posted
This is a difficult problem because there is a definite need to be able to point out "healthy" and "unhealthy" human thought patterns. It's one of the few grounds on which we can lay any secular standards for human behavior, and it's also the only way we can address true mental illnesses such as clinical depression.
The problem is the boundary line along which humans want to do things that have no clear benefits or harms, but simply seem counterintuitive or unusual. Does the counterintuitive or unusual nature of a desire make it unhealthy? Is it a sign of some deeper problem? Or is it simply a benign, harmless part of normal human variation?
Each individual desire presents a whole litany of arguments on both sides of the issue. Some people think that desiring to mate with a child should be considered normal and healthy. Some people think that desiring oral sex should be considered unhealthy. I disagree with both of those camps, and most people would agree with me ... but as we've seen, there are issues on which we as a society are much more evenly divided.
Each time we move a desire over from "acceptable" to "unacceptable" or back again, we are forced to call into question the standards we use to make such decisions. So that's why I'm curious ... what ARE the standards? Are we using any? Or are most of us simply more likely to follow the voice that shouts at us the loudest?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: ARND is simply saying that the bad effect on children is not the only reason we condemn pedophelia. That being the case, he wants to know what are the criteria for properly condemning a particular sexual attraction.
He's said that? Interesting. Where?
In any case, why else would you condemn pedophelia if not for the bad effect on children? I am not getting the logic behind this. If it were considered good for children, why would one condemn it?
I am really confused. Is he, or you, or whoever, asking whether we should or do condemn something without regard to its effects on the object? Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, that's exactly right. I'm asking whether or not you think it is appropriate to consider a desire, a thought pattern, or a psychological condition "unhealthy" or assume it to be a sign of a deeper problem, when there is no clear negative impact on any outside person.
And if I'm reading your post correctly, I get the impression that your answer is no
[ February 23, 2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying anything. I was trying to clarify for you: ARND elicited confirmation from Synth that the effects on children were not the only reason for condemning pedophelia.
No one has said that pedophelia does not have bad effects on children nor that it should not be condemned on those grounds.
posted
There are short term and long term consequences of actions. If you can't point to a probability of some bad action occuring, I don't see why one would condemn it.
ps Sorry if my previous posts came off snarky. The above seems obvious to me, and I was genuinely confused about what you were asking and whether you were trying to make a point.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pedophilia damages a child. These damages have a negative impact on society. It's that simple. Gayness doesn't compare... Unless the person is condemned for being gay and made to feel as if their sexuality is negative and horrible. Pedophilia leads to more pedophiles and people doing servere damage to themselves because of how much they have been hurt. That is what makes it wrong. Just as people having affairs without much thought is also damaging but pedophilia is much, much worse.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, that may be one of the widest uncrossable gaps in this debate, Storm. Your own opinion on this matter was, in your eyes, an obvious, incontrovertible fact. But there is a large number of people who think the precise opposite — that some human thought patterns are inherently flawed or unhealthy, regardless of whether they lead to any harm to an outside entity, and these people find their own opinion to be just as obvious and self-evident as you find your own. So who is right, and on what standards can we base our answer?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you can't point to a probability of some bad action occuring, I don't see why one would condemn it.
I agree. But when the bad consequence is not universally acknowledged you get into conflicts such as the one over whether homosexual actions are wrong. Most Christians think homosexual actions are ultimately hurtful to the participants.
Note, I'm strictly talking about nameing something as right or wrong here, not whether it should be illegal. There are lots of things I think are wrong that I don't think should be illegal. Homosexual actions are among these. As is extra-marital sex. (Even assuming consent in both cases.) I'm not advocating making homosexuality illegal, despite the fact that I think it is ultimately harmful.
posted
I think that whatever fantasy a person may have is probably okay. If the expresion of that fantasy would hurt the person or someone else, then it should not be expressed.
That goes for fantasizing about your co-worker as well as fantasizing about going postal or some such.
