|
Author
|
Topic: The legality of homosexual activity
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 07:37 AM
jshadias has said: I would not mind at all if homosexual activity was illegal by penalty of death in all of North America and Europe.
If he, or anyone else, would like to present a case for the illegality of homosexual activity, please do so here.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zerot
I pay schoolgirls to verbally abuse me.
Member # 1295
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 08:14 AM
I think it is funny... he was defending the pledge by going on about how "if it doesn't affect you, ignore it."
Well...
From: Lizton, Indiana | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psybro
Half Psyduck. Half Slowbro. All cop.
Member # 290
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 09:40 AM
If terrorists were to go anthrax 'n' nuke crazy, or an asteroid were to collide or something, a sizeable proportion of America's population might be wiped out. In such a case, it would be of vital importance to reproduce and ensure the continuation of the American people.
Homosexual relationships cannot lead to children being born, hence homosexuality is a hole in the nation's security in case of an apocalyptical catastrophe. Therefore, homosexuality should be made illegal to make sure that only relationships which would allow for the repopulation of a ruined country are allowed to continue.
No, I don't actually believe any of that, but Devil's Advocate is a fun game.
- - - - -
[img]http://greatomega.homestead.com/files/clam.jpg[/img]
From: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 07-13-2002 09:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Psybro:
Homosexual relationships cannot lead to children being born, hence homosexuality is a hole in the nation's security in case of an apocalyptical catastrophe. Therefore, homosexuality should be made illegal to make sure that only relationships which would allow for the repopulation of a ruined country are allowed to continue.
Gay people can still reproduce.
And some people can't help being gay, should we punish people for the sexual interests that they were born with?
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psybro
Half Psyduck. Half Slowbro. All cop.
Member # 290
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 09:58 AM
ceoalex316: Gay people can still reproduce.
That's news to me.
And some people can't help being gay, should we punish people for the sexual interests that they were born with?
Paedophiles often say that they were destined to become paedophiles since birth, but their activities are still illegal because it protects society as a whole.
NOTE: Still playing Devil's Advocate, don't none of you start telling me I'm a homophobe.
From: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Land und Leute
HETEROSEXUAL
Member # 1040
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 10:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by ceoalex316:
Gay people can still reproduce.
Please explain.
quote:
Originally posted by Psybro:
Paedophiles often say that they were destined to become paedophiles since birth, but their activities are still illegal because it protects society as a whole.
I'm gonna agree with that. If someone says that they were "born with the idea that murder helps society" and that they can't ever "change" from that, does that give the person the right to go out and murder others?
- - - - -
theclaw: I can't rate myself!!
Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 10:25 AM
ceoalex316: Gay people can still reproduce.
Psybro: That's news to me.
Of course homosexuals can reproduce. All they have to do is have sex with a member of the opposite sex. It's not like homosexuals are incapable of doing such. Sexual orientation is about desire for a particular gender, not the physical abilities of a person.
There's also in vitro fertilization and all that.
Psybro: Paedophiles often say that they were destined to become paedophiles since birth, but their activities are still illegal because it protects society as a whole.
Not society as a whole, but individuals. Sex with minors is illegal for the sake of the minors themselves.
Pedophilia itself is not illegal, but actions which are deemed harmful to others are. If you want to outlaw homosexual activity, you've got to come up with some "victims".
[ 07-13-2002, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psybro
Half Psyduck. Half Slowbro. All cop.
Member # 290
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 10:40 AM
K wins. I suck at this.
From: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 10:54 AM
Aw, c'mon! Chin up!
Give it another try.
Let me try...hmmm.
This is hard.
How about...uh...hmmm.
How about "butt sex is icky"?
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 07-13-2002 11:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
Psybro: Paedophiles often say that they were destined to become paedophiles since birth, but their activities are still illegal because it protects society as a whole.
Not society as a whole, but individuals. Sex with minors is illegal for the sake of the minors themselves.
Pedophilia itself is not illegal, but actions which are deemed harmful to others are. If you want to outlaw homosexual activity, you've got to come up with some "victims".
Then why is homosexual activity illegal in 5 states?
