Slipping Down the Slope Toward Triads

Ryan Sayre Patrico writes the following in First Things (May 7, 2009):
If I hear one more person say that the slippery slope argument doesn’t apply to gay marriage, I’m gonna scream:
First came traditional marriage. Then, gay marriage. Now, there’s a movement combining both—simultaneously. …The Maui-based World Polyamory Association is pushing for the next frontier of less-traditional codified relationships. This community has even come up with a name for what the rest of the world generally would call a committed threesome: the “triad.”

Ryan Patrico speaks of the slippery slope argument as though it were an entirely reputable type of argument that may be legitimately applied to gay marriage. It is not, and it may not be. The slippery slope argument is considered a logical fallacy and is listed in all kinds of handbooks on logical thinking, bogus argumentation, and the like.  The fallacy of the slippery slope argument is in supposing that a single step in a particular direction will inevitably lead to the whole distance being covered. This may be true in the case of stepping off a cliff, but it is not true in other life situations where choices are still available after the initial step has been taken.

Consider the following argument: “If we lower the drinking age from 21 to 18, there will only be further demands to lower it to 16, and then to 14. Before we know it, our newborns will be drinking wine instead of milk.”

This argument, absurd on its face, is structurally and logically similar to the one Ryan Patrico has advanced, and yet most people would not be fooled by it. Why, then, should Patrico’s argument carry any weight? Well, it shouldn’t, and maybe it’s time for Mr. Patrico to just let out a scream. Then he can stop resorting to this bogus argument.

Note Mr. Patrico’s second and third sentences:

First came traditional marriage. Then, gay marriage.

So, it was traditional marriage that started this slide toward triads?


Tags: , , , ,

19 Responses to “Slipping Down the Slope Toward Triads”

  1. Phil Says:

    Mr. Patrico omits to mention where he thinks this particular slippery slope (which began with traditional marriage) will lead. Let me guess—marriage with farm animals? That’s what we could all enjoy if it weren’t for these silly laws defining marriage so closely. Our deepest longing may be to see centaurs and minotaurs once again roaming the earth. I believe this secret wish may underlie the entire “gay agenda.”
    But seriously, all these fears about opening the floodgates, breaching the fortress walls, slipping down perilous slopes, etc. reveal much more about personal psychology–usually severe sexual repression–than about reality.

  2. John Doe Says:

    The “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy. BUT, as a lawyer, I can assure you that the law builds upon precedent, as though building a brick wall, one brick on another. The “right to privacy” lead to Griswold v. Connecticutt (state can’t outlaw birth control–a conclusion most applauded) lead to Roe v. Wade lead to Lawrence v Texas lead to Same Sex Marriage. Call it something else, other than a slippery slope, but it applies in this area. If the state can’t outlaw perverted sex between consenting adults, and it can’t keep marriage between a man and a woman, based upon the same logic it can’t keep marriage between only two people, or prevent people from marrying inanimate objects. Nor will the law be able to forbid adult parents and their children from marrying.

    I suspect that most supporters of SSM realize that this is a true argument, and that is why they attack it so vigorously. They don’t want the silent majority to speak up and stop this ungodly beast before it comes to full fruition.

    Then, there are the little minded people like Phil, who just attack those who disagree with them. That works, too.

  3. thebentangle Says:

    John, I believe you and Phil may have something in common. I couldn’t help notice your e-mail address, which, of course, I won’t divulge. Instead of a name, it contains a three-word sentence denigrating a group of people with whom you apparently disagree. Then, in your comment, I noticed your use of “perverted” to describe the consensual sex between homosexual adults. “Perverted” is certainly not a clinical term. Homosexuality is no longer listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Could you have intended it as a slur?

  4. John Doe Says:

    Ha ha. The email came about from using yahoo chat rooms, where your email is visible. It was a shorthand way of jabbing liberals even before I typed anything. I don’t have a problem with liberals, so long as they act civil and not irrational.

    I know perverted is not a clinical term. Let me ask you, do you speak disparagingly about rapists and pedophiles? If you don’t, why not? Don’t they deserve your disapprobation? Are you as accepting of their behavior as you are those who engage in homosexual behavior between consenting adults? I don’t believe rape is listed inthe Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel either.

