Supreme Court Decision

shane1985

I am not sure who tha question was directed to so I'll assume
it's me.

Whether it's homosexuality or incest I don't care so long as it's
done in private with consenting adults. I would say that incest
can do harm if procreation results from it, but I doubt consenting
adult incest is a big sexual preference, and birth control in the
few existing cases could be promoted by denying medical
insurance to birth defects which could only exist because of
incestual procreation.


As far as whats right and wrong, thats a whole other thing. Can
you clearly define what right and wrong are? Be aware that if
you start making bible / 'God' references then your definition
would encroach on freedom of religion and human rights (of
course I am making American citzenship assumptions here).
 
Fraggle Rocker

I think it comes up more often than we'd care to believe in the context of adult fathers with teenage daughters. If the daughters are underage or coerced into it, it's rape, and we've got plenty good laws against that.
Click to expand...

I meant for consenting adults :). The moment you introduce
children into the scene there can be all sorts of psychological
damages done.
 
Re: shane1985

Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
Whether it's homosexuality or incest I don't care so long as it's
done in private with consenting adults.
Click to expand...

So, you draw the line at consent. Why?
 
Church doctrine and Law should be two distinct entities. I say church doctrine because morality is not a proper discription, more of a propoganda piece employed by the religious right. Now of course there may be intersections between law and church such as murder and theft, etc. Certain church doctrines, mostly involving sex, make very little sense when applied to fundamental rights of choice.

Consent is in fact legally enforced. We tend to call the abridgement of such fact rape. And we define the class of people who are capable of this by age rating. 18 is a perfectly reasonable, if not wholly realistic age determine this. In the act of sex we only define unwanted behavior as having injurious effect. Laws are only meant to prohibit injury or otherwise mental anguish. In a mutually agreed to sex act there is no victim and therefore no injury. As long as another party is not forced against their will to observe the act, the act is only partaken/viewed by willing parties. This the very defintion of privacy.
 
...a neighboor falsly called police claiming to have seen an armed burgeler entering the resedence.
Click to expand...
Well a (turd) burglar was entering somewhere. :D

In my opinion they aren't making babies, so...

If people want to do that it's their choice though, as long as it's in private, as someone posted.
 
shane1985

So, you draw the line at consent. Why?
Click to expand...

People are free to do what they please so long as it doesn't
encroach on others' rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of
happiness. Takin' it up the ol' cornhole or doin' your family
has no implication on anybody except those involved (no
encroachment).
 
Re: shane1985

Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
People are free to do what they please so long as it doesn't
encroach on others' rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of
happiness. Takin' it up the ol' cornhole or doin' your family
has no implication on anybody except those involved (no
encroachment).
Click to expand...

I disagree - It results in broken families, which is a detriment to all of society. I don't think there's anything that you do that doesn't affect someone else to some degree.
 
Wait a minute, you have proof that consenting adults goin' butt-
pirate or southern results in broken families and societal
detriment? Im dyin' to see this.
 
Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
Wait a minute, you have proof that consenting adults goin' butt-
pirate or southern results in broken families and societal
detriment? Im dyin' to see this.
Click to expand...

"Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually tranmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe hiv is no longer a life-threatening illness."

I don't know about you, but I would consider the increase of incurable STD's a somewhat large social detriment. And as far as incest, the birth defects that arise from incestuous pregnancies also affect other people than the two involved in the act.
 
"Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually tranmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe hiv is no longer a life-threatening illness."
Click to expand...

It just means that gay MEN are at highest HIV risk in AMERICA.
Have you seen the hetero HIV risk & bodycount in Africa? It
dwarfs the US gays. Have you compared the AMERICAN HIV risk
against OTHER killer STD's? You would be suprised who's at risk
for what. I think you just don't like the idea of a rump ranger
possibly next door and you're using an STD to justify it as being
'wrong'.

And as far as incest, the birth defects that arise from incestuous pregnancies also affect other people than the two involved in the act.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of contraception? Yes birth defects from incest COULD
be a problem if the consenting adults were irresponsible. So,
like I said before... cut off insurance to due birth defects from
incest and I can gurantee you those .0000001% of incestuous
consenting adults will be VERY careful as I am sure they don't
want to take it in the wallet. Once again, I think you just don't
like the idea so you're looking for execuses to declare it
as 'wrong'.

Give me any sexual, political, cultural, etc... description and I'll find
a way to make it 'wrong'. BTW, you never did answer my question
asking you to define 'right' from 'wrong'.
 
Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
It just means that gay MEN are at highest HIV risk in AMERICA.
Have you seen the hetero HIV risk & bodycount in Africa? It
dwarfs the US gays. Have you compared the AMERICAN HIV risk
against OTHER killer STD's? You would be suprised who's at risk
for what. I think you just don't like the idea of a rump ranger
possibly next door and you're using an STD to justify it as being
'wrong'.

Give me any sexual, political, cultural, etc... description and I'll find
a way to make it 'wrong'. BTW, you never did answer my question
asking you to define 'right' from 'wrong'.
Click to expand...

I define right and wrong by the Bible and the standards set forth by God. While the Bible is acceptable justification for a standard of morality to many people, I assumed it wouldn't be the case here, which is why I went only the secular route in trying to show you the negative health effects of homosexuality. By the way, the prevalence of HIV in Africa among heterosexuals exists because of many different reasons (lack of contraception, lack of hygiene, improper medical treatment).
 