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 11:12 AM
It's morally wrong. You've been arguing from a consequentialist/utilitarian viewpoint, but that's not the only moral framework. I'm a deontologist, and thanks a proper upbringing, I know that some things are simply wrong, intrinsically. A majority of Americans agree with me.
It helps to spread AIDS. This could very well become a matter of survival for developing nations, and is already a tragic and expensive problem in the US. It could develop into something much, much worse. Normal sex can spread AIDS too, but you have to allow that, or you won't have any population. Fgt sex doesn't contribute anything at all to society.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MewtwoSama
Asshole
Member # 12
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 11:15 AM
A world without lesbian pr0n would make me very sad.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
- - - - -
Hade ni ikuze!
From: Abyss of Evil | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
starCaliber
is evil and also MewtwoSama
Member # 268
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 11:21 AM
Wintermute: It's morally wrong.
Different people have different morals, sir.
Normal sex can spread AIDS too, but you have to allow that, or you won't have any population. Fgt sex doesn't contribute anything at all to society.
So are you pretty much just saying “gay sex is useless since you can't reproduce from it”? What about heterosexual “for fun” sex? Should it be outlawed as well?
From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fluorine
SMELLY BUTT
Member # 2904
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 11:48 AM
As long as there's no victims, I say we should let people do what they fucking want with their genitals.
Making homosexuality illegal is both a complete violation of a person's fundamental rights and a waste of resources. There's many things WAY more important to care about than some gay people doing it in their porsche.
As for homosexuality being morally wrong, gimme a break. Homosexuality is natural, as it is observed in many other animal species, and something natural can't really be wrong. It's discrimination. As for AIDS spreading, they just should be more careful, that's all.
quote:
Fgt sex doesn't contribute anything at all to society.
So is celibacy, when you think about it. But even that isn't true, since homosexuality contributes to variety in the human specie, which is always a good thing.
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living on air bubbles
Frank Stallone
Member # 2089
|
posted 07-13-2002 11:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
It helps to spread AIDS. This could very well become a matter of survival for developing nations, and is already a tragic and expensive problem in the US. It could develop into something much, much worse. Normal sex can spread AIDS too, but you have to allow that, or you won't have any population. Fgt sex doesn't contribute anything at all to society.
What about freedom of privacy? You can't simply ban something that people can and should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes, or wherever they do it. If people are banned from doing what they are born with, something that doesn't harm any more than heterosexual sex, then THAT'S morally wrong.
If gays helps spread AIDS, and it most certainly does, that's the fault of those individuals, not of homosexuality as a whole.
From: Cherry Hill, Suicide Captial of The World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
starCaliber
is evil and also MewtwoSama
Member # 268
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 11:57 AM
bubbles: You can't simply ban something that people can and should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes
Guess what, friend. Killing people is often performed in a private setting.
If something's made to be illegal, it's simply illegal. The concern that enforcement of 'omfg no fgt sex0r' would be difficult can be raised, but that's not what you're doing.
From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
laZeye
Farting Nudist
Member # 464
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 12:32 PM
Well I think the founding fathers intended for the country to be heterosexual, so we ought to force everybody to do that.
Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Muffin King
Farting Nudist
Member # 2240
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 12:36 PM
quote:
ceoalex316: Gay people can still reproduce.
Psybro: That's news to me.
Of course homosexuals can reproduce. All they have to do is have sex with a member of the opposite sex. It's not like homosexuals are incapable of doing such. Sexual orientation is about desire for a particular gender, not the physical abilities of a person.
There's also in vitro fertilization and all that.
Psybro: Paedophiles often say that they were destined to become paedophiles since birth, but their activities are still illegal because it protects society as a whole.
Not society as a whole, but individuals. Sex with minors is illegal for the sake of the minors themselves.
Pedophilia itself is not illegal, but actions which are deemed harmful to others are. If you want to outlaw homosexual activity, you've got to come up with some "victims".
Once again, Mr.K proves his ownz this forum on more than one level.