    If you do speak disparagingly about them (pedos and rapists), why do you have a problem with me speaking disparagingly about queers? Both of us are condemning that which we believe is wrong. The only difference is, you think I am wrong about queers but correct regarding pedos and rapists. I speak disparagingly about thieves and those who are cruel to animals, also.

    Here is the crux of the matter. I notice that homosexuals and their supporters speak ceaselessly of “tolerance.” What they mean is that others must be tolerant of their beliefs and actions. But they are not tolerant of our actions–those of us who oppose them. They are not even tolerant of others who engage in sexual acts which they believe are wrong (such as rape, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc.). In the end “tolerance” is just used as a tool to silence dissent.

  5. thebentangle Says:

    So, John, you don’t have any problem with liberals as long as they are “civil and not irrational?” Your choice of an e-mail alias—a compacted blanket insult toward liberals—certainly seems to indicate otherwise.

    Though rape is a criminal act, it is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This is because the DSM lists disorders, not acts. The disorder that produces the act of rape would of course be listed. Pedophilia, which is listed, is a disorder observed among both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

    Homosexual behavior between consenting adults is not analogous to either of these because… it is between consenting adults. Big difference there.

    Of course your bringing rape and pedophilia into the discussion is offensive, but it is also useful and interesting to me, because it reveals a lack (so far) of any sound basis for the attitudes that you express. And that is one of my purposes in running this blog—to expose this deficiency. A related purpose of mine is to encourage you to examine your own feelings and motivations more closely. So far, all we have from you boils down to “disapproval.” Since this disapproval is not based on science, what is it based on? Religious teaching? Personal trauma? Groupthink?

    Maybe I’ll take up the “intolerant of intolerance” tangle some other time.

  6. John Doe Says:

    bent, you had to be there when it was adopted. It was in response to similar email addresses taken by liberals against conservatives. But if it bothers you, tough. I didn’t care then, and I don’t now.

    Whether an activity is conducted between consenting adults should have no logical bearing on whether it is a psychological disorder. If one wanted to eat another’s shit, and the other consented, I’d call that some seriously messed up person. Likewise, if one wanted to eat another’s person, and another consented, I’d still say the one was an F’n canibal, and the other was nuts. I do not need a book to tell me what is and isn’t seriously perverted. Apparently you do.

    Sorry, I do have a sound basis for my attitudes. Homosexuality is a sin. God condemns it. I do not need to examine my attitudes. From my perspective, rape and pedophilia are the same as homosexuality in that they are all condemned by God. Sure, the two former are “worse” in my opinion, but only by degree, as petty theft is a lesser offense than felony theft. People like you have different morals than I do. I get it. People like you sit back and think your brand of morality (anything goes between consenting adults) is superior to mine. I think yours is perverted. You want to force me to accept your brand of “morality”, and I won’t, and think you should instead accept my morality. What else you want to know?

  7. thebentangle Says:

    Mr. Doe, I was struck by your claim that you do not need a book to tell you “what is and isn’t seriously perverted.” In the next breath, you tell me that God condemns homosexuality. I presume you know this from reading the Bible.

    Other things condemned by God in the Bible include the following: eating shellfish or pork, wearing fabrics of mixed materials, eating meat with milk, wearing gold or pearls, shaving, and instruction of men by women. That is only a small sampling of the prohibitions, and it does not include the “obligations,” such as stoning adulteresses and impertinent children.

    I see you are a person of deep religious faith.

    I’m sure the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is imperfect, but it does represent the current scientific consensus, unlike the Bible, which was written in a pre-scientific age.

    I was hoping you would unpack the “disapproval” angle for us, and you did. Thank you. I’m hearing now that your condemnations are based upon religious faith and on strong personal distaste for practices that you associate with homosexuality. These practices, in your view, are like the two fantastic and highly improbable ones that you mention in your second paragraph. Cannibalism with mutual consent? Give me a break! And I cannot think of a good Latin term for the other one you mention, so I will just refer the reader back to your comment for it. Suffice it to say that humans sometimes do strange things, but, given our limited resources for policing and for publicly-funded psychiatric care, maybe it’s best to let some of it pass unless they are doing real harm to themselves or others. I certainly wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it, especially considering that the world is facing environmental collapse at this very moment. When the Titanic is sinking, we don’t stop to complain to the porter about the two guys kissing in the next cabin.

