First Darwin and then Homos? Never!

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Kucinich
for example, the case in Germany where one guy asked the other to eat him.

...I was just about to mention that.

It is clear that homosexuality falls under neither category.

What defines insanity? The German case is a little extreme, but I can imagine a religious sect popping up which would include self (or just consenting) mutilation or death. Now, while you or I wouldn't want to do this, is it right to take away someone else's 'right' to do it? I say yes, because it has a negative effect on the rest of society.

[Combat Ingrid]

So if two adults of the same gender have sex, it has a negative effect on the rest of the society?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
So if two adults of the same gender have sex, it has a negative effect on the rest of the society?

Do you think voluntary cannibalism does?

[Combat Ingrid]

If god didn't want us to be cannibals, why are made of meat?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I am sick to death of your tirades against anyone who might even remotely disagree with a post made by a member of poly's 'gay community'. What is wrong with you people? Do you have no opinions of your own?

I regularly disagree with MrFun or Asher.

I just see a problem with a argument that uses strawmen, such as comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or addiction (to get an emotional reaction), or comparing homosexuality to the German ogre.

I even disagree with the logic of "it's consentual so that's right". But your the way you rebutt that logic is extremely awkward, to say the least.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I am sick to death of your tirades against anyone who might even remotely disagree with a post made by a member of poly's 'gay community'. What is wrong with you people? Do you have no opinions of your own?

For ****s sake, get a grip.

Ah yes, the pink mafia has done its work well to brainwash the masses and smack down any opposition with its stylish Prada bags.

This is really just another insult, isn't it? I mean, it's pretty insulting to think that posters here aren't exercising their own opinions on such matters. Maybe you should get a grip yourself and realize that sometimes what you say is truly offensive to a lot of people, not just we homos?

As for the argument, the fact is that there isn't demonstrable difference in the impact on society between two consenting adults having sex based on their respective genders. The same is not true of ages, as victims of child molestation are horribly scarred by their experiences. It's not true for cannibals, clearly, as these people get eaten and die as a direct result of their practices, and one thing society has determined is that otherwise-healthy people dying is not a good thing for it.

That this opens a can of worms wrt other consensual crimes, such as drug use, prostitution, assisted suicide, etc., is not necessarily so, as the law has always tended to treat such matters on individual basis rather than a collective "these type things bad, these type good." Otherwise, we'd have to have bans on alcohol and tobacco like we do drugs, arranged marriages like we do prostitution, and the like. So clearly the law isn't a model of consistency.

The bottom line is, does the state have a compelling interest in prohibiting such an activity? For homosexuality, the courts have decidedly ruled no, since the vast majority medical and psychological evidence shows that there's nothing bad or wrong about, and the implicit right to privacy in the constitution means it's people's own business what they do in their bedrooms, not the law.

On the flip side, look what precedent this law sets. What if this town wanted to kick out all Muslims? Being Muslim is a choice, after all. Should towns have the right to ban people based on such biases? After all, they could justify the prohibition based on their religious beliefs. What's next, kicking out all the left-handed folks?

[Whaleboy]

The argument that things should not be illegal if they are between consenting adults (or on your own) is wrong. There are plenty of things out there which are (rightly) illegal which do not harm anyone other than the consenting adults who take part.

Firstly, there is no reason I can see why two consenting people of sound mind cannot to anything to each other. Assuming the participants to be sane, in the case of the German cannibal, I am sickened but would not support an attempt to stop them.

Furthermore, homosexual activity between two consenting adults is going to be about as harmful as consenting heterosexual sex.

The principle that people can be stopped by law from consenting to something that does not directly harm an unwilling bystander is a throw-back to the days when the individual was not considered sovereign over their own body and mind. If we talk about liberty, or the individual, we have to accept this. This assumes it does not harm anyone else, which it does not.

This is a side-point of course, and someone cerebral, it does not affect the more pragmatic counter to you, that is namely that homosexual activity does not harm the participants any more than heterosexual sex. Nor does it harm society. Your point is defunct.

I say yes, because it has a negative effect on the rest of society.

How does homosexual relationships have a negative effect on the rest of society? It makes more people happy, adds some colour and variation to life and has a liberalising effect in this day and age.

I just see a problem with a argument that uses strawmen, such as comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or addiction (to get an emotional reaction), or comparing homosexuality to the German ogre.

Agreed. One is forced to question his motivations with reasoning of that quality.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Spiffor
It is good to see a law protecting morality with such consistence

Glad you approve. The root of all this, of course, is the fear that the Darwinists and the Gays will join forces. God help us all if men start banging male monkeys up the rear to create a race of supermen.

[Boris Godunov]

Man, I hope that's satire on fundie thinking...

[Spiffor]

Don't worry, it is

Elok finds it enjoyable to play the devil's advocate on religious matters, but this time he really has trouble finding any stretch of defendable thing

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
How does homosexual relationships have a negative effect on the rest of society? It makes more people happy, adds some colour and variation to life and has a liberalising effect in this day and age.

I don't think anyone here was saying that they do. (I am not so enthusiastic towards gay sex as you are, but I am not against it per se.) However, since it is completely subjective as to what a 'negative effect' on society actually is, I do accept that some people might find the changes in society to be undesirable, and I respect their right to have that opinion.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Firstly, there is no reason I can see why two consenting people of sound mind cannot to anything to each other. Assuming the participants to be sane, in the case of the German cannibal, I am sickened but would not support an attempt to stop them.

If you are willing to allow cannibalism, then I think your reasoning is consistant. I think most people would disagree with you though.

[Boris Godunov]

They don't, however, have the right to make these laws, since they are unconstitutional. The constitution is a nice document in that it prevents a majority from blatantly infringing on the rights of a minority. Homosexuals have a constitutional right to live where they want free from institutionalized discrimination. Nobody has the right, however, to not be offended by an alternative way of living.

And having such opinions is the townpeople's perogative, as is having the opinion that their opinions are based on ignorance is other people's perogative.

[Spiffor]

BTW Boris, check your PMs.

[Boris Godunov]

I told you to stop sending me nude pics of yourself, Spiff.

Seriously, I got it yesterday, just haven't had a chance to respond yet.