Gays and Jews question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sarge

Anybody wanna talk about guns???
The General Discussion forum is limited to discussions on guns. In fact the rules for the forum state explicitly "Posts must be related to firearms.". The Legal and Political forum is not.

If you want to talk guns, guns, and only guns, the General Discussion forum is for you.

If you want to discuss the Legal and Political issues of the day, and sometimes have your sensibilities offended, then you are in the right forum.
 
And finally, my comment regarding the erosion of personal honor which logically follows the degradation of moral fiber
2 questions for you:

1) Were the Spartans a people known for their "honorable" qualities?

2) Was homosexual activity mandatory in that society?

Just checking to see if any cognitive dissonance is going on....
 
Spartan Homosexuality?

The Spartans were quite honourable. However the mandation of homosexuality, is something you've conused with the Sacred Band of Thebes. There is no contemporary source, nor archaeological evidence that the Spartans practiced widespread homosexuality. Xenophon (considered the best source on ancient Sparta) denies it explicitly. Aristotle, in explaining the power of women in that society, noted that such was typical in militaristic societies that lacked a strong emphasis on male homosexuality... however Aristotle thought this was a reason the Spartans were so messed up :) . There is neither Laconian, nor Spartan poetry with explicit homosexuality, and further the state considered bachelorhood a disgrace, and any man who failed to father sons was looked down upon.

dulce et decorum est pro patria mori (but only if your patria is a FREE patria i.e. it would be inappropriate for a Chinaman to mori* for his patria)

-Morgan

* yes I'm aware that mori is already in the infinitive, but give the non-classicists in attendance a break!
 
However the mandation of homosexuality, is something you've conused with the Sacred Band of Thebes.
Hey, I was quoting from a PBS special I saw a few months back. :eek:

Spartans honorable? Ask the people they enslaved.
Yeah. Kinda like those dishonorable "founding fathers" I hear so much about. They probably didn't let their women work, or even own property either (insert appropriate George Washington/Martha marriage windfall quote here).

:rolleyes:
 
When did being or voting Republican become synonymous with hearding people into death camps? You're gonna have to do better than just saying it's so bud.

Bingo. And I don't even LIKE the Republican party.
 
Derek,
Whatever martial virtues the Spartans may have had do not make them an admirable society from my point of view. Slavery and infanticide were integral parts of their way of life. They systematically oppressed an entire segment of their population. Once, they even called upon that segment to help them in war and then proceeded to systematically murder them afterward. Their stand against the Persians was brave, epic even. There were also brave Nazis, brave Soviet Commissars, and so forth. That didn't make them honorable.
As for the founding fathers, they had some excellent ideas which they didn't in all cases live up to. Since I don't deify them in the first place, it doesn't distress me to know that every last one of them was a flawed human being who did things wrong. Just like you. Just like me.
 
Whatever martial virtues the Spartans may have had do not make them an admirable society from my point of view.
And you're welcome to that point of view, and I don't disagree with you. That was posted for Sarge who is arguing what my neighbor calls pollution -- that private behavior can't help but affect society as a whole.

Others who believe as he does value many of the "spartan" ideals. I was looking for his response on this particular issue.

As for the founding fathers, they had some excellent ideas which they didn't in all cases live up to.
Which, by your statements above, also makes them fall into the "dishonorable" category. Which is fine, but I might ask just which societies, historically, you do believe were "honorable?" If you can't come up with a solid, not-attackable example, does that mean that "honor" doesn't exist in the real world?
 
I'm not even sure an honorable society exists, as such, because I don't know of any society that has ever lived up (as a society) to its own ideals. There can be, and have been, honorable individuals. Even then, no mere mortal man ever lives up to his own ideals 100% of the time. Can a concept like honor even be applied to a society rather than an individual?

Edited to add: It is not impossible,would you say, that the founding fathers (as individuals) behaved honorably in some circumstances and dishonorably in others?
 
In my experience, a significant percentage of the people who commit sex crimes against children have bisexual or homosexual tendencies

First, your alleged experience has led you to a false conclusion.

The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are male
(http://www.childlures.com/research/molester.asp)

1 in 3-4 girls is sexually abused before age 18.
1 in 6-8 boys is sexually assaulted by age 18.
(http://www.childlures.com/research/statistics.asp)
A second problem concerns terminology. Sexual abuse of male children by
adult men1 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation," which implies
that the perpetrator is himself gay or has a homosexual orientation.
Usually, however, the adjectives "homosexual" and "heterosexual" really
refer to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator, not to
the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

The distinction between gender of victim and sexual orientation of
perpetrator is important because many child molesters have never developed
the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men
or women. Recognizing this fact, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that
discussions of the sexual attractions of perpetrators should be
conceptualized along a continuum ranging in degrees from exclusive interest
in children to exclusive interest in adult partners.

