PA Senator allowing gay people to exist

[CubOB]

Wait, what? I don't think paedophilia should be legal.

What's so wrong with it? I don't think people should be fucking 4 year olds, but surely a 13 year old is grown enough to give legal consent. Just saying.

I disagree, I don't think it's old enough for the child to give informed consent. I think 16 is a more appropriate age of consent, as most individuals are (pretty much) done with puberty by that age, as well as being far more worldly and less prone to manipulation than at the start of their teens. In theory anyway

[Mechaman]

Wait, what? I don't think paedophilia should be legal.

What's so wrong with it? I don't think people should be fucking 4 year olds, but surely a 13 year old is grown enough to give legal consent. Just saying.

I disagree, I don't think it's old enough for the child to give informed consent. I think 16 is a more appropriate age of consent, as most individuals are (pretty much) done with puberty by that age, as well as being far more worldly and less prone to manipulation than at the start of their teens. In theory anyway

There are a few states that have already set the age of consent as low as 14

[Keystone Phil]

If I lived in PA (which I appreciate I don't - but we all comment on places we don't live, that's kinda the point of this place) then no, I would not want a state senator who regards me and people like me as one step up from paedophiles. Even if he was great on other issues, because the whole "one step up from paedophiles" thing, well, that's kind of a dealbreaker for me (BELIEVE IT OR NOT!!!).

Point out for me where he said they were one step up from pedophiles.

All I see is Eich using the slipperly slope argument and, for the eighteenth billion time, that does not mean gays are being compared to pedophiles; it means that people will argue that any type of marriage ought to be allowed. Agree with that line of argument or not, it doesn't mean he's comparing gays to pedophiles.

[Mechaman]

If I lived in PA (which I appreciate I don't - but we all comment on places we don't live, that's kinda the point of this place) then no, I would not want a state senator who regards me and people like me as one step up from paedophiles. Even if he was great on other issues, because the whole "one step up from paedophiles" thing, well, that's kind of a dealbreaker for me (BELIEVE IT OR NOT!!!).

Point out for me where he said they were one step up from pedophiles.

All I see is Eich using the slipperly slope argument and, for the eighteenth billion time, that does not mean gays are being compared to pedophiles; it means that people will argue that any type of marriage ought to be allowed. Agree with that line of argument or not, it doesn't mean he's comparing gays to pedophiles.

I for one do think any type of marriage should be allowed, even if it's between a man and his tv.

[CubOB]

Even if I accepted that the slippery slope argument was not comparing my relationship with Andrew (for example) to a man marrying a baby or a horse (other example) - I don't accept that for a minute by the way - it is still Eichelberger demonstrating that he does not understand the difference between two consenting adults wanting to marry, and the other types of marriage he suggests. So even if he is not a homophobe for using it, he's at least an idiot (disclaimer: I feel that this would make him an idiot, I am not suggesting that he is demonstrably an idiot in other areas. Phew).

Please give me some indication that you understand my point of view.

[Keystone Phil]

Even if I accepted that the slippery slope argument was not comparing my relationship with Andrew (for example) to a man marrying a baby or a horse (other example) - I don't accept that for a minute by the way - it is still Eichelberger demonstrating that he does not understand the difference between two consenting adults wanting to marry, and the other types of marriage he suggests. So even if he is not a homophobe for using it, he's at least an idiot (disclaimer: I feel that this would make him an idiot, I am not suggesting that he is demonstrably an idiot in other areas. Phew).

Please give me some indication that you understand my point of view.

I can understand your argument and I respect it but what I don't respect is when people twist what is being said. He did not compare gays to pedophiles. He is not a foaming at the mouth homophobe. The fact that I have to correct that disappoints me. The fact that you would have kept using that argument if you weren't corrected disappoints me.

We can agree to disagree on this issue, my friend, but I'm not just going to back down when you mischaracterize someone and his actions.

[CubOB]

But I do think he's a homophobe ("foaming at the mouth" is your phrase not mine), and him using the slippery slope argument is one of the reasons that I think so. You can dispute it all you want, but it's an argument that I feel does compare gays to paedophiles and bestialists. It's another thing we'll have to agree to disagree on, as is our assessments of Mr Eichelberger's character.

[Keystone Phil]

But I do think he's a homophobe ("foaming at the mouth" is your phrase not mine), and him using the slippery slope argument is one of the reasons that I think so.

Slippery slope arguments = homophobia?

Oh, God... 

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then I'm sorry but you don't understand grammar.

