Right Wing Watch first reported that Bryan Fischer today answered my question from yesterday asking what dominionists would do with gays.
Fischer: Both of the cases that went to the United States Supreme Court that dealt with the issue of whether states should criminalize sodomy, and of course they still ought to be able to do it, every state in the union criminalized sodomy until 1962 and then forty nine states until 1972, then they began to fall like dominoes. But by the time of the founding until the late 20th Century, homosexual activity was a felony offense in the United States of America, there is no reason why it cannot be a criminal offense once again, absolutely none.
I think the Supreme Court would object to Mr. Fischer’s assertion that homosexual activity could be recriminalized.
See also:
See also Part 1 and Part 3 in the series about what dominionists would do with gays. Part 1 examines the differences between New Apostolic Reformation dominionists and the Christian Reconstructionist variety. Part 3 examines what one thread of dominionist (theonomic Christian Reconstructionists) would do with anyone who failed to keep Mosaic law – e.g., adulterers, blasphemers, idolators, disobedient children, etc.
joe – If you cannot prove your argument, then claim you are being attacked instead.
joe – the reference to b4uact is incendiary. The conference did not seek to normalize pedophilia; rather it sought to generate empathy for people who are attracted to kids but do not want to offend. I think this is a good thing.
Joe,
I went t that link also. It is an organization that tries to get mental health professionals to treat as they call it, people who are attracted to minors. This is to get mental health treatment for people so that they do not violate children. I am a bit worried about your obsession with pedophilia. It looks like there is help available if you live in Maryland Joe.
It is interesting to see a conference highlighting the lack of severe mental illness amongst pedophiles.
I remember outrage in 2000 about an APA article which highlighted the lack of negative consequences for children who had sex with adults (can’t remember article link).
The power of Taboo in every culture is misunderstood and mysterious.
As we encourage a Taboo of Tolerance…we dismantle other taboos.
Taboos are reinforced by creating false and repulsive information about the behavior…science is understandably curious about which information is actually accurate. As they explore that, and find false associations, they appear to favor the behavioral taboo.
As a culture, taboos are always used; as we dismantle them in the name of tolerance and compassion and science, we have to be willing to face responsibly any of the negative consequences which the taboo helped the culture avoid.
I don’t think we do that last part very well.
Dominionists are taboo peddlers…encouraging lethal penalties.
David Blakeslee# ~ Sep 8, 2011 at 9:24 am
“I remember outrage in 2000 about an APA article which highlighted the lack of negative consequences for children who had sex with adults (can’t remember article link).”
I believe this is the article you are talking about:
Rind, B., & Tromovitch, P. (1997). A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse. The Journal of Sex Research, 34(3), 237-255.
The outrage was caused because NAMBLA tried to use this article to justify their stance. The whole thing got blown out of proportion because people (who likely never even read the original article) started accusing the authors of being NAMBLA supporters etc.
I understand that gays won’t be mixed with pedophiles nowadays (it was different in the good ol’ days of the sixties and seventies), but in fact there’s a lot of interspace between both concepts. A lot of acts which are here and now classified as pedophile (in particular so-called “pedophile” abuses of catholic priests) could and would elsewhere be classified as homosexual – first because they weren’t violent, secondly because they weren’t directed to boys before puberty, but to boys in puberty.
But Joe’s argument could be rewritten in a way that leaves your tender feelings untouched. Take pedophilia away and replace it with another kind of irresistible, but antisocial inclination (like cleptomania) and look at Joe’s argument again: Peoples impulses may be innate and unchosen, but that doesn’t validate their behaviour.
Patrocles, or what was your other name again? –
Wow! Just when you thought you had heard the end of this old and tired argument it just rears its ugly head again. Yes, there are pedophiles who abuse those of the same sex and those of the opposite sex. That has nothing to do with consensual sex, and relationships, between law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. LOL
Patrocles# ~ Sep 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm
“Take pedophilia away and replace it with another kind of irresistible, but antisocial inclination”
In addition to what Jayhuck said sexual orientation is neither an irresistible nor antisocal inclination. The only significant difference between straight and gay is the gender of the person the individual is primarily attracted to (both sexually and affectionally). And despite what certain people and organizations would have you believe, being gay is not a disorder and there is nothing wrong with someone simply because he or she is gay.
And until you learn that, you (and joe) are doomed to continue to make foolish and insulting analogies about gays.