Bondage, Dominance/Submission, blood play, sexual role-play or whatever are probably okay as long as the expression of those fantasies are controlled for safety. Safe, Sane and Sober is something I have heard from friends in that scene. I don't know if that's how it actually plays out, and I have no reason to know.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should be noted for completeness sake that some people make moral arguments in favor of "consensual" sex between adults and minors on the basis of not restricting the child's "freedom of choice."
I think it's generally specious to use the pedophelia bogeyman in homosexuality debates. However, ARND is not using it here to say that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. He's using an extreme example to examine how sexual mores are established. In this context I think it's legitimate.
Kind of like those "Two people are walking down the railroad tracks and you get to pick who dies" questions. They're not raised because we need to prepare ourselves for that situation. They're raised to force people to examine the underlying moral principles that inform their actions.
posted
Gayness used to be a matter of choice and freedom, based on the idea that it didn't hurt anyone.
Then it turned into "born that way." What happened between the 80's and the 90's that caused this shift?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dog, if someone can't give some kind of evidence for their opinion, then why should anyone listen to them? Why would anyone listen to someone who has no proof for what they believe? I am really confuzzled.
I believe in evidence, yes, and because of this, my mind can be changed because the evidence can change. The only peoples' minds who can't be changed are those who believe something is inherently bad or wrong regardless of the evidence. How do you change their minds? You can't.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
How do we draw the line between a person with serious emotional problems or delusions and a person who simply sees the world in a unique and special way?
For instance, we define clinical depression as a disorder because it involves humans despairing and feeling terrible about their lives without any reasonable external cause. Some people take this too far and say that a human should never, ever feel bad about anything, ever, and that anything that makes you feel bad is unhealthy.
But humans often do have very good reasons to feel bad. If you were happy the day your dog died, or if you didn't feel remorse for committing some grievous wrong, or if losing your job meant nothing to you, most people would say that there was something wrong with you. We've decided that humans "should" feel a certain way about certain things, and when we don't, it causes us to question ourselves, and search for reasons. WHY am I miserable all the time, even when my life is going smoothly? WHY can nothing persuade me that I'm thin or beautiful enough? WHY am I compelled to check everything I do three times? WHY don't I like this ice cream flavor that everyone else loves?
Sometimes, this questioning process leads us to conclude that we are sick. Sometimes, it just means we are unique. But how easy is it to tell the difference? And when we are defining our universal, agreed-upon model of "normal" human thought, how do we determine what to include?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, by the way, Dagonee, for seeing the intent behind my posts. You're right that I have no intention of implying that homosexual = pedophile, or any such thing, and I'm doing all I can to provide a good number of obvious-positive extreme examples alongside the obvious-negative ones, so that no one gets the impression that I'm trying to bash anybody
As I said in another thread, homosexuality is a difficult issue to address because all of the analogies are offensive or useless in some way or another. I'm hoping I've gone far enough afield here that no one (particularly our resident representatives of the homosexual community) will be hurt or offended ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not offending... just interested in different perspectives... I've got a weird way of looking at gayness and also a strange thing most would consider a disorder And stuff has been happening to me for a year that a lot of people would consider insane. There are no easy answers... just so many perspectives a person can turn neo-cubic with confusion.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So who is right, and on what standards can we base our answer?
ARND, please reply to my last post where I answered yours. See, I want you to tell me the answer, because a lot of people on this board who are pro gay marriage have been putting up evidence that homosexuality can be healthy, and that there is no evidence that homosexuality or gay marriage will hurt society. I think a lot of pro gay marriage people, including myself, are really wondering if its possible to change someone's mind who believes, as you say, that some thoughts are just inherently wrong regardless of evidence.
So, you tell me, how do we change their minds?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I don't know if going into this with the express interest of changing the way the other side thinks is really the best attitude ... That's right, I'm saying your thoughts are UNHEALTHY! REPENT!
[ February 23, 2004, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Storm, I don't know if going into this with the express interest of changing the way the other side thinks is really the best attitude ... That's right, I'm saying your thoughts are UNHEALTHY! REPENT!
Dude, I'm just going along with what you asked. I never said that I was going into my conversations with people with the express interest of changing other people's minds or that their thinking was unhealthy.
