http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-4874475-9032165?v=glance&s=books

review the book above and get back to me. It is a controversial compendium of current thought, and the authors (expert) opinion about human nature. Included is various chapters, one dealing with kinship bonds.....another book which might help you understand (pinker also wrote), is How the mind works.

I don't actually think you are biochemically gay just j....very few are. Homosexuality is just one of a host of gestational sexual defects humans can manifest....many are more obviously physical (such as having both male and female sexual organs). Most gays are doing so as lifestyle choice, and often in reaction to life experiences....true homosexuality is a biochemical issue. I have no doubt if you confer some additional social advantage to homosexuality there would be an "increase" in declared homosexuality. The studies I have read state that as a species homosexuality runs about 1% of the population, yet 10% claim to be gay.

As a gestational/genetic defect homosexuality will be cured, probably within 50 years, then there will be no more homosexuals...but there will continue to be people who choose to behave in such a manner.

As for my personal position. I have no real issue with forcing social will on individual choice....and indeed many homosexuals are law-abiding, worthwhile citizens, with value, and can be good parents as well. My issue is with undermining our social foundation of the heterosexual family (by diluting the concept of marriage/family). I think doing so will not serve our society well, and therefore will be bad not only for heteros, but gays as well. Interestingly, plenty of gays oppose legal recognition of gay marriage as well....how do you explain that?

I try to avoid religious arguments about this subject, they are fruitless....and no need, the secular arguments opposing legalization of gay unions is compelling in itself.

Thanks for the reference. Looks like it's a hugely controversial read, based on the reviews. I generally prefer science for the scientist, but Phys. Rev. Lets. isn't going to get me anywhere in this field, and that's the only one where I have the qualifications to understand most of the jargon.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Just J:
<strong> Thanks for the reference. Looks like it's a hugely controversial read, based on the reviews. I generally prefer science for the scientist, but Phys. Rev. Lets. isn't going to get me anywhere in this field, and that's the only one where I have the qualifications to understand most of the jargon. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It is not for scientists, it is for "normal" people so they can make informed decisions. Ignoring science does not mean science is going to ignore us. Part of the controversy IMO is due to the naturally less precise terminology one has to use to explain complex issues to lay people. You do yourself (and reduce your credibility) if you do not seek a much greater understanding of human nature before you suggest political change....if you want change, you must prove your case with your fellow citizens...otherwise why should we do what you want?

So far the "proof" has been based on nonsensical notions of a sort of fairness philosphy....which is countered by a religious values philosophy....neither of these approaches yeilds anything of value, because both do not deal with the actual psychological dyamics of a different social paradigm.... There will still be resolution, regardless of whether anyone does their homework, because we cannot exist in a limbo, a vacuumn. But whether it is the right solution will be a matter of blind luck, driven by personal agendas (in absence of anything more "scienctific"). This calls to mind the cliche of live by the sword die by the sword....if the homosexual marriage constituency wants people to change cause if "feels" right...then they must realize (and forced to accept) it may not change if it "feels" wrong to a larger number. On the other hand, if we continue to understand human nature, and psychological dynamics group and individual...then we can arrive at a meaningful consensus and all go forward on the same page.

Hey Just J,

I really do appreciate everyone that has weighed in, because this has been an "adult" conversation, and we have managed to discuss a very touchy subject without name calling or getting nasty. So, kudos to everyone involved so far!!

Now, to your post...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Now, gentlemen, I would ask of you questions. You say (one of you said) that non-Christians burn, and that what’s required is to take Christ as my personal Savior. So tell me.

Let's say that I DID sincerely accept Christ in all His glory.

Now let's go back to my life.

I have a daughter
with another parent
who is also a woman
And I swore solemn vows
and promises
To love her
To care for her
To nurture her
for the rest of my life
And I believe our daughter
Needs both her parents
So what, praytell, would God say to do? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The first thing I would like to address is the fact that you swore solemn vows to this woman. Well, one...my wife swore undying love to the OM, that she wanted to pursue a life with him. Was that wrong in God's eyes? Of course!! So the idea that you swore solemn vows is NOT the most important thing here.

You talk of this child as your daughter. First off, I am the first to know the distinction between biological parents, and those that are in the child's day-to-day lives. Anyone that has read my posts knows that my older son is NOT my biological son. I met my wife 4 months after he was born. My oldest does not know of his biological father. He signed paperwork early on in our marriage, allowing me to adopt my son. I am on the birth certificate now as the father. One day, we will tell him. But for now, he grows up in a normal home, with his brother and sister. If you walked into our home, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference in how they act or are treated. As a matter of fact, if anyone said I had a "favorite," it would be him.