Patrocles,
Well lets see how this works … perhaps your decision to chime in with Joe and use worse case scenarios to describe other people is comparable to necrophilia. .. where you may not want to not have sex with dead people .. but you just can’t help yourself. Likewise here .. you would like to have an intelligent argument .. but you just can’t do it … and so you resort to insulting analogies.
Or to put it in a “positive” way:
Your impulse to slanderous and unrelated analogies may be inate and unchosen, but it does not validate your behavior .
Dave
On a personal note…the critters ( squirrels, opossums, armadillos, ???) are causes havoc at my place. Chewed water line, phone line and some electrical wires.
So now back up and back to the subject at hand. I assume by “incendiary” you mean a person who stirs up strife, if correct, that was not the intention. Clarification was the intention.
It has repeatedly been said here, that there is no correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. I beg to differ.
” Dr. Lisa Cohen (Albert Einstein College of Medicine) presented data on the psychological correlates of pedophilia based on forensic samples, and argued that use of non-forensic samples would help researchers separate factors related to feelings of attraction from those related to behavior, and support the development of improved diagnostic systems.”
On their website B4U-ACT classifies pedophilia as simply another sexual orientation and decries the “stigma” attached to pedophilia, observing: “No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood.” The group says that it does not advocate treatment to change feelings of attraction to children or adolescents.
The event was to examine ways in which “minor-attracted persons” can be involved in a revision of the American Psychological Association (APA) classification of pedophilia.
You don’t think this is a first step toward normalization?
Similar lobbying, then by homosexual activists, led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 in the DSM. As a result of the DSM declassification, debate regarding homosexuality and the many documented harms associated with the homosexual lifestyle has been all but shut down in academic psychological circles.
SGM-I have no more interest in this than in any other sexual “behavior” that was once considered immoral, but is now not.
Not puzzling at all…the difference in how Orthodox and Protestant view salvation, is what you misunderstand. Protestants think in terms of a legal transactions where as Orthodox see God on a rescue mission, and the church as a hospital. This distinction however will spin the conversation in a different direction, this is not the thread for that conversation.
You have given me pause though. I may have to rethink this one section “Those desiring to be joined in “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” for such purposes should be allowed to do so, with the social and legal benefits that are guaranteed by such arraignments.”
This may have crossed the line into condoning certain behaviors. In thirty years when the argument is about similarities in the civil rights movement and the pedophile rights movement, specifically marriage…I will also have a problem.
Says who?
Joe –
So says all of the largest and most reputable scientific and medical associations in this country and around the world – here are just a few examples: American medical association, American Nurses Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of Social Workers….. this list is hardly exhaustive, its merely a small sample, I just don’t have the energy to type all of the groups that say this.
Joe –
For the record, I am Orthodox. Antiochian as a matter of fact
I like Fr Hopko, and what he says is true, but what one person defines as immoral behavior another does not. I think he would agree we all behave immorally at times.
Of course it is okay to voice your religious beliefs, that isn’t really what is at issue here. The issue is you, or anyone else, trying to legislate your religious beliefs on those who do not agree with you.
Joe# ~ Sep 9, 2011 at 11:59 am
“It has repeatedly been said here, that there is no correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. I beg to differ.”
To be more accurate, there is no more correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality than there is between pedophila and heterosexuality. Nothing you have posted or cited supports your implication otherwise.
Why do you feel the need to associate homosexuality with pedophila Joe? Your attitude seems no different than when people would keep trying to associate drug dealers (and other criminal activities) with blacks.
“You don’t think this is a first step toward normalization?”
No. Do you not understand what the term “consenting adult” means Joe? it has been used here several times.
“SGM-I have no more interest in this than in any other sexual “behavior” that was once considered immoral, but is now not.”
I doubt that, I have yet to see you post about inter-racial sex. Or sex outside of marriage. Or masturbation (male or female) or a host of other sexual behaviours. I’d say you seem particularly focused on gays.
“Similar lobbying, then by homosexual activists, led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 in the DSM.”
The lobbying was what got the APA to look at the issue, the science was what got them to remove it from the DSM. This issue has already been discussed here. I’d recommend reading through the whole thread, Jayhuck, William, and some others also had some interesting facts and points about the removal of homosexuality from the DSM.