[CubOB]

Considering you exploded at me a while ago for doing exactly what you just did with your little rolleyes there, I believe you're a hypocrite and have absolutely no leg to stand on here. You're also trying to belittle me based on a difference of opinion, and I fully stand by everything I have said.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read the above, Phil. That is what the guy compared my relationship to. He also claims that homosexual relationships are "inherently dysfunctional". You're damn right I find that abhorrent - are you going to tell me that's an inappropriate reaction?

If you find that viewpoint abhorrent, more power to you. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that. You called the man himself abhorrent though. You know almost nothing about him. Don't sign silly petitions about people you barely know.

First impressions are everything.

Considering you know very little about the man, my point still stands.

Phil it takes an awful lot of hate to have an opinion as warped as he does, and anyone with that level of hate inside of them is abhorrent.

Right, Smash.

Smash obligatory hack quota fulfulled for 6/22/09.

Ahh yes Phil because calling a hate monger abhorrent is a hackish statement......

And Phil's not being a hack at all defending someone who thinks gays should be happy they are being allowed to "exist" just because he has a R next to his name.

[Keystone Phil]

Considering you exploded at me a while ago for doing exactly what you just did with your little rolleyes there, I believe you're a hypocrite and have absolutely no leg to stand on here.[/qupte]

LOL what?

Uh, context, please? You're calling me a hypocrite because I used the eye roll? I doubt I "exploded" on you because you used the eye roll; I most likely "exploded" because of your reasoning. Nice attempt at spinning this though. You're not liking the way this is going so you want to veer off and try to discredit me with a very, very twisted/poor example of how I'm a hypocrite.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, boy.

I'm not going to point out the several times I said our differing opinions is fine with me. I said what I cannot respect is how you blatantly twist what was said by someone and you think slipperly slope arguments = homophobia. Sorry, that's childish and wrong and I'm going to point it out. If that means I'm "belittling" you based on a "difference of opinion," whatever. Yet another point you're blatantly twisting.

And Phil's not being a hack at all defending someone who thinks gays should be happy they are being allowed to "exist" just because he has a R next to his name.

Yep, I defend anyone with an (R) next to their name...or I'm defending someone I know a little bit more about than you do.

By the way, dope, try reading my first post in this thread and notice how I'm not defending his position throughout this thread; I'm defending him from character attacks from people who know little to nothing about him.

Also, check other threads where I've said that I don't totally agree with Eich's efforts and I'm not sure if I'd vote for it if it came to the voters.

You're dismissed now.

[Smash255]

Considering you exploded at me a while ago for doing exactly what you just did with your little rolleyes there, I believe you're a hypocrite and have absolutely no leg to stand on here.[/qupte]

LOL what?

Uh, context, please? You're calling me a hypocrite because I used the eye roll? I doubt I "exploded" on you because you used the eye roll; I most likely "exploded" because of your reasoning. Nice attempt at spinning this though. You're not liking the way this is going so you want to veer off and try to discredit me with a very, very twisted/poor example of how I'm a hypocrite.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, boy.

I'm not going to point out the several times I said our differing opinions is fine with me. I said what I cannot respect is how you blatantly twist what was said by someone and you think slipperly slope arguments = homophobia. Sorry, that's childish and wrong and I'm going to point it out. If that means I'm "belittling" you based on a "difference of opinion," whatever. Yet another point you're blatantly twisting.

And Phil's not being a hack at all defending someone who thinks gays should be happy they are being allowed to "exist" just because he has a R next to his name.

Yep, I defend anyone with an (R) next to their name...or I'm defending someone I know a little bit more about than you do.

By the way, dope, try reading my first post in this thread and notice how I'm not defending his position throughout this thread; I'm defending him from character attacks from people who know little to nothing about him.

Also, check other threads where I've said that I don't totally agree with Eich's efforts and I'm not sure if I'd vote for it if it came to the voters.

You're dismissed now.

Phil, look at the guys statements, its much more than just someone who simply disagrees with Gay Marriage,  Anyone who comes out and makes an argument with that much venom and hate is a hate monger period.

[CubOB]

It was a while back, in one of the gay marriage threads. You posted something I disagreed with, I quoted it and said "sheesh" or similar, you went nuts. I'm not trying to twist things, I just found it hypocritical since that was your last interaction with me and you just did what you accused me of doing back then. Whatever, it isn't important.

Regarding the slippery slope argument, can you explain how using it in this context isn't homophobic? If your reasoning on this is based on how you like gays but just don't want them to get married, you don't have to bother. You can choose not to call that homophobia if it makes you feel better, but it is an attempt to deny equal rights to gay people and their families. How have I twisted what he said?