    And just to put a fine point on the disorder vs. activity distinction: The two practices that you cite would be activities (or symptoms), not disorders. They would probably indicate underlying disorders which should be addressed. Homosexuality, however, is not a disorder, though some homosexuals, like some heterosexuals, are disordered in a variety of ways, by the standards of the DSM. Sexual addiction, for example, is a disorder shared by some individuals in both groups, and certain sexual practices, such as sadism and masochism (S&M), may also be indicative of disorders, and, again, such practices occur in both groups.

    There was, of course, a time not so long ago when the majority’s standards of taste and morality held sway. And then we got the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution, which protect minority standards. This is just as well, because what were once majorities (e.g., white male heterosexual Christians), are now minorities and need the protections afforded by the laws that are in place.

    In your first comment, you identified the right to privacy as the source of all our problems. Just be thankful you have a right to privacy. It protects all of us.

  8. John Doe Says:

    Obviously, you have more of a medical background–or at least you pretend to–than me. BUt the last couple of paragraphs strayed into my area of expertize. You are wrong that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect minority standards. That is the current understanding of them, after they have been bastardized for the past 200 years by liberals. Homosexual activity was illegal to a varying degree for 200 years, when suddenly in the past decade the Supreme Court suddenly discovered a right for consenting adults to practice their perversion in privacy. Agree or disagree that it should or should not be legal, fine, but to argue that it rises to the level of a Constitutional right is absurd. Funny, the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights didn’t see it that way.

    And about the “I don’t need a book to tell me what is and isn’t perverted,” I stand by what I said. I converted to Christianity as an adult. I knew what fags do was perverted since I was an adolescent. Come on, man. You need somebody to tell you eating dog shit is perverted? You need to see it in a book that fucking a corpse is perverted? Hmmm, doesn’t say so in my psych book, must not be perverted. I do not care whether it is a “disorder” or not. Why should I? Hell, some college kid might be doing it on a dare, or as a hazing stunt, or because they are too drunk. I don’t care. I judge the actions, not the motivations. And I call perversion sick when I see it.

    Finally, you fall back on trying to justify perversion by citing other things that are condemned in the Old Testament. Novel approach. Not. But be honest, you did not actually think that you would change my mind, as though I had never heard those arguments before, did you? You sure you aren’t using those worn out arguments to justify some actions of yours? Or of your friends? I know I’m not perfect. I have done things in the past that are wrong. I’ve stolen, lied, cheated. But I don’t go around trying to justify what I did, and trying to make it sound like it is fine. Theft isn’t a “psychological disorder” either, but it is still wrong.

  9. thebentangle Says:

    John, I am not so naive as to think I could change your mind. I am simply gathering data.

  10. thebentangle Says:

    Mr. Doe, the important point regarding the Bill of Rights is that it protects people from various forms of government interference in their lives, even if those people happen to be in a minority. This is why popular referenda, after receiving a majority vote, are sometimes struck down as “unconstitutional.” The Bill of Rights protects everyone, regardless of their minority or majority status, and does not allow a majority to rescind the rights of a minority through referenda.

    The U.S. Constitution, as you are probably aware, isn’t about what people may or may not do. It’s about what government may do or must do. The government has no powers that are not authorized by the Constitution, and the main part of the Constitution spells out the few things that government may do or must do. The ten amendments of the Bill of Rights were added to spell out what the government may not do. (E.g., the government can’s search or seize your property without due process of law, and it can’t enact laws abridging the freedom of speech or religion.) The so-called “right to privacy” (an implied right) resides in Amendments IX and X, which, in a nutshell, say that the government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. This means, e.g., that the government has no right to prohibit homosexual acts or to tell us what a marriage is unless the Congress amends the Constitution, and that is a very difficult process.