Similarly, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) categorized child molesters as either
fixated or regressed (see also Groth, Hobson, & Gary, 1982). Fixated
offenders never developed an adult sexual orientation of any sort, whereas
regressed molesters have done so. Thus, regressed molesters can be adult
homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals. But it is meaningless to speak of
fixated molesters in these terms - they are attracted to children, not to
men or women.

Using this distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) found that none of the
175 adult males in their sample - all of whom were convicted in
Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child - had an exclusively
homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 of the men (47%) were classified as
"fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult
heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult
bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their
adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as
with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their
preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually
attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).

Another researcher took a different perspective. Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed
352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen
in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital
during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester
was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult
molester could be identified (less than 1% of the cases).
(http://surge.ods.org/idle/homosexual/fact_mol.htm)

Second, consider this sentence:

"A significant percentage of people who commit violent crimes own handguns."

People call you bigoted because you demonstrably are. Sorry.
 
As long as individuals prefer to characterize themselves as victims the Democratic party will have lots of willing minions.
 
Where to start...

Mark-

I didn’t add sexual orientation because, as you said, it is in fact “as personal a matter as religion.†The difference is, that religion is routinely practiced in public. Most decent folk do not make a public spectacle of their sexuality, unless of course they are trying to bludgeon the rest of society into validating it as morally acceptable.

Jim- I stand corrected. It’s a wonder the moderators didn’t raise this issue themselves. Don’t fret about my sensibilities; I’ll be OK.

Derek- How on earth I would be able to answer either of those questions, I’ll never know. I’m not interested in accepting homework assignments but if you’re interested in researching it yourself, I do have a once-read copy of “The Greek Histories†I’d let you have for $20.00. PM me if you’re interested. In my childhood the Spartans were held up as sterling examples of physical fitness and goal orientation. In this regard they have served admirably. As individual people I’m sure they were subject to the same failings that we all are, myself included.

Mpayne- I see this type of thing offered up all the time as rebuttal evidence. You can find an expert or author to support any argument you wish to offer. They are referred to in legal circles as “prostitute witnessesâ€- anything offered for a price. Among other failings with the ‘research‘, it is ridiculous to infer that hospital personnel are investigating and identifying the sexual preferences of offenders! Anyone who has worked in these settings simply knows better. My ‘alleged’ experience has been from dealing directly with these crimes, and these victims, and putting the offenders where they belong. I cited my own experience, and did not profess to be the central repository of national statistics on the subject. As I also clearly stated, there is no problem with the crimes themselves being charged incorrectly. The sexual orientation of the offender is never a factor in proving the prohibited act(s), and gaining a conviction. It often becomes apparent, however, during the course of the investigation. Most people understand that to the offender, the majority of sex crimes are crimes of violence, crimes of power, as opposed to being crimes motivated by the need for sexual gratification. But they are both to the victims, many of whom are emotionally scarred for life as a result of the experience.

And finally, your bit about "A significant percentage of people who commit violent crimes own handguns." Wrong, and not even remotely relevant to the discussion except for one point. A significant number of people who commit violent crimes possess handguns, and often illegally. It is not the tool itself that causes the crime- it is the misuse of it.

Make what you will of that.
 
I think this proves my point-- the subject of gays cannot come up in a gun forum without a variety of people spewing hatred all over. I don't have to quote Phil Gramm advocating concentration camps for gays (to stop the spread of AIDs of course).... there are 20 years of public comments from republicans who advocate political views based on their religion-- political views contrary to the constitution.

When you say "I don't hate gays", but at the same time, give lots of religious excuses for your support for the unconstitutional ban on gay marriage, it becomes very obvious that if you really don't hate gays, you simply don't think they are human. (Or you don't support the constitution).

Attempts to force others to live according to your personal tastes are immoral. It doesn't matter what your religion is-- and when your religion advocates this, then your religion is immoral.

By the way, the vast majority of child molestation is done by straights. Linking that topic with gays is proof positive that someone can't talk about the subject while remaining rational.

But, since many people let religion set their politics-- and religion is based on faith-- by definition their politics are irrational. Faith is the rejection of reason. This is not a personal attack (for all the professional "I'm a persecuted christian" victims)... this is a matter of definition.

And of course, DRC chimes in with the standard "if you don't hate gays, you must be gay" line. IF you want to have a discussion with someone, you would do better to make an argument, rather than starting off by ASSuming something about your opponent and then mischaracterizing them. Unless a flamefest is what you want-- and those aren't appropriate here.

The constitution is clear on these topics-- they are all retained by the people, and the states, and are out of the jurisdiction of the federal government.

You want gays and jews (And other liberals-- hell, half the straight liberals in the country are that way because they view republicans as homophobic or racist) to support gun rights, get over your hatred and start supporting human rights and the constitution.

It would be the christian thing to do.
 
Last edited:
"As long as individuals prefer to characterize themselves as victims the Democratic party will have lots of willing minions."

That's why all these persecuted christians are Democrats?
 
All we need to start talking about in this thread now would be abortion, and we'd have us one o' them "trifecta" things... :uhoh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top