|
On October 12 2012 05:36 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 05:35 tMomiji wrote:On October 12 2012 05:34 heliusx wrote:On October 12 2012 05:32 tMomiji wrote:On October 12 2012 05:29 heliusx wrote:On October 12 2012 05:26 tMomiji wrote:On October 12 2012 05:23 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 05:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 12 2012 05:18 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 05:18 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging? Really nothing except "the kids" argument. Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing. Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney? I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion. It's a beautiful thing between those who are having sex, and in seeing it I feel like I've intruded on something sensual and special. People who display it like that offend me because it's like they don't care how special it is. ...I seem to be of a rather unique viewpoint here, confirm/deny. XD confirm,lol. sex is really casual to many people. Haha, I figured I'd be unique in this. Does that make me old-fashioned? ^^; Probably just makes you a good christian or something. Be proud though cause most of them only pretend to share that view. haha That's HILARIOUS because I'm actually not religious at all! XD Then I'm as confused as you are!
Hehe. Confused is my default state of mind. Only augmented by how anyone could find kissing or holding hands offensive. (To get back on topic.)
|
On October 12 2012 05:24 arfyron wrote:
I like how decriminalization in 1991 is seen as the mark of a tolerant society.
In my home state of Texas sodomy laws weren't repealed weren't repealed until 2003.
|
On October 12 2012 05:37 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 05:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 12 2012 05:23 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 05:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 12 2012 05:18 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 05:18 Djzapz wrote:On October 12 2012 05:17 heliusx wrote:On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me. Please tell me you are joking... What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging? Really nothing except "the kids" argument. Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing. Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney? I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion. Yes, it is interesting, and it gets to the root of the problem instead of repeating the "bigotry" argument over and over. So with your stance, are you saying adults would be allowed to expose themselves to children, to commit sexual acts in front of children? No, because that leaves too much room for adults to manipulate children. I think a fair start would be to be more lenient as far as sex goes on television. I just don't see how so much horrific violence can be displayed but a nipple is just out of the question.
This is a good point. I made a statement about context earlier; this is what I mean. Some people like rough or kinky sex but I would NOT want any child of mine seeing that until they were old enough to understand what was going on and the mindset behind it. But simple nudity I don't think even implies sexuality in the first place...
|
On October 12 2012 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 05:24 arfyron wrote:
I like how decriminalization in 1991 is seen as the mark of a tolerant society. In my home state of Texas sodomy laws weren't repealed weren't repealed until 2003.
There are still dozens of extremely antiquated laws on the books. When those laws are no longer enforced, then they are effectively repealed, even if not technically repealed. In other words, the tolerance of a society cannot be judged by the laws on the books.
|
On October 12 2012 05:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:On October 12 2012 05:24 arfyron wrote:
I like how decriminalization in 1991 is seen as the mark of a tolerant society. In my home state of Texas sodomy laws weren't repealed weren't repealed until 2003. There are still dozens of extremely antiquated laws on the books. When those laws are no longer enforced, then they are effectively repealed, even if not technically repealed. In other words, the tolerance of a society cannot be judged by the laws on the books.
Ever been to Texas? It's a pretty accurate metric for tolerance.
My point being that 1991 is actually quite early to have those laws struck down. Regardless of whether or not they were enforced.
|
On October 12 2012 05:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:On October 12 2012 05:24 arfyron wrote:
I like how decriminalization in 1991 is seen as the mark of a tolerant society. In my home state of Texas sodomy laws weren't repealed weren't repealed until 2003. There are still dozens of extremely antiquated laws on the books. When those laws are no longer enforced, then they are effectively repealed, even if not technically repealed. In other words, the tolerance of a society cannot be judged by the laws on the books.
Yeah, in my home state of Maryland, oral sex is outlawed, but these laws aren't enforced, and I don't see how they could be in most situations.
|
I think it's Chino in CA that has a 500 dollar fine for detonating a nuclear device within the city limits. Genius move imo, keeps the terrorists away with no expensive wars or morally suspect internment camps.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Ibrahim_sodomy_trials
An attempt to enforce sodomy law here, although granted it was more political framing.
|
No one has the right to not be offended. What do you tell kids again? Sticks and stones. Deal with it. Either all speech is free or none of it is.
|
Gays should be afforded all the same legal rights by the government and be free from persecution.
However many gays seem hell bent on demanding society accept homosexuality as a complete equal to heterosexuality in every way, shape, and form.
That's not gonna happen. It sucks to be a small minority in a world that isn't built for you, but that's how it is.
I'm left handed, the world is mostly right handed and is built for right handed people, it's just how it is.
There doesn't need to be a gay character in every tv show and movie, there doesn't need to be this concerted effort to "normalize" something that by definition is not normal (aka most people are not gay)
If someone is gay, that's fine and that's their right. If someone wants to think gay is gross, that's their right too. People need to get over trying to impose their beliefs on others, in either direction.
|
People keep avoiding the point.
