First Darwin and then Homos? Never!

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by molly bloom
And regularly compares gay men (and lesbians, presumably) with rapists, drug addicts (oh, except apparently we're not really like drug addicts, but a more relevant comparison wasn't to hand) and child molesters (child molestation not being confined to gay men or lesbians, and being more prevalent amongst adult male heterosexuals).

OK, lets take these one by one.

1. I never mentioned rapists. Got something on your conscience?

2. Drug addicts. I pointed out that ensuring the right to have gay sex on the grounds that it is something between consenting adults in the privicy of their own homes would also ensure the right of people to take hard drugs. After all they are consenting adults (as was pointed out ad infinitum) and often in the privicy of their own homes. That is hardy a comparison....

2. child molesters. Again, they were never mentioned. I mentioned pedophiles, which is actually pretty different since one implies only a desire (how bigoted of you!). If you define homosexuality as being being attracted to members of the same sex, then you should define pedophiles as being attracted to children - not 'child molesters'. There are plenty of pedophile activities which are (imho rightly) illegal but do not harm anyone (such as the downloading of suspicious pictures on the internet, which does not generate revenue for the producer).

I do believe that you, Molly, are a heterophobe.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I think it is unreasonable to assume that people who disagree with our values are 'insane'.

That's not what makes it "insane," it's the complete disregard for one's continued existence for the purposes of sexual gratification. This is clearly not something within "natural" tendencies, as far as we've observed nature.

The same thing could be said for homosexuality. I don't think it is wise to argue your stance on the basis of 'societal precedent'. I don't think this is a good argument for anything, whether it is homosexuality or suicide or whatever.

It can't be said, because 1) homosexuality is observed in nature all the time, so there is a "natural" precedent for it, and 2) homosexuality doesn't involve any inherent fatal harm to the participants, unlike sexual cannibalism. I think those are rather important differences when it comes to establishing whether or not something is a "sane" action. And I'm not arguing solely on societal precedent, I simply brought up the overwhelming societal notion that self destruction = bad as a means of showing why it can be viewed as something in the realm of insanity.

It was you who brought up the constitution - not me. I do believe though that your 'living breathing document' is being twisted to fit your agenda.

I'm not sure what the point of your first statement is, as I was answering questions you made in the course of the argument. The constitutionality of the potential laws referenced in the article certainly is a matter of concern when discussing whether or not the town has the power to do what they propose to do, which they clearly don't.

As for "twisting," I beg to differ. I think, given what we know of the Founding Fathers, that while they may not have understood or approved of homosexuality in their day and age, the notion of a government hounding people for consentual acts performed in private would be more repugnant to them. I believe they would probably endorse the current interpretation of a right to privacy. There's certainly no "twisting" going on, at any rate--what has been "twisted?" Surely the Equal Protection clause isn't so ambiguous?

[MrFun]

I got a fabulous idea -- if gays in United States are not entitled to equal rights and privileges that go with citizenship, then we should be automatically exempted from paying state and federal taxes, since those are obligations that only go with enjoying the benefits of citizenship.

[Hueij]

You know, sometimes I'm so glad I live in a country where all of this is a non-discussion...

Next: voluntary euthanasia?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

1. I never mentioned rapists. Got something on your conscience?

2. Drug addicts.

It is something between consenting adults in the privicy of their own homes .....would also ensure the right of people to take hard drugs. After all they are consenting adults and often in the privicy of their own homes. That is hardy a comparison....

2. child molesters. Again, they were never mentioned. I mentioned pedophiles, which is actually pretty different since one implies only a desire (how bigoted of you!). There are plenty of pedophile activities which are (imho rightly) illegal but do not harm anyone (such as the downloading of suspicious pictures on the internet, which does not generate revenue for the producer).

I do believe that you, Molly, are a heterophobe.

I do believe that you're a religious bigot, given the nature of your posts, and the frequency with which you say you have nothing against gay sex, and then go on ad nauseam, ad infinitum, to prove the very opposite- 'arsef*ckers'- for instance. You bring an old Ike and Tina Turner song to mind- 'I can't believe what you say, because I see what you do'.

Besides which, it would behoove you to pay close attention to text, although perhaps English comprehension isn't your strongest suit. You'll notice I said 'regularly compares'- meaning on more than one occasion in the past, in different threads, and posts.


Problems with the past tenses of verbs, or temporary amnesia, par chance?

Paedophilia isn't simply 'love' of children, it is also defined non-clinically as sexual attraction to, and sexual activity with, children- I love your spurious attempt to cloud the issue by confusing and conflating non-sexual pictures of children with child pornography.

http://www.unesco.org/webworld/child_screen/conf_index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underage_sex

As for the 'rape' statement - a pathetic attempt at a slur, just about par for your posts, along with the 'heterophobe' nonsense- unlike you, I don't discriminate against people on the basis of their consensual sexual activity, but perhaps such a prejudice is so ingrained in you, that you find its absence hard to understand in other people.

