Guilford County GOP chair Marcus Kindley gets some press for his blog, although it's probably not the best kind of publicity for his party or this county.

The whole question of homosexuality being "natural" is silly. If natural means occuring in nature, homosexuality is natural. Kindley says, "If it were natural then we wouldn’t be having a conversation about it, because there would be no procreation. It really is that simple."

No, it's not. Saying it's natural doesn't mean it's universal. And of course there are many natural sexual behaviors that don't lead to procreation. I've seen a dog hump a person's leg, but there are still puppies being born.

Kindley's equation of homosexuality and pedophilia is cruel and inaccurate and hateful.

There is a strange disconnect between Kindley's personal style, which is warm and engaging, and his blog. I can't imagine his site does the Guilford GOP much good. I decided a while ago to pretty much avoid it, because there is no upside to confronting him when he does not argue from reason, and there are better things to do in life than wallow in the same mire again and again.

This time, though, the argument has escaped from the world of local blogs. People across the country are reading his site, and judging Guilford County on his words. I don't think the commenters who accuse him of racism and other backwaterisms are necessarily accurate, but the damage to our image is done nonetheless.

Comments

[Lance McCord]

He'll be on the radio in about an hour and a half (about 8:45am), on 107.5. I'll miss it, sadly, though maybe someone will tape it.

I'm holding out hope that Marcus' blog will be improved by all of this. It's true that he doesn't seem to think very much before posting (his entries are chock full of logical inconsistencies and internal contradictions), and that could be because he doesn't think anyone is listening. It could be for other reasons, of course.

But there are 40 comments on his last post. And there's been an anonymous commenter at BlueNC the past couple of days who sounds a whole lot like the Chairman. Maybe he'll bring up the level of discussion a bit. Maybe not, of course, but a boy can dream. I think that if I could listen this morning I'd have a better sense of how realistic I'm being.

[Connie Mack Jr]

but the damage to our image is done nonetheless.* Ed

Ed! Mr Chairman is on his own quest. Please do not indicted a whole community for the common good.

I've seen a dog hump a person's leg, but there are still puppies being born.* Ed

Ed! Shocked! I had no idea that the evolutionary process had taken place on my leg.

[PotatoStew]

"I'm holding out hope that Marcus' blog will be improved by all of this."

Don't count on it. There have been several times over the past year where it had sounded like Marcus was having a revalation, or a change of heart, about the tone and style of his blog, but things have always quickly returned to the status quo. A few months ago he posted calling for more civility on blogs, and then proceeded to attack everyone who posted a comment on that entry.

[Samuel Spagnola]

I haven't read Marcus' blog on this subject, but I believe that greater harm to the image of Guilford County is being wrought by the T&R process and all the persistent accusations (without proof) of rampant racism here.

As far as dog's humping legs- that analogy would only apply if you are conceding that homosexuality is purely about a sexual act. I never understood why a person would largely define themselves by who or what they choose to screw. It seems to be irrelevant to me.

[Roch101]

"I never understood why a person would largely define themselves by who or what they choose to screw..." Sam

Good point, Sam. Problem is, the hate, fear-mongering and denial of equal rights come about when one defines someone else by who that someone else loves.

[Connie Mack Jr]

"I never understood why a person would largely define themselves by who or what they choose to screw..." Sam

Good point, Sam. Problem is, the hate, fear-mongering and denial of equal rights come about when one defines someone else by who that someone else loves.* Roch

From what I understand about Mr Chairman and his newest Quest to rid the world of Sex. He appears well on the way to be the first Republican in Guilford County to screw himself on the internet. What Mr Chairman does with himself is his business and not the progessive movement conspiracy thoughts or excuses that Mr Chairman comes up with.

Frankly! I would not be surprise this is simply a slick ploy on his part to come out of the closet to promote his new and amazing attention getter blog.

[Fec Stench]

Careful, Connie. The Chairman has already threatened me with suit.

[chip]

Lets go back to the part of Guilford County being damaged. It implies that a huge majority of folks agree with Ed. Or are you embarrased among the more educated, liberal crowd?

[Cardinal Fang]

Chipperooh, do us a couple of favors: get a dictionary and start making sense.

[Samuel Spagnola]

"Hate" is a very strong and often misused word. Those who don't approve or have objections to a particular lifestyle don't necessarily "hate". If that were so, then those who don't agree with Marcus and others who believe as Marcus does, must necessarily "hate" Marcus, or conservative Christians, etc. "Hate" has become a political term used to describe anyone who objects to a particular lifestyle.

