Are gay/lesbian immoral ?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
- Status
Why? The power to kill is also alloted to the human species. Is this a right?
In this case, we are talking of law... so that definition can be shortened to 'A power, privilege belonging to one by law'. By law, this is not a right in it's own accord.
We are simply arguing about definition I think though. Going to the bathroom, doing jumping jacks, feeling yourself up, etc are not in themselves rights. What makes sex different then these?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Well yes killing in some cases is a right: War, abortion, the electric chair, self-defense.
Persol you wrote:Going to the bathroom, doing jumping jacks, feeling yourself up, etc are not in themselves rights. What makes sex different then these?
Yes we are arguing about definition because I believe it is my right to engage in jumping jacks and feel myself up...sometimes at the same time. No I do not think that sex is any different than said mentioned. Yes I understand what you mean by rights goverend by law but since there is no law against feeling myself up during jumping jacks then I have to assume it is my right. And even if were against the law I would still assert it is my right because I am a human being and the species demands sexual contact...no not just to perpetuate the species but for pleasure too. .
No law can determine how I have a bowel movement and no law can determine how I have sex. Both are a right by birth. Only my opinion though.
To the Saint: Yes there will always be more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Homosexuals cannot have offspring if they confine themselves to homosexual acts, but so what? This does not mean the end of humanity or the family. I fail to see how being Chinese has anything to do with this issue.
Persol you wrote:Going to the bathroom, doing jumping jacks, feeling yourself up, etc are not in themselves rights. What makes sex different then these?
Yes we are arguing about definition because I believe it is my right to engage in jumping jacks and feel myself up...sometimes at the same time. No I do not think that sex is any different than said mentioned. Yes I understand what you mean by rights goverend by law but since there is no law against feeling myself up during jumping jacks then I have to assume it is my right. And even if were against the law I would still assert it is my right because I am a human being and the species demands sexual contact...no not just to perpetuate the species but for pleasure too. .
No law can determine how I have a bowel movement and no law can determine how I have sex. Both are a right by birth. Only my opinion though.To the Saint: Yes there will always be more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Homosexuals cannot have offspring if they confine themselves to homosexual acts, but so what? This does not mean the end of humanity or the family. I fail to see how being Chinese has anything to do with this issue.
There you go, champ, you're starting to get it. This is what we call freedom, it's what our forefathers died for (well hey, mine didn't, but it's the patriotic thing to say).
If it doesn't infringe on the rights or wellbeing of otheres, then there is absolutly no grounds to take it away your right to do it. Simple as that.
Last edited:
Originally posted by Lucysnow
Well yes killing in some cases is a right: War, abortion, the electric chair, self-defense.
War, abortion, and the electric chair are not considered rights by most people. You have the right to choice, not to abortion. As for war and the electric chair, this is about taking rights... not giving them.
Yes we are arguing about definition because I believe it is my right to engage in jumping jacks and feel myself up...sometimes at the same time.
Now that takes talent
No I do not think that sex is any different than said mentioned.
Agreed, I don't think any of them are rights. You think they all are.
Yes I understand what you mean by rights goverend by law but since there is no law against feeling myself up during jumping jacks then I have to assume it is my right.
Just because nobody has told you not to do it does not make it a right. That is the basis of my argument.
And even if were against the law I would still assert it is my right because I am a human being and the species demands sexual contact...no not just to perpetuate the species but for pleasure too. .
Just because something gives you please doesn't make it a right. Humans also get pleasure from violence... this doesn't give you the right to go beat a cat to death. It doesn't give you the right to jerk off in public, steal for fun... etc... etc. Also, the species does not 'demand' sexual contact, as people are quite capable of avoiding sexual contact (athough with difficulty I'd guess).
No law can determine how I have a bowel movement and no law can determine how I have sex. Both are a right by birth. Only my opinion though.
The law determines how you can do both. That is why you can not just drop trail in the sidewalk and let it fly.
To the Saint: Yes there will always be more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Homosexuals cannot have offspring if they confine themselves to homosexual acts, but so what?
