Heterosexuality and the heterosexual lifestyle.

[Kuciwalker]

1. There is no expressed right to 'intimate life'. Otherwise, you could sue someone for refusing to sleep with you because they are denying your right to intimate life.

Obviously, be right, he meant freedom, just like when people talk about any other constitutional right.

No one is prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex

Fallacy. No one was prevented from marrying someone of the same race, either

[Jaguar]

Methinks this is a lame attempt to point out double standards.

I you, MrFun.

[Kuciwalker]

I you too, MrFun, but in a completely non-homosexual way :P

[Ben Kenobi]

just like when people talk about any other constitutional right.

Sloppy terminology. He needs to appeal to the actual constitutional rights rather than making up his own.

Otherwise he should just use a different word than 'right'.

No one was prevented from marrying someone of the same race, either

Then we agree. No discrimination.

[Kuciwalker]

So it's OK with you to prohibit marriages between different races?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

You have not clarified the connection between this and freedom of conscience. Nor, have you established the connection between these laws and 'theologically based laws.' The reason they are a factor in secular society has to do with the fact that a family provides benefits to society unmatched by any other alternative arrangement.

1. There is no expressed right to 'intimate life'. Otherwise, you could sue someone for refusing to sleep with you because they are denying your right to intimate life.

One does not need intimate relations in order to live, it's nice work if you can get it, but you won't die from lacking the contact.

Therefore, any sexual contact cannot be expressed as a right, because such a right would infringe on freedom of conscience, in the right of others to refuse you, and their own right to freedom of association.

Secondly, laws preventing the state from recognising gay relationships do not bar them from associating with each other. Therefore, you are not restricted either in conscience, or in association. Don't confuse the two issues of sodomy regulations and marriage. Just because some arguments work with the latter, does not necessarily mean they work on the former.

Presumes that it is wrong for laws to discriminate. Look at it this way. The laws against discrimination do not prevent those actions taken to ameliorate the situation for those who are already handicapped. This is why one can target blind people for instince, to help them with their situation.

Another example would be benefits to vets, not provided to other people. The state does not bar anyone from serving in the armed forces, yet the state provides many benefits to vets only. The same is the case from marriage. No one is prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex, not even you, Mr. Fun, if this would be your desire.

Also, your argument also fails to the same critique as earlier. To say that the act is 'heretical' is much different than saying that sodomy is illegal. Sodomy is not illegal. Gays are allowed to enjoy relationships with one another under the laws already established.

Presumes that who one is is inextricably bound in who one sleeps with. I say that this is false. One is much more than the sum of one's actions. You are not just a gay person, that should your desires change, that you would no longer exist.

Where did I make the claim that because one has the right to intimate life, that whoever you want to be with, should be legally compelled to be with you?

You're bad in constructing strawmen.


Another one of your strawmen is that I can marry someone of the opposite gender. How many times have you resorted to this fallicious argument?


There are some basic human rights that do not need to written in black in white, on paper in order for those rights to be guaranteed. What does "in pursuit of hapiness" mean to you anyway? To me, it means that one is entitled to the right to engage in any lawful means to live the quality of life they want to live.


You also present the fallicious argument that current laws do not prevent gays from associating with one another. It's fallicious because that is beside the point. Gays can associate with one another, but our relationships are not given the same dignity and respect that heterosexual relationships are given. This also implies that somehow, gays are less than human.


Another fallicious claim that you have made a couple of times is your obsessive, reductionist, exclusive focus on the sex act when discussing intimate relationships. Intimate relationships involve more than the act of sex with humans -- by using such a reductionist focus with gay relationships, you put our relationships on the same level as animals.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's fallicious because that is beside the point. Gays can associate with one another, but our relationships are not given the same dignity and respect that heterosexual relationships are given.

So now we get into the real game. It doesn't count unless the government affirms your relationships. Well, I'm sorry. The government permits the relationships, and does not have to make everybody love you.

Even Dr. King acknowledges this.

"The laws may not be able to make the white man love me, but they can stop him from lynching me."

Intimate relationships involve more than the act of sex with humans -- by using such a reductionist focus with gay relationships, you put our relationships on the same level as animals.

And intimate relationships are permitted by law in the US. I don't see what your beef is.

This also implies that somehow, gays are less than human.

You are actually the reductionist here, because you insist that we are simply the sum of our actions and nothing more. That one cannot make the distinction between the person and the act. You should be thankful the courts do make the distinction, because otherwise, there would be no incentive to rehabilitate anyone. Just hang'em all and be done with it.

Another one of your strawmen is that I can marry someone of the opposite gender.

Legally you can. It's not the fault of the law that you choose not to.

[Ben Kenobi]

So it's OK with you to prohibit marriages between different races?

Nope.

I agree with your analogy. That no one is prevented from marrying someone of another race just as no one is prevented from marrying someone of the opposite gender.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
How many times have you resorted to this fallicious argument?

Can't take it any more!

Fallacious. How a gay man could mispell a word so close to fellatio, I'll never know.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Nope.

I agree with your analogy. That no one is prevented from marrying someone of another race just as no one is prevented from marrying someone of the opposite gender.

He didn't say "another," he said "same."

[MrFun]

Since you are still distorting my claim by saying that I think everyone should be compelled to enter into relationships, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore in this thread.

Take your F A L L A C I E S somewhere else.

[Alexander's Horse]

It's quite simple really. Insofar as sexuality is a choice, all those who aren't 100% heterosexual should choose to be celibate for the good of society and their own eternal salvation.

[Boris Godunov]

How could we think of being celibate when we have such strappingly fit specimens of virile manhood around like you, AH?

[Alexander's Horse]

Yes, yes, I know you'd burn in hell just for a piece of me - but Boris dear, it just isn't going to happen

[Boris Godunov]

But your milkshake already brought me to the yard, dammit.