On this subject, I think there is enough blame on both sides. Many gay activists seem determined to demand that who they screw be recognized and affirmed, and seem to define themselves on that basis (i.e. "I like music, old movies, and I'm gay" as if the latter matters at all). By injecting that as a defining characteristic, you open yourself to criticism. On the other side, those who are obsessed with who other people sleep with are just as open to criticism. What a waste of time.

[Samuel Spagnola]

That should "e.g.", not "i.e.". I correct myself

[Samuel Spagnola]

As an intellectual/scientific debate, I think it is valid to question whether pedophilia is in fact a learned behavior or immutable characteristic. For many years, homosexuality was listed in the DSM as a sexual disorder. It has since been removed and is accepted by many to be something you are born with as opposed to a choice or learned behavior. Perhaps Marcus' broader point is that pedophilia may ultimately be excused the same way. The jury is out on what causes pedophilia the same way the jury is still out on homosexuality (it has not been fully established yet that it is genetic as opposed to environmental).

If indeed it was determined that pedophilia is beyond an individuals control, (i.e., something a person is born with) would not Marcus' point be valid on some level leaving all of his morality and sarcasm aside?

[Cardinal Fang]

BS, Sam.

Homosexuality and Child Molestation

[Roch101]

Sam, the jury is still out not just on what determines homosexuality but indeed, on what determines sexuality, including heterosexuality. So, if you want to give Marcus's "point" credibility, be prepared to defend heterosexuality as being as natural as pedophilia.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Roch, I am not defending Marcus. I am suggesting only that the history of homosexuality in scientific study has gone from being classified as a sexual disorder to being removed from that classification entirely. Is it not plausible that pedophilia could end up the same way? What if there is a "pedophilia" gene just like there is allegedly a "gay" gene? It would seem to me that given the large number of heterosexuals and the fact that heterosexuality is required for procreation, that it is the norm, while the others, if indeed genetic, are mutations.

I am not equating homosexuality with pedophilia. I am saying we don't fully understand either. Some are convinced both are choices, some aren't. If it was determined that homosexuality and pedophilia were a choice, would your opinion change? Similarly, if it is determined that they are neither one a choice, would your opinion (or Marcus' opinion) change?

Marcus obviously believes homosexuality is a choice, and his pedophilia analogy was simply a method of saying that if you accept one sexual choice as okay, then why not accept all of them (pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc). I don't agree with this logic exactly as Marcus does, but if you are coming from the view that it is a choice, his point would seem valid. Of course, it can easily be shot down by arguing that children and animals cannot consent.

As far as the Cardinal's comments: I never said that pedophilia was the exclusive province of homosexuals. I never linked the two classes at all. In fact, studies show that most victims of pedophiles are females victimized by males. Your comment therefore, is misguided.

[jw]

"The Chairman has already threatened me with suit."

Fec, Fec, Fec. You got it all wrong! He threatened to become your SUITOR.

[Ed Cone]

Pedophilia cannot be consensual in a meaningful way. Homosexual relations can be. End of comparison.

[Patrick]

Mr. Spagnola seems to find it strange that homosexuals "define themselves" by the objects of their sexual desire. Yet opponents of gay marriage or legal union argue all the time that heterosexual marriage is the most important, most enduring fundamental institution of society. What is heterosexual marriage but the institutionalization of heterosexual relationships? (I won't be responding to any replies about heterosexual marriages being formed for the purpose of rearing children. Heterosexuals don't have sex initially or primarily for the purpose of having children. If we get into that, we're going to have to talk about the validity of the marriages of heterosexuals who cannot, or choose not to or are too old to have and raise children--and that would be ridiculous.) Opposition to homosexual legal unions is just discrimination against gay people. The rest is rhetoric.

Whether pedophilia is "natural" or not is irrelevant. Pedophilia has victims--children who are entitled not to be used for the sexual pleasure of, or expressions of violence by, adults. What if we just posit that all human impulses are "natural," including violence, avarice, gluttony, jealousy, theft and all the rest? Then we'd have to have the more difficult discussion about which of those impulses is moral or immoral, legal or illegal. The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexuals, but I suspect that Mr. Spagnola and Mr. Kindley already know that. Bringing up pedophilia in a discussion of homosexuality is just another dig, another way to degrade gay people.