-------------------------------------------------
Wintermute: It's morally wrong. You've been arguing from a consequentialist/utilitarian viewpoint, but that's not the only moral framework. I'm a deontologist, and thanks a proper upbringing, I know that some things are simply wrong, intrinsically. A majority of Americans agree with me.[
It helps to spread AIDS. This could very well become a matter of survival for developing nations, and is already a tragic and expensive problem in the US. It could develop into something much, much worse. Normal sex can spread AIDS too, but you have to allow that, or you won't have any population. Fgt sex doesn't contribute anything at all to society.
A "proper upbringing" would have taught you not to be such a narrow minded pig. So what if the majority agrees? It doesn't always make it right, does it? Whether a person is born homosexual, or chooses to be that way, it doesn't matter. They, like people of all races and beliefs, should be treated with equal dignity and respect. It's not like homosexuality is harming others. Yes, it contributes to AIDs, but so can hetero sex. And as for populating the world, I don't think we have too much of a problem with that. Afterall, we have thousands of children in foster homes and orphanages which gay couples could adopt. And like SC said, what about "for fun" sex?
"Live and let live."
From: Maryland | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 12:51 PM
Cal: Different people have different morals, sir.
But when a majority of society object to something as morally wrong, it's reasonable for society to try to discourage that behavior. Not everyone has a moral objection to theft, but you don't conclude from that that you can't legislate against theft.
So are you pretty much just saying “gay sex is useless since you can't reproduce from it”?
I'm specifically saying that in today's world, sexual activity can threaten a society's well-being. It's therefore reasonable to examine the extent to which we encourage or discourage this behavior. Normal sexual activity has a trump card in this analysis: if we didn't have it (barring some kind of society-wide artificial insemination program that's just unrealistic at this point), we wouldn't even have a society. Gay sex has no such trump card.
What about heterosexual “for fun” sex? Should it be outlawed as well?
It's an interesting question, but one that can be considered separately from outlawing gay sex. Outlawing both would be helpful with respect to the specific national health concern I mention above. Outlawing only gay sex would still be helpful, and of the two, the most helpful.
bloop: You can't simply ban something that people can and should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes, or wherever they do it.
You basically just said, "you shouldn't ban something that you shouldn't ban".
EDIT: That wasn't really fair to you. But see Cal's point. My reply is essentially that you shouldn't simply cite privacy, I think you need to make a case that it somehow supercedes security for this behavior. We don't think it does for murder. And...
If people are banned from doing what they are born with, something that doesn't harm any more than heterosexual sex, then THAT'S morally wrong.
It does cause more harm.
atom.#9: So is celibacy, when you think about it.
Celibacy doesn't contribute to the health problem we're facing, and thus is off the radar in that particular context.
[ 07-13-2002, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Wintermute ]
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 01:11 PM
I am loving this on so many levels.
Wintermute, you kick ass!
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 01:20 PM
ceoalex316: Then why is homosexual activity illegal in 5 states?
This is actually a good point that got ignored.
It's still illegal in those states because the law has not yet been challenged in those states. Those laws would never hold up to constitutional scrutiny at this point. So, you can see the importance of people who "make a big deal" about things.
By the way, the Loser List is as follows:
Kansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Utah
I know that up until fairly recently, it was illegal in Florida, as well.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
jshadias
Farting Nudist
Member # 2710
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 01:38 PM
It's illegal in Texas? *Cheers*
Anyways, I said that I would not push for such a law, I would not complain (well, maybe a wee bit at here of course), but I wouldn't mind. And yes, homosexuals are causing harm (to people's goat asses, or course).
- - - - -
What Nintendo doesn't want you to know
Uiru: "Now that we're all used to the rules, clauses and by-laws... what would happen to the metagame if every one of them were whipped away?"
GP-Chan: "id probably quit every battle, and not just every other battle."
ThumbsOfSteel: "Why, because they broke the rules?"
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PowerAngelic
I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was...
Member # 693
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 01:39 PM
As a homosexual, I'll make a reply to this topic, out of principle. I disagree with the motives of this topic, as it seems Mr. K only brought it up so he could argue some more, but I'll add my two cents anyway.
Wintermute: Outlawing both would be helpful with respect to the specific national health concern I mention above. Outlawing only gay sex would still be helpful, and of the two, the most helpful.