Yes, we get it, you think sex is magic and blessed by angels.
The point is, at which point do you take your own opinions on sex, and declare them the standard. What gives you the permission to pass that threshold where you turn a personal view on a private subject, and decide that your view is the best of the best, in fact, it is such a good view, it needs to be the law of the land.
People that get off on dictating what other people's sexual positions ought to be should get their fix in an BDSM club, not pretend themselves to be godly.
Old fashioned? Let's just call it what it is, controlling, authoritarian, and totalitarian. If you believe yourself entitled to dictate what people's sex lives should be, you acknowledge that there is no limit to how far you are willing to reach in and control the private lives of other people.
|
On October 12 2012 05:55 Zaqwert wrote:
Gays should be afforded all the same legal rights by the government and be free from persecution.
However many gays seem hell bent on demanding society accept homosexuality as a complete equal to heterosexuality in every way, shape, and form.
That's not gonna happen. It sucks to be a small minority in a world that isn't built for you, but that's how it is.
I'm left handed, the world is mostly right handed and is built for right handed people, it's just how it is.
There doesn't need to be a gay character in every tv show and movie, there doesn't need to be this concerted effort to "normalize" something that by definition is not normal (aka most people are not gay)
If someone is gay, that's fine and that's their right. If someone wants to think gay is gross, that's their right too. People need to get over trying to impose their beliefs on others, in either direction.
To this someone could simply say "treating something as normal does not equate to a concerted effort to normalize it. It is your own discomfort which interprets it as an imposition."
|
On October 12 2012 05:55 Zaqwert wrote:
Gays should be afforded all the same legal rights by the government and be free from persecution.
However many gays seem hell bent on demanding society accept homosexuality as a complete equal to heterosexuality in every way, shape, and form.
That's not gonna happen. It sucks to be a small minority in a world that isn't built for you, but that's how it is.
I'm left handed, the world is mostly right handed and is built for right handed people, it's just how it is.
There doesn't need to be a gay character in every tv show and movie, there doesn't need to be this concerted effort to "normalize" something that by definition is not normal (aka most people are not gay)
If someone is gay, that's fine and that's their right. If someone wants to think gay is gross, that's their right too. People need to get over trying to impose their beliefs on others, in either direction.
Had you been born a few years earlier, that left hand of yours would have been the cause of a good many beatings.
Was that a good thing?
As for people being allowed to have any view, correct, they can. People can believe what they like, and they can also hold any reactionairy view they like.
Someone can think gay is gross, and people can think people that think like that are hateful and discriminatory. Everyone can think and feel whatever they like. People can even have opinions on your opinions! What is the world coming too!
|
On October 12 2012 05:57 zalz wrote:
People keep avoiding the point.
Yes, we get it, you think sex is magic and blessed by angels.
The point is, at which point do you take your own opinions on sex, and declare them the standard. What gives you the permission to pass that threshold where you turn a personal view on a private subject, and decide that your view is the best of the best, in fact, it is such a good view, it needs to be the law of the land.
People that get off on dictating what other people's sexual positions ought to be should get their fix in an BDSM club, not pretend themselves to be godly.
Old fashioned? Let's just call it what it is, controlling, authoritarian, and totalitarian. If you believe yourself entitled to dictate what people's sex lives should be, you acknowledge that there is no limit to how far you are willing to reach in and control the private lives of other people.
It's not private lives being discussed, it is public behavior.
As has been mentioned before, I doubt you would support legal sex anywhere in public view. So it could be argued you yourself are imposing your discomfort on other people.
|
On October 12 2012 04:08 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 04:03 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 12 2012 03:49 Klondikebar wrote:
"He elaborates that the free speech of the gay minorities is a violation of other people's right to not to have to hear something offensive."
This is patently silly. Are gay people's rights violated because they have to hear the offensive line "being gay is a sin?" This really just harkens back to John Stewart when he said "you are confusing a war on religion with simply not getting your way anymore."
What sort of free speech positions does the Ukraine take? Are they as strong as they are in the US?
Edit: I also didn't realize their HIV rate was so high. If people are still stuck on the myth that homosexuality spreads HIV faster than heterosexuality then that could be the reason it's gaining such support. The myth is rather tha HIV is much more common in homosexuals, particularly males, which is very true. That's not a myth when you look at percents. Homosexual males don't need to use a condom as a form of birth control and at the same time anal sex is significantly more likely to contract HIV due to the increased probability of minor cuts being exposed. Just like a heterosexual couple partaking in anal sex is more likely to contract HIV if one of the partners has HIV/AIDS than if they just had vaginal sex. I am skeptical of those statistics (although I won't argue with them too hard). Homosexual men are also much more educated about HIV and are therefore more likely to be regularly tested and diagnosed. Heterosexuals are less educated and less likely to be diagnosed. The sample is very likely biased. You are very correct that anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV though. HIV is probably ACTUALLY more common in homosexual men in the developed world but not to the extent that they should be treated differently (aka banned from donating blood).