[Cardinal Fang]

jw, Chip's got that covered.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Patrick, you obviously did not read my last post. I have not taken sides with Marcus or against him, and I clearly stated that most pedophiles are heterosexual. I also stated that both gay advocates and those opposed to them were equally misguided and to blame for the definitions they impose on themselves and others.

Ed, I also mentioned consent being the big difference in my previous post. Of course that leads to another topic about the evolution of these issues. For many years, a child of 12 was considered old enough to be married. As time has progressed, this age requirement has become higher. For the greater part of history, it has been in the lower teens. So perhaps the issue of consent and the ability to consent is blurry in some cases. What we are really talking about in many cases is legality, which is not the same thing.

If we were to determine somehow that pedophilia was genetic and that males and females of a young age (12?) were actually capable of consent (as history for a very long time believed they were), would a person attracted to people in that age group still be seen as abnormal? How would such an attraction be any different than an uncontrollable attraction to a person of the same sex be? Or a person of the opposite sex with blonde hair? or short people? Using Patrick's logic, would a ban on marriage to 12 year olds be discrimination against pedophiles (or would the term "pedophile" no longer apply?)

If everything is normal, than nothing is. My point continues to be that we don't know enough about either homosexuality or pedophilia and people like Marcus are concerned that we are making up rules as we go along. Of course, he could be accused of the same thing. But to dismiss it as hate shows an unwillingness (intolerance, if you will) to even engage in the debate.

[Patrick]

Sam, I agree that to make pedophilia illegal, we have to draw an age line. In practice that line will sometimes be in the right place, and sometimes it won't. We do the best we can because at some level, all reasonable people would agree that adults should not have sex with children. I agree that where the line is evolves over time and, therefore, requires on-going, or at least periodic, review.

In the context of comparing pedophilia to homosexuality, so what? What else do you think you need to know about homosexuality? What rules do you or Mr. Kindley think we need about homosexuality? I like rules, so I'll suggest some:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[Samuel Spagnola]

I will ask you again not to equate my remarks and opinions with Marcus'. He speaks for himself. If it is a choice, then the debate is about morality- in which case neither side will ever be able to claim victory because they will always see morality as relative. If it is not about choice, then where do you draw the line if other sexual behavior is also determined to not be a choice? Does it come back to law or morality, or rights? I am not stating a position like Marcus does, I am merely questioning the fundamentals of the debate.

If I cannot engage in a Socratic dialogue without being labeled, then perhaps I should seek a different forum. When I have a belief in something, I make it well known. This exercise on this topic is purely to entertain debate. It is not a question of if you aren't for us, you are against us. That is a problem the BOTH (or better still, MANY) views on this topic suffer from.

[chip]

Fec- what do you mean -get a dictionary? Most polls show favor to Marcus' opinion... see Wikpedia.

One problem with Gay Rights Advocacy is their defining Christian beliefs as hate speech. Most every Christian denomination addresses the issue this way: hate the sin love the sinner. Gay sex is sinful- rebellion against God. They are not interested in tolerance, they want to change the Bible.

To answer Patrick's question, (what else do we need to know) the Bible teaches that not only is the practice of homosexuality wrong, it damages those who partake in it.

[Roch101]

"It would seem to me that given the large number of heterosexuals and the fact that heterosexuality is required for procreation, that it is the norm, while the others, if indeed genetic, are mutations." -- Sam

Ah the ol' "genetic mutation" view of us and them.

"Some are convinced both are choices, some aren't. If it was determined that homosexuality and pedophilia were a choice, would your opinion change? Similarly, if it is determined that they are neither one a choice, would your opinion (or Marcus' opinion) change?" -- Sam

For Pete's sake, Sam. Let's advance the thinking here a little bit, shall we. One involves the actions of consenting adults. The other is a vicious and predatory attack on defenseless children. It doesn't matter whether one or both are choices or not. If freedom is to mean anything in America (you remember freedom, don't you) it is that adults are free to make their own decision, especially on the most intimate matters of love and intimacy, as long as those decisions don't harm others. Pedophilia is not victimless, whether a choice or not, it demands to be outlawed. There is no comparison.