With regard to your inaccurate and irrelevant drug taking comparison, or maybe now it's a non-comparison, since you seem to want it both ways and clearly don't understand the meaning of the word 'comparison', I can think of other consenting activities between two or more adults in private that are not harmful- stamp collecting, home improvement, backgammon, but surprisingly you opted for the activity that involved illegal substances, chemical dependency, criminal activity and disease and death, for a comparison with consenting sex between gay men and lesbians.


Gosh, I can't imagine why.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by MrFun

fabulous

[Elok]

Originally posted by MrFun
I got a fabulous idea -- if gays in United States are not entitled to equal rights and privileges that go with citizenship, then we should be automatically exempted from paying state and federal taxes, since those are obligations that only go with enjoying the benefits of citizenship.

Not sure there's precedent for that. There are other groups that enjoyed such a status throughout our history, but they compensated via unpaid agricultural labor and/or were hunted for sport by Andrew Jackson. Pick Massa some cotton, then we'll talk.

[MrFun]

Elok, the only thing I'm going to pick, is which favorite drink I will have when I'm out at the clubs.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
2. Drug addicts. I pointed out that ensuring the right to have gay sex on the grounds that it is something between consenting adults in the privicy of their own homes would also ensure the right of people to take hard drugs. After all they are consenting adults (as was pointed out ad infinitum) and often in the privicy of their own homes. That is hardy a comparison....

And we keep pointing out that there is such a thing as a compelling public interest! And you keep ignoring it!

2. child molesters. Again, they were never mentioned. I mentioned pedophiles, which is actually pretty different since one implies only a desire (how bigoted of you!). If you define homosexuality as being being attracted to members of the same sex, then you should define pedophiles as being attracted to children - not 'child molesters'. There are plenty of pedophile activities which are (imho rightly) illegal but do not harm anyone (such as the downloading of suspicious pictures on the internet, which does not generate revenue for the producer).

It is assumed that by visiting those sites, you are in some way generating demand and revenue (even if through popup ads) for those activities.

[Ramo]

Well Rogan, if it makes you feel any better, I don't believe that attempted suicides, drug users, or pedophiles (as long as the desire isn't acted upon) ought to be prosecuted either.

[Elok]

Ah. Just noticed Boris's post up there (his second on page 6). I hate to sound like I'm defending Rogan's arguments (I'm pretty sure I'm not, though with this chaotic thread it's hard to tell), but how do you reconcile the power of the supreme court to jerk the constitution around with

A. Checks and balances-if SCOTUS can pull any reason out of its arse to justify shooting down a law or executive order, and the judges can't EVER be booted except for clear incompetence, doesn't that essentially give those nine people the power to win any argument by force? How is that democratic? Which leads me to my second argument,

B. How is its role in defining the changing constitution in any way representative of the best interests of the people? We're talking about people who know perfectly well that they are invincible, and at the moment, have been there so long we've been expecting half of them to retire for the past decade. They don't take polls before they decide, and their decisions, even those supposedly within proper constitutional boundaries, need not have a blessed thing to do with the current trend. Bush v. Gore, anyone?

C. The constitution can be amended. That change is by its very nature representative of the wishes of the people as a whole, and all of our lasting societal reforms-not stuff like right to an attorney-have come from amendments. Even Brown v. Board couldn't have held water without a century-old amendment the country had been ignoring.

As it stands, nine people have the final say on our rights as a country. Even if their decisions thus far were perfect for the nation, I think there's a serious problem with that situation. They need to get back to deciding real constitutional issues...

[Ben Kenobi]

And we keep pointing out that there is such a thing as a compelling public interest!

Fine, what constitutes a compelling public interest?

Why should the state have a right to restrict substance use, and not homosexual activity, when both actions can be shown to cause significant public harm?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Fine, what constitutes a compelling public interest?

Why should the state have a right to restrict substance use, and not homosexual activity, when both actions can be shown to cause significant public harm?

One more time for the records... PROVE that homosexual activity causes significant public harm beyond getting religious folks all bent out of shape... PROVE IT!

[Ben Kenobi]

Who's getting bent out of shape, Ming?

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality causes these public harms.

Why should we ban the one and not the other?

Could you not try to answer my question?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Fine, what constitutes a compelling public interest?

Well, generally people dying

Anyways, whatever it is, clearly homosexuality does NOT.

Why should the state have a right to restrict substance use, and not homosexual activity, when both actions can be shown to cause significant public harm?

Because they CAN'T. Homosexuality cannot be shown to cause ANY public harm beyond what "harm" promiscuity in general causes.