I completely disagree with this. Both of these types of sex spread disease, but it's a fact that it is much easier for a man to spread the disease to a woman. And let's not forget that gay sex doesn't create the problem of unwanted pregnancies. The people who suffer from unprotected gay sex are only the people who have a disease afterwards (i.e. the sexual partners). The results of unprotected hetero sex leads to the pain of disease AND unwanted pregnancy AND possible spread of the disease to the child. And you mean to tell me that gay sex cause more damage to an international health concern? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
- - - - -
It's about Power.
From: Canada. Stop Laughing. ;_; | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
jshadias
Farting Nudist
Member # 2710
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 01:42 PM
Abortinists suck.
- - - - -
What Nintendo doesn't want you to know
Uiru: "Now that we're all used to the rules, clauses and by-laws... what would happen to the metagame if every one of them were whipped away?"
GP-Chan: "id probably quit every battle, and not just every other battle."
ThumbsOfSteel: "Why, because they broke the rules?"
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 01:56 PM
Wintermute: It's morally wrong.
I've been doing some reading, and I can't find much in the way of morality with regards to legality. Well, nothing that isn't a total slant piece one way or the other.
At first glance, it would seem that a lot of legislation springs from the concept of morality, but on closer inspection, it's hard to come up with an example of a law based purely on morality that will hold up to constitutional analysis. (Thus the overturning of the law banning homosexual activity in Arkansas.)
The basic principle laid down by the Constitution is that you have the right to do whatever you want, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Alcohol is not illegal, but things like driving under the influence are. That makes good sense.
However, we do outlaw other forms of drug use, so there is precedent for legislating morality. Interesting.
A majority of Americans agree with me.
We took care of the "majority rules" thing, but that's a damn good try there.
It helps to spread AIDS.
This is another good angle.
However, I think we've got that one covered too. There's the DUI thing, and also now the example of tobacco. We haven't banned smoking, but we have banned it in certain areas...the reason being that second-hand smoke is dangerous to nonsmokers.
In this instance, I could see the banning of unprotected homosexual (or even heterosexual) sex of untested individuals.
Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure I'd even be opposed to such a law.
But when a majority of society object to something as morally wrong, it's reasonable for society to try to discourage that behavior.
Yeah, but it's not grounds for a law. Typically.
That drug thing gives you a good foothold, tho. Any other examples of legislated morality?
Not everyone has a moral objection to theft, but you don't conclude from that that you can't legislate against theft.
That's covered by the "infringing on the rights of others" thing.
Now this is fun.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 02:10 PM
PowerAngelic: I disagree with the motives of this topic, as it seems Mr. K only brought it up so he could argue some more, but I'll add my two cents anyway.
PowerAngelic, I think it's important that people become aware of these issues and arguments. They are still being made, today, around the world. How do you learn to defend against them? Not by tight-lipped indignation.
Me: Outlawing only gay sex would still be helpful, and of the two, the most helpful.
You: I completely disagree with this.
Hmm.
And let's not forget that gay sex doesn't create the problem of unwanted pregnancies.
The fact that it doesn't contribute to an additional, serious problem doesn't change or excuse the fact that it does contribute to the problem at hand.
The people who suffer from unprotected gay sex are only the people who have a disease afterwards (i.e. the sexual partners).
No. Anyone who is HIV-positive presents potential risk of infecting someone else, even if by accident. Also, please see the article quoted above about awareness of infection.
The results of unprotected hetero sex leads to the pain of disease AND unwanted pregnancy AND possible spread of the disease to the child.
Re: spread of disease to the child, see response about preggers above.
And you mean to tell me that gay sex cause more damage to an international health concern?
I don't need to take that position. I'm taking the position that it causes sufficient health and economic damage that it is a practice that should be evaluated, in its own right, for legislation that would discourage it.
K: Wintermute, you kick ass!
Shucks. I just figure it's me or some Fanny-come-lately.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 02:12 PM
Well, it seems jshadias has nothing intelligent to say on the matter.
PowerAngelic: I disagree with the motives of this topic, as it seems Mr. K only brought it up so he could argue some more, but I'll add my two cents anyway.