    Your second paragraph presents the “I don’t need no education” argument. I agree that there’s no need to check the psych book about the two behaviors you cited because (1) it probably won’t mention them, and (2) if it did, we can pretty well guess what it would say. But homosexuality is entirely different, and it has been massively studied over many decades by scientists and researchers from many disciplines. There is now an avalanche of information about homosexuality, and the overwhelming consensus of health professionals is that there is nothing inherently problematic about it. There is, however, abundant evidence from scientific literature that societal attitudes about homosexuality are a huge problem that needs to be addressed through education. This is because many societal attitudes are mimetic (or “memetic,” to use Richard Dawkins’s term)—they are passed along through a process of mimetic contagion that occurs in locker rooms, schoolyards, taverns, and …churches. We can also think of this process in terms of “influence” and “susceptibility.” The “dittohead” phenomenon is an extreme example. You yourself have already cited religious belief (highly mimetic) and personal disgust (which may have a mimetic component, especially if you are being encouraged in some native level of disgust, which might be natural for a heterosexual when thinking of homosexual acts). Now you have added gut instinct and common knowledge, which, in this case, must be mimetically guided as well, since they are not supported by scientific evidence.

    So, if the psych textbook says there is nothing inherently problematic or unhealthy about homosexuality, then I would think the response of an educated person would be to take that verdict seriously, at least provisionally. If the proposition still seems unbelievable, then one can always join the debate in a responsible way, i.e., by bringing contrary evidence to the table.

    “I call perversion sick when I see it,” you say. Well, leaving the circularity of that claim aside, it also reveals a level of trust in gut instinct that is probably unwarranted in this case. Folk-wisdom and gut feeling are not always very reliable guides for policies and positions. It once appeared obvious to absolutely everyone that the Sun orbited the Earth. Almost half the American public still believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Meanwhile, scientific illiteracy about evolutionary theory is rampant in this country. Traditional attitudes about homosexuality are founded on the same kind of “certainty” that once kept slavery alive in the South.

    When we simply assert that a behavior is “wrong” or “perverted” without providing reasons based on evidence or reason, then our assertion lacks credibility. Quoting scripture is fine, but it is only convincing to those who selectively accept the authority of scripture. And those are fewer and fewer in number these days.

  11. Lloyd Says:

    Mr. Doe: Of course you’re disgusted by homosexuality! You’re heterosexual!
    Oh wait, I take that back. Ted Haggart and Roy Cohn were also disgusted by homosexuality.

  12. John Doe Says:

    “The U.S. Constitution, as you are probably aware, isn’t about what people may or may not do. It’s about what government may do or must do. The government has no powers that are not authorized by the Constitution.” True. And the same people who wrote the Constitution and ratified it also made laws forbidding sodomy, beastiality and bigamy. Now, either they made laws directly forbidden by the Constitution, or they correctly interpreted that it did not forbid them from doing so. The first possibility is nonsensical. That is why it took a Supreme Court over 200 years to suddenly “discover” the constitutional right to commit homosexuality in private. The Constitution did not change, the idiots interpreting it changed.

    People who support SSM are the ones arguing that the Constitution forbids the people from saying marriage is between one man and one woman. You have it backwards when you claim “that the government has no right to prohibit homosexual acts or to tell us what a marriage is unless the Congress amends the Constitution…” Now you are claiming the Government can’t define marriage and make laws regarding marriage? That would be a shock to all the people who have lived here for the last 200 years.

    Your argument about the pscyh book is nothing but a cheap appeal to authority. As a lawyer, I see daily how you can find an expert to support almost any proposition. Psychology is full of godless heathen who have an agenda–to find a way to approve of immoral activity. It has been going on for years. As you are no doubt aware, there are many who disagree with the “consensus” and believe that homosexuality is psychologically and physically harmful. They have much higher rates of suicide, STD infections, AIDS and HIV etc. (proportionately–I know heterosexuals may get more infections, but the percentage rate for homos is much higher).

    And let me ask YOU a question. If you see somebody eating dog shit, do you need any more evidence to determine that what they are doing is disgusting? Do you say, “Ah, I can’t rely on my own ‘gut-feeling’ and ‘folk-wisdom’, I have to go see what the scientists say”? If you are that pathetic, I really feel sorry for you. Somehow, I doubt that you do. I suspect that there are even things that you are disgusted by, whether you admit it to me or not.

  13. thebentangle Says:

    Mr. Doe, I’m glad you brought up the “disgust” issue, as I was thinking of it as well.

    Yes, I am disgusted by a whole long list of things: geoduck, boiled okra, roadkill, and sex between men and women, for starters. But (1) I don’t obsess about them, and (2) I don’t add a layer of judgment to my disgust without very good reason.

