 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
Do you think most gay men feel the same way as you about hetero sex?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
I could never find sex between heterosexuals of the opposite gender repulsive though. |
I don't necessarily find homosexual sex repulsive...just as long as I'm not participating. If anything I think it's a bit of a laugh.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:35
|
|
Let's try this again:
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So now we get into the real game. It doesn't count unless the government affirms your relationships. Well, I'm sorry. The government permits the relationships, and does not have to make everybody love you.
Even Dr. King acknowledges this.
"The laws may not be able to make the white man love me, but they can stop him from lynching me."
And intimate relationships are permitted by law in the US. I don't see what your beef is.
You are actually the reductionist here, because you insist that we are simply the sum of our actions and nothing more. That one cannot make the distinction between the person and the act. You should be thankful the courts do make the distinction, because otherwise, there would be no incentive to rehabilitate anyone. Just hang'em all and be done with it.
Legally you can. It's not the fault of the law that you choose not to. |
1) You made the fallacious attempt to distort my argument by making the strawman claim that I argue that the government needs to compel people into relationships that they do not want to be in.
2) Have you no memory? Until recently in United States, sodomy laws were still constitutional -- so the government WAS INDEED violating the privacy of intimate relationships until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
3) And again, you make another strawman by making it appear that I am the one emphasizing the sex act, when I am in fact, arguing against this emphasis by arguing that gay relationships have all the meaningful, dignified characteristics that straight relationships have. When I talk about the sex aspect, I am referring to how homophobes and the willfully ignorant focus obssessively on the sex act in order to dehumanize gays to an animalistic level.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Until recently in United States, sodomy laws were still constitutional -- so the government WAS INDEED violating the privacy of intimate relationships until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
|
I rest my case. You are fighting a battle already won. Nowhere do I argue that the sodomy regulations ought to be restored.
quote:
3) And again, you make another strawman by making it appear that I am the one emphasizing the sex act,
|
No, not really.
quote:
when I am in fact, arguing against this emphasis by arguing that gay relationships have all the meaningful, dignified characteristics that straight relationships have.
|
And it's neither the relationship, nor the sex act that I am railing against. I'm looking at marriage specifically, and only marriage.
Yes, gay relationships are one thing, but should they be recognised as marriage? That's an entirely different question, one that cannot be addressed without some examination into the purposes of marriage in society.
Marriage is not just about 'affirming' a relationship, but is based upon certain expectations of society upon a specific type of relationship that can be recognised as marriage. Part of these expectations have to do with the nature of the sex act. To deny this, is to deny the reality of the term marriage.
quote:
When I talk about the sex aspect, I am referring to how homophobes and the willfully ignorant
|
I've seen both sides, and I choose my own. I believe you can no longer term me 'ignorant', but rather, that I have sincere reasons for rejecting your arguments.
Do I claim you are ignorant? No. Rather, I offer explanations that provide greater detail and substance than your own.
quote:
focus obssessively on the sex act in order to dehumanize gays to an animalistic level.
|
I'm the one arguing that one can seperate the act from the actor. So how can it be said that I am the one focussing obsessively on the act? Go look in a mirror, Mr. Fun.
And you still neglect my point about reductionism.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And it's neither the relationship, nor the sex act that I am railing against. I'm looking at marriage specifically, and only marriage.
Yes, gay relationships are one thing, but should they be recognised as marriage? That's an entirely different question, one that cannot be addressed without some examination into the purposes of marriage in society.
Marriage is not just about 'affirming' a relationship, but is based upon certain expectations of society upon a specific type of relationship that can be recognised as marriage. Part of these expectations have to do with the nature of the sex act. To deny this, is to deny the reality of the term marriage.
I'm the one arguing that one can seperate the act from the actor. So how can it be said that I am the one focussing obsessively on the act? Go look in a mirror, Mr. Fun.
And you still neglect my point about reductionism. |
First -- do you not see the moralistic hypocrisy in "tolerating" promiscuity of gays but yet denying gays the right to choose to enter into stable, meaningful relationships??
Second -- as far as this reductionist argument, it's like talking to a brick wall with you as I oppose portraying gay relationships merely as animalistic sex acts.
|
|
| |
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 23:00
|