to claim that this TV show... is harmless... just frivolity... it's entertainment... no problem... is to deny that there is an underlying agenda... (call it 'tolerance') and it is to deny that there will be a next step on the 'slippery slope'.
Notice how "Ellen" got cancelled a few years ago simply because of the lebian kiss.

Now look at what is allowed on tv.

Some of the stuff on "Will & Grace" would have received an R rating 10 years ago.
Even the commercial for the new "Charlie's Angels" movie would have had an R rating 10 years ago.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Archuletan wrote: "or my personal favorite:

#5 Barney's got his bullet out."
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Can you please explain #5 to me, it went right over my head, Archie. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Resilient:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Archuletan wrote: "or my personal favorite:

#5 Barney's got his bullet out."
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Can you please explain #5 to me, it went right over my head, Archie. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Barney Fife, deputy on "The Andy Griffith Show" has his bullet (he's only allowed one) out of his pocket and is putting it in his gun so you know he means business!

<small>[ July 25, 2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Chris -CA123 ]</small>

LOLOLOL ....

Thanks Chris, I just loved Mayberry RFD .. and Barney Fife was a real source of enjoyment. I'm surprised I didn't remember this.

NOW .... back to our regularly scheduled debate.

Jo

I knew it wasn't about any purple dinosaurs...

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

i never claimed that what is on television is harmless. i'm no expert in that area, so i can't begin to speculate. i don't think that the presentation of homsexuals on a television show exhibits an agenda of more or less strength than, say, shows like 7th heaven or touched by an angel. does this mean there is no agenda? of course, there's an agenda, although i'm not convinced it's quite so political in either case (as, clearly, not all shows are intended for all audiences). in the end, though, i have control over what i and my children watch. if i don't like it ... click ... let's see what's going on on animal planet. suddenly, there's traction on the slope.

ultimately, though, i believe that the agenda that matters most to those who make programming decisions is money. if they can they sell the show to advertisers, the show goes on. if they can't, the show gets yanked. advertisers need viewers. futher, it's been well known among many major retailers that the disposable income -- generally speaking -- of homosexuals is quite high (i remember seeing a study about a decade ago that showed that homosexuals earned about a third more than straight people in the same jobs). so the demographic is quite desireable.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by NSR:
...since no parent can be around them (to present an alternate view) 100% of the time... nor can we block all channels with the clicker.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So, my sincere question is: What is an appropriate television programming, in your mind?

Because I remember hearing about the evils of "Touched by an Angel" and "The Care Bears" in my fundamental church - too "new agey".

And the news is awful, with all of the violence it promotes.

Talk shows are pure crap, except for Dr. Phil and Oprah, sometimes, and they aren't often suited for children anyway.

The Road Runner and many other cartoon characters get smooshed, smashed and generally tortured on a regular basis.

Hey, on my son's King of Hearts video game there's a nine year old girl with breasts bigger than mine and her nipples show. I thought that was totally sickening and unnecessary. Oh, and that one's from Disney.

So, I'm wondering... is there any such thing as good television/entertainment?

And yes, I am utterly serious. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

PS: I love PBS, and have not a complaint about their programming which I find generally wonderful and uplifting...

edited to fix quote

<small>[ July 25, 2003, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: new_beginning ]</small>

Me again <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> ...

I guess I'm wondering if there is any way to productively discuss alternatives... without anyone feeling attacked for their beliefs.

Am I just too much of a sap? Is it possible to define 'goodness' in a world where the lines seem to blur?

Just been thinking about this all day and wondering how we can work together to find some common ground, if that's possible - or even necessary. That's me, if we all had a candle what a bright world it would be, eh?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by NSR:
<strong>I knew it wasn't about any purple dinosaurs...

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hi Jim,

That was my first thought too, BARNEY the Purple guy.

Best,
Jo <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Mmmm....

Against my better judgement, I'm back for a moment...maybe I just can't avoid an argument.

First off, allow me to apologize for confusing two similar threads. One was regarding the "Protection of Marriages" amendment, while the other was on same-sex marriage.