"I also stated that both gay advocates and those opposed to them were equally misguided and to blame for the definitions they impose on themselves and others." -- Sam

Sam, you seem like a reasonable guy and your willingness to keep this discussion civil is much appreciated, but think about the above for a minute. Do gay people "impose" a definition upon themselves? Does Matt Hill impose a definition of gay upon himself? It seems to me he says he's gay because he is, not because he is imposing a definition upon himself. You can't equate him saying "This is who I am, give me liberty" with people who say "Who you are is sinful, un-natural, an abomination and who you are disqualifies you from equal protection under the law" -- something that Patrick nicely points out above is down right un-American.

[Roch101]

Chip, I think most people who favor equal protection under the law are content to let you and your church believe whatever you want to about homosexuality. When it becomes unconscionable is when that opinion is used to deny equal rights in the secular realm. Go ahead, hate the sin not the sinner, but when one is willing to use the law to deny equality to homosexuals, that's not loving the sinner.

[Patrick]

With due respect then, Sam, I think you're talking in circles. As was pointed out by you, Ed and others far above, pedophilia is a crime and an immoral act against victims who are incompetent to consent. The logical connection you're trying to create breaks there. Pedophilia cannot be tolerated, without regard to whether it is a choice, natural, normal or whatever. You asked where to draw the line; there's a line.

[chip]

Roch- I just don't see where their rights have been denied. Marraige has always been defined as between a man and a woman, with minute exceptions.

However, the advocates are going all out to label Christian doctrine that regards homosexuality as sinful to be anti-gay. I suppose they feel that the Church is the root cause of hatred towards gay people.

[Roch101]

"I just don't see where their rights have been denied." -- Chip

Really, Chip? You don't see it or what you see you can dismiss? All the rights afforded to you and your wife through marriage are denied to gay couples (you see that, right?). Want to keep marriage as the purview of churches? Fine with me. Giving gay couples another means to have the same secular rights as married heterosexual couples, also fine with me. You?

[chip]

Actually Patrick, if homosexuality is sinful, it is immoral.

The logic that says a person is gay or straight based on desire is the real culprit. If we insist on saying homosexuality is not a choice because we don't choose who we are attracted to, it is logical for the pedophile to use the same reasoning. The truth is we don't know enough about human sexuality.

Roch- Nope. Marraige is not the legal union of 2 people, but of a man and a woman. I prefer to keep it that way.

[Roch101]

Wow, Chip. What a quick and easy blow off -- achieved by ignoring what I said. I did not ask if you would be willing to change the definition of marriage. I asked if marriage were to be under the purview of churches would you not be willing to adjust our secular laws to provide another way for gay couples to have the same secular rights as heterosexual couples enjoy. (Oh, and I assume that you really do see how homosexual's rights are being denied.)

[chip]

I wouldn't support any law that encouraged immoral behavior. I believe homosexual behavior is immoral.

[chip]

Rochster- did not mean to blow you off. Truth is, I really truly believe a gay man is no better off than me. People hurt- I love debating- but I have deep respect for folks whether they are gay or not. (Sometimes I am jealous of bald guys though).

[Roch101]

"I wouldn't support any law that encouraged immoral behavior." -- Chip

Ah, that's bullshit, Chip. Transparent, unmitigated bullshit. The Bible condemns charging interest on loans, but I haven't seen one word from you about changing laws that allow that "immoral behavior."

No Chip, your "morality" is selective, prejudiced and unfortunately manifests itself in a manner that deprives people of equal rights. Hard-hearted and closed-minded.

[chip]

Marraige is not a right, it is a privelege. Prejudiced? Nope. I never paid much attention to usery. Selective? Maybe. Hard hearted? Don't think so. Close minded? More like heard headed. But not more so than you.

[Patrick]

A firmly held conviction untroubled by facts or logic is a beautiful thing, like the mind of a child.

What you might be failing to take into account, Chip, is that you live in a nation of free people. If you're looking for a country governed by religion, I understand the Taliban is planning a come-back in Afghanistan. If you're looking for a Christian one, that's going to be tough, seeing as how Western society pretty much gave up on that idea a couple of centuries ago.

I agree with Roch that every church or faith community should be free to decide for itself with whom it will share its sacraments. What churches don't get to do is condition enjoyment of the benefits of citizenship and protection of the law on adherence to the beliefs of their sect.

[Dave Dobson]

Chip, until you're picketing outside Red Lobster (yes, eating shellfish is an abomination in Leviticus too) then you should shut the hell up about homosexuality and the bible.