Now, is that boy not my son because my blood doesnt flow thru his veins? Absolutely not! I am his father, the only one he knows. He is learning to become a man from me. His bio dad is not here to teach him. And no woman, including his mother, can teach him how to be a man. Boys learn how to be men by watching and copying other men.

But I will tell you this. While he doesnt look any different than his brother or sister (my wife has VERY dominant genes...which is good for my daughters sake because what woman wants to go thru life looking like Mortarman?! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> ), my son is starting to show traits in his actions and mannerisms that are neither mine nor my wife's. I ask my wife later when these happen, and she says that what he did or said is just like his bio dad. Now how in the world do you suppose he learned that, when he has NEVER met the man, and doesnt even know he exists? You see, I understand that there are parts of my son that will come from his bio dad. Not just physical traits. But also who he is, what he will be and can be. So, while he IS my son, his bio dad still has a part of him and his life.

Now, what you posted...you love that little girl...that cannot be denied. You have made promises of love to this woman also. And then, by your premise mentioned above, you come face-to-face with Jesus Christ, who says to follow Him. What do you do?

I first have to say something. There should always be a basic premise in life, and that is we all have priorities. I hate it when a mother or father say that their child or children come before anything. Anything? Really? Before your spouse? Before God?

God should ALWAYS be first. Always! In my life, my relationship with Christ, while strained at times, has always come back to this point. How in the world do you suppose I am still with my wife, still in love with my wife, after what she has done? You think it is because she deserves it? You think it is because I am some great guy, who is so filled with love and forgiveness? Pulease!! I can be one of the most angry, vengence-filled people you will ever know. Early in my life, I was noted for making sure people paid if they messed me over. My wife's affair, if she was my top priority, or my kids, or anything else besides God...would have led not only to her being kicked to the curb, and me taking the children and starting a new life...but in many ways, I could see myself trying to make her life a living hell for the rest of her life. THAT IS MY NATURE!! Without Jesus, I can be a very awful person.

But with Jesus first in my life, with me bowing my knee to Him, then everytime I get these feelings, or even act on them somewhat...He nudges me (sometimes not so gently) to put my eyes back on Him. If Jesus Christ today told me to leave my wife and to do something else, I would do it in a second. In a contest between my love and loyalty to Jesus, and my love and loyalty to my wife...my wife would lose everytime.

Now is my putting Jesus first before my wife a bad thing for her? Is it bad for her to be second fiddle? No. You see, Jesus doesnt call me to make my wife lose to Him. By Jesus being the priority in my life, my wife WINS! She gets a man that has love, that has forgiveness, that can be the husband she needs and deserves. It is when I get my priorities upside down, that my marriage is doomed (which is what happened the last few years in our marriage before the A, when I relied less on God and concentrated more on myself...and my wife was basically left alone in the process).

The same goes for my kids. My wife is priority number two. My kids number three. In a contest between my wife and my kids, my wife will ALWAYS win, as lons as she is being my wife. You see, there are exceptions when we get to number two and below. Jesus will never leave me nor forsake me. But my wife can, and has done so. When she does this, when she forsakes her role as my wife, then she also loses the position, especially if she is harming the lower priorities. When she did what she did, not only to me but also the kids, my kids for awhile became priority number two. Sort of. I put my kids' welfare during that period before my wife. But guess what? I did it for her also, for my wife...not the woman running around in an affair.

By having priorities, we are able to make sense of things, we are able to do the right thing. My wife usedto have the same priorities. Then she abandoned God, then me...then the kids...for other things and people. She has still not put God back on top, nor me at number two, nor the kids at three. It is part of the reason she is still unhappy, still depressed a lot. When we dont do things the way they are designed, then we cannot be surprised later when they dont work right.

Does that girl need both parents? Yes. If I died in combat today, would my sons and daughters still need their Dad? Yes. But for more reasons than they love me.

Go purchase the book "Wild at Heart." While it mostly gets to the basics about why boys and men are the way they are, it also talks some about girls and women, especially in what they need from men. The books position is that the one person that ALWAYS causes the hurt or pain or problem in a child that stays with them for life is the FATHER. Why?