On the latter, NSR said this:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

Don't let the secular humanists... vanquish morality into a never-never land.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This implies that secular humanists have no morals. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For those of you who do not understand secular humanism, this is a good starting point:

10 Myths About Secular Humanism

From the former thread, NSR posted this:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
I truely love homosexuals...
I love drug addicts...
I love those addicted to gambling...
I love the homeless and sick...
I love child molestors... pedophiles...
I love rapists...
I love murders... thieves... and liars...
I love those cheat and slander...
I love those who break marriages...
I love adulterers... and you probably don't believe it... I still pray every day (usually more than once) for ex-wife too!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Wow...that's great...gays are no better than drug addicts, murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

THAT is what really disturbs me...the notion that some people put homosexuality on the same moral level as murder. I'm honestly trying to see what my (gay) 3rd-grade teacher has in common with the drug dealer that murdered my friend Charlie and I'm quite frankly at a loss to make the connection. Please correct me if I'm taking this out of context.

Regarding the characterization of homosexuals as evil:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
they use to call them Queer when I grew up we were taught they were evil and I still see them as such...sorry people but they are sick...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Am I missing something here?

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" />

Regarding "tolerance:"

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
Can anyone argue that there has not been a push to include 'tolerance' of homosexuality in the public schools?...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, I can't.

By the same token, I can't argue that there has not been a push to include 'tolerance' of desegregation in the public schools.

Heck, it took the National Guard to enforce 'tolerance' of black kids going to school with white kids.

Why is the acceptance of gays so different from the acceptance of blacks? Both could just as easily make the argument that they were "born that way."

Hey NB!,

Ok, so you are sickened that a nine year old has bigger breasts than you do? Just remember the rule of thumb, more than a mouthful is good. Or, is it the nipple thing that is unnecessary? [I thought that had to do with lactation] I think everyone should have a nipple or two. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Trying to lighten up the air, where is Cjack?

I don't have a prob with anyone [gay, lesbian, black, white, green, purple dots, Civic Honda owners, etc, ok maybe Mustang 5.0 folks, but] as long as they don't try to push their views on me or convert me to their way of thinking.

This is America Damn It! Home of the Rams and the Dodgers!!!

Debate is good, it makes our minds work. Heads are more than a hat rack.

Oh, and BTW, I think you breasts are just fine <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Can you tell G is out of town and I'm out of control?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">to claim that this TV show... is harmless... just frivolity... it's entertainment... no problem... is to deny that there is an underlying agenda... (call it 'tolerance') and it is to deny that there will be a next step on the 'slippery slope'.
Notice how "Ellen" got cancelled a few years ago simply because of the lebian kiss.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ellen did not get cancelled because of a lesbian kiss...that was its last season long before it went that route......no plan of continueing it regardless of subject matter...

to me that is just as much as a slippery slope...drawing those conclusions...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">...but the point is... children... can and will be influenced by this and other such programming... ...especially as it progresses...
...since no parent can be around them (to present an alternate view) 100% of the time... nor can we block all channels with the clicker.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There is difference between children being "exposed" to this and other such...and being influenced...

I was and continue to expose myself <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> to lots of different things and points of view...yet continue to be able to draw my own conclusions...and will hopefulls assist my children in developing the same skill to do so as their developement and learning curve continues...

I have no desire to be with my children 100% of the time to present an alternate view.. and
I shouldn't have to be no matter what "garbage" as I perceive it to be...is thrown at them..

.I desire to give them a good basis at home and let them go out and be exposed...my hope is that our family influence will ground them with the ability to draw healthly conclusions of what is of value out there....

And we do our children no service by just removing from them and their world things we "perceive" as undesirable...

We must give them learning tools that assist them in making good decisions.

So what's the agenda behind a show like "Everybody Loves Raymond" LOL To show how stupid men are?

I'm convinced of that and I have never watched one episode of everybody loves raymond!!!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />
kidding sort of...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">PS: I love PBS, and have not a complaint about their programming which I find generally wonderful and uplifting...
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">PBS in the seventies did one of the first reality shows..following that one family...I forget the name of the show Meet the ???????????
just had there 25th anniversery...and the recent death of the young teenage boy..

ended up the son was a homosexual and "came out on this show...parents ended up divorced...producers and film makers said they had NO IDEA this was the route this show was going to take...was shocking for it's day...

hugely cotroversial
that's not anything about you new beginning just curious if you had seen that show...I saw the anniversery follow up and would like to see the original..wish I could remember the exact name as well...

cjack...

...I'd be willing to start a new thread OT(off-topic) on 'secular humanism'.

If you don't wish to take it up here... or on another forum (see the new link... on the EN forum)... that's OK.

==========

In reply to your previous reply...
...you did choose the most inflamatory when you chose...murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.'...
... and not liars (which we all are sometimes)... cheaters (which we all are sometimes)... slanderers (which we all are sometimes)... or 'break[ers] of marriages'.

