First Darwin and then Homos? Never!

[Guynemer]

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

[Rogan Josh]

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?

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.

[Space05us]

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

How would you know if you're not gay?

[Kontiki]

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.

[Rogan Josh]

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!

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....

[Spiffor]

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.

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)

[Space05us]

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.

[Rogan Josh]

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.

[MrFun]

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.

[Rogan Josh]

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.

[Spiffor]

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.

[Kontiki]

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!

[DinoDoc]

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?

[molly bloom]

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?

[Rogan Josh]

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