I just wanted to keep the pledge thread free of this topic, which is a pretty big issue and would generate a lot of talk that would cloud the original topic.
I like what Wintermute's doing, tho.
Both of these types of sex spread disease, but it's a fact that it is much easier for a man to spread the disease to a woman.
Are you sure about this? I know it's much easier for a man to transmit the disease to a woman than it is for a woman to transmit it to a man, but I have always read that it's easier for a man to transmit it to another man than to a woman.
The reason being quite icky. The rectum is not designed to handle a penis, so the lining of it is more likely to tear, thus allowing the virus to enter the bloodstream. Yuck.
Anyway, if you have evidence to the contrary, I'm certainly open to reading it.
And let's not forget that gay sex doesn't create the problem of unwanted pregnancies.
Good point, altho the sorts of people who argue about the morality of homosexuality seem to consider almost all pregnancies a good thing.
The people who suffer from unprotected gay sex are only the people who have a disease afterwards (i.e. the sexual partners).
Well, that's not true. There are other ways to transmit the disease, including blood transfusions.
And you mean to tell me that gay sex cause more damage to an international health concern?
I think one could argue that the spread of AIDS is at least as big a problem as overpopulation, particularly in Africa. Something like 1 in 9 people in Africa are HIV positive now.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
EspeonNidoking
warcraft 3
Member # 2028
|
posted 07-13-2002 02:17 PM
i thought the issue that was brought up concerning homosexual sex was sodomy...which is illegal in quite a few states...
- - - - -
"Yeah, my pubic hair has dollar signs trimmed in it!
$$Bling Bling$$" ~Jman
From: Summit,New Jersey, Tampa, Fl, and Rindge, NH | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rysto
Farting Nudist
Member # 24
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 03:05 PM
Mr K.: I think one could argue that the spread of AIDS is at least as big a problem as overpopulation, particularly in Africa. Something like 1 in 9 people in Africa are HIV positive now.
Isn't most of the spread due to unprotected heterosexual sex?
- - - - -
So "a" can be any value?
-a guy in my Calculus class, on the nature of variables
From: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 04:13 PM
EspeonNidoking: i thought the issue that was brought up concerning homosexual sex was sodomy...which is illegal in quite a few states...
Well, sodomy is illegal in a few more states, but not the majority of them. (Hmmm...looks like it's actually still illegal in Florida.)
The states I mentioned were those where specifically homosexual relations were outlawed.
Rysto: Isn't most of the spread due to unprotected heterosexual sex?
Good point. I guess you could still argue that transfer rates are higher with regards to homosexual sex, if that indeed is true.
I thought of another example of legislated morality: prostitution. Not surprisingly, I guess, I'm also in favor of legalizing that as well.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
jshadias
Farting Nudist
Member # 2710
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 04:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
Well, it seems jshadias has nothing intelligent to say on the matter.
True. Your point? I have chosen not to participate in this argument.
- - - - -
What Nintendo doesn't want you to know
Uiru: "Now that we're all used to the rules, clauses and by-laws... what would happen to the metagame if every one of them were whipped away?"
GP-Chan: "id probably quit every battle, and not just every other battle."
ThumbsOfSteel: "Why, because they broke the rules?"
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living on air bubbles
Frank Stallone
Member # 2089
|
posted 07-13-2002 05:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by StarCaliber:
bubbles: You can't simply ban something that people can and should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes
Guess what, friend. Killing people is often performed in a private setting.
Except for the fact that voluntary homosexual activities don't involve hurting or violating anyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
Cal: Different people have different morals, sir.
But when a majority of society object to something as morally wrong, it's reasonable for society to try to discourage that behavior.
Majority? Hardly. Maybe where you live, but it seems like homophobia is frowned upon over here... Besides, most of it is caused by immaturity, peer influence, and as K put it, being "icky". When was the last time you heard a girl being called a fag? Sure, it happens, but not nearly as much when you compare it with males. Either way, consensus does not create reality.