[Connie Mack Jr]

Careful, Connie. The Chairman has already threatened me with suit.*Fec Stench

Don't worry! I know a lawyer who would clean his closet and take his sissy King James reverse prevert bible away from him on a RECO claim. Did Mr Chairman really say he wanted you to be his b####?

pedophilia is a crime and an immoral act against victims who are incompetent to consent.* Chip

It appears that Mr Chairman and Chip know nothing of ancient Greek customs and tradition in their Military units. Since both are gung ho patriots in War. Surely they would want the Silver Spears of Alexander the Great crack elite special forces unit in our military to supress those drug dealers in Afgan? Or maybe those long hair sissy communist Spartans to fight off those silly Persians again like we are doing in Iraq.

Only Mr Chairman can bring civil and chaos to Ed site with his comments.

Bubba! Why are you not into this discussion? Is there something about your Yankee liberal Boston past that you don't want reveal here about your reason in joining Mr Chairman Greensboro biker republican club?

[Samuel S. Spagnola]

Patrick, Roch:

You didn't understand my argument about pedophilia. I certainly agree it's wrong- but the question is when does it become pedophilia? The age limits we put on sex by law are artificial. At what point do you determine the ability to consent? What would prevent a law being passed tomorrow that raises the age of consent to 21? Would that make a whole group of people instant pedophiles? Not too long ago, it was legal to have sexual relations with people we consider today to be minors. Historically, sex with or between younger people was very much the norm (I'm not talking 8 year olds here, but in biblical times until the turn of the 19th century. What if in nature it was inherent in some people to be attracted to the opposite sex at a young age? Puberty occurs for a reason, does it not? This is my point on not truly understanding sexuality. Maybe it is a sickness (many people thought/think homosexuality is a sickness), but if what if it isn't? Doesn't that open it up to the same debate and rights argument that homosexuals advance? Would every case be on a case by case basis ? (e.g., this girl was 12, but she was mature enough to consent, this other girl was not and by criminalizing my conduct with a consenting "minor" you violate my rights). These lines are drawn by law, much as the marriage issue is regulated by law. The point is at what point does democracy insert itself to prevent private acts? If the majority says it is wrong, does that make it wrong- even so, should the majority consensus be ignored? Isn't the will of the majority on the issue of gay marriage any different from the majority defining the age of consent? Ultimately, this is where Marcus' point ends up. Of course, on the other hand, pedophilia could be a conscious choice in which case the violaters are again punished by the will of the majority. I don't have the answer. I don't pretend to. I think pedophiles should be severely punished because I do think it is not something you are born with but a choice. But if I'm wrong, this debate becomes no different than the debate about homosexuality or any sexuality for that matter. At some point, government will say this is wrong and this is not and in order to do so, they will place limitations on things, such as gay marriage and the age of consent. Nobody will ever get it exactly right in a democracy because there will always be a disagreement about what the line is and what public policy should be enacted. But it is not right to call disagreement "hate".

I had a case where a juvenile was charged with rape against a mentally handicapped adult. The juvenile was 13. The interesting thing is that in this case the adult was the victim by virtue of her handicap status. The child would be guilty because it is assumed that he knew what he was doing. On the other hand, if it were proven that the adult was NOT handicapped, then suddenly the child is the victim of a rape because we assume he is not old enough to consent. Is that logical? Is the juvenile able to consent when the perpetrator, but not as the victim?

Marriage is not created by law. It exists in countries and in tribes where there is little or no governmental oversight. It has historically and universally been between a man and a woman (or several women and men, but always heterosexual). It does not exist because the U.S. government or the state of North Carolina created it. I don't understand how on the one hand, so many gay activists want the government and everyone else out of their bedroom and personal business (which is fine with me, because I take a libertarian approach on homosexuality), but yet insist on adding "gay marriage" to the umbrella of government regulation. Wouldn't it be better to simply get married by a private institution and forget whether the government approves? Is it better for government to get out of the marriage business completely or regulate it completely?

[Samuel Spagnola]

Roch, you also took issue with my comment about some homosexuals that impose their sexual identity on themselves. What I am referring to is the tendency of some within the homosexual community that appear to go out of their way to let everyone know they are gay, and demand that others accept it. You don't see that in the straight community where you ask someone to tell you about themselves and they make it very obvious they are straight. For example, "my name is Fred. I like fishing, computers, reading and I also sleep with women, dammit, so get used to it". Notice I said "some" not all. This is what I mean by the apparent desire by SOME to define themselves in large part based on who they choose to have sex with. It makes no sense to me. When you do that, you are going to get an adverse reaction by many people regardless of whether you are gay or straight. If you truly want to be left alone and keep your private business your private business, why advertise it whether you are gay or straight?

