|
On November 07 2008 11:48 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 11:40 XaI)CyRiC wrote:On November 07 2008 11:08 {88}iNcontroL wrote:If people started to go to work via a series of bungee jumps I am sure the government would step in as well. The fact that you can do other things that aren't necessarily good for you or natural doesn't mean that suddenly all forms are "ok." Homosexual sex is not really something they can do.. it is something they use as an alternate form of the natural, more healthy activity of sex. Heterosexual's have sex sure.. but if they only had heterosexual sex I promise you the government would step in. And I don't mean "jim and sally" I mean if every heterosexual person stopped having vaginal sex and started to only have anal sex there would be a governmental reaction. Why does it have to go to the degree of people going to work via bungee jumps for it to be outlawed? It's not like homosexual males are having anal sex twice a day (at least not the majority). I think there are a bunch of typos in the rest of your paragraph that I'm too lazy to fix, but I get the general idea  Anal sex is something you can do, even if it is an alternative to something that is "more natural", or else how would they be doing it? If you want to restrict sex to a part of the reproductive process, then we can change it to homosexual intercourse or something else that takes that element out. As to the possible scenario where all heterosexual people stopped having vaginal sex, that'd only really become an issue if it resulted in fewer children being born. Otherwise, anal sex would become the majority trend (and opinion), and there'd be no one left to outlaw it. If you're talking about just a select group, i.e. gay men, then the level of harm in the grand scheme of things doesn't arise to a level where society suffers significantly. Again same answer really.. just because you can do other things that are bad doesn't mean that this is ok. And truthfully.. tattooing doesn't compare to having an average of 10-30 partners a year and engaging in sexual activity with most of them.. like the average homosexual man does (these numbers are really rough, I read the book this summer. Someone can wiki me and correct me if they like.. it is close to that though at least). So on the macro level I think the anal sex argument overwhelms your propsed questions in that it occurs more, doesn't go away cause other things are bad and is on a fundamentally different level (ie tattoos do not = alternate form of sex). So tattooing isn't a good comparison because of its frequency (or lack thereof)? How about smoking, drinking, eating artery-clogging foods, etc.? They're not perfect comparisons, but they're examples that show that the fact that something is potentially harmful to a person doesn't necessarily lead to the government having a compelling interest in preventing it. By not condoning it society on a whole is hoping (and it is working, "closet homosexual" phenomenon) to dissuage that lifestyle. It is a fact that with more acceptance of homosexuallity comes greater numbers of homosexuals. This was studied in relation to societal turns like the ratings of "Will and Grace" or other like media outlets. I am only gracing the study but it is worth a gander. Did it lead to a greater number of homosexuals, or just a greater number of known homosexuals? Unless you can show me how that study somehow differentiated between people suddenly becoming homosexual and people who were merely coming out of the closet because they felt less afraid to do so, then that study doesn't mean anything. Yup I agree. It is backwards and wrong. Would anyone argue against the idea that the government has some crappy precedents and laws? Look legally the banning of gay marriage makes no sense.. socially it is understandable (and by understandable I mean I can see why the masses are afraid of such change.. I don't agree but I know why they sheep that way). I can also understand why many people find the idea of homosexuality very disturbing and want to do whatever they can to remove it from their lives, but at some point people just have to respect each other. A lot more people would have voted differently on Prop 8 if they could put themselves in other people's shoes for just a moment. 1. my point was that homosexuals who have sex do so in the anal area. They do not vary.. they have penetrating sex there generally. People who bungee jump do it once or twice in their life and the situation is almost always with professionals near by, in a controlled environment / situation. Anal sex is the unnatural, more dangerous distant cousin to vaginal sex. That was the point I was trying to make. It is 100% the more dangerous form of what we all do (for the most part). When a group of people hold on to the single more dangerous form of an otherwise normal activity they are easily identified as self damaging people who are "wrong."
alot of people do stuff thats detrimental to themselves because they think the positives outweigh the negatives, are they all wrong/crazy/unnatural?
that aside, anal sex is dangerous? so is vaginal. imagine we cut all sex ed and dont have parents tell their kids where babies come from and you have a bunch of teenagers running around fucking. stds rise at an alarming rate and you have a bunch of unwanted, poorly cared for babies. should we ban heterosexual sex? no, we educate them. include in sex ed that you have to wear a condom and use lube with anal sex or you'll get hiv and die. problem solved.
