18-03-2004 23:48									#61
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki I'm just trying to get this straight

Do you think that people are forced to have gay sex? Do you think that people addicted to drugs can just stop taking them at the drop of a hat?

	18-03-2004 23:52									#62
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn The most recent studies have generally supported the idea that while it is possible to direct the orientation of your sexuality, (as our brains have a high level of plasticity) it is very unlikely and I would doubt anyone here who is gay would say they had much of a choice in the matter.

So you would regard paedophiles as being OK then because they can't choose their 'sexuality'?

	18-03-2004 23:56									#63
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: I don't even have to post... For your information, there were no Mennonites back then, so I am more modern than that. As for this ruling, I think that if one can limit immigration based on country of origin, you should be able to do the same with sexual preference. After all, isn't race just like sexual preference?

The two reasonable distinctions the refute that are thus: Sexual preference is something of an "internal" property if you will, rather than external upon which you can more easily categorise and take decisions based upon that. The other distinction is that "external" properties like nation of origin are discriminated against for pragmatic, not pseudo-religious/fundamentalist reasons. Still, such distinctions are ridiculous anyway, one should judge immigration upon a case by case basis imo.

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to live in their place of choice because they are homosexual? Upon what do you base that?

The religious idea is weird. You have the primary rules. Love of ones fellow man (no pun intended) is paramount, alongside love of god. Those are the key things. Contradictory, minor rules do not overrule that, the principle that all should be loved and God should decide. Though there may be all kinds of crazy **** in the New Testament that I'm not aware of....

	18-03-2004 23:56									#64
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Do you think that people are forced to have gay sex? Do you think that people addicted to drugs can just stop taking them at the drop of a hat?

JCC pretty much summed this up, but I'll rehash.

People that are addicted to drugs (again, ignoring babies born into such a condition) got that way by experimenting with them in the first place. People that are gay did not get that way by experimenting with gay sex.

I don't know about you, but I never made a conscious decision to be straight, nor could I ever make a conscious decision to become gay. I did, however, make a conscious decion not to experiment with drugs, so the chances of me becoming addicted to them is pretty much zero, save for someone tying me down and force feeding me drugs until I became hooked on them.

	18-03-2004 23:59									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh So you would regard paedophiles as being OK then because they can't choose their 'sexuality'?

Does paedophilia involve consenting adults where you live? Because it sure doesn't here.

	19-03-2004 00:20									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Aren't there already precidents here. For example, taking hard drugs is illegal isn't it? That doesn't affect anyone but the user. Committing suicide is illegal. I am sure we could think up more illagal activities which do no harm to anyone else. I don't see how a court could rule that the Govt is interfering in people's lives in this case, while not in the other cases.

I watched that Law&Order too!

	19-03-2004 00:39									#67
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Which one? There are several like that.

	19-03-2004 00:46									#68
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: So you would regard paedophiles as being OK then because they can't choose their 'sexuality'?

How on earth do you propose to compare gay people to paedophiles? I'm bisexual and find your proposition... bizarre.

	19-03-2004 00:55									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Which one? There are several like that.

It was on TNT last night. Jack McCoy (sp) was trying to get a court order to have some psycho ladies tubes tied because she was killing her babies for attention and the DA and Jack's assistant were arguing that it couldnt be done. The DA said the judge wouldnt agree, his assistant (the one played by Elizabeth Rohm) was saying it was just wrong to invade on peoples personal freedoms like that. Jack made the argumant that that its illegal to do any number of things to ourselves, pointing out that the law anlready encroaches on our personal freedoms.

	19-03-2004 00:55									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Do you think that people are forced to have gay sex? Do you think that people addicted to drugs can just stop taking them at the drop of a hat?

You said sexuality. Sexuality != having sex, it's about sexual orientation. Orientation is being attracted to someone physically/romantically, not just where one sticks it.

Paedophilia isn't a sexual orientation, it's sexual disorder that afflicts both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It's also more about dominance than it is about "love."

Now that we've cleared that stinky air, care to justify a town not just wanting to prosecute homosexuals, but bar them from living in the county? We're not talking about them prohibiting the acts, we're talking about them prohibiting the people.

	19-03-2004 01:05									#71
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: care to justify a town not just wanting to prosecute homosexuals, but bar them from living in the county?

Stupidity?

	19-03-2004 01:07									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think this is fine, as long as the county prosecutor or sheriff procures first-hand evidence.

Of course, procuring first-hand evidence would be a felony, at which point the proceeding would be dismissed, and the prosecutor / sheriff would be suspended and charged.

	19-03-2004 01:07									#73
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki I don't know about you, but I never made a conscious decision to be straight, nor could I ever make a conscious decision to become gay. I did, however, make a conscious decion not to experiment with drugs, so the chances of me becoming addicted to them is pretty much zero, save for someone tying me down and force feeding me drugs until I became hooked on them.