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, look at the guys statements, its much more than just someone who simply disagrees with Gay Marriage,  Anyone who comes out and makes an argument with that much venom and hate is a hate monger period.

Smash, I did look at the statements. Simply repeating your point (which lacks any real substance) isn't going to change my mind. I don't think there was "venom" in what he said.

It was a while back, in one of the gay marriage threads. You posted something I disagreed with, I quoted it and said "sheesh" or similar, you went nuts. I'm not trying to twist things, I just found it hypocritical since that was your last interaction with me and you just did what you accused me of doing back then. Whatever, it isn't important.

That really isn't enough context for me. Sorry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how the hell it is homophobic! Some people truly believe that others will now use the "it's only about love" argument to make marriage for any type of couple!

I'm sorry but if we're going back to this argument that unless you support gay marriage, you're a homophobe, I want nothing to do with it.

[Franzl]

Why is this even an issue?

Let's just offer everybody civil unions and abolish marriage so we can stop this nonsense.

[CubOB]

No, that's not what I'm saying! I get quite emotional about certain issues and it can make my arguments a bit muddied sometimes, I'm aware of it and try my best to stop it happening. I hope that's not taken the wrong way; I find arguing very difficult because I have problems with confrontation, and I really have to try hard not to take things personally. If that sounds insane, it's because it is This is why I very rarely post outside Forum Community and Off-Topic - because it usually ends up like this, haha.

However, I do feel that the senator is either homophobic or has some kind of problem with gays. If we leave the slippery slope angle for a sec, there are several other statements that give me this impression:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This indicates to me that the senator views gay relationships purely in the context of sex, apparently unconvinced that they can have anything beyond sex with each other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Eichelberger sees homosexuality as a behaviour that can be encouraged, indicating that he may believe in gay "recruitment" and that it is a choice people make.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure this one needs comment from me, but if I were to comment it'd be to say the senator may see gay relationships as "pretended relationships", to borrow the parlance of '80s Tories for a moment. This idea that gay relationships are dysfunctional by nature seems a pretty strong indication that he doesn't see them as equivalent to a heterosexual relationship (even an unmarried straight relationship with no children).

Now I will admit that I've applied my own analysis to the quotes above, but I don't think it's unfair for me to take a view, based on that interview, that Eichelberger has a negative opinion of homosexuals.

[afleitch]

This idea that gay relationships are dysfunctional by nature seems a pretty strong indication that he doesn't see them as equivalent to a heterosexual relationship (even an unmarried straight relationship with no children).

It's not only just a question of equivalence, it is apparent from his choice of words that he sees no merit in homosexual relationships whether on or below par with heterosexual relationships.

[Sbane]

Considering you exploded at me a while ago for doing exactly what you just did with your little rolleyes there, I believe you're a hypocrite and have absolutely no leg to stand on here.[/qupte]

LOL what?

Uh, context, please? You're calling me a hypocrite because I used the eye roll? I doubt I "exploded" on you because you used the eye roll; I most likely "exploded" because of your reasoning. Nice attempt at spinning this though. You're not liking the way this is going so you want to veer off and try to discredit me with a very, very twisted/poor example of how I'm a hypocrite.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, boy.

I'm not going to point out the several times I said our differing opinions is fine with me. I said what I cannot respect is how you blatantly twist what was said by someone and you think slipperly slope arguments = homophobia. Sorry, that's childish and wrong and I'm going to point it out. If that means I'm "belittling" you based on a "difference of opinion," whatever. Yet another point you're blatantly twisting.

And Phil's not being a hack at all defending someone who thinks gays should be happy they are being allowed to "exist" just because he has a R next to his name.

Yep, I defend anyone with an (R) next to their name...or I'm defending someone I know a little bit more about than you do.

By the way, dope, try reading my first post in this thread and notice how I'm not defending his position throughout this thread; I'm defending him from character attacks from people who know little to nothing about him.

Also, check other threads where I've said that I don't totally agree with Eich's efforts and I'm not sure if I'd vote for it if it came to the voters.

You're dismissed now.

You know I really don't give a sh**t what his positions on other issues are. I may even agree with a lot of them but that is not relevant. He is a hateful freak and I don't understand why you are defending him. And if this was a democrat I am certain you wouldn't be defending him. This guy just isn't someone who disagrees with gay marriage, he basically views gays as something to be "allowed to exist". Yeah gays should be glad we don't have good old fashioned fag drags anymore. And improve your attitude too. Why the f do you have insult everyone you talk with?

[Keystone Phil]

This indicates to me that the senator views gay relationships purely in the context of sex, apparently unconvinced that they can have anything beyond sex with each other.

A homophobe wouldn't say something like "they're free to do whatever they want sexually."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok? Again, I said I didn't agree with his point of view but I don't think that's homophobic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or he just has a negative opinion of extending marriage to gays.

Whatever the case, I don't see homophobia here and I hate how you have said that if you don't support gay marriage, you're homophobic and saying otherwise is just an attempt to make someone like myself feel better.

You know I really don't give a sh**t what his positions on other issues are. I may even agree with a lot of them but that is not relevant. He is a hateful freak and I don't understand why you are defending him

I'm defending the character attacks. You know next to nothing about him. He was called an "abhorrent" human being. It was said he shouldn't be serving in the State Senate (which is just ridiculous if we're basing that off of his views on one issue). Give me a break.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I dislike all Democrats, I don't defend them and I defend all Republicans?

Give me a fucking break, dude. Of all the things you can throw my way, do me a favor and don't call me a partisan hack. I've proven otherwise countless times on this forum. And I'm not even defending Eich's position! I've said several times that I don't know that I'd support his efforts if it came to a public vote!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm "insulting everyone" I talk to when my views are blatantly twisted. You came in here and said I'm only defending Eich because he's a Republican. Wrong. You didn't even bother to read my damn position on Eich's bill so stop being a complete dope, actually read my posts and then I'll stop insulting.

[Smash255]

Phil, how exactly is suggesting that gay relationships are dysfunctional not hate and not homophobic??

[CubOB]

I've said my piece, as far as I'm able to. I also explained my reasons for not wanting to continue arguing; I hope you don't take them as a cop-out. I really do get stressed out when I engage in an argument of this sort, and I find it difficult to get on with other things if it's left hanging. Again, I know how utterly insane that makes me sound.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, how exactly is suggesting that gay relationships are dysfunctional not hate and not homophobic??

His response wasn't exactly convincing that he feels that way.


A long pause followed by an "Ummmm." Yeah, I can feel that seething hatred.

[Sbane]

You know I really don't give a sh**t what his positions on other issues are. I may even agree with a lot of them but that is not relevant. He is a hateful freak and I don't understand why you are defending him

I'm defending the character attacks. You know next to nothing about him. He was called an "abhorrent" human being. It was said he shouldn't be serving in the State Senate (which is just ridiculous if we're basing that off of his views on one issue). Give me a break.

And I do think he is an "abhorrent" human being for the things he said. What is there that I need to know about him huh? He might be a good guy in many ways but these views he has imho makes him a bad person. I am sure many racists are good people in other ways too, except for a few extremely disgusting views. In my opinion that makes them horrible human beings and I feel the same way about homophobes like Eich, even if he is otherwise a great guy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I dislike all Democrats, I don't defend them and I defend all Republicans?

Give me a fucking break, dude. Of all the things you can throw my way, do me a favor and don't call me a partisan hack. I've proven otherwise countless times on this forum. And I'm not even defending Eich's position! I've said several times that I don't know that I'd support his efforts if it came to a public vote!
[/quote]

I am not saying you are defending his positions. I know you don't believe that. I just don't understand why you would defend him when people rightfully call him a hateful bigot. I never said I know this guy. I never even heard of him till now. But these comments are enough for me to form a judgement. His views weren't a defense of why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, they were an attack on gay people themselves.

[Smash255]

Phil, how exactly is suggesting that gay relationships are dysfunctional not hate and not homophobic??

His response wasn't exactly convincing that he feels that way.


A long pause followed by an "Ummmm." Yeah, I can feel that seething hatred.

And he couldn't say no because??

[Keystone Phil]

And I do think he is an "abhorrent" human being for the things he said. What is there that I need to know about him huh? He might be a good guy in many ways but these views he has imho makes him a bad person. I am sure many racists are good people in other ways too, except for a few extremely disgusting views. In my opinion that makes them horrible human beings and I feel the same way about homophobes like Eich, even if he is otherwise a great guy.

Again, I don't think his positions are homophobic but whatever. I'll be sure to find a fault of yours and call you abhorrent even though I know very little about you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you know nothing else about him so calling him an all around horrible person is disgusting.

And he couldn't say no because??

A leading question by Leach made that a bit difficult. Eich certainly has to do better articulating his position. This is a perfect example why. Leach is known to be a very colorful debater and he perfectly painted Eich into a corner.