This assumes it is genetic... which I disagree with. I believe it is mostly choice/enviroment, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Saint: Absetenance and infertility are also 'Adverse of [offspring]'. Does this mean they violate 'the law'?
Well yes killing in some cases is a right: War, abortion, the electric chair, self-defense.
War, abortion, and the electric chair are not considered rights by most people. You have the right to choice, not to abortion. As for war and the electric chair, this is about taking rights... not giving them.
Yes we are arguing about definition because I believe it is my right to engage in jumping jacks and feel myself up...sometimes at the same time.
Now that takes talent
No I do not think that sex is any different than said mentioned.
Agreed, I don't think any of them are rights. You think they all are.
Yes I understand what you mean by rights goverend by law but since there is no law against feeling myself up during jumping jacks then I have to assume it is my right.
Just because nobody has told you not to do it does not make it a right. That is the basis of my argument.
And even if were against the law I would still assert it is my right because I am a human being and the species demands sexual contact...no not just to perpetuate the species but for pleasure too. .
Just because something gives you please doesn't make it a right. Humans also get pleasure from violence... this doesn't give you the right to go beat a cat to death. It doesn't give you the right to jerk off in public, steal for fun... etc... etc. Also, the species does not 'demand' sexual contact, as people are quite capable of avoiding sexual contact (athough with difficulty I'd guess).
No law can determine how I have a bowel movement and no law can determine how I have sex. Both are a right by birth. Only my opinion though.
The law determines how you can do both. That is why you can not just drop trail in the sidewalk and let it fly.
To the Saint: Yes there will always be more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Homosexuals cannot have offspring if they confine themselves to homosexual acts, but so what?
This assumes it is genetic... which I disagree with. I believe it is mostly choice/enviroment, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Saint: Absetenance and infertility are also 'Adverse of [offspring]'. Does this mean they violate 'the law'?
Well many people recognize that there is more to forming a relationship with someone than just producing children with them. We see human beings as more than just baby machines, and life as having value outside of simply perpetuating the cycle of life.
On another note, though homosexual relationships do not violate the value of "family" because there isn't a hell of a lot stopping a homosexual couple form forming a family. So long as heterosexual couples are producing so many children that they have to throw some away, adoption will always be an option, as will artificial insemination (for lesbians, or possibly a gay couple with a willing female friend). "Family" is quite possible with two dads or two moms.
Originally posted by Saint
our natural preponderance is to love opposite sex, homosexuality is an Adverse of this.
Well your natural attraction may be to the opposite sex, and that's obviously quite true of most people. However there are those who are naturally attracted to members of the same sex, that's what homosexuality is all about. Should these people be disenfranchised, or even demonized because of such a petty difference?
You don't have a right to take a life, because it's simply not yours to regulate. It belongs to someone else, and frankly you only have so much say in it as the owner is willing to give you. You don't have a right to interfere in something in which you have no legitimate stake.
I would argue that these things are indeed rights.
So, in your own view you don't really have a right to do anything unless someone has given you permission to do it? Don't you as an independent sentient being with a mind and will of your own have the ability to govern and sanction your own actions?
Originally posted by Mystech
There you go, champ, you're starting to get it. This is what we call freedom
You have the right to freedom/privacy, which includes these things. This doesn't also make them rights by association.
it's what are forefathers died for (well hey, mine didn't, but it's the patriotic thing to say)
No worries, judging someone's worth/ability based on their ancestors is pretty unfair anyhow.
If it doesn't infringe on the rights or wellbeing of otheres, then there is absolutly no grounds to take it away your right to do it. Simple as that.
I agree... except for the rights part. These actions may be 'rights', but you alone can not decide this. This rest with the 'people', not the 'person'.
There you go, champ, you're starting to get it. This is what we call freedom
You have the right to freedom/privacy, which includes these things. This doesn't also make them rights by association.
it's what are forefathers died for (well hey, mine didn't, but it's the patriotic thing to say)
No worries, judging someone's worth/ability based on their ancestors is pretty unfair anyhow.
If it doesn't infringe on the rights or wellbeing of otheres, then there is absolutly no grounds to take it away your right to do it. Simple as that.