The fact is, homosexuality is here to stay. I can't imagine a so-called 'Land of The Free' where voluntary homosexuality is banned. Besides, why should it even matter to you people? If you feel uncomfortable watching or even thinking about it, that's totally fine, but why bitch about it?
[ 07-13-2002, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Living on air bubbles ]
From: Cherry Hill, Suicide Captial of The World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manuel Calavera
Sock Lover
Member # 1202
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 06:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
...mmm...
This is hard...
...uh...mmm...butt sex...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
- - - - -
Gates is the Saddam Hussein of the consumer technology world. ~ Mr.K
From: Newcastle, Home of Geordies, Brown Ale and The Wildhearts | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wizzymoto
Farting Nudist
Member # 60
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 06:26 PM
A couple questions-
It is illegal to knowingly give someone any form of STD, right? If one of the main reasons for outlawing gay sex would be disease transmission, then it's kind of already illegal in a sense.
How could you actually ban homosexual activities? That'd take some mighty effort to stop. Prostitution is illegal, but I think it's still pretty easy to pay for sex if you really want to. Look how hard it is to ban drugs. It'd be even harder to ban gay sex because it's not something you can easily prevent.
OK, Isn't it true that in some parts of Africa, like 70% of the population has AIDS or something like that? This didn't come about because of homosexual activity, I don't think. While it is true that gay sex can spread AIDS, you could say that it contributes to society in that it is allowing for people to be themselves. You can't say that these people are inflicting harm on anyone else because it's basically between two consenting adults who know the risks of unprotected sex. If they're forcing the disease on other people.....
I also don't think that the majority of AMerica would agree that it should be outlawed. I think they would say that it disgusts them and that they disliked anyone who practiced it, but I think they would say that gay sex should not be outlawed.
From: Irvine, CA, USA | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zerot
I pay schoolgirls to verbally abuse me.
Member # 1295
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 06:31 PM
A quick question for ones wanting to ban homosexual activities.
If it was illegal, and they got caught, would they be sent to jail? That would seem like a step backward, actually. </badjoke>
From: Lizton, Indiana | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 07:15 PM
Wizzymoto: It is illegal to knowingly give someone any form of STD, right? If one of the main reasons for outlawing gay sex would be disease transmission, then it's kind of already illegal in a sense.
True, except that as 'mute pointed out, most men who are infected are unaware of it.
How could you actually ban homosexual activities?
That's not really at issue here. It's already been outlawed in some states, so logic is not a prerequisite for making a law.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 07:54 PM
K: (Hmmm...looks like it's actually still illegal in Florida.)
You might have mentioned this before we shared that hotel room in Orlando.
LOAB: Except for the fact that voluntary homosexual activities don't involve hurting or violating anyone.
Yes, they do in several ways. First of all, the article I linked shows clearly that too many men are unaware that they are positive. It sure hurts their partners when they find out. And the partners are likely to walk away not suspecting their new passengers. Many, many men who have homosexual experiences do not have them exclusively. Some of them are drug users. And there are the accidents. The point is, unprotected homosexual intercourse is a high-risk activity, and the consequences of it can negatively impact many people other than the original two boinkers. Then there is the growing strain on the medical system (and that's domestic, never mind overseas relief). Even if unprotected homosexual intercourse only ever negatively affected gay men who have it willingly and in private, it affects all of the American taxpayers (I gather medicine is private there, but I think there are relief programs and so forth) and people who need medical care for reasons other than the consequences of a desire to boink a dude without a condom.
Majority? Hardly. Maybe where you live, but it seems like homophobia is frowned upon over here...
Is it? Do you have any kind of data on that?
Besides, most of it is caused by immaturity, peer influence, and as K put it, being "icky".
I'm not sure how this is relevant, and anyway it all tends to be very hard to separate. Many would say that anyone who thinks homosexuality is immoral and should be banned needs to grow up a bit. And ultimately, what isn't peer influence of some sort? Nobody develops their ideas in a total vacuum, they get constructed as a result of social interaction. And the aesthetic/moral distinction is often not a very clear one. All of these are fascinating issues, but the general point is: I'm asserting that homosexual activity is immoral, and millions of others would say the same. We want our country to do something about the immorality that's running rampant.
