patrick.net

From the former GOP RNC Chair on same sex marriage;

Ken Mehlman: Making the Marriage Equality Case
November 21, 2012
AFER Boardmember and former RNC chair Ken Mehlman pens an Op/Ed in the Wall Street Journal making the conservative case for marriage equality.

“They say demography is destiny, and in American politics destiny has belonged to those who best aligned their core beliefs with the rapidly changing and ever-improving citizenry.

“Conservatives—and I count myself as one—succeed when we attract new supporters to timeless traditions. The Republican Party’s loss in this month’s presidential election resulted partly from a failure to embrace some of America’s fastest-growing constituencies. One area of significant change is in attitudes toward legal equality for gay Americans.

“Some misperceive the issue of marriage equality as exclusively progressive. Yet what could be more conservative than support for more freedom and less government? And what freedom is more basic than the right to marry the person you love? Smaller, less intrusive government surely includes an individual deciding whom to marry. Allowing civil marriage for same-sex couples will cultivate community stability, encourage fidelity and commitment, and foster family values.
…

“Conservatives don’t need to change core convictions to embrace the growing support for equal rights for gay Americans. It is sufficient to recognize the inherent conservatism in citizens’ desire to marry, to be judged on their work, and not to be singled out for higher taxes or bullying at school. These objectives can be achieved while also protecting religious liberty, as demonstrated by states enacting civil marriage with exemptions for religious institutions.”

leo707 says

To clarify...
Rape (any kind) = bad
Consenting sex (any kind) = fine*

It's really that simple. Freedom is what the US is supposedly all about. It's part of your civil liberties to stick your finger in somebody else's nose and pull the boogers out as long as it is consentual. And others have the freedom of association, or better non-association if they don't want to be around others that rub them the wrong way.

leo707 says

To clarify...
Rape (any kind) = bad
Consenting sex (any kind) = fine*

umm, that is not correct. There is a requirement of age and mental condition inorder to even be able to legally give consent ... so, one could argue that someone suffering from homosexuality is exibiting mental issues and therefore is not able to give consent. That makes the male/male sex act (any kind) a form of abuse and rape.

Bap33 says

There is a requirement of age and mental condition inorder to even be able to legally give consent

Yes...

Bap33 says

so, one could argue that someone suffering from homosexuality is exibiting mental issues and therefore is not able to give consent.

A. Not all mental conditions prevent someone from giving consent.

B. Homosexuality is not viewed as a "mental issue" by any professional body that deals with mental issues (this has been responded to earlier in this thread). There is no evidence to believe that homosexuality is a "mental issue."

C. Even if this were the case. Following your logic, homosexuals would not be able to consent to heterosexual sex either.

Bap33 says

That makes the male/male sex act (any kind) a form of abuse and rape.

Thanks you for finally getting to the point.

leo707 says

Lift that sheet of ice so that it is above the atmosphere, and now you have a theory that sounds reasonable to Bap. Well, reasonable as long as it agrees with the parts of the bible Bap chooses to believe in.

This is an issue with monotheists generally; their personal god always agrees with them, and they come to believe that they are God. (See Dan's earlier thread on this topic.) The world was covered by a giant ice dome in the sky, until Captain America FKA Thor heroically hammered it away to make the world safe for American democracy which must impose Bap's theocratic beliefs on everyone. BTW Catholics aren't really monotheists, they have recreated the Roman pantheon with "patron saints" (minor deities) for every purpose, which insulates them somewhat (but certainly not entirely) from Bap's delusions of grandeur.

leo707 says

There is no evidence to believe that homosexuality is a "mental issue."

Wrong. A healthy normal male human is attracted to healthy normal female humans. A male human is attracted sexually to a male human due to mental illness, or due to a male hormone/gland birth defect. In simple terms, male humans that are willing to couple with other male humans are either perverts or wired as women.

loe mentioned that the male population in prison in mostly males with mental conditions and birth defects -- one of the obvious reasons that they are in prison in the first place ... and it is well known that prisons have lots and lots of male/male coupling going on (wanted and unwanted). The mental health of those performing these acts should be questioned .... along with those not in prison.

curious2 says

American democracy

nope, a representative government with limited powers that are granted by the free members of each state.

Bap, by your rule left-handed people are immoral and mentally ill because they do not conform to the right way, i.e. the right-handed way. Do you also believe that dark-skinned people are defective because they're harder to see at night?

Bap33 says

leo707 says

There is no evidence to believe that homosexuality is a "mental issue."

Wrong. A healthy normal male human is attracted to healthy normal female humans. A male human is attracted sexually to a male human due to mental illness, or due to a male hormone/gland birth defect. In simple terms, male humans that are willing to couple with other male humans are either perverts or wired as women.