For boys, once they begin their teen years, they begin to pull away from Mom. They start attaching themselves to Dad. Why? Because Mom CANNOT teach, nor give, masculinity to that boy. ONLY a man can teach a boy how to be a man. Many of the problems with boys raised in single parent households where the mother has them is exactly this...there is no man to teach this boy how to take the manly traits he has and turn him into what he should be.

Boys learn from their fathers. If the fathers arent there, or dont take their role seriously, those boys will look for that father figure elsewhere. And usually, it is someone destructive in their life (gang leaders, etc). It is a void that a boy MUST fill. The boy is always askign himself "Am I good enough? Am I a man?" And only hisfather can answer that. In most divorces, where the father ends up moving away and seeign less and less of the boy, those boys begin to not get that question answered. And for a boy (and a man), it is THE question of their lives...throughout their lives. "In my dads eyes, am I good enough...am I a man?"

Now, little girls are also profoundly effected by their fathers. Little girls look to their fathers as the model of the man they will marry. Women dont know what it is to be a man, just as we have NO CLUE what goes on in your heads <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> !! So, that little girl grows up with the idea of what a man is, what a man should be, based on what she sees in her father. If he is a loving man to her mother, and to her...that is what she will see a man as. This is the type of man she will seek in marriage. If this man is absent, or is abusive, she will learn this also. And sadly enough, she will search out the same. A man who is not in his daughter's life, sets her up for disaster. She will seek out little Johnnie for love and approval...while he uses her body for sex.

Now, I have blabbered on with this for what purpose? I agree...that little girl needs her parents. She needs all the people she can in her life who will love her and care for her. But there is no father in that home...and neither you, nor your partner, can give her what she needs in that area...what a man can give her. No matter how loving you are, no matter how many books you read and how smart you get. A man and a woman bring unique things to the table, which this little girl needs. Take one gender out of the equation, and her growth will be stunted, maybe for life.

Again, I know many single mothers out there doing a heroic job trying to manage things, raise her children, and make them happy and successful. And they are doing so in many ways. But, in the big picture, they will fail everytime. That child will not be who he/she could have been with a father there. And that is no dig at her. She is doing her best. But she is NOT a man, and she cannot be a man. Which she cannot impart to those children what ONLY a man can bring to the table.

I have singled out single mom's here, but increasingly, there are single dads. As my situation was for awhile. And you know what? I learned real quickly that there are things I cannot give my sons, and my daughter. There are things that ONLY their mother can give them. And if she is absent, or neglectful, there really is nothing I can do in my own strength to give those things to them. Their growth just gets stunted.

Now, what would God say to do? Jesus met the owman at the well, and He told her that He knew that she had 5 husbands, because she never was divorced in God's eyes. Before she could even ask what she was supposed to do now that she was in that mess, He told her "Go and sin no more." God would say to you, Just J...that first and foremost...for you and that child...the best thing to do first is to go and sin no more.

The second thing is that you do love this child. And their is nothing wrong being in her life. And helping to care for her and be there for her. So I do not believe God would advocate you walk away from this child. But...that child needs a mother and a father. Not two mothers. Not two fathers. Not one mother. Not one father.

My children's grandparents are very active in their lives. Now, if there was a choice between great grandparents and bad parents...or great parents and absent grandparents...which do you think is more important? Great parents of course. And in order to be great parents, to give them EVERYTHING that child needs, it requires a man and a woman.

I believe that you are, Just J, one of the most loving people I have met on these boards. And that you love your partner, and that child, greatly. But when faced with the truth of God, as is in your premise above, then the most loving thing would be for all of you is that you go and sin no more...and help raise that child in a manner which will give her everything she needs...which is first and foremost a father and mother...and then also loving family.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Mortarman, if all the Christians die out as our society evolves, will that just mean that all the people who could have been saved have been? (Okay, I’m teasing you … a little.)
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I know you are. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> One short note though. Jesus died for everyone. All Christians at one time were at war with God. All Christians were non-believers at one time. So, the gift is freely available to everyone. If some chose to take it and some dont...that is not God's fault. It is there for everyone to have.

In His arms.

<small>[ March 02, 2004, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Mortarman ]</small>

Just J - Thanks for your comments. I'll start with the issue on judgement and base my response on Mortarman's eloquent insights. For lack of time, I will allow his insights to speak for me. I really have nothing to add on that issue.