You asked
quote: So who is right, and on what standards can we base our answer?
So, answer your own question rather than trying to potray me as being on some kind of crusade. What is *your* response to your question? What is *your* opinion? My opinion was that answers to social questions should be based on 'evidence', and not a priori absolutist thinking, since without using empirical evidence, no dialogue is possible. You can change my, and people like me, mind by giving evidence that gay marriage is 'unhealthy' because of consequences. Empirical evidence and standards are the right way to go when people with different belief systems are having a conversation, not absolutism as then dialogue and understanding and some kind of consensus of, to answer your question, what is right and wrong for society is not possible.
Do you agree or disagree with my opinion? Why? How do I change an absolutist's mind(further edit: *cough* as in engage in a debate/dialogue/conversation with them about the merits of something) if they base their opinion on the external(edit: meant to say internal) world, without referencing consequences in a way that makes sense to me, as a quasi empiricist, in a way that there can be dialogue if I don't share their belief? How is dialogue possible in an absolutist world when any response other than what is accepted as truth is wrong and why should I pay attention to what absolutists think when I know they aren't paying attention to the evidence I'm presenting them? When I know that their belief isn't based on experience, but faith?
Conversely, how do absolutists try to change, or at least prove their point to, someone else's mind who isn't a part of their belief system without referencing consequences and facts?
How can you frame an argument around anything other than experience and results in the real world?
Your question raises a good point and I am in good faith trying to engage you in dialogue. If you don't want to talk about it and instead want to just sit above the fray and toss out questions and never engage in debate, that's fine by me. Just say so so I don't waste my time waiting for a reply to my posts.
posted
*shrug* Bigots are everywhere. 'Christian bigot' is, in fact, an oxymoron, but like everything in humanity, it can happen. (boy does that sound silly, heh)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Bless me father for I have sinned. It's been 20mmmmmble years since my last confession. I have had impure thoughts 9 million times, AT LEAST! I'm having impure thoughts now!!!
Okay, here's the deal: dangerous thoughts is not a category worth debating. Unproductive thoughts aren't even worth debating. What's left are thoughts that become counter-productive. Literally, if we take a psychologist's definition for a moment at least (bear with me), if your thoughts interfere with your ability to function in your environment, then they are harmful. If not, what are they? Passing fancies? A bit of curiosity.
Now, let's explore what it means to be "functional." This is both a societally and personally defined thing. Societally, being functional means you can feed, clothe, and shelter yourself within the bounds of legal behavior (the limits of the law) as defined by the society in which you live. That pretty much comes first. It's the basics, shall we say.
Then, there's the personal definition of functional. That's where there is both latitude and responsibility for one's own pursuit of happiness. You don't have a choice regarding things like eating, shelter or obeying the law. Really...not if you want to be free to act and functional in society.
But beyond that, you have choices and freedoms.
Anyone who breaks the law...not functional.
Anyone who goes into vapor lock over some fixed idea...also not functional.
Someone who fantasizes about fetishized sex but remains in control of their social and private life...functional.
I find this approach highly practical. It is also independent of value judgements on things that are entirely within the realm of personal choice.
And I wouldn't have it any other way.
We live by a set of rules in our society. Some of the rules are actual laws and you get in trouble if you violate them. Beyond that, society in general gives its tacit agreement that you can CHOOSE to be this way, or that way. Or whatever floats your boat.
Now...I think we can dispense with the pedophile stuff. Basically, it's against the law. There is agreement by all but a small minority that children are by definition below the age of consent. So, there can't be consensual sex with them. So, if you have sex with a child, you are breaking the law. You are a rapist. And the law should go after you.
Dysfunctional.