[chip atkinson]

Patrick, there is no reason for insulting me. The fact I find homosexuality immoral comes primarily from the Bible. However, I find few arguments that would suggest gay sex is either healthy, productive, safe or natural. Are you comparing Christianity to Islam?

[chip atkinson]

And would your grandfather agree tha homosexuality is not a sin?

[Joe Killian]

With all due respect, Sam, doesn't it seem fairly obvious why some gay men and lesbians so strongly identify themselves with their sexuality? It's a natural reaction to being identified by society based almost solely on their sexuality. Particularly in the South.

I once knew a school teacher in NC who did not let her co-workers, students or superiors in on her homosexuality. It wasn't really any of their business, she said, and anyway it wasn't all of who she was. If they knew, though, she felt they'd make it all about that.

She was spotted on a date at a movie theater one night a few weeks after we had that conversation and, in due course, was given a tremendous amount of grief from those with whom she worked, her students and even parents. If she had to be gay, they said, she could at least not go on dates in public where students might see her.

Were I subjected to that sort of attitude even once, never mind throughout my entire adult life, I think I may come to so strongly identify with my sexuality that it became a defining characteristic, even become preemptively defensive about it. I'm not saying that that would be any more logical than someone making their defining characteristic their height, weight, gender or love of Star Trek - but I can certainly see how and why it would happen. Much the same thing happens in politics. Put a liberal in a room full of conservatives or vice-versa and it doesn't take long for the acknowledgement and discussion of politics to become naked and bare-fanged.

It's not that straight people don't "advertise" their sexuality. Look around. Of course we do. But because heterosexuality is considered mainstream in our society its exhibition - either subtly or overtly - is not considered "private business." We flirt openly. We talk about ex girlfriends and boyfriends. We make comments about the opposite sex, our love of movie stars of the opposite sex, we openly express our affection for those we love of the opposite sex. And those are just the things we do in polite company, outside of bars or clubs. I don't see any of that as any less obnoxious than someone who is gay "advertising" their sexuality, as you say.

Thought I do have to tell you - I'd bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in your pockets that I've been around a lot more gay people of every type than you have and I can honestly say I've never met even one person who behaved in the manner you described. I've met gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people who were not shy or reserved about their sexuality, certainly – but really no more so than I would consider myself flamboyantly heterosexual.

[Joe Killian]

Chip:
I would argue that many peoples' grandfathers would have argued, thirty years ago, that their children shouldn't have to go to school with black kids and that they didn't want their daughters marrying Jews. Some might still today. So that argument doesn't move me.
Also, I think your comments about homosexual sex being somehow inherently unsafe or unhealthy are informed by a basic ignorance of homosexual sex acts. Many, many heterosexual sex acts are unheatlhy or unsafe if they're performed without regard for health or safety. It's the disregard for those things, and not the acts themselves or who performs them. As for "productive" and "natural" - well, unless you're arguing that we should ban all forms of contraception and limit the type and number of legal sexual positions (which the Supreme Court has already declared unconstitutional and logic should tell you has no place in a free society) that argument also folds like a weathered old deck chair.

If you really want to argue that all humans should live their lives - sexual and otherwise - according to the tenents of your religion you are, of course, welcome to it. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that has anything to do with logic and have some respect for the fact that we all choose to live in a pluralist society in which you have you're allowed to have your book and beliefs and everyone else theirs.

[Roch101]

Sam, it's simple. Homosexuality among adults: no victims. Pedophilia: victims. You don't have to go through all the contortions you do to evaluate the motives of a pedophile perpetrator. Start by thinking of which acts have a victim and which don't. Any anology between pedophilia and homosexuality ends with that most important distinction.

[Samuel Spagnola]

"It's a natural reaction to being identified by society based almost solely on their sexuality." But aren't some of them partly to blame for that? It's like the man who comes out of the closet and suddenly discovers he has a lisp. Maybe it's cultural. As far as numbers go, I'm not going to bet you Joe. I have no idea how many homosexuals you know or have come into contact with. I have known many gay people in my life and I have several gay friends. Some are overt about it, some aren't. I never said they all were. I really couldn't care less, but not everyone has the same attitude on it as I do. That doesn't mean they are guilty of hate. I think there is enough of the "for us or against us" on both sides.