I agree... except for the rights part
. These actions may be 'rights', but you alone can not decide this. This rest with the 'people', not the 'person'.Originally posted by Mystech
So, in your own view you don't really have a right to do anything unless someone has given you permission to do it?
Correct. However, just because I don't have the right to do it, doesn't mean anyone else has the right to stop me. I don't need to have the right to do something, in order to do it. I don't have the right to watch TV... but that doesn't mean I don't.
Don't you as an independent sentient being with a mind and will of your own have the ability to govern and sanction your own actions?
Yes, a right just says that you don't to debate as to whether you should be allowed to do something.
So, in your own view you don't really have a right to do anything unless someone has given you permission to do it?
Correct. However, just because I don't have the right to do it, doesn't mean anyone else has the right to stop me. I don't need to have the right to do something, in order to do it. I don't have the right to watch TV... but that doesn't mean I don't.
Don't you as an independent sentient being with a mind and will of your own have the ability to govern and sanction your own actions?
Yes, a right just says that you don't to debate as to whether you should be allowed to do something.
Originally posted by Persol
Originally posted by Mystech
I agree... except for the rights part
Well I've got to dissagree with that collectivist attitude. When a person is right he's right reguardless of how many other wrong opinions there are in the world.
Haha I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm a fanatic for freedom. I wouldn't accept a world where the majority can tell me what I can't do when they have not reasonable stake in my actions.
woooooooo!!!! ::cheers:: ::waves lighter::
duuude, you been eating the special mushrooms?
the lawmakers state that no law may be made that violates your god given* human rights. it furthermore states that your human rights allow you to be free to do anything unless it infringes on another's god given human rights. this is frequently said as "my right to throw my fist ends where your face begins". everything that does not keep another human being from his or her rights is by definition 'your rights'. sex may only be regulated in a way that protects people's rights, i.e. forceful sex, pedophilia, etc. it is unconstitutional for the government to make any laws preventing consenting adults from engaging in willing sexual activity.
*god given- just mean it as an expression, nothing more
the lawmakers state that no law may be made that violates your god given* human rights. it furthermore states that your human rights allow you to be free to do anything unless it infringes on another's god given human rights. this is frequently said as "my right to throw my fist ends where your face begins". everything that does not keep another human being from his or her rights is by definition 'your rights'. sex may only be regulated in a way that protects people's rights, i.e. forceful sex, pedophilia, etc. it is unconstitutional for the government to make any laws preventing consenting adults from engaging in willing sexual activity.
*god given- just mean it as an expression, nothing more
Originally posted by SwedishFish
the lawmakers state that no law may be made that violates your god given* human rights. it furthermore states that your human rights allow you to be free to do anything unless it infringes on another's god given human rights.
Exactly, but this is ONLY the right to freedom... the allowance of letting you do other things are included in this. The ONLY discussion is if your 'right' is covered by your exisiting 'god given' rights.
the lawmakers state that no law may be made that violates your god given* human rights. it furthermore states that your human rights allow you to be free to do anything unless it infringes on another's god given human rights.
Exactly, but this is ONLY the right to freedom... the allowance of letting you do other things are included in this. The ONLY discussion is if your 'right' is covered by your exisiting 'god given' rights.
your god given rights are anything that does not prevent others from enjoying their god given rights. anything. i don't know exactly what your definition of "freedom" is but i suspect it differs a bit from everyone i've ever met including the american government. "freedom" is the state of not being preventing from enjoying your rights.
Originally posted by SwedishFish
i don't know exactly what your definition of "freedom" is but i suspect it differs a bit from everyone i've ever met including the american government. "freedom" is the state of not being preventing from enjoying your rights.
freedom: A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference
How you use your right to freedom are ACTIONS. These actions may be rights, but not everything you are free to do is a right.
All A is B does not mean all B is A.
i don't know exactly what your definition of "freedom" is but i suspect it differs a bit from everyone i've ever met including the american government. "freedom" is the state of not being preventing from enjoying your rights.
freedom: A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference
How you use your right to freedom are ACTIONS. These actions may be rights, but not everything you are free to do is a right.
All A is B does not mean all B is A.
- Status