I think you are being inconsistant and hypocritical. Let me explain why.

There seems to me to be two ways to define 'gay':

1. someone who is attracted to someone of the opposite sex.

2. someone who indulges in gay sex.

I think these are quite different, but you seem to confuse the two. If you say you adhere to (1) then you are being inconsistant with the initial post. Clearly (1) cannot be legislated against since it is a thought, not a deed. The definition (implicitly) assumed by the 'proposed law' is (2). But I would say that a gay person can abstain from gay sex more easily than a drug addict can abstain from drugs. Wouldn't you?

Now, similarly pedophilia can be defined in two ways:

1. someone who is attracted to children.

2. someone who abuses children.

Now, if you think gay definition (1) is acceptable behaviour in principle because no-one is harmed other than consenting adults then you must also accept that pedophile definition (1) is OK too. I say it isn't and I hope you agree with me that it is not acceptable to for example look at child pornography. But if this is not acceptable, then one cannot say that the gay definition is necessarily acceptable by default.

In other words, by consistant in your definitions please.

	19-03-2004 01:12									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Such a law first come close to being like the anti-sodomy laws the Supreme Court overruled not too long ago, so on those grounds it is likely to be struck down as well. Add to this the porblems of enforcement-again, the anti-Sodomy ruling would preclude police action if homosexual sex is occuring in a home. Unless you can prove a couple is having homosexual sex, how the hell can you prove they are gay? And since no one need self-incriminate themselves-really, how do you do it?

	19-03-2004 01:12									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: But I would say that a gay person can abstain from gay sex more easily than a drug addict can abstain from drugs. Wouldn't you?

are you gay? because if you're not you have no place making that assumption.

	19-03-2004 01:25									#76
	Support Apolyton

In point of fact, committing suicide or attempting suicide is not illegal. Used to be. Isn't anymore.

	19-03-2004 01:28									#77
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Space05us [are you gay? because if you're not you have no place making that assumption.

Are you suggesting that gay sex is sooo much more compelling?

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer In point of fact, committing suicide or attempting suicide is not illegal. Used to be. Isn't anymore.

It is where I live.

	19-03-2004 01:31									#78
	Got spare money?

quote: Are you suggesting that gay sex is sooo much more compelling?

How would you know if you're not gay?

	19-03-2004 01:51									#79
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh I think you are being inconsistant and hypocritical. Let me explain why. There seems to me to be two ways to define 'gay': 1. someone who is attracted to someone of the opposite sex. 2. someone who indulges in gay sex. I think these are quite different, but you seem to confuse the two. If you say you adhere to (1) then you are being inconsistant with the initial post. Clearly (1) cannot be legislated against since it is a thought, not a deed. The definition (implicitly) assumed by the 'proposed law' is (2). But I would say that a gay person can abstain from gay sex more easily than a drug addict can abstain from drugs. Wouldn't you? Now, similarly pedophilia can be defined in two ways: 1. someone who is attracted to children. 2. someone who abuses children. Now, if you think gay definition (1) is acceptable behaviour in principle because no-one is harmed other than consenting adults then you must also accept that pedophile definition (1) is OK too. I say it isn't and I hope you agree with me that it is not acceptable to for example look at child pornography. But if this is not acceptable, then one cannot say that the gay definition is necessarily acceptable by default. In other words, by consistant in your definitions please.

That's funny, because I'd say it's you that's being inconsistent and hypocritical, and let me explain why:

You are equating gay sex with drug addiction. The problem with that is that the addiction - that is, the compelling urge - part of drug addiction can ONLY come about after the voluntary taking of them in the first place. The urge to have gay sex (or straight sex, for that matter), on the other hand, is entirely unrelated to experimenting with gay (or straight) sex.

To sum up: drug addiction - result of action of your own choosing; urge to have sex with whichever gender - NOT a result of an action of your own choosing. Get it yet?

Now that alone shot down your original arguement, using completely consistant definitions on my part. However, you chose to pull out the gay=paedophilia card from your "Arguements Fundamentalist Christians Use Against Homosexuality" handbook, so let's deal with that one.

1) As Boris said, paedophilia is not a sexual orientation and afflicts both homo- and heterosexual people.

2) As you say, you cannot legislate against thoughts, so you cannot legislate against the desire to have sex with children. However, as I've already said, sex with children does not involve all parties being consenting adults. So that's where your arguement really stops dead in its tracks.

Anyway, your example already crosses the line into action - viewing child pornography. I don't have a problem with viewing it per se, but I do have a problem with the production of it because that is where the exploitation occurs. Separate the two parts - it's not that hard.

	19-03-2004 01:58									#80
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki To sum up: drug addiction - result of action of your own choosing; urge to have sex with whichever gender - NOT a result of an action of your own choosing. Get it yet?

Having gay sex is most definitely a choice. Don't let your friends tell you otherwise. Remember: just say NO!

quote: viewing child pornography. I don't have a problem with viewing it

Well, I think this is absolutely abhorent, and I think you have just shown your true colors....

	19-03-2004 02:05									#81
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Now, if you think gay definition (1) is acceptable behaviour in principle because no-one is harmed other than consenting adults then you must also accept that pedophile definition (1) is OK too.

Indeed. There is little to no choice in being attracted toward children, hence it is completely wrong to punish such a thought.

quote: I say it isn't and I hope you agree with me that it is not acceptable to for example look at child pornography. But if this is not acceptable, then one cannot say that the gay definition is necessarily acceptable by default.

Red herring here. Looking at child pornography is an action. To make child pornography, someone needs to molest children. Looking at child pronography is a deed in which people have a choice. Feeling attracted to children is no deed, and people can struggle against their urges (actually, many do: it has been documented that most child-molesters do it for the thrill of feeling powerful, not for actual sexual attraction)

	19-03-2004 02:07									#82
	Tired of ads?

quote: Having gay sex is most definitely a choice. Don't let your friends tell you otherwise. Remember: just say NO!

theres a difference between choosing to have sex with a member of the same gender, and the natural drive to have sex with a member of the same gender. If you enjoy having sex with women then you're not going to go out and try to have sex with men, if you enjoy sex with men then you're not going to go out and try to have sex with women.

	19-03-2004 02:16									#83
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Red herring here. Looking at child pornography is an action. To make child pornography, someone needs to molest children. Looking at child pronography is a deed in which people have a choice.

By the arguments posited as to why being gay is fine (because it harms no-one), looking at child pornography would also be fine (since it harms nobody, except the viewer). If one accepts that viewing child pornography is wrong then one must also accept that the reasoning posited is also wrong.

For the record, I don't think that 'being gay' is wrong - I am just objecting to the reasoning.

	19-03-2004 02:22									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh So you would regard paedophiles as being OK then because they can't choose their 'sexuality'?

Your fallicious arguments are stupid.

	19-03-2004 02:25									#85
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Your fallicious arguments are stupid.

Oh well, silly me - of course it is! Once again Mr Fun's astounding prowess in debate humbles us all.

	19-03-2004 03:08									#86
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh By the arguments posited as to why being gay is fine (because it harms no-one), looking at child pornography would also be fine (since it harms nobody, except the viewer).

...and the child(ren) that was (were) molested in the process of making the porn material.

	19-03-2004 03:16									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Having gay sex is most definitely a choice. Don't let your friends tell you otherwise. Remember: just say NO! Well, I think this is absolutely abhorent, and I think you have just shown your true colors....

Are you enjoying being an idiot, or do you just not realize that you're being one?

I never said having gay sex wasn't a choice. Read my whole post, and actually make an effort to understand the words on your screen.

As for the second part, way to parse together two sentence fragments and completely change what was a perfectly clear position. Let me quote you from a couple of posts "I...am...gay...and...like...paedophilia". Ah, now we see your true colors!

	19-03-2004 03:18									#88
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Having gay sex is most definitely a choice. Don't let your friends tell you otherwise. Remember: just say NO!

When did you decide women were more appealing than men?

	19-03-2004 03:20									#89
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Having gay sex is most definitely a choice. Don't let your friends tell you otherwise. Remember: just say NO!

I promise not to have gay sex if you promise not to father any offspring or adopt- and move to Tennessee- - and bring Obi Gyn Torquemada with you.

The idea of child molestation as compulsion is vividly illustrated in Fritz Lang's classic 'M', wherein Peter Lorre as the child murderer confronts the 'normal' criminals, his accusers and judges and jury, and declares that they choose to break the law, whereas his abuse and murder of children is a deep rooted compulsion, not a 'normal' sex drive.

I am not compelled to have gay sex- it is not an addiction, I do not need to visit dealers to get a fix, and in most civilized countries it is no longer a crime to love someone romantically and sexually, who happens to be of the same gender.

If you think I am compelled to have gay sex, then presumably you and other heterosexuals are regularly compelled also to have heterosexual sex- is this regardless of whether or not you are with your partner, or your partner is awake, or otherwise compliant?

Because if you are addicted or compelled (as you seem to imply gay men and lesbians are) then I imagine consent from another person is not required for your sexual gratification.

I just love how some heterosexuals categorize the sex drives of lesbians and gay men- either it's like a chemical dependency, or we seem little better than rutting animals in their eyes, like pet dogs humping chair legs, or cats in heat.

To be attracted to someone of the same sex does not imply that I act on that attraction- perhaps you've spent too much time reading 'Easy Rider' bike mag, or have been past too many building sites, hmmm?

	19-03-2004 03:25									#90
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

er.... Molly... that was the whole point. I don't think you are compelled to have gay sex. Do try and keep up...