Secondly, yes, the NAMBLA is a radical offshoot of the gay/lesbian community but until those "quiet" homosexuals speak out clearly and forcefully against the NAMBLA agenda my comments will stand.

Thirdly, no where in Scripture is God referred to as "She". Please refamiliarize yourself with the account of creation beginning with Genesis. It's obvious you do not accept the whole Bible as the inerrant, accurate Word of God. Therefore, according to Scripture, you cannot claim to be a Christian. You may well be a nice, cleancut, caring person, but that is not what is required to be a Christian. You may do wonderful works and in your own way you may be a caring mother, but that's not the definition of a Christian. My view on this appears to be narrow-minded in today's culture, but I won't compromise the integrity of the Bible.

Fourthly, you ask "what am I to do?" if you become a Christian. Please realize that your good works or acts of righteousness will not save you. We are saved by grace, through faith, in the Lord Jesus Christ. Upon salvation you will receive a deposit of the Holy Spirit, the 3rd Person of the Trinity. The Spirit will guide you into truth, comfort you, and empower you to live a life pleasing to God. As you progress in your Christian walk the Spirit will begin to lovingly convict you of anything in your life displeasing to Jesus. We are all confronted, at some point in our Christian journey, with things in our life that Jesus would change or even ask us to let go. In your case, the Bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin. As in the case of "Bob" that I cited above, the Spirit will convict you of that sin but most importantly, provide a way of escape. Like "Bob", Jesus' presence in your life will bring about a radical change of lifestyle as you recognize that behavior as abnormal, acknowledge it as sin, and repent of it. Homosexuality is a sin of the flesh, just like adultery. God will not hold a hammer over your head but He will make it very clear, in a loving and compassionate way, that your behavior in that area must be addressed. In His grace, He will give you strength and spiritual power to overcome that obstacle. He will set you free by His Blood, His Word, and His Name. You will joyfully enter into a right relationship with a man, if God would have you to be married. You will be required to give up your present "partner" because Scripture, and the witness of the Spirit, tells you that relationship is not honorable. Be comforted that He will not effect any change in you that He won't give you power to overcome. Your dependence will not be on yourself, your reliance will now be on Jesus. Like "Bob", you are a new creation in Christ - the old things have passed away and all things have become new.


Sorry for the long-winded response and I didn't mean to preach. I did want to share with you the message of hope and I genuinely care about you. God bless!

Oh dear me. What a truly astonishing post, HPK.

HPK, God is She to me; the fact that She's not in the Christian Bible has a lot to do with why I'm not a Christian.

And no, I'm NOT a Christian. I thought I'd been clear about that.

I appreciate your thoughts on God's path for me, though I must admit to a certain amount of giggling along the way. Sorry about that.

And ... not all of your post made me laugh. While your comments "stand" regarding the gay and lesbian community and NAMBLA, I think I'm going to have to let our conversation lie fallow. Please consider my request for you to educate yourself and apologize; my offer to provide you with resources to learn from is still open.

J,

I find this whole thread troubling. Your organization would do well to drop the "hate" accusation just because those advocating marriage stay between one man and one woman have their point of view. We have every right to believe what we do, just as you have every right to believe what you do.

I thought Mortarman's explanation of the position of many Christians, Moslems, Jews, and traditional-family advocates was tremendous.

I'm so tired of the anarchist methods used to promote change in this regard.

Keep in mind, that too many times, we create God in our own image, instead of reflecting that we were created by Him in His image.

And thus the wars start - who's God is more powerful, more right, etc.

I'm sick of it all.

Bring back the rule of law. Mortarman, you articulate well!

Mortarman, let me bluntly summarize your post:

You believe God wants my daughter to have ONE mom, and ONE dad.

Ah, MM, how to respond to you? How to express the welter of emotion that goes with that thought? How to express the thought that perhaps we brought a child into the world in a way that is automatically wrong?

My first thought is that you're crazy and I should probably walk away from the conversation.

My second though is that you express a view that is occurs in our society, one that DD and I will face for the rest of our lives. So.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps my DD needs a mother and a father.

But that's not what she has. She has two moms. There's no one in sight who's offered to take the job of "Dad."