I also take issue with the many comments directed at Christians. For one thing, not all Christian's think alike (which is a whole other question). Secondly, nearly every major religion throughout history frowns on homosexuality, so it is not fair to single out Christianity. Further, if you look at religions worldwide and throughout history you may find that Christians are relatively more tolerant than other religions on this issue. Perhaps that is also a positive reflection of the teachings of Christianity as opposed to other religions that advocate harm and even death to homosexuals. As I've said before, I'm a libertarian on this issue. Live and let live. I don't really care who you sleep with or what you do behind closed doors. I don't want people shoving it in my face, and I also don't want people to judge a person as being bad simply because they are gay, or engage in other sexual behaviors between adults. It seems that both are a waste of time. The politics of this issue focuses on the extremes of both sides.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Roch, your argument only makes sense if you can define when a person becomes a pedophile. Re-read my analogy about making 21 year olds minors for sexual purposes and think about it. Is someone still a victim if the law changes? Does someone become a pervert if the law changes? If you are attracted to an 18 year old and the law says no sex until the person is 21, do you suddenly become a sicko? If we agree that a pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, don't we first have to define children? Doesn't the law define children as opposed to religion and custom or even history? Doesn't/hasn't the law changed over time? I agree that there is certainly a level at which there can be no consent, thus a horrible crime is committed. This is the same with rape of an adult- it is non-consensual. I'm not going to defend pedophilia. I think it is a sick choice and perpetrators should get life in prison for it. But I will argue that you are making a relativity argument, and that Marcus' point is more complex, right or wrong, than some people are making it by simply labeling it as "hate".

[Samuel Spagnola]

Roch, one more thing- what if the law is wrong, and nature is right? I.E. nature intended for sexual activity to occur at a younger age (when puberty starts). Isn't that the same argument made by homosexuals for years- that their orientation was an act of nature and the laws were wrong? It seems to me this is at the heart of Marcus' comments and why there is a historical connection and argument that can be made linking the two. Marcus seems to be saying "what next, pedophilia?" The logical and historical roots of the arguments are very similar. Of course, that does not mean we have to reach Marcus' conclusions.

[Roch101]

"Roch, your argument only makes sense if you can define when a person becomes a pedophile."

No, Sam. That's your argument. I'm saying there are no victims in consensual adult homosexual relationships. That you want to go round and about whether or not pedohilia is a choice or at what age should children be considered victims is a contemplation of pedophilia. The answers to those questions have no bearing on the fact that adult homosexuality does not perpetrate harm upon a victim. Talk all you want about how we as a society should approach pedophilia. It's a red herring in a discussion of homosexuality, as it was when Marcus introduced it. Thinking about pedophilia in an attempt to argue against homosexuality is not a complex argument. It is a convoluted argument.

[Joe Killian]

Sam:
I haven't directed any comments directly at Christians. When I told Chip that it would be unwise to advocate a position that would make his religion law in the area of sexual preference I wasn't limiting that to Chip. People of any and all religions who condemnn homosexuality based solely on their faith that God frowns upon it are welcome to that view. But we are not and should not be required to build our sex lives around them.
Some of the smartest people I know are deeply religious. But they don't ask that other people conduct their personal lives according to the tenents of their religion.
I also have to disagree that Marcus' point is more complex than people are giving him credit for. I think it COULD be more complex. I think if you expressed it for him it would be. As stated it's reductionist, ill-crafted and, even we assume he had the best of intentions and wanted to express something deeper and more complex, it is, because of the way he's expressed it, easy to misinterpret.
Having read some of his other writing I'm not sure it's being misinterpreted at all. But if that's his contention he should choose his words more carefully and put them together in a way that expresses what he's really trying to say.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Roch, this is my final comment on this. For a long time most people, except for homosexuals, believed homosexuality to be wrong and the law reflected that. Now that has changed somewhat. Today, most people, except for pedophiles, believe that pedophilia is wrong, and the law reflects that. The point made by Marcus is that what is to stop pedophiles from also being accepted somewhere in the future? My point is that if pedophilia was determined to be a naturally occuring condition, then I think Marcus' point would have more credibility. Marcus sees changing opinions on homosexuality as evolving standards of indecency, while others see at an evolving standards of decency. I understand his link from a logical, argumentive viewpoint which is all I've expressed here. That does not mean I subscribe to it. I just want people to think before they start labeling people on both sides.