Restating your opinion is not evidence.

Bap33 says

loe mentioned that the male population in prison in mostly males with mental conditions and birth defects

? is that "loe" meant to be "leo?"

curious2 says

Bap, by your rule left-handed people are immoral and mentally ill because they do not conform to the right way, i.e. the right-handed way. Do you also believe that dark-skinned people are defective because they're harder to see at night?

I am sure that Bap has a long list of people who he feels are mental/physical defectives and therefore are unable to have consenting sex.

Forget homosexuals, for starters half of Americans (Or is it just 47% Bap?), because of their inability to give consent due to having a mental disorder, are raped every time they have sex.

Bap33 says

I say liberalism is a mental disorder.

Bap33 says

umm, that is not correct. There is a requirement of age and mental condition inorder to even be able to legally give consent ... so, one could argue that someone suffering from homosexuality is exibiting mental issues and therefore is not able to give consent. That makes the male/male sex act (any kind) a form of abuse and rape.

No, that's exactly correct. You cannot keep people confined against their will if they are adults no matter how screwed up you think they are unless they pose a security risk to the public. I think you live in the wrong country, you must be looking for a communist dictatorship where a conglomerate of politicians and "scientists" define mental disorders and rule/oppress the masses at will. You can think whatever you want, but under the premise of the US constitution adult consentual sex by law is never abuse.

mell says

I think you live in the wrong country, you must be looking for a communist dictatorship where a conglomerate of politicians and "scientists" define mental disorders and rule/oppress the masses at will.

I agree that Bap is probably in the wrong country, but he would need a theocracy that believes in the same things that he picks and chooses the from the bible. Of course Bap's interpretation would also need to be cannon.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

By demonizing gay sex, you not only harm society in all the ways I just mentioned, but you also create strife within families that have a homosexual member. Such strife can and does tear apart families unnecessarily. Given your emphasis on the need of strong families for society, this is yet another reason that demonizing gay sex is immoral.

Dan, remove the words "gay" and "sex" and insert thievery, or murder. And where it says "homosexual member" insert thief or murderer. Now, read the sentance again and explain how soiciety is correct to protect itself from the actions of individuals that just happened to be born with the mental/physical condition to be such people.

Yes because substituting words never changes the truth of a statement. For example, ...

Fucking your wife is a good way to spend your vacation.
Fucking your daughter is a good way to spend your vacation.
Murdering your wife is a good way to spend your vacation.

When you see a cop, smile and say "Have a nice day, officer!".
When you see a cop, smile and say "I'm going to kill you motherfucker!".
When you see a cop, smile and say "Now where did I put my crack, oh yeah, in my pockets.".

Police should arrest anyone who is murdering.
Police should arrest anyone who is praying.

Prayer is far closer to murder than gay sex is. Prayer has enabled people to commit crimes against humanity like the Holocaust. Not so much with gay sex.

Bap33 says

What happened to the discussion about prison behavior and prisoners that are sodomized and/or sodomizing. If they are gay, you would have to say it is no different than having women and men together in prison. But the very mention of that resulted in "Oh no there will be RAPE!".

What the fuck does gay rape have to do with consensual gay sex? The question of this thread is about consensual gay sex, not rape. Of course gay rape is evil for the exact same reasons that straight rape is evil.

And as for prisons, any violence perpetrated by a cop or an inmate on another inmate is the fault and failing of the prison system. The state should be criminally and financially liable for all violence done to inmates regardless of the costs.

To allow any abuse of inmates by anyone is not only immoral, but it is Unamerican.

leo707 says

Bap33 says

my good fellow, is the OT law the law of the land?

So, man's law trumps god's law in your opinion? Hmmm...that does not sound very Christian, putting the law of man above the law of god...

They are one in the same. Man writes the laws. God is a puppet figure.

leo707 says

You should look up "situational homosexuality"; that will answer your question.

Hmmm, this term seems to describe Republicans in general.

Bap33 says

so, one could argue that someone suffering from homosexuality is exibiting mental issues and therefore is not able to give consent.

One could also argue that a black person is mentally subhuman and therefore could not give consent, and arguing such would be just as retarded as arguing that gay men cannot give consent and for the exact same reasons.

Actually, precisely this same kind of bigotry has been applied to both race and sexual orientation. The very arguments against gay marriage are the exact same arguments that were given against interracial marriage. And the very people arguing against gay sex are the very same that argued against interracial sex. This is not a coincidence. It's simply the same bigotry being applied to a different group.