I could get a sex change operation, I suppose, but I suspect that wouldn't meet your requirements. I could step out of her life, but that doesn't do anything to add a father to her life. I could ask the donor to take a fatherly role... and did on a horrible day when it looked likely that I would not be in DD's life anymore. He refused. I could encourage my partner to marry OM and then step out of DD's life. Except that I tried to do that last summer and my partner quite literally panicked. Even she knows that OM isn't ever going to be a good primary parent for DD. I could marry someone and then apply for sole custody. I would lose. The legal deck is very much stacked against me there.

Any other possibilities that I'm missing, here?

And then I think about my own favorite male role model. My dad. My dad is 65 years old. And he, interestingly enough, is enough of a lesson for me on what needs to be done.

His parents divorced when he was a toddler and the next time he saw his father, he was a teenager. They never had anything like a father-son relationship. He was raised by his mother and his grandmother. Did he "need" a father? Was his growth stunted by not having one? I don't know. I do know that he was raised in poverty because his biological father wasn't there.

But his mom and grandmother did the best they possibly could by him, and whether anyone thought the situation was ideal or perfect, he and his brother DID thrive. He's a good, solid man who taught me a great deal. He's successful in his work and has been married for 40 years (and some of them have even been happy <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> ). He has four kids that he loves and has raised pretty well, if I do say so myself.


So. Does DD NEED a father and a mother? No. Would she be better off with a father and a mother? Maybe, but that's not her reality.

Can I improve her reality? Yes, and I'll continue to look for ways to do so. But putting her through the trauma of losing one of the only two people she knows as parents? Uhm, no, that's not going to happen. When I was young, I saw my dad go through the grief of losing his grandmother.

Was she his mother? No. And it didn't matter.

And am I DD's mother? Perhaps not, though I believe that I am. And it doesn't matter.

KaylaAndy, there's no organization here. It's just me. I am doing my level best to be respectful in this situation, and associating me, a mom with a 14-month-old daughter with NAMBLA (an organization that supports pedophiles?!?!?) is, truly, incredibly offensive to me.

That was HPK's post, not Mortarman's. I respect MM and understand that his views differ from mine. He has not been judgmental, and has been articulate. I'd say his views represent a good number of people's views in this country, as well, and have answered him as such.

And one last reply for sufdb before I get some lunch.

My argument in favor of my beliefs is not what's written here. I do not like, and prefer not to take, political action. How will I convince people? Not by my words. No matter how eloquent they are, they're just words that can be refuted or ignored or challenged.

No, I'll convince people by living my life in accordance with my beliefs. And in whether I do it well or poorly.

And, as Still Seeking noted, I think hard about what I believe, and I live life carefully.

It is only in the living of life, in the raising of healthy children, in the continued carefully considered (and in some cases not so carefully considered) choices of each and every person in the world that our society changes.

It's just like what they say about marriage: In each moment, you get to make choices that either support or hurt your marriage.

In each moment, in the way that I breathe and eat and sleep and raise my daughter, I get to make choices that either support or hurt my marriage -- personally AND in the greater context of society.

just j, this is not a referendum on you, or how you live your life, you (and any of us as individuals) is irrelevant. What we do have is a proposal to modify our society, and that will be dicided either by words or by guns...I prefer words, how about you?

In a democratic social system the currency is persuasion....although how it works out obviously colors future "choices". Science plays a major role in how we order society, because it gives us the real deal....

How good a person you are is completely unimportant to me as a factor in my political decisions. I am long past any unreasonable bias that homosexuals are sub-human and need to be defended against. Homosexuals are just people, and if they want to marry someone of the opposite gender they can do so just as I can....and if I choose to adopt a gay lifestyle, then I won't be able to marry (in the legal sense) a partner either, just like you can't. This is not a gender issue, it is not a nice issue, it is not a fair issue, it is a social issue, it is an effort to change the social paradimn our society rests on, and unless that change improves our society for everyone, I am unwilling to do so. Emancipateing slaves and women benefited society IMO, so I support that..... abandoning the marital paradigm of one woman and one man does not benefit society IMO, so I am opposed to it. If you (as and advocate) want my political support, then you have to convince me it is in my best interest to give it....the only way to do that is through the science of psychology as applied to a society....and communicateing that by "talking".