2. Yes there are examples of the government allowing one thing over the other. People aren't picketing tattoo shops. People aren't tying tattooed people to the back of a car and dragging them to their death. THAT is why they are not comparable scenarios. One is obviously something socially of concern and the other is recognized as tolerable.
3. Either way my point stands. Society saw more homosexuals. I don't care if they were made in a factory or uncovered in a frozen tundra.. more homosexuals = social backlash.
these are both kind of circular logic. we know people think homosexuality is bad. our point is that its not and the opinions of people who think that are based on unjustified fears and prejudice or lack of knowledge, so its not really helpful to reference their opinion as support of.... the same opinion.
|
Damn I went to watch the football game and this thread went downhill. 
|
On November 07 2008 09:35 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 08:38 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. Are you serious? Polygamy is not permitted for completely different reasons which actually make sense legally. As for the case of marrying an animal that is totally immoral on any level because that animal cannot make a conscious decision of whether or not they want to marry you or w/e. There are TONS of people out there who fuck their animals and have romantic feelings for them. You just wrote them all off as "immoral". Much in the same way a priest might condemn homosexuality. And then you rape the civil rights of polygamists in one sentence. Which legal sensibilities trump civil rights, buddy? Isn't that the premise of the pro gay marriage platform, that civil rights are to be respected? Legal ramifications empowering otherwise would be defined as institutional bigotry, and it is erroneous to use that as a premise for robbing people of their inherent rights. Though I thank you for being the only person thus far to actually try to engage my argument (and revealing your bigotry in the process). For the record, I don't buy the premise of "all people have the inherent right to marry, regardless of sexuality" and am showing you that I can use this premise to make anybody here a bigot. you think statutory rape should be legal? theres nothing that says the underage girl doesnt want it or isnt enjoying it, just that she is not considered to have the emotional/mental maturity to legally say 'yes'. the animal is in the same position.
as for polygamy and whatnot, i think any consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesnt affect anyone else. i guess arguments could be made there because polygamy tends to go hand in hand with cults and its used alot for tax loopholes and whatnot, i dont really know. but 'pure' 'legit' polygamy, why not? if thats how they choose to live their lives i dont see how it affects the rest of us, so why should we bitch about it?
|
|
|
On November 07 2008 14:51 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 09:35 HeadBangaa wrote:On November 07 2008 08:38 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. Are you serious? Polygamy is not permitted for completely different reasons which actually make sense legally. As for the case of marrying an animal that is totally immoral on any level because that animal cannot make a conscious decision of whether or not they want to marry you or w/e. There are TONS of people out there who fuck their animals and have romantic feelings for them. You just wrote them all off as "immoral". Much in the same way a priest might condemn homosexuality. And then you rape the civil rights of polygamists in one sentence. Which legal sensibilities trump civil rights, buddy? Isn't that the premise of the pro gay marriage platform, that civil rights are to be respected? Legal ramifications empowering otherwise would be defined as institutional bigotry, and it is erroneous to use that as a premise for robbing people of their inherent rights. Though I thank you for being the only person thus far to actually try to engage my argument (and revealing your bigotry in the process). For the record, I don't buy the premise of "all people have the inherent right to marry, regardless of sexuality" and am showing you that I can use this premise to make anybody here a bigot. you think statutory rape should be legal? theres nothing that says the underage girl doesnt want it or isnt enjoying it, just that she is not considered to have the emotional/mental maturity to legally say 'yes'. the animal is in the same position.
Statutory rape is a stupid concept. My first serious girlfriend was 15 and I was 16. When I was 18, a cop came to her house for something irrelevant, and he off-handed asked us our ages. He threatened me legally because I was older and said it doesn't matter that we'd been together for years. Yes, we were legal for 1.5 years, illegal for .8 years, and then legal for another 1 year. Statutory rape doesn't make sense as a law; it's the trainwreck result of codifying what should be common sense, because certain people in society have none, so all of us must suffer for it a little. As a law it draws an nonsensical hard line.
as for polygamy and whatnot, i think any consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesnt affect anyone else. i guess arguments could be made there because polygamy tends to go hand in hand with cults and its used alot for tax loopholes and whatnot, i dont really know. but 'pure' 'legit' polygamy, why not? if thats how they choose to live their lives i dont see how it affects the rest of us, so why should we bitch about it?