There's no wiggle room on this. No NAMBLA circular arguments. No "over-riding power of love." It's just not in the cards in our society. We set the age of consent at 18. That's it. Period. And it is clearly dysfunctional to act in a way that ignores that law because it is a law we -- the rest of society -- have shown ourselves willing to enforce. With a can of whoop-ass thrown in.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet, you better get that out of your system tomorrow. After that, it's 40 Pirate-suitless days for you! Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:dangerous thoughts is not a category worth debating
I couldn't disagree more. Thoughts are incredibly important, and dangerous ones are the well-spring of nearly all dangerous actions. I'd go further and say that immature thoughts or thought patterns are also bad, in that they prevent a person from growing.
One of the most successful methods of treating depression centers around learning to recognize, counter, and eventually do away with negative cognitions. In this case, fighting bad thoughts is a huge deal.
However, there's two big buts here. First, the thoughts themselves are not really the problem. Rather, it's the person's conscious decision to entertain these thoughts. If someone gets a shocking image or dream of them torturing someone else, that's not what I'd consider dangerous. However, if that same person keeps fantasizing about torturing people, we're getting into bad stuff territory. I'd also say that if someone keeps getting what they feel are ego-dystonic cognitions (e.g. repeated images of raping someone that they are consciously horrified by) and they don't do anything about it, this is also bad stuff.
However, and this is the second but, all this is meant from a person's internal perspective. For you to judge someone else's thoughts as dangerous takes a whole lot of arrogance. This arrogance can be justified, but even then, intervention into these issues is a huge responsibility that frankly, I don't think anyone here (myself included) has earned. There are certain, very limited situations where a person's thoughts are so obviously dangerous and are presenting an immediate danger to themselves or others that you almost have to intervene, but in nearly all situations, that's a job for a specifically trained and certified therapist. And even they don't do a great job a lot of the time.
Seriously, Geoff or whoever, how much do you think you really know about how people's minds work and what constitutes a "dangerous" thought? Do you really think you have anywhere near the qualifications to judge?
edit: I just want to make it clear, when I'm saying that dangerous thoughts are important, I'm more talking about the concept of dangerous thoughts, rather than specific thoughts. Also, as my posts here have shown, I consider a lot of thoughts dangerous and I do things to counteract them. That is, I argue against them and leave it up to the person to decide. That's pretty much the level of responsibility that I'm comfortable with.
posted
Squicky, I think he specifically wants to ignore effects on things. Your definition of dangerous thoughts seems to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 'is bad for the emotional well being of the person'. I don't believe this is what he's talking about. I beleive he's asking if there is a thought that is 'bad' that we can say is bad, without taking into account the consequences of having that thought.
edit: Actually, he didn't say that the happiness of the person thinking that thought wasn't something that couldn't be used as a criterion. Never mind.
quote:So Xap, are you saying we should be ashamed of ourselves for judging this man who so hatefully is busy judging another?
I think you are absolutely correct in judging his actions as wrong and his words as mistaken. I just think you are mistaken if you think he is bad as a person. I'm just arguing that his anger is understandable, even if completely wrong, as lots of other people would act the same in his position.
In truth, this is just another argument of mine against the existence of evil people.
quote:I guess my question really is, is there something in this world that is an inappropriate target for lust?
There's really two questions here:
1. Is it okay to lust after things like children or animals so long as we don't act on that lust?
I would have to say, yes. You can't really control what the target of your lust (or love) is, I think. That's one of the main arguments against calling homosexuals evil - they can't control it! I don't see any reason to think pedophiles or whateverelseophiles can control the thoughts themselves any better.
In fact, I would say people should be PRAISED if they lust after something wrong and yet do not act on it, just as an alcoholic should be praised for having the desire to drink but not acting on it. It's a noble thing to not act on one's desires because that act would hurt others.
2. Are there things that it is unhealthy to lust after?
I would have to say yes to this, definitely. I don't think it's ethically wrong to lust after the wrong things if you can't control those feelings, but I do think it's unhealthy, because it will compel you to do bad things. Going back to alcoholism, if you are an alcoholic it is not wrong to desire alcohol, but it IS unhealthy. Alcoholoism and pedophilia are diseases.
quote:There is agreement by all but a small minority that children are by definition below the age of consent.