I am confused about something, the side issue of parenting. How is it you have a d in the first place...I understand your partner chose (I think) to concieve a baby outside of marriage, or with any plan for a father to raise the child....that strikes me as an incredibly selfish, and really bad choice. I am ok with gays adopting kids that would otherwise be raised institutionally...but very uncomfortable with individuals who deliberately become pregnant knowing up front they are not going to raise the child in a proper psychological enviroment (I am opposed to heteros who make the same kinds of decisions). I fail to see how this has anything to do with being a "good" parent, and everything to do with being a narcissist who wants a child to love and love them.... this makes the child a means to an end. I am not sure where this comes in re yourself, whether you were a party to and encouraged such a thing....or came along after the fact...but it is deeply disturbing.

Just J - I'm glad I could offer a laugh and brighten your day. I try to please, I really do! I've shared my heart and advice with you. I will not backtrack from my statement concerning NAMBLA and the homosexual community. Good luck and God bless!

J,

Pedophiles and other fringe behavioral advocates stand waiting in the wings for your efforts and others who believe, like you, that we should unravel thousands of years of societal moral code to benefit less than 5% of society - a benefit that is largely symbolic to them anyway.

They wait for you to pry apart the underpinnings, so that they can claim that their sexual preferences can be legitimized by a judiciary that has lost sight of it's primary role of judiciary - Judges are not legislators, yet they ARE codifying law - Massachusetts is a great example, and let's not forget that federal court in San Francisco, which can be counted on for rulings being overturned 90% of the time by the Supreme Court - but that 10% of those issues which create new law from the bench troubles me greatly. As well, a mayor, who swore an oath to uphold the law of the land, actively defying the law, leading that 5% in motions of anarchy.

These are troubling times indeed.

Should you be successful, and by rights, you already have, as we have to even think about codifying moral code into law to protect the moral standard of a society - then you have to think of what is next to cave in.

I am a proud member of One Million Moms - but you haven't seen me on this board, actively enrolling people in getting involved in getting a constitutional amendment passed to protect marriage between a man and a woman. This is not the place for activism.

I leave you with this last thought:

What you have done, to establish a family with two moms, and the insecurity you feel in your relationship is because you have no blood ties to this baby. But you have also established a family that devalues men. Your daughter will never know what a stable father is. She will never have that chance to know the weaknesses and strength of men. She will only learn what she is taught - she will not be able to draw her own conclusions from having a daddy of her own.

That is the folly of homosexual marriage - both sexes are needed. Children need at least a chance of having BOTH a mother and a father. There is no way for a woman to make up for the unique, defining characteristics that go into a good and honorable man.

Heteros are not perfect. Our divorce rate is high. Our family structures falter with infidelity and abuse. But there is no way, in the homosexual family, to have access to the blessedness and the challenges of BOTH male and female.

Homosexual marriage is a threat to children. I don't judge you or your SO. But you will have to live with the consequences of your choices. And most sadly of all, so will your daughter.

JJ: just had to chip in one thing. you said (several pages back): </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> yes, acting on that arousal in a manner that hurts me or others is unethical and dangerous. However, I don’t define acting on that arousal within the confines of a union between two people as wrong. It doesn’t hurt me, it doesn’t hurt the other person (assuming she’s a consenting adult), and it doesn’t hurt society. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, you can't actually know whether it hurts her or not, because you do not know what is going on inside her. I can tell you that my wife's OM took exactly this position. My wife was a consenting adult. It hurt her. Deeply. Profoundly. Lest you think I am holier than thou...when my wife and I had sex with each other before marriage, I hurt her, perhaps just as profoundly, though I told myself it was an act of love and trust between us. I did not understand her, myself, or God well enough at that time to realize just how deeply I was betraying all of us. I have a much better idea now. I did not understand that when God says: "Don't." in the Bible, it means: "Don't hurt yourself."

as an aside: In Genesis it indicates God is BOTH male and female.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Secondly, yes, the NAMBLA is a radical offshoot of the gay/lesbian community but until those "quiet" homosexuals speak out clearly and forcefully against the NAMBLA agenda my comments will stand. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ok, insofar as NAMBLA supports same-sex molestation of children, it can be strictly termed a homosexual organization; however, mentioning it as an offshoot of the Lesbian community is really a stretch, since it is an organization for Man Boy "love" *barf*.

However, I submit to you that not every group should be defined by it's most radical and disturbed 'members'.

If you go here, you also are opening up Christians to association with those who have systematically persecuted Jews for millennia (and no, I'm not even referring to Nazis here), attempted genocide of peoples (most notably Native American "heathens"), burned women and men at the stake ALIVE because they float when thrown into water (the only way to exonerate yourself was to drown)...Neo-Nazi's read the Bible and use it as a basis for their propaganda.