Joe –
I agree, you need to explore this issue a bit more. The removal of homosexuality from the DSM involved so much more than just the activism of some homosexual groups. Its removal took nearly a year, and involved much debate and review of the scientific studies that had been done to that point regarding pathology and orientation.
@Joe:
Is this the current opinion of Father Thomas Hopko?
If it is, is this your position?
Also, please realize, Joe, that some of us on this Blog who are homosexual, choose not to engage in same gender sexual behavior. Your remarks, at least to me, lack sensivity or a certain sense of diplomacy … actually, at times they are offensive. That’s my problem; but, it also is yours as a Christian. Often, it is how something is said, more than the content, that is unpalatable.
I don’t think anyone on this Blog is unaware of the traditional Christian view on homosexuality. You are not speaking to an unintelligent group of people here, Joe. Some of us choose to align our behavior with our faith beliefs. Others’ beliefs are different and they choose to act accordingly. We really get it, Joe. What’s your real point?
I think you just made my point.
-the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are very similar.-
I get a choice in my behavior…my skin color… not so much.
Was what happened on 911 really morally wrong? The Taliban, certain Muslim factions and those belonging to al-Queda don’t believe it. In fact, they have said it was an honorable thing? Are we simply talking about differing individual beliefs or are we really asking the question, “Is there anything in the universe that is really True for all of us in the area of morals whether it is believed or not?”
While a much different issue, the questions regarding sexual morality and sexual behavior are much the same. Is there anything that is really True, whether we believe it or not or practice it or not?
A great many of those who ‘debunk’ traditional…values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process.”
–C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
To Jayhuck, Dave and Ken,
My one and only point was to support the following argument: The question, if an inclination is innate or unchosen is quite irrelevant as an argument in the debate if that behaviour is good or bad.
For that I had to find an example of an inclination whrere most people would admit that the behaviour is bad, even if the inclination is unchosen.
Of course, that doesn’t give an answer to the question if homosexual behaviour is good or bad or what arguments are apt to decide about that. It only eliminates a particular argument which is completely inapt.
At least, Dave with his commentary about my inclination to slanderous remarks seems to have accepted that – so I suppose I’ve made my point as far as it goes.
Joe# ~ Sep 11, 2011 at 7:53 am
“-the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are very similar.-
“The truth is, skin color is not a moral category, but demanding unquestioned public affirmation of certain sexual behaviors from society is an inescapably moral issue.”
I get a choice in my behavior…my skin color… not so much.”
However, discriimination based on ignorance and hatred and the bigotry it breeds IS very similar, regardless of whether it is based on a person’s skin color, orientation, gender, religion, ethnicity etc.
“Was what happened on 911 really morally wrong? The Taliban, certain Muslim factions and those belonging to al-Queda don’t believe it. ”
Which is a good example of why you should not be trying to legislate morality, because then it becomes a questions of whose morality do you pick.
I think what Joe is advocating is that as long as we remain self-loathing closeted people who can “pass” for “straight,” we don’t need civil equality.
Of course, that is a miserable existence.
Imagine telling a straight person they need to either be celibate or only have sex with people of the same sex in order to be accepted by society. They can “pass” as the correct type of person, but they would need to give up all semblance of true love and intimacy with a romantic partner they are attracted to. It would be an injustice.
But maybe straights would get it, though, if this injustice were imposed upon them the way straights think it should be imposed upon us.
Joe, I’m really quite interested in your response here. Would you care to share?
Teresa :
I doubt that Fr Hopko’s position has changed, though he is due to speak on this subject on 15 October, I gather. In a sense, his position echoes what seems to be becoming the mainstream western Catholic one: LGB persons should be treated equally under the law (with the exception of matters relating to Marriage [but not necessarily civil unions] and adoption), but their ‘bedroom activities’ (which are deemed to be sinful) can never be ‘approved of’ by the Church.
Anglican Christians (like myself) tend to hold a range of views on the issue of same-sex relationships. Personally, I cannot understand how any genuinely ‘loving’ relationship can be regarded as intrinsically sinful.
Patrocles –
I think I can speak for all of us, Dave, Ken and myself, when I say we understood your point. I hope that you understand each of ours.
Joe –
Oh c’mon! Whose “traditional values” are you talking about? And what does the term “traditional values” mean anyway? Want to take a stab at that? I’ll bet for every answer you give there is someone who would offer a different one.