This is the argument that always bugs me in these discussions, because it seems very clearly false to me, and incredibly unfair to children. For one thing, you can't define capacities away from people - you couldn't just define me as not being able to play basketball for instance. For another thing, children consent to stuff all the time - I've witnessed it with my own eyes, and I've consented to things myself when I was 16 or 12 or 8, so I know with about as much certainty as possible that it's not true.
It's an example of an seemingly false assertion being widely accepted just to try and shut down argument against a certain idea as quickly and clearly as possible - something that always bothers me on an intellectual level. I don't believe we should shy away from complex justifications for the truth in favor of simpler but false ones - like those who claimed the Iraq War was wrong because it was "all about oil."
Tom says:
quote:However, if you want to start from the premise that a ten-year-old child CAN properly consent to sex, I would say that there IS no problem.
Well, I have to disagree, because I think the child CAN consent and yet the act would still be wrong. I'd argue that even if another person consents to you doing something to them, it might still be wrong of you to do it to them if it will likely be bad for them. Helping them commit suicide can be another example of this. People can consent to you killing them, but it's still wrong.
And that leads me to this question...
quote:And if so, what kinds of things should be on the list of inappropriate or dangerous X? What is it that makes them unhealthy or wrong?
I think X should be wrong if it is very likely to harm people - like sex with minors normally is.
I do not believe homosexual behavior is likely to harm people, so I think it should be acceptable. However, if my religion was such that I believed a person who committed homosexual acts was condemned to hell or something, it WOULD be likely to harm people, and would be wrong.
I don't think I would create any laws against it, though, just based on my religious views alone.
posted
Storm, If that's what Geoff is saying, don't you think that I did a good job of answering it?
One of the things that really bothers me about living in a populist culture is that people think that just because they think something, they should act on it. We've almost completely discarded the concept of intellectual responsibility. "I think this is bad, so I'm going to (vote/protest/spend my money) so that it doesn't happen." but the person believing this hasn't done any thinking or study in that area that makes them competent to judge anything about it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
You always have great replies. I just wasn't sure that Geoff wanted to use the emotional health of the person as a criterion. But I see that that is something that he did allow as a standard for basis. I think.
And you're absolutely correct that absent some action, the individual is the only person who can say what is and is not healthy for them mentally.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the most successful methods of treating depression centers around learning to recognize, counter, and eventually do away with negative cognitions.
I think I disagree. Exactly what method are we talking about here and how does it stack up against treating the presumed imbalance in the serotonin neurotransmitter pathways?
But anyway, I think Mr. Squicky and I are talking about much the same thing. If someone is clinically depressed, their thoughts have become dysfunctional.
I wasn't sure if you thought you were disagreeing with me at first, but then I gathered you were in the middle of an ongoing discussion.
posted
Bob, I'm talking about Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and it's descendants. I'm also talking about Martin Seligman's work on learned helplessness and his work on The Penn Resiliency Project.
I agree that I think that we're traveling down largely parallel tracks, but I was getting an impression that you and Storm were sort of implying something that I strongly disagreed with. I could see it both ways, but I thought it was important to establish that bad thoughts exist and can be dealt with.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not familiar with the first one you mentioned. I know Marty Seligman's work with rats on Learned Helplessness. Dogs too, as I recall. I wasn't aware it'd been turned into a human therapy.
I always thought his name for the phenomenon in animals smacked of anthropomorphism.
Seemed like an interesting concept though.
I wonder how well it really works though. I mean, the problem I see is that the learned helplessness response comes into play under stress and the therapy sessions generally happen in safe environments.
(Although I hear some therapists/counselors deliberately stress out their clients).
I guess anything's better than just trying to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm hoping I've gone far enough afield here that no one (particularly our resident representatives of the homosexual community) will be hurt or offended ... "
Out of interest, Geoff, do you think your dad was as concerned about the feelings of our "resident representatives of the homosexual community" when he compared their desire to marry their partners with "playing dress-up" in his latest essay?