    Ko-ko, the Lord High Executioner in The Mikado, has his “little list” of people that disgust him, and he’s keeping the list just in case, someday, a victim must be found. In his song, he lists people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs, banjo serenaders, and lady novelists. “They’d none of them be missed,” he concludes, rubbing his hands together with fiendish glee.

    I am sometimes fascinated to learn that my disgust is culturally determined, and this is always a humbling experience. I lived in an Islamic country for eleven years and had to make accommodations to Muslim disgust toward pigs and dogs. And I had to learn to sit so that the soles of my shoes were not visible to others. This experience made me appreciate that different people, in different cultures, have different disgust triggers. If we are all to live together, we can’t allow disgust alone to determine our laws. There has to be some other basis. That is why we use mutual consent and age level as general-purpose dividing lines between what is legally acceptable and what is not.

    If Muslims became a majority in this country, we wouldn’t want them declaring spareribs illegal, now would we? And I do hope we could all turn a deaf ear to extremist frothings about what godless heathens we were for enjoying our glazed hams around Christmas time.

    What you say about finding experts to support almost any proposition is absolutely true. This is why we object to the “reparative therapy” psychologists and to the so-called “scientists” who were recruited by the tobacco industry to claim tobacco had no harmful effects on health. Anyone these days can go and shop online for any scientific opinion they happen to want, even if that opinion is completely contrary to the findings and conclusions of mainstream science.

    However, there is such a thing as a reputable scientific consensus. Such a consensus now exists about such matters as climate change (i.e., whether it is actually under way), evolutionary theory, the age and rotundity of the earth, the path of the Earth around the Sun, and homosexuality (i.e., whether it is disordered).

    There is no better authority than these sources. If we disagree with them, then, again, the appropriate course of action is to challenge them with evidence, not blanket denunciation. We are talking about credibility here.

    The fact that heterosexuals have higher rates of STD infections is not, as you will agree, an argument against heterosexuality. Similarly, suicide rates among homosexuals say nothing about homosexuality itself. Many of these suicides result from the oppression that homosexuals have to endure. These suicides do not bring shame on the victims. They bring shame on the oppressors.

    The rate of divorce in Texas is much higher than it is in Massachusetts. Are we to conclude from this that living in Texas is destabilizing to families? Or maybe we should conclude that being heterosexual while living in Texas is a psychological disorder.

    You used to practice law, you say?

  14. Cedric Katesby Says:

    Homosexuality is a sin.

    There is no such thing as a “sin”. That’s just something that priests
    made up as a gimmick
    to get money out of you and to gain influence over your life. No such thing as purgatory either. Tell them to get a real job.

    God condemns it.

    Huh? You hear voices in your head from an invisible sky daddy?
    Your god has no more validity than the Flying Spagetti Monster.

    Finally, you fall back on trying to justify perversion by citing other things that are condemned in the Old Testament.

    It’s called…consistency.
    There are all sorts of nasty things god commands people to do in his name.
    You just cherrypick the stuff that you like and ignore or gloss over the stuff that .

    you are uncomfortable with

    Don’t know when you should stone your children?

    Well the bible has some good news for you.

    What happens if somebody rapes your daughter?

    Hmm, 50 shekels ought to do it. Plus, of course, he has to marry her.

    Theft isn’t a “psychological disorder” either, but it is still wrong.

    Can you come up with a rational argument as to why society shouldn’t accept theft without recourse to invisible people?
    I can.
    Can you come up with a rational argument as to why society shouldn’t allow homsexuality without recourse to invisible people?

    Nope? Oh dear.

    Get with the program. Religious homophobia is going the same way as religious racism.

  15. John Doe Says:

    Cedric, I don’t respond to frothing at the mouth queers. If you want a civilized debate, lose the little prissy self-righteous queer routine.

    Bent, I appreciate the fact that you can discuss this inflamatory topic in a rational manner. I’m still an attorney.

    Regarding the fact that you claim that you “don’t add a level of judgment to [your] disgust” is no shock. I’m guessing that you too are a homo–but of course you aren’t going to judge your own actions as wrong. Isn’t that the entire purpose of your post here? To try to justify homo behavior as not morally reprehensible? And to “judge” those of us who do find it morally reprehensible?