There has been discussion about that in the Netherlands. The problem is that even though gays aren't allowed to donate blood, gay people who lie about their sexual prefrence are still reaponsible for the majority of AIDS infections via tranferred donor blood. (I don't know the nubers I'll try to look it up when I'm home.) Is it still not worth it when it's such a huge diffrence?
|
On October 12 2012 04:08 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 04:03 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 12 2012 03:49 Klondikebar wrote:
"He elaborates that the free speech of the gay minorities is a violation of other people's right to not to have to hear something offensive."
This is patently silly. Are gay people's rights violated because they have to hear the offensive line "being gay is a sin?" This really just harkens back to John Stewart when he said "you are confusing a war on religion with simply not getting your way anymore."
What sort of free speech positions does the Ukraine take? Are they as strong as they are in the US?
Edit: I also didn't realize their HIV rate was so high. If people are still stuck on the myth that homosexuality spreads HIV faster than heterosexuality then that could be the reason it's gaining such support. The myth is rather tha HIV is much more common in homosexuals, particularly males, which is very true. That's not a myth when you look at percents. Homosexual males don't need to use a condom as a form of birth control and at the same time anal sex is significantly more likely to contract HIV due to the increased probability of minor cuts being exposed. Just like a heterosexual couple partaking in anal sex is more likely to contract HIV if one of the partners has HIV/AIDS than if they just had vaginal sex. I am skeptical of those statistics (although I won't argue with them too hard). Homosexual men are also much more educated about HIV and are therefore more likely to be regularly tested and diagnosed. Heterosexuals are less educated and less likely to be diagnosed. The sample is very likely biased. You are very correct that anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV though. HIV is probably ACTUALLY more common in homosexual men in the developed world but not to the extent that they should be treated differently (aka banned from donating blood).
The thing is homosexual men are normally more promiscuous than heterosexual couples (no girlfriend obsessed about you going out with your friends or anything what a surprise?), plus anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV, therefore it is true that homosexual men have a higher percentage of sexually transmitted diseases.
Honestly I agree that homosexual propaganda should be banned, sexuality should be something private I don't understand why they need to advertise it, though it's known that being a homosexual is a natural thing and not a learned choise and whoever is gay is not going to change their mind because of some advertisement.
|
Well if it's a democratic process, then theres no point in discussing it is there? Say the anti gay side wins, then if any country whatsoever try to intervene, then it's basically an attempt to bypass the majoritys votes, and thus dictating what they decide.
Democracy works both ways. In a democratic society, then there is no such thing as argueing with the majority, even if they say somehing like "force everyone to stop studying and get forced on a job".
Democracy is just another type of control. Always remember that.
|
On October 12 2012 06:08 cloneThorN wrote:
Well if it's a democratic process, then theres no point in discussing it is there? Say the anti gay side wins, then if any country whatsoever try to intervene, then it's basically an attempt to bypass the majoritys votes, and thus dictating what they decide.
Democracy works both ways. In a democratic society, then there is no such thing as argueing with the majority, even if they say somehing like "force everyone to stop studying and get forced on a job".
Democracy is just another type of control. Always remember that.
You do realize that the only reason we have Civil Rights at all is because the minority fought against the majority? If we let the majority in the US dictate any law it wanted, we'd probably see a return to Jim Crow (thanks North Carolina!)
|
On October 12 2012 06:10 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 06:08 cloneThorN wrote:
Well if it's a democratic process, then theres no point in discussing it is there? Say the anti gay side wins, then if any country whatsoever try to intervene, then it's basically an attempt to bypass the majoritys votes, and thus dictating what they decide.
Democracy works both ways. In a democratic society, then there is no such thing as argueing with the majority, even if they say somehing like "force everyone to stop studying and get forced on a job".
Democracy is just another type of control. Always remember that. You do realize that the only reason we have Civil Rights at all is because the minority fought against the majority? If we let the majority in the US dictate any law it wanted, we'd probably see a return to Jim Crow (thanks North Carolina!)
Yep. Tyranny of the majority is what we are trying to avoid here, I think.
|
On October 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 05:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 12 2012 05:38 Klondikebar wrote:On October 12 2012 05:24 arfyron wrote:
I like how decriminalization in 1991 is seen as the mark of a tolerant society. In my home state of Texas sodomy laws weren't repealed weren't repealed until 2003. There are still dozens of extremely antiquated laws on the books. When those laws are no longer enforced, then they are effectively repealed, even if not technically repealed. In other words, the tolerance of a society cannot be judged by the laws on the books. Ever been to Texas? It's a pretty accurate metric for tolerance. My point being that 1991 is actually quite early to have those laws struck down. Regardless of whether or not they were enforced.
They were repealed in the 30's in Sweden at least... Ukraine couldn't do it earlier as they were a part of the Soviet Union though, so we can't hold that against them. Texas on the other hand is all kinds of fucked up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