Either way, consensus does not create reality.
In a democracy, actually, it frequently works out that way.
The fact is, homosexuality is here to stay. I can't imagine a so-called 'Land of The Free' where voluntary homosexuality is banned.
That's not really an argument.
Besides, why should it even matter to you people? If you feel uncomfortable watching or even thinking about it, that's totally fine, but why bitch about it?
Because it's immoral and I can't stand by and let wrong things happen. If you mean why bitch about it in this particular thread, K gave me an invitation.
K, I'll get to your stuff soon. A problem with this game (and debate threads in general) is that it can easily exceed anyone's ability to actually reply to everything. But I'll do that one for sure.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Muffin King
Farting Nudist
Member # 2240
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 08:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
Because it's immoral and I can't stand by and let wrong things happen.
I'm sorry, but I still don't see what's immoral about it. I respect your opinion, but I still don't see why you consider it to be immoral. I mean, even if people choose to live that way, what's so wrong about it?
I guess God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...
From: Maryland | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 07-13-2002 08:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
K: (Hmmm...looks like it's actually still illegal in Florida.)
You might have mentioned this before we shared that hotel room in Orlando.
LOL
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
LOAB: Except for the fact that voluntary homosexual activities don't involve hurting or violating anyone.
Yes, they do in several ways. First of all, the article I linked shows clearly that too many men are unaware that they are positive. It sure hurts their partners when they find out. And the partners are likely to walk away not suspecting their new passengers. Many, many men who have homosexual experiences do not have them exclusively. Some of them are drug users. And there are the accidents. The point is, unprotected homosexual intercourse is a high-risk activity, and the consequences of it can negatively impact many people other than the original two boinkers. Then there is the growing strain on the medical system (and that's domestic, never mind overseas relief). Even if unprotected homosexual intercourse only ever negatively affected gay men who have it willingly and in private, it affects all of the American taxpayers (I gather medicine is private there, but I think there are relief programs and so forth) and people who need medical care for reasons other than the consequences of a desire to boink a dude without a condom.
Dude, I think someone once said that we have the right to pursuit happiness. Lots of fun activities can lead to harmful effects of the participants involved. Skateboarding can cause injuries, should we make it illegal? Hockey, football, basketball are all done for fun and can have harmful effects on the people involved, would you agree to make them illegal?
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 09:49 PM
'mutes two main issues are immorality and the helath risks.
I came up with another moral issue we legislate: gambling.
As for the health issue...
Lesbian sex would be the least likely to pass along HIV, so if you want to keep that as the main argument, you'd have to make a distinction between male and female homosexual sex. Everyone loves lesbians, anyway.
In your favor, however, we have the precedent of legislating things like wearing seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, for reasons analogous to all those you mentioned.
[ 07-13-2002, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 07-13-2002 10:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
In your favor, however, we have the precedent of legislating things like wearing seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, for reasons analogous to all those you mentioned.
And we got condoms to stop the spread of HIV.
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
jshadias
Farting Nudist
Member # 2710
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 10:28 PM
May I point out yet again that it is hurting people, up their goat asses? And anyways, I need to make a Koffing Frowns image... Wait, I remember the one I was going to make...
- - - - -
What Nintendo doesn't want you to know
Uiru: "Now that we're all used to the rules, clauses and by-laws... what would happen to the metagame if every one of them were whipped away?"
GP-Chan: "id probably quit every battle, and not just every other battle."
ThumbsOfSteel: "Why, because they broke the rules?"
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MewtwoSama
Asshole
Member # 12
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 10:33 PM
If it hurt, they wouldnt be doing it.
They enjoy it, therefore it must not hurt.
Lots of porn chicks enjoy it as well.
What amazes me is that the goatse man enjoys dp action.
- - - - -
Hade ni ikuze!
From: Abyss of Evil | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
PowerAngelic
I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was...