I wouldn't put homosexuality at the same level as murder...
...or necessarily at the same level as any of the others...
...but I would say that the 'behavior' is not moral, nor beneficial to society.
...to that extent, I dobelieve you have been using hyperbole in your argument.

==========

I too think the description of the 'homosexual as evil'...
...is not at all where I come from... (not my reply)
...but I understand why her personal experiences gave her that perspective.

==========

I think the argument of 'born that way"... is weak... maybe as weak as the 'criminal'(of whatever crime) makes in saying... it's the way I was born... it's the neighborhood I grew up in... it's myparent's bringing me up.

With love and respect.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

<small>[ July 26, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: NSR ]</small>

^^ark...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There is difference between children being "exposed" to this and other such...and being influenced...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">'exposed' does sound nicer than 'influenced'... but depending on the age and maturity of the children... one does lead to the other... [i]especially without guidance[/b]. Allowing the espousure... can in the minds of the young (and often not so young... and even mature)... offer a form of condoning (implicit maybe) but still conding of whatever is being exposed.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I was and continue to expose myself to lots of different things and points of view...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">(and your age is what?... your level of maturity is what?... in comparision to children.... 5...7...10...12 etc.) A similar argument was made by my wife about her having my children visit her at her nudist camp. She would say... it doesn't hurt me... its safe for me... why not for them?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have no desire to be with my children 100% of the time to present an alternate view</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">...neither do I, and my teaching my children morals/values require me to minimize (and discern) that 'exposure'... not eliminate it. I used to block certain channels (expecially a certain times of the day)... but never had I had to do that in primetime for NBC.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And we do our children no service by just removing from them and their world things we "perceive" as undesirable...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">...I know you don't mean this in the 'universal' sense of 'removing from them...'.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

~*~Sheryl~*~...

Good to see you still around.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So, I'm wondering... is there any such thing as good television/entertainment?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There is not ONE channel that has 100% everything 100% wholesome... (except for maybe EWTN)...

...but there are many 'good' shows that do try to present morals and family life, like Seventh Heaven', and 'Touched by an angel'... ...much of what is on PAX...

...some kids programming is 'good' too (but not all)... ...yes some Disney is supberb... some of it is attrocious.

The problem I see is that in most programming...
...there is the need to 'throw in just a little dirt'... for the entertainment value. [ala the story of 'just a little doggie-doo in the brownie']

...or in the case of some of the most popular shows (eg. Simpsons)... to throw in just a little morals... for the sake of my son(21 years old) being able to argue...'but it had amoral message'!

BTW: I feel the Simpson's has degraded family values more than any other prime time show. The characterization of the bafoon 'father'-type, all condoning 'mother'-type, glorifying-under-achiever 'son'-type... and to throw in a 'goody-goody' duaghter-type[to keep it just a step away from the 'OZBORNEs']... is the epitome of what people consider... the best of TV entertainment.
Heaven help us.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

I do believe that there is a slippery slope when it comes to morality. I’ve seen it going on for years. I could list at least 100 things that have gone down that slippery slope… Things that have damaged our society, not added to it. When I was younger I was one of those who helped to create the slippery slope… I saw nothing wrong with out of wed lock births, abortions, etc. Now I understand that I was very very wrong.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Ruoy:
<strong>Because homosexuals are just like straights except that they are attracted to members of their own sex. They're not trying to seduce your straight sons and daughters. They're not trying to kidnap children. They're not destroying society. They just want to live a normal life just like you do.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You are right that most homosexuals, like most heterosexuals are not pedophiles and not seducing and converting children. But when you give your argument, please be honest. Homosexuals are a very large group of people. There is a very active group of homosexual men who are lobbying for the right to rape our sons… they are called NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). If you read their site you will see that they are riding the coat tails of the gay rights movement. And they too can justify that their perversion is not only natural but good for the boys they rape. They are a sick, disgusting group of men who want us all to accept their beliefs as good for our sons. Sick sick sick

Do not tell me that there are not people trying to do this. I have a stepson is who now bi-sexual, the direct result of being repeatedly raped by older teen boys and young adult men. He was also repeatedly raped by women. This went of for years, from ages 6-13. He is now in an institution where we hope they can help him climb out of the insanity these sick people pushed him into.

Not all homosexuals are born homosexual.. this is only a very small percentage that are genetically confused. There are a very large percentage, like my stepson who were emotionally damaged and that has determined their sexuality. I know this from hours upon hours of discussing the topics with lesbians and homosexual men. Today I can be called a homophobe for even suggesting that homosexuals are made and not born. But these discussions took place 25 years ago before it was politically incorrect to say such things. When even the homosexuals themselves could admit to this.

In their study of human sexuality, Masters and Johnson, found that a person’s sexual orientation was usually determined by their earliest sexual experience and not by any genetic predisposition to be either heterosexual or homosexual. Do keep in mind that Masters and Johnson did not see homosexuality was wrong or deviant… only as one of the many ways of human sexual expression. Yet the homosexual community was up in arms against M&J because they also said that the sexual orientation can be changed and that suggested that homosexuals needed to use condoms and have a healthier life style instead of having 100s of partners a year.

You see, not all homosexuals are that sweet couple everyone keeps bringing up. Most homosexual men do not form exclusive relationships. Most of them are involved in a hedonistic lifestyle that is very unhealthy for themselves and for society at large. I wonder that the statistics are like for lesbians… I have no idea.

Since every homosexual I have ever talked to at length says that they are a victim of abuse that led to their choice in orientation, I do not believe that homosexuality is a victimless. Someone had to victimize most homosexuals to harm them and cause them to have the issues they have. Sure most homosexuals do not abuse children. But some percentage of them do. And most pedophiles have many, as many as hundreds, of victims a year.

Over the years I’ve had conversations with a fairly large number of homosexual men and women about their sexual orientation and how it came about. Every one of them have told me that they were sexually abused/raped as children and this abuse is what let to their sexual orientation. Some of them gravitated to prefer the gender of their abuser… this usually happened when they felt some confusion that they enjoyed the encounter so assumed that it meant they there homosexual. Others gravitated away from the opposite sex because the abused was such a huge violation (as when a father rapes his daughter – I will not use the watered down word ‘abuse’ for this as it is rape not mamby pamby ‘abuse’).

Can all of your understanding of homosexuals undo what the group of them did to by stepson? No. Perhaps if someone had stood up against them years ago my stepson would be a whole person who could have a normal life. I doubt he ever will. And this is thanks to all the ‘tolerance’ that goes around these days… tolerance of deviant sexual behavior.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Ruoy:
<strong>Homosexual children commit suicide 100-200% more than straight children. There's no reason for that. A child, or adult, should feel loved and accepted no matter their sexual orientation.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I do agree with this. Homosexual children commit suicide at higher rates. So do children who have been molested by both heterosexual and homosexuals. My step daughter was also molested by her brother after the victim turned perpetrator. We have kept a constant suicide watch on her for the last 3 years. She is on a horrible emotional roller coaster. My stepson has been on suicide watch often at his treatment facility. What it boils down to is that our society and our systems do not have much help for anyone, not even our children, straight or homosexual. Nor do the laws protect our children.

So does it stand that if homosexuality seen as socially acceptable that most of the homosexual children will not commit suicide? Maybe the reason that the rate of suicide amongst homosexual teens is so high is that not only are they confused about their sexuality but they are also dealing with sexual abuse that has happened to them and they are afraid to discuss this. Most victims of sexual abuse/rape never tell anyone. I know it took my stepchildren 7 years to tell anyone what was happening to them. It was 8 years before I told anyone that I was raped when I was 20 years old. So what is the real reason these kids are committing suicide. Is it only based on their sexuality? Or on other harms they have suffered? Perhaps this is a reason to further set the boundaries in our society against homosexuality and to provide the children with more help, much more help then is available. Does it really help our children to teach them that what is unnatural then acceptable? Does that not only confuse them more? Does that not further confuse a child like my stepson who is trying to deal with the horrible harm that has been done to him?

-------------------------------------------
I agreed with the argument that as long as the homosexuals were not in my face then it did not bother me what they do. There have been a few times in my life when homosexuals have been in my face in very harmful ways. One is by what happened to by stepson. The other I speak about later.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">After reviewing that thread, and taking into consideration the majority opinion and the thrust of that opinion, I've come to the realization that I no longer belong at MB.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So what you are saying here is that freedom of speech and thought only are valid when they agree with you? That no one else’s opinions and thoughts are valid? That secular humanism is the only valid belief system?

I am not a Bible stumper; I am also not a secular humanism. I believe is God. I view the bible as a history, a spiritual guide, and a book of moral rules and laws. For a good part of the world it was the basis of law and morality for centuries. Much of it worked well. Much of it did not. The same holds for secular humanism. I don’t see where secular humanism does any more good for humanity than the Bible, the Koran or the Torah do. It is only one more flawed belief system… a religion of sorts in and of itself.

It seems to me that we all benefit from discussing all of this. To stomp off because some people do not agree with you is, well silly. Why is it wrong to discuss all sides of a topic?

The fact of the matter is that some people view any form of religion to be evil. We have all heard those arguments. There are people today who are trying to destroy any and all religions. Right now Christianity seems to be the target. In the USA it is being done in the press and legally. In other parts of the world it is being done with guns and swords… Christians are being slaughtered on some countries. We certainly do not hear much sympathy for them in the press.

Some people do not believe in secular humanism. I have a problem with it because humans are already too darn self-centered. When we put ourselves as the center of our universe then anything can be accepted. But that I my opinion.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In that thread, "queers," toleration for homosexuality and secular humanism were singled out as evil. Hatred of homosexuals seems to be perfectly okay with the moderators of these forums. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Just because a person has beliefs that are not totally supportive of homosexuals does not mean that they hate homosexuals. Most of us are struggling with the entire topic. By definition homosexuality is unnatural. It’s a simple fact. That does not mean that I hate homosexuals. It just means that sex is meant for procreation and homosexuals cannot procreate with each other. If you want to then turn around and say that is hatred, you own that hatred, not me.

I feel that today the homosexual activists are shoving their agenda on all of us. And if we raise one question we are called the dreaded homophobic. OMG… homophobic. Think I’ll shrivel up and die. I’m tired of it. I am not homophobic… I have valid thoughts and questions and do not appreciate you or anyone else trying to shut me up with some stupid threat of homophobia.

I laugh every time I hear someone say that they love homosexual people. Those homosexuals are good people. Isn’t this a form of patronizing… like “I like homosexuals, why I even know one.” Get real. Homosexuals are people just like the rest of us. I’ve met homosexual people who are pretty nice people. I’ve also met some who are despicable people who I would not even want to be around. All homosexuals are also not tolerant of heterosexuals. I’ve had some pretty upsetting interactions with homosexuals… where they discriminated against heterosexuals.

In one instance we had a lesbian in our barracks try to drown a straight woman because she would not give into her advances. In our barracks the rooms were given out according to a person’s sexual orientation. The lesbians were assigned two (two lovers) to a room in the larger rooms. The straight women were put 4 – 6 to a room in the smaller rooms. The lesbians some how never were assigned to stand guard duty for our ammunitions sites either. I guess only straight women could do that. The easier jobs in the barracks were assigned to the lesbian women and the dirtier, harder ones to the straight women.

Additionally there was a group of lesbian women in our barracks used to find it fun to play cards, get drunk and then harass the straight women… how? By turning their music up as loud as they could so we could not sleep. Threaten to beat us up if we complained, etc.

The career orientation I got from the lesbian Sergeant Major was to tell me that it would not look good for me if I slept with every man on the base. Well I had no intent to do that. Had not even thought about it. My intent was to go to OCS (officer training school). This prize of a ‘woman’ was one of the reason I only did 4 years in the military. I knew that as long as there were lesbians like her in the higher ranks, as a heterosexual woman I was not going anywhere.

After three years of this crap I was put in charge of the barracks. I changed the room and chore assignments according to rank, as they should be. The lesbian women were put back on the guard duty roster. I did this with regard to rank only… no animosity towards the lesbians and no favor towards anyone. It caused a lot of problems. At one point I had my life threatened for doing this. A guard was posted at my barracks door to keep me safe while I slept.

By the way that Sergeant Major was eventually discharged from the Army because she, some of the lesbian officers and almost all of the lesbian enlisted women from our barracks were busted for having monthly orgies in a near my resort. Guess it was OK for the Sergeant Major to sleep with all the women…. Just not ok for me to sleep with all the men…. Go figure. Guess I just should have switch over, huh?

The upshot of the above story is that I do not find homosexuals to be any better, any more loving or anything else than straight people. They are people. They can be mean, ugly and self-serving like anyone else. They can also be very good people. Unfortunately this was my one ‘intimate’ experience with lesbians.. about 40 of them. It was not pretty. I remain to this day traumatized by that experience.

I have over the years known homosexuals who seemed nice enough but I do not know them well enough to have any idea what they are really like. I do not think all homosexuals are like the ones I had the misfortune to run into in Army. I don’t think that all homosexuals in the military are like them either. But I do know that homosexuals as a group are not ‘good people’ any more than all straights are ‘good people’.

Do not forget that NAMBLA is right behind the homosexual movement. Go read their site, they are pushing for legalization of homosexual marriages, homosexual relationships with children etc. Anyone who thinks that the homosexual movement is only about a homosexual couple who are decent citizens getting some rights is naive. This is as much or more about NAMBLA riding the slippery slope to legalize sex with our children. And once it’s ok for NAMBLA it’s ok for heterosexual pedophiles too.

This entire discussion is about where are we going to draw the line. A relationship between two adults who are contributing members of society who hurt no one may do us no harm. Well except that it teaches our children that anything that feels good is ok.

But then what about those who engage in hedonistic behavior? The homo and heterosexuals who have many.. Hundreds, in some cases thousands, of sex partners a year? The bathhouses? The married men who do this and spread diseases to their unsuspecting wives and children? Is that ok with secular humanism?

Don’t tell me that I’m being ridiculous because people can find good arguments for any and everything. Society has to draw the line somewhere. If we do not, then everything goes. And why are we here on MB? Why do we care about infidelity? It does not matter is our spouses are out screwing around. They want to and it feels good. More power to them.. maybe we should all be doing the same thing.. we’d be a lot happier doing things that feel good instead of trying to save marriages that cause only pain.

Is it ok for anyone to do anything they please that feels good? Is it not then ok for a brother to seduce his sister? A father to seduce his daughter? A mother to seduce her son? Is not infidelity also ok for the same reason? Is not then rape ok? After all the rapist enjoys it. I was told by some that when I was raped I should not be upset as rape is enjoyable to the victim. Are there any wrongs?

You see society has to draw a line. Each of us has our own idea of where that line should be drawn. Why is your choice of where it is drawn any more valid than mine?

I have asked over and over where do people draw the line and not one person has answered. Why is that? Is it because no one really knows where they will draw the line? That since they will not draw one, anything is, in the end ok?

We have already seen here that Christians cannot agree on where to draw the line… Where do secular humanists draw the line? What I see is that it is relative… everyone has their own idea so why do we bother with laws?

Cjack, where would you draw the line? Obviously you think that homosexuality is ok. Do you think that it is ok for a person to have sex with hundreds or thousands of partners a year and in doing this to spread disease? Do you think that what we call pedophilia is ok? Where is the line?

<small>[ July 26, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Zorweb ]</small>

I also wanted to talk about discrimination against homosexuals.

We know it exists. It has for a very long time. There have been laws on the books for years that make it illegal. These same laws also say it’s illegal to discriminate based on race, religion or gender. Those discriminations also continue. For the most part though, discrimination against all people, including gays has decreased and continues to decrease with time.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Ruoy:
<strong>I hope that one day gays won't be attacked with baseball bats just because a group of thugs didn't like the way they were walking. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Let’s put things in perspective here. Yes this is a horrible thing and should not happen. We have heard some cases that have made the news. But all in all it’s not anywhere near as prevalent as the incidence of women being assaulted and/or killed only because they are women. I hear of many cases more cases of women being rapped, assaulted and killed every year. Why are they killed? Because some man, a predator, hates women just as the assailants of homosexuals hate the homosexuals.

If we really look at it closely it is a hate crime for a man to assault/rape/kill a woman just because she is a women. He selected his victim based on her gender. Why is it that it is seen as a worse crime for that same man to accost a homosexual?

They are all hate crimes no matter who is attached.. but a person will get a stiffer sentence now for killing a gay man then they will for killing a straight woman. Guess straight people, women in my example, are just not as valuable as homosexuals are they?

I have heard of maybe one case in our city of over half a million in the last 25 years of gay man ending up beaten or dead because of a hate crime. Hundreds of women have been raped, assaulted and killed in this time for no reason other than that they are women.

So when you hope that one day gays can walk down the street and not be accosted.. . how much thought do you give to the idea that maybe one day your daughter (if you have one) and your wife may one day be able to be safe and not fear being raped and/or killed just because they are a woman? The likelihood of that happening to any woman is far greater than it happening to any gay man. As a matter of fact, most women I know has been raped violently. Some, like myself, have had attempts made on their lives by men they don’t even know only because that man hates women.

The major problem I have with the gay rights movement is that things are just seem so screwed and out of proportion. We really do not need any more laws on the books. We really do not need an extra penalty for hate crimes… what constitutes a hate crime? From what I can tell, the only thing that is needed to prove that a hate crime has occurred is for the assailant to be heterosexual and the victim to by homosexual. So the upshot of it is that one pays a higher price for committing a crime against a homosexual no matter what the assailant’s intent was.

Ok, just wanted to jump in and post something...I have several friends who are gay. Mainly women who are lesbians. My children (boys...13, 11 and 6) have been exposed to them. They've seen them hug and kiss. They act like a boy/girl couple in front of anyone. My children were not "freaked out" about it at all. My kids just see them as people. It doesn't bother them at all.

My friends have also done alot in the area of toleration. We go out to one club in particular that was known to be a "redneck" place. Now it's not.

It's not about who we love, it's about who we are.

I was reading the NAMBLA site tonight and found these quotes. They make no bones about the fact that pedophilia is very much an integral part of what homosexuality is, that homosexuals are recruiting children…. In their own words. There is plenty more of this sick stuff to read on their site if you so choose……

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The issue of love between men and boys has intersected the gay movement since the late nineteenth century, with the rise of the first gay rights movement in Germany. In the United States, as the gay movement has retreated from its vision of sexual liberation, in favor of integration and assimilation into existing social and political structures, it has increasingly sought to marginalize even demonize cross-generational love. Pederasty - that is, love between a man and a youth of 12 to 18 years of age - say middle-class homosexuals, lesbians, and feminists, has nothing to do with gay liberation. Some go so far as to claim, absurdly, that it is a heterosexual phenomenon, or even "sexual abuse." What a travesty!
Pederasty is the main form that male homosexuality has acquired throughout Western civilization - and not only in the West! Pederasty is inseparable from the high points of Western culture - ancient Greece and the Renaissance. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">a quote from Alex King… one of the pre-teen brothers who murdered their father so they could live with Rick Chavis. Rick is the homosexual pedophile who was indulging their whims in exchange for sexual favors.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Before I met Rick I was straight but now I am gay.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The article goes on to say the following about Rick Chavis, the pedophile who Alex says converted him to homosexuality.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Still, it sounds as if he made some of the mistakes BLs (Boy Lovers) all too often make in such relationships – the relationship was steeped in secrets and lies and he overindulged the boys.[4]I don’t condemn him for this -- our society works so hard to destroy such relationships that some boy lovers see secrets and overindulgences as necessary evils. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is so sick… they are saying that because society will not allow man/boy sexual relationships BLs have to use secrecy and overindulgences to seduce the boys. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> (don't they have a puke Graemlin?)

Now tell me again that some homosexual men are not out there recruiting young boys to convert them to homosexuality. Tell me again that homosexuality is victimless.

<small>[ July 27, 2003, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Zorweb ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Zorweb:
<strong>
So what you are saying here is that freedom of speech and thought only are valid when they agree with you? That no one else’s opinions and thoughts are valid? That secular humanism is the only valid belief system?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What I am saying is that I, as a humanist, (and a person who does not feel that all homosexuals are deviants looking to have sex with children) no longer feel welcome on a site that is overwhelmingly Christian, and as such, fundamentally oppposed to homosexuality based upon a couple of passages in the Bible.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don’t see where secular humanism does any more good for humanity than the Bible, the Koran or the Torah do. It is only one more flawed belief system… a religion of sorts in and of itself.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yet some people equate the rise of humanism with every single social problem in the modern world. I would disagree with you about it being a religion, except in such a broad sense as to make the definition of religion meaningless.

I think NSR may be right in calling for a separate thread to talk about secular humanism.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
It seems to me that we all benefit from discussing all of this. To stomp off because some people do not agree with you is, well silly. Why is it wrong to discuss all sides of a topic?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I understand that reasonable people can disagree. The reason I "stomped off," and will probably continue, is that there are people here who don't approach the problem from a rational perspective, and simply say "it's sick, deviant, and wrong because my holy book says so...end of discussion."

I'd like to see some sort of research linking homosexuality to childhood sexual abuse to back up your anecdotal evidence, for example.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
The fact of the matter is that some people view any form of religion to be evil. We have all heard those arguments. There are people today who are trying to destroy any and all religions. Right now Christianity seems to be the target. In the USA it is being done in the press and legally. In other parts of the world it is being done with guns and swords… Christians are being slaughtered on some countries. We certainly do not hear much sympathy for them in the press.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Personally, I find Buddhism and Sikhism to be uncommonly beautiful and peaceful religions.

I would disagree that Christianity is a "target" in the United States. I addressed this in another thread in D & D, and the notion that Christianity is somehow in danger in the United States is at best absurd.

Non-believers, on the other hand, are perhaps one of the last groups of people whom it is perfectly okay to discriminate against. Check out this quote:

"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."

Who said it? George Herbert Walker Bush. That scares me...not because a President said it, but because he is far, far from alone in thinking that way.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
Some people do not believe in secular humanism. I have a problem with it because humans are already too darn self-centered. When we put ourselves as the center of our universe then anything can be accepted. But that I my opinion.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm guessing, judged on this, that you haven't the slightest idea what secular humanists, freethinkers, or other "infidels" are thinking.

Ironically, it is the Abrahamic religions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) that put humans at the center of the universe. Years of amateur astronomy cleared up that notion for me!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Just because a person has beliefs that are not totally supportive of homosexuals does not mean that they hate homosexuals. Most of us are struggling with the entire topic. By definition homosexuality is unnatural. It’s a simple fact. That does not mean that I hate homosexuals. It just means that sex is meant for procreation and homosexuals cannot procreate with each other. If you want to then turn around and say that is hatred, you own that hatred, not me.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">A couple of points...

I'll gladly concede that most people who disagree with homosexuality don't "hate" gays as such. However, it is disturbing (to me) that there are a couple of logical fallacies applied to homosexuality over and over again.

One is the "slippery slope." The idea that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of pedophilia, bestiality, and other atrocities is patently and demonstrably false.

The other is the fallacy of false association. We've seen this on this very thread. The argument goes: "NAMBLA advocates pedophilia. NAMBLA promotes homosexuality. Therefore homosexuals advocate pedophilia."

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
I feel that today the homosexual activists are shoving their agenda on all of us. And if we raise one question we are called the dreaded homophobic.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Minority groups, when discriminated against, tend to shove their agenda on all of us.

Blacks shoved their agenda of Civil Rights on all of us back in the late 50's and early 60's.

Women shoved their suffragist agenda on us a hundred years ago.

Abolitionists shoved their agenda on us 150 years ago.

Oddly enough, there are very few abolitionists "in your face" nowadays.

There are no more marches for women's suffrage.

And I'd argue that the Civil Rights movement has made great strides towards becoming as equally irrelevant as the other two movements.

Maybe...just maybe...if we stop discriminating against gays, they will collectively stop "shoving their agenda" on us.

Just a thought.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
I do not find homosexuals to be any better, any more loving or anything else than straight people. They are people...I do know that homosexuals as a group are not ‘good people’ any more than all straights are ‘good people’.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There you go...you've just made my argument for me.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
This entire discussion is about where are we going to draw the line. A relationship between two adults who are contributing members of society who hurt no one may do us no harm. Well except that it teaches our children that anything that feels good is ok.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hold on a sec...what two consenting adults do is okay, AS LONG AS IT DOES NO HARM. This implicitly refutes the idea that "if it feels good, do it."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
But then what about those who engage in hedonistic behavior? The homo and heterosexuals who have many.. Hundreds, in some cases thousands, of sex partners a year? The bathhouses? The married men who do this and spread diseases to their unsuspecting wives and children? Is that ok with secular humanism?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">For me? No.

Is it okay with Christianity? 'Cause I know some good Christians who take hedonism to a level that I cannot reconcile with my humanist beliefs.



</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> And why are we here on MB? Why do we care about infidelity?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Me? I came here because my born-again Christian wife was screwing another guy.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
Is it ok for anyone to do anything they please that feels good? Is it not then ok for a brother to seduce his sister? A father to seduce his daughter? A mother to seduce her son? Is not infidelity also ok for the same reason? Is not then rape ok? After all the rapist enjoys it. I was told by some that when I was raped I should not be upset as rape is enjoyable to the victim. Are there any wrongs?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

What part of "between consenting adults" do you not understand???



</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
Cjack, where would you draw the line? Obviously you think that homosexuality is ok. Do you think that it is ok for a person to have sex with hundreds or thousands of partners a year and in doing this to spread disease? Do you think that what we call pedophilia is ok? Where is the line?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have said this a number of times...let me say it again...

CONSENTING ADULTS.

Pedophilia is sick, and should be punished.

Rape is a crime, and should be punished.

If a person intentionally spreads an STD, they should be punished.

The line is clear...adults should be free to do whatever they want to sexually with other willing adults.

The moment that they seek to involve a child, or an animal, or someone who is unwilling or unable to consent to sexual relations, they have crossed the line.

What part of this don't you understand???