I know this is to some extent a low blow -- and an unfair question -- but I've got a pointed reason for asking it: because the idea that homosexual couples cannot have legitimate, healthy, and adult relationships is at the heart of this debate, and it seems impossible to me that anyone can respect a homosexual individual without also recognizing the validity and maturity of his or her emotions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This interests me, too. (For probably obvious reasons).
I think people here forget that the "homosexual community" consists of individuals with real lives; people to whom this discussion is not academic; people whose lives will be changed by decisions that are being made right now or will be made in the very near future.
I try really hard to not take offense where none is intended, but I wish some others on this board would work equally hard not to offend. I think there are some people who think that "I'm not trying to offend you but . . ." is license to express offensive opinions with impunity. It's as if it's some sort of magic phrase that suddenly makes one immune to charges of insensitivity no matter how vile or bigoted their opinions, and if anyone is offended, well they are just being thin skinned, after all I don't mean to be offensive.
I often wonder how many people on this board know any gay people. (And I mean in the "I know this guy Karl who's gay" and not the "There's this gay guy, Karl, at work" kind of way.) I came very close to starting an "Ask the 37 y/o male homosexual" thread. One reason I didn't is that I don't consider myself a spokeperson for gays. It's not that I think I'm atypical. It's more that I don't think there is a "typical homosexual". We are an enormously varied group of people. For many of us, what happens over the cases in San Francisco and Boston will have profound affect on our lives and how we see ourselves and how we are seen in society. It's hard for me to debate the merits of the possible outcomes of this issue (and other gay issues) when the issues are personal for me, but the opposing camp tends to retreat to the safety of generalities.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
but do you have any explanation as to why I'm no longer attractive to gay men?
I mean, it's not like I WANT a gay man of my own, but it used to be that gay guys would hit on me all the time. And lately, nothin! It's like I don't exist.
NOTE: Smilies are another good way to smooth over the potential offensiveness of what we post. All you have to do is put a at the end, and NOBODY can ever take offense.
Sometimes you have to add a j/k...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rat, (as not to confuse you with Dog/Dag) here is my understanding of your question.
Tomorrow we develop the perfect VR machine. You put on the suit and the goggles and enter a virtual world where you can do whatever you like to whatever you want.
You can have sex with no consequences accept those in your own mind, soul, and/or body.
I am selected to load virtual things into the machine for people to copulate with.
You do not suggest that I work for the government, and arrest people for picking certain things.
You do not ask me to say what things I would find ridiculous, disgusting, or unpleasant in what some person picks.
You are asking, which things would send me to call for psychiatric counselling for the person who makes out with it.
My answer is nothing.
It is not my business to decide what other people find attractive.
To make it my business, to say I know what is healthy and you don't, is to be extremely arrogant, unless I was a qualified mental health practicioner. Even then, a second or third oponion would be suggested before throwing tons of guilt on a person (Only an insane person would want to make out with a Barney doll. You are sick, sick, sick and we must forcebly stop your pleasure).
Sure, there would be many things that would make me sick, or make me giggle, or more likely, make me curious (just how do you have sex with a folding chair?). But I am no more a judge of mental health than the VR sex fiend. It is not my business.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might note, Rhaegar, that just a few posts later he says he was using it as a rhetorical device; which, given the context, makes sense.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
(Just didn't want you to think your reply was unnoticed. I'd have replied earlier but the other thread has me so overwhelmingly depressed right now I don't feel like posting in jest and so angry I don't trust myself to post seriously without being seriously rude.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's arbitrary: society decides. Looks like America is headed toward some memetic self-correction, and there may be an exodus or two as a result. Interesting time to be alive.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A very interesting time indeed David, every single norm and statute is changing, and technology is bounding, not that these are good things, but they are still interesting, quite right David.
posted
Karl, I do know gay people. My uncle has lived with the same partner for nearly 20 years. The female dean of the high school where I teach is engaged to one of the female Language Arts in my department, and I count both of them as friends.
I understand your plight and your concerns. I also understand those of conservatives opposed to gay marriage. And my conclusion is that there is no solution, because someone's belief system is going to be butchered at the end of this, and that will create more hate, and the cycle will go ever on...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
