First Darwin and then Homos? Never!

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I'm just trying to get this straight

Do you think that people are forced to have gay sex? Do you think that people addicted to drugs can just stop taking them at the drop of a hat?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
The most recent studies have generally supported the idea that while it is possible to direct the orientation of your sexuality, (as our brains have a high level of plasticity) it is very unlikely and I would doubt anyone here who is gay would say they had much of a choice in the matter.

So you would regard paedophiles as being OK then because they can't choose their 'sexuality'?

[Whaleboy]

I don't even have to post...

For your information, there were no Mennonites back then, so I am more modern than that.

As for this ruling, I think that if one can limit immigration based on country of origin, you should be able to do the same with sexual preference.

After all, isn't race just like sexual preference?

The two reasonable distinctions the refute that are thus: Sexual preference is something of an "internal" property if you will, rather than external upon which you can more easily categorise and take decisions based upon that. The other distinction is that "external" properties like nation of origin are discriminated against for pragmatic, not pseudo-religious/fundamentalist reasons. Still, such distinctions are ridiculous anyway, one should judge immigration upon a case by case basis imo.

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to live in their place of choice because they are homosexual? Upon what do you base that?

The religious idea is weird. You have the primary rules. Love of ones fellow man (no pun intended) is paramount, alongside love of god. Those are the key things. Contradictory, minor rules do not overrule that, the principle that all should be loved and God should decide. Though there may be all kinds of crazy **** in the New Testament that I'm not aware of....

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Do you think that people are forced to have gay sex? Do you think that people addicted to drugs can just stop taking them at the drop of a hat?

JCC pretty much summed this up, but I'll rehash.

People that are addicted to drugs (again, ignoring babies born into such a condition) got that way by experimenting with them in the first place. People that are gay did not get that way by experimenting with gay sex.

I don't know about you, but I never made a conscious decision to be straight, nor could I ever make a conscious decision to become gay. I did, however, make a conscious decion not to experiment with drugs, so the chances of me becoming addicted to them is pretty much zero, save for someone tying me down and force feeding me drugs until I became hooked on them.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


So you would regard paedophiles as being OK then because they can't choose their 'sexuality'?

Does paedophilia involve consenting adults where you live? Because it sure doesn't here.

[Space05us]

Aren't there already precidents here. For example, taking hard drugs is illegal isn't it? That doesn't affect anyone but the user. Committing suicide is illegal. I am sure we could think up more illagal activities which do no harm to anyone else. I don't see how a court could rule that the Govt is interfering in people's lives in this case, while not in the other cases.

I watched that Law&Order too!

[DinoDoc]

Which one? There are several like that.

[Whaleboy]

So you would regard paedophiles as being OK then because they can't choose their 'sexuality'?

How on earth do you propose to compare gay people to paedophiles? I'm bisexual and find your proposition... bizarre.

[Space05us]

Which one? There are several like that.

It was on TNT last night. Jack McCoy (sp) was trying to get a court order to have some psycho ladies tubes tied because she was killing her babies for attention and the DA and Jack's assistant were arguing that it couldnt be done. The DA said the judge wouldnt agree, his assistant (the one played by Elizabeth Rohm) was saying it was just wrong to invade on peoples personal freedoms like that. Jack made the argumant that that its illegal to do any number of things to ourselves, pointing out that the law anlready encroaches on our personal freedoms.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Do you think that people are forced to have gay sex? Do you think that people addicted to drugs can just stop taking them at the drop of a hat?

You said sexuality. Sexuality != having sex, it's about sexual orientation. Orientation is being attracted to someone physically/romantically, not just where one sticks it.

Paedophilia isn't a sexual orientation, it's sexual disorder that afflicts both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It's also more about dominance than it is about "love."

Now that we've cleared that stinky air, care to justify a town not just wanting to prosecute homosexuals, but bar them from living in the county? We're not talking about them prohibiting the acts, we're talking about them prohibiting the people.

[Whaleboy]

care to justify a town not just wanting to prosecute homosexuals, but bar them from living in the county?

Stupidity?

[The Mad Viking]

I think this is fine, as long as the county prosecutor or sheriff procures first-hand evidence.

Of course, procuring first-hand evidence would be a felony, at which point the proceeding would be dismissed, and the prosecutor / sheriff would be suspended and charged.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I don't know about you, but I never made a conscious decision to be straight, nor could I ever make a conscious decision to become gay. I did, however, make a conscious decion not to experiment with drugs, so the chances of me becoming addicted to them is pretty much zero, save for someone tying me down and force feeding me drugs until I became hooked on them.

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.

[GePap]

Such a law first come close to being like the anti-sodomy laws the Supreme Court overruled not too long ago, so on those grounds it is likely to be struck down as well. Add to this the porblems of enforcement-again, the anti-Sodomy ruling would preclude police action if homosexual sex is occuring in a home. Unless you can prove a couple is having homosexual sex, how the hell can you prove they are gay? And since no one need self-incriminate themselves-really, how do you do it?

[Space05us]

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?

are you gay? because if you're not you have no place making that assumption.