Bap33 says

leo707 says

There is no evidence to believe that homosexuality is a "mental issue."

Wrong. A healthy normal male human is attracted to healthy normal female humans. A male human is attracted sexually to a male human due to mental illness, or due to a male hormone/gland birth defect. In simple terms, male humans that are willing to couple with other male humans are either perverts or wired as women.

You are asserting that. You are not providing any evidence. Your assertions are solely due to bigotry. One could easily replace references to gender with references to race and the lack of logical connection would be no different.

curious2 says

Do you also believe that dark-skinned people are defective because they're harder to see at night?

That should be counted as an advantage in the upcoming cannibal anarchy.

leo707 says

Forget homosexuals, for starters half of Americans (Or is it just 47% Bap?), because of their inability to give consent due to having a mental disorder, are raped every time they have sex.

I think that Bap is on to something. Republicans are clearly mentally disabled and therefore cannot give consent. Therefore, we should physically prevent them from having sex or reproducing by putting them all in chastity belts. This will also help the careers of Republicans as it's the only thing that will keep them out of sex scandals.

Now since evolution is just a myth, no conservative has to worry about the lack of Republican offspring causing a shift to the left after a few generations.

leo707 says

I agree that Bap is probably in the wrong country, but he would need a theocracy that believes in the same things that he picks and chooses the from the bible. Of course Bap's interpretation would also need to be cannon.

The solution, of course, is to force Bap to live in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia for a few years under Sharia Law. Force him to conform to Islamic culture and deal with having that religion forced down his throat. A few years of that and he'll be as liberal as the rest of us.

Bap just has to realize that Christianity's day as the predominate religions of the U.S. are coming to an end, and that within his lifetime, Bap will see Islam become more popular in the U.S. When he realizes that this is inevitable and soon to occur, he'll be all for separation of Church and State.

mell says

You cannot keep people confined against their will if they are adults no matter how screwed up you think they are unless they pose a security risk to the public.

no, you are 100% wrong, in spades.

Dan8267 says

You are not providing any evidence. Your assertions are solely due to bigotry

that is your assuption and assertion based on your bigotry.

leo707 says

? is that "loe" meant to be "leo?"

yea, my bad.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

You are not providing any evidence. Your assertions are solely due to bigotry

that is your assuption and assertion based on your bigotry.

So, Bap you believe that your assertions are evidence?

leo707 says

. Not all mental conditions prevent someone from giving consent.

that may be true, but having a loose screw that causes a male human to desire to have a male human as a sex partner, or causes a male human to feel/act/react as a female human towards male humans, should result in protecting these people from abusing their bodies, being raped and abused, and suffering.

leo707 says

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

You are not providing any evidence. Your assertions are solely due to bigotry

that is your assuption and assertion based on your bigotry.

So, Bap you believe that your assertions are evidence?

do the words on the page even matter to you?

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

You are not providing any evidence. Your assertions are solely due to bigotry

that is your assuption and assertion based on your bigotry.

Yes, my assumptions and assertions that things are not immoral unless there is an underlying reason is certainly indicative of bigotry. Just like I'm a bigot for thinking that a black person is not a criminal unless I see evidence that he is. Lack of presumption in the guilt of things is the worst kind of bigotry.

Well, as everyone gets ready for Thanksgiving, remember that only mentally defective deviants eat turkey. In fact, a person cannot consent to eating turkey because anyone who would do so is obviously mentally ill in the first place. Such deviant behavior is also highly immoral for the same reasons that rape and murder are immoral. After all, there is no difference between eating a turkey and fucking it.

So to all you perverted turkey eaters out there who are going to get your jollies tomorrow, I say Jesus will smite you for your sins! And hell will run brown with your gravy.

Bap33 says

do the words on the page even matter to you?

Bap, here is the problem with your argument, and why you will find it very difficult to get anyone to buy into it.

Your argument paraphrased:
1. The mentally ill can not give sexual consent.
2. Unconsenting sexual contact is abuse and rape.
3. A desire for same sex sexual contact is a mental illness.

Therefor:
Homosexuals, being mentally ill, need to be prevented from having sex because it is abuse and rape.

In your mind this is very logical, and it is if someone is buying into your premises. The big problem is that to you premise #3 is a forgone conclusion, but to others it is not. You have not provided evidence other than "It is because I say so" to show that premise to be true. Without that evidence your whole argument falls apart.

Bap33 says

mell says

You cannot keep people confined against their will if they are adults no matter how screwed up you think they are unless they pose a security risk to the public.

no, you are 100% wrong, in spades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

leo707 says

mell says

I think you live in the wrong country, you must be looking for a communist dictatorship where a conglomerate of politicians and "scientists" define mental disorders and rule/oppress the masses at will.