By the way, the prevalence of HIV in Africa among heterosexuals exists because of many different reasons (lack of contraception, lack of hygiene, improper medical treatment).
Click to expand...

And the MALE Gays of Ameria have their own set of reasons.
Face it bud... you just hate fags.

P.S. Thanks for acknowledging that the bible forms your definition
of right and wrong. It would be a catastrophe if you had actually
tried to think for yourself there.
 
Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
And the MALE Gays of Ameria have their own set of reasons.
Face it bud... you just hate fags.

P.S. Thanks for acknowledging that the bible forms your definition
of right and wrong. It would be a catastrophe if you had actually
tried to think for yourself there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I would've come to the same conclusion, which would have completely destroyed your case. But alas, it appears that was not necessary, as it has already disintegrated to "Face it bud... you just hate fags." I don't remember ever expressing hatred, or even dislike toward anyone who chooses to become a homosexual. Maybe you'd like to jog my memory though. As a matter of fact, I have several gay friends, although I don't accept their lifestyle. Any true Christian will tell you to hate the sin, love the sinner.

Out of curiousity, how do you decide right from wrong?
 
But alas, it appears that was not necessary, as it has already disintegrated to "Face it bud... you just hate fags."
Click to expand...

You do whether you admit to it or not. Nothing desintegrated
except your farce. You try to justify donning the things that you
don't like as 'wrong'.

I have several gay friends, although I don't accept their lifestyle.
Click to expand...

I doubt they are your friends. Do they tell you their innermost
gay secrets (like the average hetero talks about that gorgous
blonde with big titties)? Probably not.

Out of curiousity, how do you decide right from wrong?
Click to expand...

That very question indicates that you wouldn't understand the
answer. 'You' live in a world of 'right' and 'wrong'... 'good'
and 'evil'. What would you do if you found out these concepts
simply don't exist (they are only real in your own mind)? My guess
is you would simply reject the very idea and / or use cognitive
dissonance to rationalize your world with the new information
available.

Caio home-skillet
 
Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
I doubt they are your friends. Do they tell you their innermost
gay secrets (like the average hetero talks about that gorgous
blonde with big titties)? Probably not.
Click to expand...

I guess that's how you define friendship. Seems shallow and worldly..... Well in that case then no, I have no gay friends. I'm not sure what gay person would tell their heterosexual friends things like that, in the same way I'm not going to talk to my homosexual friends at lengths about a hot chick.

Originally posted by Crunchy Cat

That very question indicates that you wouldn't understand the
answer. 'You' live in a world of 'right' and 'wrong'... 'good'
and 'evil'. What would you do if you found out these concepts
simply don't exist (they are only real in your own mind)? My guess
is you would simply reject the very idea and / or use cognitive
dissonance to rationalize your world with the new information
available.
Caio home-skillet
Click to expand...

So, there are no absolutes? I see. Also, what is your purpose in arguing with me if you think I will simply resort to cognitive dissonance? I would suggest that anyone involved in an argument would rely on cognitive dissonance. If you could show me that these concepts truly don't exist, I would leave and let you return to stamping religion out of your life in an attempt to attain all of your "rights."

Peace out, home fry :D
 
Let people do whatever the heck they want to do in their bedrooms as long as its consentual. I personally dont even believe in victemless crimes of any sort.
 
CA:

The 34% figure comes from the book <i>The Churching of America, 1776-1990: Winners znd losers in our religious economy</i>, by Finke and Stark (1992).

According to the authors, at the time of the revolution, membership rates were even lower: 17%.

This is in opposition to the oft-cited claim of the religious that our current age is sliding towards cultural depravity and godlessness. On the contrary, America is more religious than it has ever been.
 
shane1985

I guess that's how you define friendship. Seems shallow and worldly..... Well in that case then no, I have no gay friends. I'm not sure what gay person would tell their heterosexual friends things like that, in the same way I'm not going to talk to my homosexual friends at lengths about a hot chick.
Click to expand...

It's very natural actually. I don't know of a single gay male
who DOESN'T discuss such topics with his hetero friends. So,
yes you are certainly not going to hear such conversation from
your acquantenaces seeing as how you disapprove of their
genetically driven behaviors which define largely who they are.

So, there are no absolutes? I see.
Click to expand...

Nope, you dont. There are absolutes in the universe. There
is no 'right' and 'wrong'. You can't define these concepts without
turning to the bible, and you don't understand why thats a problem.

Anyhow, the whole point in 'arguing' with you about this was
ultimately to demonstrate how you don't like concenting homos
and family fuckers, and you deem the things you dislike as 'wrong'
without even being able to define what 'right' and 'wrong' are.

I think the job is done. If anyone else contests, speak now or
forever hold your reces-peices.

Hasta La-Pasta Homie-o-therappy
 
when i started this thread i did an impression of a radical right winger the likes of which is gaining legitamacy here in the US. I wanted to argue that it was texas's right to enforce a law like this just so i could see who agrees with me, and subsequently ignore any oppinion said agreeing people have on any topic in the future ever. Mission accomplished, im glad so many people were on the right side of this thing

what kind of person goes around thinking a perfect world is one where the police can break into somones house, pull a happy couple off of one another and then bring them up on criminal charges?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top