Feminism is defined as "the belief in the equality of the sexes", but there are certain radical groups who call themselves "feminists" and are more like misandrists.

Personally, I think child molestation (NAMBLA) equates to consensual adult homosexuality the way that child molestation by heterosexuals equates to heterosexuality.

The majority of child molesters, btw, are heterosexual men.

So, I just really don't think that bringing up an extreme of any particular group of people is a prudent, effective, or credible debate tactic.

<small>[ March 03, 2004, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: *Takola* ]</small>

Originally posted by *Takola*:


Personally, I think child molestation (NAMBLA) equates to consensual adult homosexuality the way that child molestation by heterosexuals equates to heterosexuality.

The problem is , NAMBLA uses identical arguements, right in line with Gay/Lesbian groups, to support NAMBLA adgenda.

The majority of child molesters, btw, are heterosexual men.

I don't know of any active politically organized heterosexual child molester groups. They are not professing to be "normal" as NAMBLA is.

NAMBLA is attempting first to preach "tolerance" and then it will be "acceptance" and then it will be "equality" .... same pathway homosexual political activists took.

Being asked to tolerate homosexual lifestyle as an adult to adult choice, and to disallow discrimination for social purposes such as hiring-firing because of sexual preferences ..... this was where it all began.

Then, the push for tolerance changed into a push for "acceptance" .... this means that voices saying this is a deviant lifestyle were shouted out as "homophobic". No longer a discrimination issue... but now an acceptance issue. Gay families are not just different, they are as good as male-female. And, if you don't think so, you are told you aren't open-minded.

It is not enough to tolerate the lifestyle, now you must embrace it and accept it as equal.

NAMBLA will attempt to follow this political pathway. Hetero child molesters aren't politically organized, yet.

If the Boy Scouts Of America cannot say "We don't allow known homosexuals to be a member or a leader" ... pretty soon they will be saying "NAMBLA members welcome to apply".

Everything is OK.
All choices are equally legitimate.
There is no right or wrong.
Tolerate everything.
If there is sex-choice descrimination for any reason, it's unacceptable.

Pep

<small>[ March 03, 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Pepperband ]</small>

Tak, It may be a stretch but let's take a historical view of the last 60 years of our society.

NAMBLA is to us today, what open kissing, hand-holding, making out and Hollywood's glorification of the homosexual relationship was 60 years ago.

NAMBLA it today's exploitation of children compared to abortion-for-convenience was 60 years ago.

We're becoming desensitized. Where does it stop? Do we draw the line at gay marriage? What about those who want to marry their cousin? Sister? Brother? Polygamy? Bigamy? Men marrying child-brides in Polygamy? Vice-versa?

I think we crossed the line a long time ago. And the anarchists breaking laws right now to get this tried in the courts, before judges who cannot be impeached, voted out, or fired for judiciary incompetence will split this country apart faster than any civil war could.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> NAMBLA is to us today, what open kissing, hand-holding, making out and Hollywood's glorification of the homosexual relationship was 60 years ago. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I do not find that NAMBLA is what homosexuality was to us 60 years ago. An adult is always in a position of financial, physical, and political power over a child and the child, therefore, cannot make an unfettered/unpressured choice about the relationship. This is not true of two adults.

I fail to see any relationship between pedophilia and homosexuality save the fact that most Christians are opposed to both.

So, NAMBLA pulls from rhetoric that has worked for other organizations in the past in promoting their view. All interest groups do that, and the sicker the group, the more it is done.

I think it would be wise to note that I have not yet stated my opinion on same sex marriage. That is mostly because I do not have time and haven't articulated it to myself yet. However, without me having stated my opinion on it, I have been quoted and refuted as if I have come out in favor of it. Can you explain that to me in terms of open discourse?

Whether or not there are political activists, there ARE groups of child molesters that are heterosexual. (Think child porn rings, etc) I would hate to have myself characterized by them.

<small>[ March 03, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: *Takola* ]</small>

Whether or not there are political activists, there ARE groups of child molesters that are heterosexual. (Think child porn rings, etc) I would hate to have myself characterized by them.

Oh *T* I am not saying any such thing about YOU! Dear woman, NO!

Isn't it a scary thought that child porn rings might be developing a political voice which actively promots their cause.

scary indeed

*T* .... You have a wonderful day.

Pep