Your answer to polygamy is my answer to animal lovers (as devil's advocate, of course). Unless you are going to personify a farm animal, what's the damage in just letting a person marry an unwitting animal? If the animal is getting regular sex and seems in good spirits, I could argue that no negative utility is present, and that you can't recognize your own bigotry. Sad really. Can't use utilitarianism to enfranchise one group, then throw it out on principle with respect to the other.
|
On November 07 2008 16:30 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 14:51 IdrA wrote:On November 07 2008 09:35 HeadBangaa wrote:On November 07 2008 08:38 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. Are you serious? Polygamy is not permitted for completely different reasons which actually make sense legally. As for the case of marrying an animal that is totally immoral on any level because that animal cannot make a conscious decision of whether or not they want to marry you or w/e. There are TONS of people out there who fuck their animals and have romantic feelings for them. You just wrote them all off as "immoral". Much in the same way a priest might condemn homosexuality. And then you rape the civil rights of polygamists in one sentence. Which legal sensibilities trump civil rights, buddy? Isn't that the premise of the pro gay marriage platform, that civil rights are to be respected? Legal ramifications empowering otherwise would be defined as institutional bigotry, and it is erroneous to use that as a premise for robbing people of their inherent rights. Though I thank you for being the only person thus far to actually try to engage my argument (and revealing your bigotry in the process). For the record, I don't buy the premise of "all people have the inherent right to marry, regardless of sexuality" and am showing you that I can use this premise to make anybody here a bigot. you think statutory rape should be legal? theres nothing that says the underage girl doesnt want it or isnt enjoying it, just that she is not considered to have the emotional/mental maturity to legally say 'yes'. the animal is in the same position. Statutory rape is a stupid concept. My first serious girlfriend was 15 and I was 16. When I was 18, a cop came to her house for something irrelevant, and he off-handed asked us our ages. He threatened me legally because I was older and said it doesn't matter that we'd been together for years. Yes, we were legal for 1.5 years, illegal for .8 years, and then legal for another 1 year. Statutory rape doesn't make sense as a law; it's the trainwreck result of codifying what should be common sense, because certain people in society have none, so all of us must suffer for it a little. As a law it draws an nonsensical hard line.
its not a stupid concept, its just implemented poorly in some cases like yours. alot of states have provisions that its legal when you're within a year or 2 of each other, so an 18 year old with a 17 year old isnt illegal("romeo and juliet laws"). that aside, the concept itself is valid. remember high school girls? most of them would jump at the chance to fuck a 30 year old just so they can brag to their friends that older guys like them and cuz he can drive them around in his car. without realizing that its a creepy weirdo whos taking advantage of her cuz hes either a pedophile or too much of a loser to get a girl his own age. shes being manipulated and she is incapable of realizing it, so the law does not give her the ability to consent. an adolescent girl and an adult male is going to be an unfair relationship to the adolescent girl, "true love" or whatever.
Show nested quote +
as for polygamy and whatnot, i think any consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesnt affect anyone else. i guess arguments could be made there because polygamy tends to go hand in hand with cults and its used alot for tax loopholes and whatnot, i dont really know. but 'pure' 'legit' polygamy, why not? if thats how they choose to live their lives i dont see how it affects the rest of us, so why should we bitch about it?