I agree that Bap is probably in the wrong country, but he would need a theocracy that believes in the same things that he picks and chooses the from the bible. Of course Bap's interpretation would also need to be cannon.

Those are the same for me, communism is doing similar oppression as a theocracy just under the premise of science or economics, which is actually much harder to get people to buy into than by citing one of the religious books ;) I actually don't have much of a problem if somebody in the US is "close to the bible" in their views as long as they grant the freedom of association with a different religion or no religion at all and therefor different behavior/manners/rituals to others (as long a they don't infringe on other people's liberty).

Dan8267 says

Well, as everyone gets ready for Thanksgiving, remember that only mentally defective deviants eat turkey. In fact, a person cannot consent to eating turkey because anyone who would do so is obviously mentally ill in the first place. Such deviant behavior is also highly immoral for the same reasons that rape and murder are immoral. After all, there is no difference between eating a turkey and fucking it.

So to all you perverted turkey eaters out there who are going to get your jollies tomorrow, I say Jesus will smite you for your sins! And hell will run brown with your gravy.

funny. lol

roberto,
Don't hate me for making an effort to express my opinion.

Dan,
If my belief in God indicates inferior mental ability, shouldn't you be more kind and gentle with your approach to me? I mean, if conservative Christians are menatlly challenged, then we qualify for some type of Obama phone or somthing!! we must!!

mell says

Bap33 says

mell says

You cannot keep people confined against their will if they are adults no matter how screwed up you think they are unless they pose a security risk to the public.

no, you are 100% wrong, in spades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

First off, prisons and nut houses are full of people who pose no risk to the public. Secondly, Low-functioning (under 15 years functioning age) Downs people do not have freedom. Don't be silly, please.

Bap33 says

if conservative Christians are menatlly challenged, then we qualify for some type of Obama phone or somthing!!

You will qualify for mandatory insurance at the same premium as people who are less likely to injure themselves. But, if you believe in the Bible, then you believe in faith healing, so you won't be using any medical services anyway. And, as noted above, those happy pills on TV don't really work anyway, and are no substitute for a healthy sex life:

Find a suitable man, settle down, and quit insulting people who have never done you any harm and whom you haven't even met.

leo707 says

Your [Bap's] argument paraphrased:
1. The mentally ill can not give sexual consent.
2. Unconsenting sexual contact is abuse and rape.
3. A desire for same sex sexual contact is a mental illness.

Therefor:
Homosexuals, being mentally ill, need to be prevented from having sex because it is abuse and rape.

In your mind this is very logical, and it is if someone is buying into your premises. The big problem is that to you premise #3 is a forgone conclusion, but to others it is not.

Exactly. Although, I would put number 3 first for the sequence. And here's my counterargument.

1. The belief in a fictitious god and life eternal in heaven is a delusion.
2. Delusions are, by definition, mental illness. A socially acceptable delusion is still a delusion.
3. The mentally ill can not legally vote.
4. Therefore, Christians (and other religious) should not be allowed to vote.

Same logical sequence of A --> B --> C -->D. Except, that all of these points are far better justified. The only one that one could possibly argue with is #3, the mentally ill should not be allowed to vote. But that point is accepted by our current legal system.

Bap33 says

If my belief in God indicates inferior mental ability, shouldn't you be more kind and gentle with your approach to me?

In the same way that I should be kind and gentle to the homicidal maniac? Religion kills in mass. Gay orgies are safe as long as people use condoms. Perhaps one can make a case that unprotected sex is immoral in the current environment, but that's not an argument against gay sex.

Bap33 says

First off, prisons and nut houses are full of people who pose no risk to the public.

Damn, I'm surprised Bap said that. And it's right! Prisons are full of people who are not a threat to others. And that's immoral and unethical.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

First off, prisons and nut houses are full of people who pose no risk to the public.

Damn, I'm surprised Bap said that. And it's right! Prisons are full of people who are not a threat to others. And that's immoral and unethical.

I agree 100%. The very idea of creating prisons was (in my understanding) to keep the suspected away from harm until they can be tried. Prison is immoral, in my opinion. If a human is too dangerous to be free, then they should be hanged. If a person is not a danger to society, then they should be active members of society. That would mean "white collar" money crime and theft would only result is restitution. This means Bernie gets set free. And when he is no longer safe in prison, he will be hung by the public. What we end up with is legal and more justice. Maybe.

Dan, side bar question, at what point does self-inflected mutilation move from personal expression to mental illness that should be addressed? Serious question.