men or 2 women can not reproduce?
Yeah, that's pretty much my point. I don't think we need to go beyond that to deduce that it is not natural. I wanted to get an answer from those who seem to believe it is equal (or even superior) to a heterosexual (aka "natural") sexual relationship.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 12:42 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
(I know, not necessarily an all ending source, but...) From Wikepedia:
"The Establishment Clause was established mainly as a consensus among all of the religious groups in America during 1787, to prevent one religion from having too much influence."

It was againi, primarily a response to previously being required by the king of England to adhere to one government endorsed religion only.

You're almost there. You're implying the principle I'm speaking of, but you're not stating it.

The founding fathers could have created a third house of congress, comprised of representatives of the various religions. They could have guaranteed religious freedom by giving religion significant power within the government, and ensuring that any legislation created was consistent with the religious beliefs of Americans.

They didn't create such a house.

The principle they valued was that each person should be responsible for his own religious beliefs.

Quote:


Please enlighten me... If there is in fact a quote in the BSA bylaws saying "we will determine ones human worth based on our beliefs..." or where that has been said by anyone in their ranks (verbatim)... You can spin almost anything by placing your own working on it. If they fully accept "gays" into their ranks they are not respecting one's beliefs and practices they are ENDORSING those beliefs.
By your argument, you're suggesting that BSA endorses heterosexuality. Except that they don't: they explicitly prohibit sexual activity at BSA events, going so far as to prohibit men and women from sleeping in the same cabin or tent, even if they are married to eachother.

BSA does not endorse sexuality of any sort. They prohibit all forms of sex during their events. That prohibition need not be lifted; what needs to be removed is the ban on homosexual preference; the belief that same-sex love is as valid as heterosexual love.

Quote:

This goes back to our fundamental disagreement as to what is natural and nature intended. (Or as I would say, what GOD intended for His people)
BSA dictates the answer to that question to scouts and volunteers. They don't leave it up to the beliefs of the individual, they declare their answer as valid and prohibit any sort of disagreement on it. In this sense, they have more in common with King George III than with the principles of the founding fathers.

Quote:

Another quick question... Just curious as to how you would answer this...

What if everyone had been gay since the beginning of time?
What do you mean by "gay"? A man who has sex 100 times, 50 with men, 50 with women - is he gay?

How about 99 with men, 1 with a woman? How about 99 with women, 1 with a man?

If you consider all three of these men "gay", then I would say that the human race would be alive and kicking. If your question refers to "exclusively gay" persons, then there would, of course, be no persons.

How many sexual partners have you had throughout your lifetime? It's extremely rare for a person to have only one sexual partner throughout their entire life. Have you procreated with each and every one of your sexual partners? Having a child with each and every single one of a person's sexual partners is also extremely rare.

How many children do you have? How many times have you had sex? And no, I don't really want an answer to either question, but I'll bet the ratio of sex to offspring is over 100:1. My point is that the vast majority of sex that humans have is for non-procreative purposes. Numerically and biologically speaking, the primary purpose of sex is for entertainment, not procreation. Procreation is a secondary function of sex, not the primary purpose.

BSA does not prohibit a person who desires casual sex with one or more heterosexual partners for purposes other than procreation. If they did, "it's necessary for procreation" argument might make sense. But they don't do that. What they are basing the prohibition on is the individual's romantic preference, and you haven't yet provided a reason that allows for people to choose to have non-procreative heterosexual relations, but does not allow for homosexual relations.

One other argument against the "it's necessary for procreation" argument is that gay people can adopt and raise children. Given that BSA is a youth organization, the vast majority of homosexual volunteers you would find would be family members of the scout. To say that another way: Gay people *can* have children. It's far more likely for a gay person to be raising a child than for a fertile person who exclusively engages in non-procreative heterosexual activities with a fertile partner, or those who have rendered themselves infertile.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 12:52 PM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
I will say again:

This goes back to our fundamental disagreement as to what is natural and nature intended. (Or as I would say, what GOD intended for His people)

Another quick question... Just curious as to how you would answer this...

What if everyone had been gay since the beginning of time?

I think you know the difference in "gay" and "bisexual". Enough with the wordplay and the definition of "is" is junk....
Men having sex with men is not natural. Women having sex with women is not natural. I don't think that I said that all heterosexual sex resulted in procreation... I said that the intended purpose of intercourse is procreation. The pleasure from it is supposed to be an incentive to have intercourse.... Didn't you get the birds and the bees stuff when you were little??? Jeeze..... If same sex intercourse was the only intercourse to take place we would all die without another generation to carry on. Yeah, artificial incemination (sp?) is an option but that is just an artificial way to bypass a natural process... And adoption? not possible without either heterosexial sex or artificial incemination. Which, I think we can agree that artificial incemination is not a natural process either....
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 06:34 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
I will say again:

This goes back to our fundamental disagreement as to what is natural and nature intended. (Or as I would say, what GOD intended for His people)
And AGAIN, we don't have to answer that question.

You believe that men should only have sex with women; women should only have sex with men.

I believe that sexual relationships need not be defined by the genders of the parties.

BSA's stated policy is to respect the beliefs of others. It causes me no injury to tolerate your beliefs. It causes you no injury to tolerate mine. But you suggest that BSA shouldn't follow our example of tolerating eachother's beliefs where they cause us no injury, and suggest that BSA should instead continue its policy of prohibiting persons who would be open and willing to enter into a homosexual relationship.

That stated policy is directly contradictory to their policy on respecting individual beliefs.

Quote:

Another quick question... Just curious as to how you would answer this...

What if everyone had been gay since the beginning of time?

I think you know the difference in "gay" and "bisexual". Enough with the wordplay and the definition of "is" is junk....
Your question and clarification are examples of Reductio ad Absurdum. You have demonstrated only that some heterosexual activity is required for procreation.

What I attempted to argue was that homosexual activity does not preclude heterosexual activity. The human race can survive and thrive without a single exclusively-straight person on the planet. Every last person on the planet could prefer homosexual intercourse and society would still survive and thrive so long as some people were willing to also occasionally have sex for procreation. Theoretically, all of the non-procreative sex acts (which are the vast majority of all sex acts) could be conducted with same-sex partners without affecting our progeneration.

Please keep in mind that I'm responding to your absurd question. I'm not suggesting that homosexuality should be the norm.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 10:48 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by leadarrows View Post
Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States (US).
Among all gay and bisexual men, blacks/African Americans bear the greatest disproportionate burden of HIV.
From 2006 to 2009, HIV infections among young black/African American gay and bisexual men increased 48%.

Sexual risk behaviors account for most HIV infections. Unprotected receptive anal sex is the sexual behavior that carries the highest risk for HIV acquisition.

Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse.

It is harmful. If the truth matters to you.

I lump them in with other people who have a sexually dysfunctional mental disorder because even though the disorder manifests itself differently it is still a disorder.
Every argument you made here could be adapted to show that Football is a mental disorder. Football players are at greater risk for death or serious injury than people who don't play football. Homosexuals are at greater risk for contracting HIV than people who don't participate in homosexual activity. Why is it acceptable for a person to take the risks of playing football with other people, but it's not acceptable for a person to take the risks of having sex with other people?
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.