Your answer to polygamy is my answer to animal lovers (as devil's advocate, of course). Unless you are going to personify a farm animal, what's the damage in just letting a person marry an unwitting animal? If the animal is getting regular sex and seems in good spirits, I could argue that no negative utility is present, and that you can't recognize your own bigotry. Sad really. Can't use utilitarianism to enfranchise one group, then throw it out on principle with respect to the other.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 14:41 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 11:48 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 11:40 XaI)CyRiC wrote:On November 07 2008 11:08 {88}iNcontroL wrote:If people started to go to work via a series of bungee jumps I am sure the government would step in as well. The fact that you can do other things that aren't necessarily good for you or natural doesn't mean that suddenly all forms are "ok." Homosexual sex is not really something they can do.. it is something they use as an alternate form of the natural, more healthy activity of sex. Heterosexual's have sex sure.. but if they only had heterosexual sex I promise you the government would step in. And I don't mean "jim and sally" I mean if every heterosexual person stopped having vaginal sex and started to only have anal sex there would be a governmental reaction. Why does it have to go to the degree of people going to work via bungee jumps for it to be outlawed? It's not like homosexual males are having anal sex twice a day (at least not the majority). I think there are a bunch of typos in the rest of your paragraph that I'm too lazy to fix, but I get the general idea Anal sex is something you can do, even if it is an alternative to something that is "more natural", or else how would they be doing it? If you want to restrict sex to a part of the reproductive process, then we can change it to homosexual intercourse or something else that takes that element out. As to the possible scenario where all heterosexual people stopped having vaginal sex, that'd only really become an issue if it resulted in fewer children being born. Otherwise, anal sex would become the majority trend (and opinion), and there'd be no one left to outlaw it. If you're talking about just a select group, i.e. gay men, then the level of harm in the grand scheme of things doesn't arise to a level where society suffers significantly. Again same answer really.. just because you can do other things that are bad doesn't mean that this is ok. And truthfully.. tattooing doesn't compare to having an average of 10-30 partners a year and engaging in sexual activity with most of them.. like the average homosexual man does (these numbers are really rough, I read the book this summer. Someone can wiki me and correct me if they like.. it is close to that though at least). So on the macro level I think the anal sex argument overwhelms your propsed questions in that it occurs more, doesn't go away cause other things are bad and is on a fundamentally different level (ie tattoos do not = alternate form of sex). So tattooing isn't a good comparison because of its frequency (or lack thereof)? How about smoking, drinking, eating artery-clogging foods, etc.? They're not perfect comparisons, but they're examples that show that the fact that something is potentially harmful to a person doesn't necessarily lead to the government having a compelling interest in preventing it. By not condoning it society on a whole is hoping (and it is working, "closet homosexual" phenomenon) to dissuage that lifestyle. It is a fact that with more acceptance of homosexuallity comes greater numbers of homosexuals. This was studied in relation to societal turns like the ratings of "Will and Grace" or other like media outlets. I am only gracing the study but it is worth a gander. Did it lead to a greater number of homosexuals, or just a greater number of known homosexuals? Unless you can show me how that study somehow differentiated between people suddenly becoming homosexual and people who were merely coming out of the closet because they felt less afraid to do so, then that study doesn't mean anything. Yup I agree. It is backwards and wrong. Would anyone argue against the idea that the government has some crappy precedents and laws? Look legally the banning of gay marriage makes no sense.. socially it is understandable (and by understandable I mean I can see why the masses are afraid of such change.. I don't agree but I know why they sheep that way). I can also understand why many people find the idea of homosexuality very disturbing and want to do whatever they can to remove it from their lives, but at some point people just have to respect each other. A lot more people would have voted differently on Prop 8 if they could put themselves in other people's shoes for just a moment. 1. my point was that homosexuals who have sex do so in the anal area. They do not vary.. they have penetrating sex there generally. People who bungee jump do it once or twice in their life and the situation is almost always with professionals near by, in a controlled environment / situation. Anal sex is the unnatural, more dangerous distant cousin to vaginal sex. That was the point I was trying to make. It is 100% the more dangerous form of what we all do (for the most part). When a group of people hold on to the single more dangerous form of an otherwise normal activity they are easily identified as self damaging people who are "wrong." alot of people do stuff thats detrimental to themselves because they think the positives outweigh the negatives, are they all wrong/crazy/unnatural? that aside, anal sex is dangerous? so is vaginal. imagine we cut all sex ed and dont have parents tell their kids where babies come from and you have a bunch of teenagers running around fucking. stds rise at an alarming rate and you have a bunch of unwanted, poorly cared for babies. should we ban heterosexual sex? no, we educate them. include in sex ed that you have to wear a condom and use lube with anal sex or you'll get hiv and die. problem solved. Show nested quote +
2. Yes there are examples of the government allowing one thing over the other. People aren't picketing tattoo shops. People aren't tying tattooed people to the back of a car and dragging them to their death. THAT is why they are not comparable scenarios. One is obviously something socially of concern and the other is recognized as tolerable.
3. Either way my point stands. Society saw more homosexuals. I don't care if they were made in a factory or uncovered in a frozen tundra.. more homosexuals = social backlash.
these are both kind of circular logic. we know people think homosexuality is bad. our point is that its not and the opinions of people who think that are based on unjustified fears and prejudice or lack of knowledge, so its not really helpful to reference their opinion as support of.... the same opinion.
