Which websites shouldn't be on the net?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Have you looked?

No, I was hopeing that you could refer me.

[monolith94]

"Many people do, they're called Christians."
Shut up

[Kingof the Apes]

Yeah, methinks Christians don't run around killing people for thier sexual orientation.

[Dinner]

They do in certain muslim countries though.

[Inverse Icarus]

i like porn and warez and communism! it'd be cool to see a combo site.

"sexy female comrades pirating software to share with the masses! only $19.95 per month!"

[Ben Kenobi]

"It's about love, as corny as that sounds. I really can't imagine a worse evil than not allowing someone to love."
-Lorizael

Are not some forms of love discouraged, such as between a child and an adult? There are many good reasons for doing so, mostly to protect the child from exploitation.

Even so, just because it is discouraged, does not mean that people are kept from loving. Does not true love overcome hardships? In no way do I keep people from loving each other.

If homosexuality is harmful, does it not make sense to warn people of the dangers? We can't keep people from harming themselves, but we should offer help to those disaffected by the lifestyle, and avoid encouragement.

[red_jon]

The vast majority of Christians I used to know tried to make my life hell when I came out, so I really don't have time for them.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by obiwan18
"It's about love, as corny as that sounds. I really can't imagine a worse evil than not allowing someone to love."
-Lorizael

Are not some forms of love discouraged, such as between a child and an adult? There are many good reasons for doing so, mostly to protect the child from exploitation.

Even so, just because it is discouraged, does not mean that people are kept from loving. Does not true love overcome hardships? In no way do I keep people from loving each other.

If homosexuality is harmful, does it not make sense to warn people of the dangers? We can't keep people from harming themselves, but we should offer help to those disaffected by the lifestyle, and avoid encouragement.

Exploitation, that's it. What happens between an adult and a child is wrong because in pretty much every circumstance, the child does not consent, doesn't know how not to consent, or does not love the adult.

Homosexual sex, however, is sex between to consenting individuals of the same sex. There's no exploitation in there, no unequal feelings, except in specific circumstances of a relationship that really have nothing to do with the fact that the act is homosexual.

[Ben Kenobi]

red_jon-

Well, I'm a Christian and I do have time. Part of the package is that if somebody wants to talk to you, you should hear them out. I can't say I'll agree, but I will listen.

"What happens between an adult and a child is wrong because in pretty much every circumstance, the child does not consent, doesn't know how not to consent, or does not love the adult."

Lorizael- you agree with me that under certain circumstances the state is justified in regulating sexual conduct, at least in terms of consent. A child cannot consent to a sexual act imposed by an adult, and should therefore be protected. This is different from saying, it's love, therefore it's okay.

I agree that pedophilia is different than homosexuality, in that they have different reasons for why they are wrong. But first, I think I have to ask, what about bestiality? Why is this wrong?

[Switch]

Not that I think sites should be 'censored', per say, but generally the sites I chose just shouldn't exist, much like some people

Not all of them were necessarily limiting free speach...those that would prevent encouraging terrorism and criminalism would merely be helping to ensure that more people obey the law, and I believe the terrorism thing would be illegal in the US anyways (or so I would assume, as of late )

[St Leo]

We cannot communicate with other animals, so they cannot give consent. Bestiality is wrong because it's rape.

[Lorizael]

I say what St Leo said. So if the problem isn't that homosexuals aren't consenting, what is it?

You say there are higher instances of sexually transmitted diseases? You say it is more dangerous?

Then why do we allow people to ride roller coasters? Why do we let people eat fattening foods? Why do we let people do any of the monstrously dangerous and unhealthy things they do?

Tell me why homosexuality is wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

St. Leo-
Bestiality would be fine if animals could talk?

I was thinking more about the effects on the person of getting used to pleasuring animals more than people.

Lorizael-
IMHO most roller coasters are quite safe

Homosexuality has bad effects on the participants. this is the main reason why it is wrong. These effects include increased rate of suicide, drug abuse, and the STD's which I already mentioned. Other health problems such as infections due to the structure of the bowel designed to let things out rather than in also play a factor.

Most of these are symptoms of the short period in which most gay relationships last. People are like sticky tape. If you keep sticking and removing them, eventually they lose their stickyness.

Other reasons include the fact that it is not universalisable. If everyone were gay, eventually no one would be. Within about 70 years or so. This is not true for heteros.

Kant presumes that all moral actions are universalisable, that when everyone does an action, that action should persist. Things like helping a neighbour do work.

Of course, this assumes that people only practice homosexuality, which is the act we are testing. This particulear argument will not work for bisexuals.

[Tuberski]

universalisable?

Is that a word?

ACK!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Homosexuality has bad effects on the participants. this is the main reason why it is wrong. These effects include increased rate of suicide, drug abuse, and the STD's which I already mentioned. Other health problems such as infections due to the structure of the bowel designed to let things out rather than in also play a factor.

This is an issue with a particular brand of intercourse, not with homosexual sex in general. Many homosexuals do not engage in anal sex. Practically all female homosexuals do not engage in anal sex.

Most of these are symptoms of the short period in which most gay relationships last. People are like sticky tape. If you keep sticking and removing them, eventually they lose their stickyness.

This is partly an issue with the social stigma (and law) preventing a legal long-term homosexual relationship. This is also not a purely homosexual issue -- many heterosexuals also engage in short-term relationships.

Other reasons include the fact that it is not universalisable. If everyone were gay, eventually no one would be. Within about 70 years or so. This is not true for heteros.

But not everyone is gay. Furthermore, there is no reason why somebody who is homosexual would not also be capable of becoming a parent, e.g. through adoption or artificial insemination.

Kant presumes that all moral actions are universalisable, that when everyone does an action, that action should persist. Things like helping a neighbour do work.

By this logic, heterosexual intercourse using contraception is equivalent to homosexual intercourse.

Furthermore, homosexual intercourse is universalisable (assuming of course that everybody wished to participate in homosexual intercourse). Why would a homosexual object to others being homosexual?

Addendum: This also means that failing to procreate (e.g. by being a confirmed bachelor) is morally equivalent to being a homosexual.