    If Muslims become a majority in this or any country, a Constitution and a Bill of Rights won’t protect you. Someone who supposedly lived in a Muslim country for so many years should know that.

    Funny how you, supposed rationalist that you claim to be, attack reparation therapy as being unscientific. To me that just shows that you are either gay, or are biased in some other way (what I mean by that is that maybe you aren’t gay, but you have some other perversion that you are trying to justify). Please do not take offense. I have found through years of experience that people who are strong supporters of homos either are themselves, or have close friends or family member whom they are trying to justify the actions of, or they have their own, similar, perversion that they are trying to feel better about. Please feel free to disabuse me of this notion if it not true in your case.

    But reparation therapy “works” in a certain percentage of individuals. The proof is in the pudding. You wouldn’t condemn the use of placebos or of a certain homeopathic remedies if they “worked” in a certain percentage of the population. Or of some far out remedy for cancer. You might point out that it does not always work, or that science does not know why it worked, but you wouldn’t condemn it as unscientific. The real agenda behind attacks on reparative therapy is because the fact that it “works” sometimes undercuts a major false premise of homo supporters: “they are born that way; they can’t help it.” Bunk. Some do, those who are really motivated to do so. It also undermines a major goal of homos–they want to celebrate and normalize their behavior–so they don’t hate themselves and what they do. And reparative therapy undermines that goal. Why would anybody want to leave such a disgusting, er, I mean, wonderful and normal way of life? They shouldn’t, so attack them and the people who try to help them do so. Let’s call their helpers “unscientific”, shall we?

    I disagree with you regarding what you said about heterosexual rates of STDs. Hetersexual rates of STD infections are much, much lower compared to the number of heteros than homos. There are more STDs in heteros because they outnumber homos something like 20-1. But the 1% of homos have an enormously higher rate percentage wise of STDs. So the homo lifestyle is much, much more unsafe.

    Your comment about the reason homos commit suicide is pretty unscientific for such a science loving guy/gal. Pure speculation on your part why homos kill themselves at such a high rate. I’d say more likely the reason is self-disgust. In the end, they really hate themselves for acting like pigs, doing what they know is wrong. Just as I would expect rapists and pedophiles and necrophiliacs to hate themselves. There is something liberating about not doing something that you know is wrong. It’s called a clean conscience. And it saves countless hours of not having to try to justify your bad behavior. Gee, I’m a thief. But theft is not “bad.” There is no God. I’m just a regular guy who likes to steal. No, I don’t want treatment for kleptomania. No, I don’t want you to judge me. Yes, those who condemn thieves are the same as racists, equally bad. (Ok, I couldn’t resist pointing out what a numbnut Cedric is.) Now, let me go back to doing what I love, what I was born to do, that really is an acceptable alternative lifestyle: Where do you keep YOUR valuables? Hmmmm?

  16. thebentangle Says:

    Mr. Doe, your speculation about my sexual orientation was quaint. OF COURSE I’m gay! It had never occurred to me to try to conceal that fact. You have been exchanging your innermost thoughts and feelings with a full-fledged, card-carrying queer! Don’t you feel absolutely defiled now? Yuk! You should consider yourself fortunate that we weren’t talking on the phone. You might have contracted a disease.

    Your observation about strong supporters of gays being gay themselves is, I’m sure, true in many cases, and I am sure you have already considered the opposite scenario. Some of the most outspoken critics of homosexuality have been closeted homosexuals. Among these were the infamous Roy Cohn, J. Edgar Hoover, Ted Haggart, and legislators too numerous to mention. This perspective might give you pause.

    As for reparative therapy, my motto is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”


  17. John Doe Says:

    Ruh roh. The infamous (and stereotypical) queer bitchiness is starting to rear its ugly head. No, I do not feel defiled just for carrying on a conversation with you. Sorry, but not all defenders of homos are in fact bent. I don’t like to assume anything. Wow, you choose 3 people who were anti-gay and that proves what? That I might be a closet gay? Don’t quit your day-job there “Mr. Scientific Proof.”