As I discussed earlier.. just because other things are harmful doesn't suddenly make everything harmful ok. I love that you thought that though.. it was cute. And discussed within this thread numerous times.
Vaginal sex is dangerous you are right. Guess what is more dangerous? Take a fucking guess greg. Hint: It's been the topic of this thread for quite awhile now. Well I will not leave the answer up to you: Anal sex. More dangerous. Sure it is arbitrary in terms of "more dangerous" but it certainly is unnatural and more dangerous.
And those people.. the ones you want to have opinionless? They fill the polls and vote down on gay marriage everytime it is brought up. Sucks but that is how it is. So you continue to live in imaginary land where people who believe in God or DT drop can be generalized with "ur dumbz" and done away with. We here in reality choose to interact with said people because they are unavoidable.
|
On November 07 2008 14:46 SpiralArchitect wrote:Damn I went to watch the football game and this thread went downhill.
Check to see if it is the same time Incontrol started posting.
You could probably graph where the thread started to suck and I'll put money on it being where Incontrol came in.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Not that you'd actually read a thread you post in or anything nick but he posted that while I was away at the movies. Before then he was having a nice discussion with me.
I know.. participating in a thread constructively isn't your forte but hey, if living in your parents basement and working at the family restaurant gets old you could always invest time into trying to be a decent poster?
|
On November 07 2008 17:16 IdrA wrote:
the animal does not have the mental faculties required to give informed consent, so its essentially statutory rape.
You force me to question your logic.
Please convince me that you know the difference between a "necessary" condition and a "sufficient" condition.
|
On November 07 2008 17:24 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 14:41 IdrA wrote:On November 07 2008 11:48 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 11:40 XaI)CyRiC wrote:On November 07 2008 11:08 {88}iNcontroL wrote:If people started to go to work via a series of bungee jumps I am sure the government would step in as well. The fact that you can do other things that aren't necessarily good for you or natural doesn't mean that suddenly all forms are "ok." Homosexual sex is not really something they can do.. it is something they use as an alternate form of the natural, more healthy activity of sex. Heterosexual's have sex sure.. but if they only had heterosexual sex I promise you the government would step in. And I don't mean "jim and sally" I mean if every heterosexual person stopped having vaginal sex and started to only have anal sex there would be a governmental reaction. Why does it have to go to the degree of people going to work via bungee jumps for it to be outlawed? It's not like homosexual males are having anal sex twice a day (at least not the majority). I think there are a bunch of typos in the rest of your paragraph that I'm too lazy to fix, but I get the general idea Anal sex is something you can do, even if it is an alternative to something that is "more natural", or else how would they be doing it? If you want to restrict sex to a part of the reproductive process, then we can change it to homosexual intercourse or something else that takes that element out. As to the possible scenario where all heterosexual people stopped having vaginal sex, that'd only really become an issue if it resulted in fewer children being born. Otherwise, anal sex would become the majority trend (and opinion), and there'd be no one left to outlaw it. If you're talking about just a select group, i.e. gay men, then the level of harm in the grand scheme of things doesn't arise to a level where society suffers significantly. Again same answer really.. just because you can do other things that are bad doesn't mean that this is ok. And truthfully.. tattooing doesn't compare to having an average of 10-30 partners a year and engaging in sexual activity with most of them.. like the average homosexual man does (these numbers are really rough, I read the book this summer. Someone can wiki me and correct me if they like.. it is close to that though at least). So on the macro level I think the anal sex argument overwhelms your propsed questions in that it occurs more, doesn't go away cause other things are bad and is on a fundamentally different level (ie tattoos do not = alternate form of sex). So tattooing isn't a good comparison because of its frequency (or lack thereof)? How about smoking, drinking, eating artery-clogging foods, etc.? They're not perfect comparisons, but they're examples that show that the fact that something is potentially harmful to a person doesn't necessarily lead to the government having a compelling interest in preventing it. By not condoning it society on a whole is hoping (and it is working, "closet homosexual" phenomenon) to dissuage that lifestyle. It is a fact that with more acceptance of homosexuallity comes greater numbers of homosexuals. This was studied in relation to societal turns like the ratings of "Will and Grace" or other like media outlets. I am only gracing the study but it is worth a gander. Did it lead to a greater number of homosexuals, or just a greater number of known homosexuals? Unless you can show me how that study somehow differentiated between people suddenly becoming homosexual and people who were merely coming out of the closet because they felt less afraid to do so, then that study doesn't mean anything. Yup I agree. It is backwards and wrong. Would anyone argue against the idea that the government has some crappy precedents and laws? Look legally the banning of gay marriage makes no sense.. socially it is understandable (and by understandable I mean I can see why the masses are afraid of such change.. I don't agree but I know why they sheep that way). I can also understand why many people find the idea of homosexuality very disturbing and want to do whatever they can to remove it from their lives, but at some point people just have to respect each other. A lot more people would have voted differently on Prop 8 if they could put themselves in other people's shoes for just a moment. 1. my point was that homosexuals who have sex do so in the anal area. They do not vary.. they have penetrating sex there generally. People who bungee jump do it once or twice in their life and the situation is almost always with professionals near by, in a controlled environment / situation. Anal sex is the unnatural, more dangerous distant cousin to vaginal sex. That was the point I was trying to make. It is 100% the more dangerous form of what we all do (for the most part). When a group of people hold on to the single more dangerous form of an otherwise normal activity they are easily identified as self damaging people who are "wrong." alot of people do stuff thats detrimental to themselves because they think the positives outweigh the negatives, are they all wrong/crazy/unnatural? that aside, anal sex is dangerous? so is vaginal. imagine we cut all sex ed and dont have parents tell their kids where babies come from and you have a bunch of teenagers running around fucking. stds rise at an alarming rate and you have a bunch of unwanted, poorly cared for babies. should we ban heterosexual sex? no, we educate them. include in sex ed that you have to wear a condom and use lube with anal sex or you'll get hiv and die. problem solved.
2. Yes there are examples of the government allowing one thing over the other. People aren't picketing tattoo shops. People aren't tying tattooed people to the back of a car and dragging them to their death. THAT is why they are not comparable scenarios. One is obviously something socially of concern and the other is recognized as tolerable.
3. Either way my point stands. Society saw more homosexuals. I don't care if they were made in a factory or uncovered in a frozen tundra.. more homosexuals = social backlash.
these are both kind of circular logic. we know people think homosexuality is bad. our point is that its not and the opinions of people who think that are based on unjustified fears and prejudice or lack of knowledge, so its not really helpful to reference their opinion as support of.... the same opinion. As I discussed earlier.. just because other things are harmful doesn't suddenly make everything harmful ok. I love that you thought that though.. it was cute. And discussed within this thread numerous times.
i was just questioning how you can classify them as "wrong" while everyone else goes around smoking and drinking, when im fairly sure that those are far more dangerous than anal sex. (and when anal sex, when done safely, is not that dangerous at all.)
Vaginal sex is dangerous you are right. Guess what is more dangerous? Take a fucking guess greg. Hint: It's been the topic of this thread for quite awhile now. Well I will not leave the answer up to you: Anal sex. More dangerous. Sure it is arbitrary in terms of "more dangerous" but it certainly is unnatural and more dangerous. gay guys dont really have the option of vaginal sex. lesbians dont have traditional vaginal sex. they arent risking transferrence of hiv (not in any significant way) OR pregnancy. should we ban heterosexual vaginal sex because its more dangerous than that?
And those people.. the ones you want to have opinionless? They fill the polls and vote down on gay marriage everytime it is brought up. Sucks but that is how it is. So you continue to live in imaginary land where people who believe in God or DT drop can be generalized with "ur dumbz" and done away with. We here in reality choose to interact with said people because they are unavoidable.
im interacting with you and them right now, attempting to convince all of you that you are wrong.
and the fact that gay marriage is voted down is not proof that your side is right. how long did it take to get slavery outlawed in the usa? and even then it was only a political power move. the white majority treated black people like shit for hundreds of years before they were pushed into the civil rights movement. people are very capable of being wrong, and i realize i could be as well. however when i see anti gay marriage people resorting to hole-filled arguments about gay child raising and gay sex, im pretty sure im in the right.
|
On November 07 2008 17:35 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Not that you'd actually read a thread you post in or anything nick but he posted that while I was away at the movies. Before then he was having a nice discussion with me.