Member # 693
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 11:00 PM
If the article that Wintermute pointed is accurate, then gay sex isn't to blame for the spread of the disease, no matter how much anyone wants to make homosexuals the scapegoat. It's a LACK OF EDUCATION on the subject of STDs that let them continue to thrive. I know some people who think HIV is over. Others who think they'll never get it because, well, they just won't. African men think that having sex with a virgin will cure them of their illness. Here's some stats I pulled out of the article:
Gay men account for the largest proportion of new H.I.V. infections, or 43 percent, followed by people infected by heterosexual sex, 27 percent, and intravenous drug users, 23 percent.
While gay men do transmit most of the disease, I don't see any mention of blood transfusion here. I wonder why that is? Oh yes! Screening processes! Less than 7% of people infected with the virus gain it from blood transfusion. I would agree that that is too much, but the stats don't include lesbian sex or transmission through pregnancy either, so the 7% isn't quite accurate. So it really is the consenting adults who are the frequent victims, and if they're off screwing whoever, whenever, then they should be wearing protection. I'm still a virgin, but I would never trust anyone enough to have unprotected sex until we both got tested for STDs. These people need to be taught one simple thing: NO GLOVE, NO LOVE!
- - - - -
It's about Power.
From: Canada. Stop Laughing. ;_; | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 11:23 PM
ceoalex8675309: And we got condoms to stop the spread of HIV.
Yes, but we don't legislate their use, which is more to the point.
Anyway, I just posted because I wanted to relate this interesting side note.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mick_Hale
Total Moron
Member # 419
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 11:35 PM
I'm in the wanting of replying to this thread, but I fail to realize a trend of thought.
In simpler terms, someone sum up all of the past few arguments and I'll give in whatever the exchange rate charges on 2 cents.
From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 07-13-2002 11:55 PM
'mutes saying that homosexual activity is wrong because of the immorality and the health risks. Either agree with that or disagree.
Mr. K: Well, it seems jshadias has nothing intelligent to say on the matter.
jshadias:True. Your point? I have chosen not to participate in this argument.
You had a lot to say in the pledge debate about homosexual activity.
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-13-2002 11:58 PM
This thread is too fucking big and it's getting bigger and I don't care to read the length of it all. </awkward sexual innuendo>
But just to interject: No, we do not have condoms to protect us from AIDS because, from what I have heard, the HIV phage itself is smaller than the openings in latex condoms. So condoms can help, but they're not as reliable for AIDS as they are for other venereal diseases.
Oh, and also for the record: It is 8 times easier for a male to spread AIDS to a female or another male than it is for a female to spread it to a male.
- - - - -
WHAT.
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-14-2002 12:04 AM
I hate to double post, but with regards to the immorality: I don't see how it is immoral here. If you're arguing from a Christian perspective and saying that god did not intend for a man to sleep with another man, then you might be asked to address why he basically created men with gay sex in mind.
Basically, the prostate gland is most immediately and effectively stimulated anally, and while it can leave you sore, it doesn't have the problem of leaving your organ oversensitive. (No experience necessary, guys, just some basic anatomy knowledge here.)
If you're arguing from another perspective, then this would be meaningless because so many laws are based, wrongly in my opinion, on Christianity - from some aspects of the death penalty to homosexuality being illegal in the Loser Five.
- - - - -
WHAT.
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
jshadias
Farting Nudist
Member # 2710
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-14-2002 12:10 AM
quote:
ceoalex316:
You had a lot to say in the pledge debate about homosexual activity.
I said one thing. If that's a lot...
quote:
Mentar:
...then you might be asked to address why he basically created men with gay sex in mind.
He did? That's sure news to me. And anyways, it states in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. But I won't argue with that because not everyone here (few, actually ) are Christian, so you don't care.
quote:
Mentar:
If you're arguing from another perspective, then this would be meaningless because so many laws are based, wrongly in my opinion, on Christianity - from some aspects of the death penalty to homosexuality being illegal in the Loser Five.
What aspects? And finally someone who acknowledges "in my opinion..." instead of stating it as fact *cough*Mr. K*cough*
- - - - -
What Nintendo doesn't want you to know
Uiru: "Now that we're all used to the rules, clauses and by-laws... what would happen to the metagame if every one of them were whipped away?"
GP-Chan: "id probably quit every battle, and not just every other battle."
ThumbsOfSteel: "Why, because they broke the rules?"
Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic