 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You have not clarified the connection between this and freedom of conscience. Nor, have you established the connection between these laws and 'theologically based laws.' The reason they are a factor in secular society has to do with the fact that a family provides benefits to society unmatched by any other alternative arrangement.
1. There is no expressed right to 'intimate life'. Otherwise, you could sue someone for refusing to sleep with you because they are denying your right to intimate life.
One does not need intimate relations in order to live, it's nice work if you can get it, but you won't die from lacking the contact.
Therefore, any sexual contact cannot be expressed as a right, because such a right would infringe on freedom of conscience, in the right of others to refuse you, and their own right to freedom of association.
Secondly, laws preventing the state from recognising gay relationships do not bar them from associating with each other. Therefore, you are not restricted either in conscience, or in association. Don't confuse the two issues of sodomy regulations and marriage. Just because some arguments work with the latter, does not necessarily mean they work on the former.
Presumes that it is wrong for laws to discriminate. Look at it this way. The laws against discrimination do not prevent those actions taken to ameliorate the situation for those who are already handicapped. This is why one can target blind people for instince, to help them with their situation.
Another example would be benefits to vets, not provided to other people. The state does not bar anyone from serving in the armed forces, yet the state provides many benefits to vets only. The same is the case from marriage. No one is prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex, not even you, Mr. Fun, if this would be your desire.
Also, your argument also fails to the same critique as earlier. To say that the act is 'heretical' is much different than saying that sodomy is illegal. Sodomy is not illegal. Gays are allowed to enjoy relationships with one another under the laws already established.
Presumes that who one is is inextricably bound in who one sleeps with. I say that this is false. One is much more than the sum of one's actions. You are not just a gay person, that should your desires change, that you would no longer exist. |
Where did I make the claim that because one has the right to intimate life, that whoever you want to be with, should be legally compelled to be with you?
You're bad in constructing strawmen. 
Another one of your strawmen is that I can marry someone of the opposite gender. How many times have you resorted to this fallicious argument? 
There are some basic human rights that do not need to written in black in white, on paper in order for those rights to be guaranteed. What does "in pursuit of hapiness" mean to you anyway? To me, it means that one is entitled to the right to engage in any lawful means to live the quality of life they want to live.
You also present the fallicious argument that current laws do not prevent gays from associating with one another. It's fallicious because that is beside the point. Gays can associate with one another, but our relationships are not given the same dignity and respect that heterosexual relationships are given. This also implies that somehow, gays are less than human.
Another fallicious claim that you have made a couple of times is your obsessive, reductionist, exclusive focus on the sex act when discussing intimate relationships. Intimate relationships involve more than the act of sex with humans -- by using such a reductionist focus with gay relationships, you put our relationships on the same level as animals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
I think we should decide on the wrong or rightness of homosexuality on the grounds of does it hurt anyone outside of the participants? No. Then it's okay.
Second, is it an undeniable urge to be with the same sex such as my desire to have almost everyone that walks by. We'll have to ask the gays how strong their urges are.
As far as the other things.
Does someone get hurt with rape? Yes.
Murder? Yes.
Pedophilia? Questionable. Depending on age and maturity of participants.
Ice cream? Questionable. Depending on the speed in which the ice cream is consumed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
a think someone is always hurt with paedophilia |
Nearly always (and really always if we understand pedophilia in its narrow sense, i.e sex toward prepubescent children)
There are many valid reasons as to why pedophilia is frowned upon, but the phenomenon suffers from a lack of understanding. Basically, many people believe "all pedophiles are just the same scum". As such, "pedophilia" as a word ends up describing wildly different behaviours and attractions, which are more or less grave.
"Pedophilia" in its strictest meaning means sexual attraction toward children. It doesn't equate child molestation, just like heterosexuality doesn't equate rape. Many pedophiles (in this meaning) refuse to act on their attraction altogether, and many others try to build a 'nice' relationship with children that includes sexual content (obviously, only the adult benefits from the sexual content ). It is a behaviour that differs from...
"Child molestation", where a child is coerced into having sex with an adult, where a child is raped. Most of us think of child molesters when they think of pedophilia, which is understandable, given how despicable child molestation is. However, I think child molesters are in their own category of evilness, and shouldn't be mixed with 'nicer' pedophiles as above, or with the following:
"Ephebophilia" is the attraction toward young teenagers. It is something commonly encountered (how many of us want to have sex with virgins?), and it will be far less destructive for the youngster than for a child (simply because the youngster is interested in sex already). In some cases where the teen is especially mature, a relationship with an adult can even bring benefits.
Sorry for the threadjack, but the idea that "pedophiles are all the same scum" is a pet peeve of mine, because a general hysteria goes in the way of acknowledging the complexity of a phenomenon.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:35
|
|
Goddamn you have to wait till 18? Our magical age is 16.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
I was just wondering....do gays feel the same revulsion at the thought of having hetero sex as I do at the thought of having gay sex?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Diss-
The thought of french kissing another guy doesn't turn you off?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Before I had straight sex, yes. But when I experimented with it, I found it wasn't so bad. It didn't do much for me physically or mentally, but I could stand it. Granted, it was pretty tame--the thought of performing oral sex on a woman does absolutely make me queasy. |
I wouldn't even be able to bring myself to try gay sex. Maybe you're a little bit bi.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-05-2004 05:43
you, MrFun.
:P
I wonder if he was labeled "pedophile", just to make him on par with child molesters 
|