I know.. participating in a thread constructively isn't your forte but hey, if living in your parents basement and working at the family restaurant gets old you could always invest time into trying to be a decent poster?
Lying gets you off huh?
You lie a lot. ;p
lol
|
On November 07 2008 17:37 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 17:16 IdrA wrote:
the animal does not have the mental faculties required to give informed consent, so its essentially statutory rape.
You force me to question your logic. Please convince me that you know the difference between a "necessary" condition and a "sufficient" condition.
please convince me you have an actual argument, and dont have to resort to being a condescending prick to avoid the subject.
|
|
|
This was about gay marriage.
The fact that you let HeadBangaa bring up, "what's next, animals?" is ridiculous in the first place. And yet it's all too common for those against gay marriage. And yet it is another showing of how he views gay people as lesser beings. Less than himself or 'normal' humans. I'm not saying he thinks they are scum, but that he doesn't accept them. If he did, it would be, "welcome to marriage! I hope you two have a happy life together."
I've never seen a group for marrying animals. If there was, it'd be such a minority it'd be ridiculous and no one would care. This isn't about animals, and you let him take you there. As if there is an actual jump from gay to animal. There isn't.
There will be no future movement for, 'MARRYING ANIMALS!!!!' where the majority votes on it etc...
Discussing it further is an insult to intelligence.
And what is this I hear about, 'teaching it in schools?' Did I miss something when I was in school. Math, english, science, marriage? If a kid is asking the teacher about homosexual marriage, the teacher should reserve the right to say, "talk to your parents."
|
HeadBangaa, knowing that terminology is not a necessary condition for him being able to know that there is a difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition; so his lack of knowledge of the terminology, even if you proved it, is not very valuable--of course you know we can't prove he doesn't know it, no matter what he says or does, right?
|
If I take his premise literally, my blowup doll qualifies as a rape victim.
He gave a necessary, but insufficient condition. Logic error.
It's fun to watch someone try to substantiate:
- that animals can be considered rape victims
- it's still ok to eat animals.
The subsequent tangential will be not about animal love, but about animal cruelty/vegetarianism/veganism.
And I've written too many well-thought out posts on this subject in multiple threads to give any time to some dude who strides in reading only the last page before broadly sweeping my arguments aside (looking at testie).
|
On November 07 2008 18:04 MYM.Testie wrote:
This was about gay marriage.
The fact that you let HeadBangaa bring up, "what's next, animals?" is ridiculous in the first place. And yet it's all too common for those against gay marriage. And yet it is another showing of how he views gay people as lesser beings. Less than himself or 'normal' humans. I'm not saying he thinks they are scum, but that he doesn't accept them. If he did, it would be, "welcome to marriage! I hope you two have a happy life together."
I've never seen a group for marrying animals. If there was, it'd be such a minority it'd be ridiculous and no one would care. This isn't about animals, and you let him take you there. As if there is an actual jump from gay to animal. There isn't.
There will be no future movement for, 'MARRYING ANIMALS!!!!' where the majority votes on it etc...
Discussing it further is an insult to intelligence.
And what is this I hear about, 'teaching it in schools?' Did I miss something when I was in school. Math, english, science, marriage? If a kid is asking the teacher about homosexual marriage, the teacher should reserve the right to say, "talk to your parents."
not really, we're trying to move a legal line. theres nothing wrong with discussing where it should be moved to. obviously hes just using it as a tactic to try to scare people into not moving the line at all, but it doesnt mean the point can be entirely ignored.
|
On November 07 2008 18:08 HeadBangaa wrote:
If I take his premise literally, my blowup doll qualifies as a rape victim.
He gave a necessary, but insufficient condition. Logic error.
And I've written too many well-thought out posts on this subject in multiple threads to give any time to some dude who strides in reading only the last page before broadly sweeping my arguments aside (looking at testie).
are animals and little girls made of plastic and air?
|
Now Polygamy you have a solid case for HeadBangaa. However documentaries & journalism have shown that it's very cultish and hides rape, incest, pedophilia and has cast a very negative light on it.
While I doubt that is how most polygamists are, I am rather ignorant about their way of life.
To any Polygamists who are happy with their way of life and their marriage(s)?, so long as it's between consenting adults and they are all happy with it, & doing it for the right reasons, well, good for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