    Are you against cruelty to animals? Does that mean that secretly you wish you could squeeze a puppie’s head until it explodes? Or that suddenly you are going to break down and attend cock fights and pitbull fights? I’m “against” theft, too. I condemn it, I oppose it, I support laws against theft. But–SHOCKER–I’m not perfect. And I have stolen in my past. I’m against rape and pedophilia, but I’ll bet you that if some hot 16 year old chick who looked 21 came along during a weak moment I would go against my beliefs. And hate myself in the morning. One can be opposed to something, and believe that laws should be enacted to prevent such activity, and still fall into that sin. That is precisely why we need laws, because humans do not always live up to their ideals. Nobody except psychopaths believes murder is a good thing, yet people still murder. Even if I murdered someone, I would still endorse laws against murder while I was imprisoned.

    I do not find homosexuals abhorrent. I find their practices abhorrent. Homos are no less likeable than heteros, often more so. But some of the nicest guys are thieves, murderers and thugs, too. I seperate what they do from them as a person. I’m sure you are a nice guy, too. Probably nicer than I am. Good for you. But I do not refrain from telling it like it is, whether you are a queer, or just one who advocates for “gay rights” who is hetero.

    As for reparative therapy, your motto is pretty short-sighted. Just because you believe it “ain’t broke” does not mean others similarly situated feel exactly the same way. If they feel their life-style “is broke”, why should you care? Why should you attack something that helps them? Because your atrophied conscience doesn’t like to be reminded that you live a perverted lifestyle? Or you don’t like being reminded that your sexual orientation is a choice, and is not something that is etched in stone?

  18. Cedric Katesby Says:

    Cedric, I don’t respond to frothing at the mouth queers. If you want a civilized debate, lose the little prissy self-righteous queer routine.

    Not that it matters but…I’m not gay.

    Sorry, but not all defenders of homos are in fact bent. I don’t like to assume anything.

    You did with me. More fool you.

    I’m against rape and pedophilia, but I’ll bet you that if some hot 16 year old chick who looked 21 came along during a weak moment I would go against my beliefs.

    Gross. Raping somebody just because you have a weak moment still makes it rape.

    Can you think of a good secular reason why society has that law?
    I can.
    How about you?

    Gee, I’m a thief. But theft is not “bad.”

    Can you think of a good secular reason why society has laws against theft?
    I can.
    How about you?

    Even if I murdered someone, I would still endorse laws against murder while I was imprisoned.

    Can you think of a good secular reason why society has laws against murder?
    I can.
    How about you?

    That is precisely why we need laws, because humans do not always live up to their ideals.

    If we look for those laws in the bible, we discover that whole fifty shekels routine and the rapist having to marry his victim.
    Bad law? Hmmm, yeah.
    So what’s it doing in the bible? Some kind of a practical joke or what?

    Then there’s all that stoning business. People get stoned in the bible for all sorts of reasons.
    Stoning somebody to death. Think about it.
    What’s up with that?

    If you pick and choose the things that you like in the bible but disregard other stuff then it’s not really the bible you are following. You’re just following your own choices. Cherry picking.

    Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality are not divinely inspired.
    The bible was written by…people.
    They wrote what they wanted to write and they had issues with women and homosexuals, slaves and other tribes.
    Bronze age attitudes towards homosexuals is not an acceptable way to run a modern society.
    We’ve moved on.

    To try to justify homo behavior as not morally reprehensible?

    All you’re doing is just reaching for your bible to prop up your homophobia.
    Put the bible back where it belongs next to Mother Goose Fairy Tales and think for yourself.
    You find homosexual practices abhorrent. You think that it’s a perversion. That’s an issue you have to deal with.

    There is no good normal reason why gay marriage should not be permitted.
    Saying that “you don’t like it” or “invisible people don’t like it” or “bronze age goat herders didn’t like it” is not a good argument.
    People used to think that way but the times “they are a changing”.
    That battle has been fought and lost
    You are behind the curve.

    Get new material. The Rev. Fred Phelps already has your best lines.

    Or you don’t like being reminded that your sexual orientation is a choice, and is not something that is etched in stone?

    How old were you when you chose your sexuality? How many options did you consider?

  19. Corey Kaster Says:

    Most poly relationships I have encountered have been loving, abundant, and beautiful I can’t wait until poly is more mainstream! I have actually started my own blog about gay polyamory as I just ventured into the poly world about a year ago and am amazed at how well it works and how opening up to more love has enhanced my life and the lives of others.

    Check it out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: