|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Sorry for the delay. I stopped caring.
Uschi, you've pretty much repeated the same stuff with the same straw mans and then left tangent again. They're just accompanied with more specious arguments this time. So I'm not going to put forth the effort to explain anything at unnecessary length and just do this point by agonizing point.
Quote:
Uschi said:
I don't see how I was trying to contadict the existance of god anywhere in my posts.
If you'd please to note, your prior statements included "if 'God' didn't want" within their thesis.
Quote:
I also never said these natural traits are not anti-life.
The idea that nature dictates these minorital structural differences, which is your assertion, is contradicted by the fact that they're anti-life. As I said, living organisms aren't built to destroy themselves.
Quote:
I was merely setting a basis of 'what is natural' in order to classify homosexuality as a 'natural' behavior.
If "nature" has a base schematic, which is dominant amongst the vast majority of natural organisms in the world, would it not be more accurate, I ask again, to title the diversification as "anomalous"? We have stillborn or deformed kids, but we don't consider it natural that they die or have trouble living (i.e. Siamese Twins). It means nature failed in those individual cases.
Quote:
this is exactly part of my point. if there is no reason for the penguins to have homosexual relations with each other, why do they do it except because they want to? If it is a theme in a society of penguins, it is naturally occuring. They weren't forced to bone each other.
The stressed idea, claimed by you, that it's natural to do such things is what contradicts you. Pleasure remains parallel to "naturelle" or "instinct" if you will. The seeking for release doesn't suggest a naturally conducted act (homosexuality). Nature gave animals the nerves, but, in your exemplified case of 'lack of females', it didn't give them the urge to do it with the same sex specifically, just the hole.
Quote:
Fun Advice: So don't eat it.
Even better fun advice: Don't try to spin a subject with a fact describing actions you don't encourage. Sends mixed signals.
Quote:
Um, excuse me for repeating myself from yesterday, but no, I did not say everything natural should be accomodated.
Okay. So does this mean you'll give credence to the idea that homosexual relations shouldn't be tolerated because they're anti-life?
Quote:
I have no ulterior arguments. I have no ulterior motives. If I want to prove god's non-existance I'll start a thread about that. This is about homosexuality. Let's keep on tangent here. 
Your secondary implication after saying "if 'God" didn't want such and such" was that logic dictated my God as non-existent.
Quote:
Taking a person's life, especially against their will (as I have a hard time figuring out the morals of Dr.Kevorkian's line of work, but that's a whole different thread), is hardly the same as having anal sex with a willing partner who derives pleasure out of said activity.
That's only because you're making exceptions. Prolonged unhealthy actions are no different than immediate ones aside from the fact that a "willing participant" (either one) person retains more time to put a stop to his/her health denominating behavior.
Quote:
I'm having a hard time seeing how you make such a jump in logic. I do not see these two as comparable situations in any way. Anal rape, like in prison and pedophilia molesters, is a different story as the partner is not allowed a decision in the act. Rape is rape is rape. Sex is sex is sex. Different.
Rape hurts the body. Sodomy hurts the body. Sex doesn't hurt the body. Sex can cause pain, but assuming that every one of these acts is done correctly and normally, it doesn't cause any real unnecessary damage as the two formers do. Pointing out a few medical exceptions in the straight sex category that causes unhealthiness to back up a constantly and numerously damaging act is a fallacious attempt at rationalizing a situation.
Also, You seem to be of the mind that the term “sex” within the terms “oral sex” and “anal sex” are of literal face-value, when really, there’s nothing to suggest that they’re real sexual behaviors. The term “sex” is a designation of active cross-compatibility between two sexes. The reason it’s even called “sex” is its nature of expressing the diversity between the two sexes, not to mention a process to create more gender-sexual organisms. The technical labeling of “asexual” further proves this: If sex in and of itself was recognized purely as an act of release and not a biological action to cause a reproductive reaction, we wouldn’t use the term “sex” to identify the orthodox litany.
Quote:
Where did I reveal types of moral qualms? How is my statement contradictory? I was summing up my argument to that point.
I already informed you of your ideals of "respect", an ideal ground in moral motives (you even concurred with it BTW).
Quote:
All science 'fact' is just a hypothesis which predicts future behavior. It's a really really really good guess.
That’s great, but we live in this thing called “reality”. You can’t base absolute conclusions on “really really good guesses”. And even if we could, there’s been no physical evidence even approaching conclusive that evolution is fact. What you label as “fact” is not admissible in a hypothetical context—That’s what’s called an “oxymoron”. Moreover, it’s circular reasoning. Trying to prove something with something else, which, in and of itself, hasn’t even been proven isn’t gonna work.
As I said to MJ, it used to be a “really really good guess” that the world was flat. Such an assertion was disputable at that point, but the voice was so small for the longest time, it could hardly be considered as creating true controversy. This is a perfect analogy for today: The people who have disproved facets of evolution are getting their yaps shut and thus “really really good guesses” are being taken as true facts without a second look towards their debunked material because A) The media has been biasly saturated with the questionable assumption and B ) People (mainly the secularists who go out of their way to silence Creationist researchers) are afraid of the possible alternative.
Quote:
There is no answer manual for the universe to make sure we get things right.
Stop it with the broad generalizations. It’s a cheap tactic and it doesn’t really prove anything.
Quote:
However, until someone comes up with a better argument than evolution, evolution is accepted as The Way Things Happened.
But the ever-present fact here is: It’s only a “better” argument because you think it is. And what’s more, simply because it’s the more dominantly exploited argument, that doesn’t mean it’s “better”. Before you, forseeably, grill me on ‘stones in a glass house’ with Christianity being no better….Or something: You’ve sided yourself with an explanation discerning the origins of organic living matter that relies on conclusive, physical, and consistent proof. From your aspiring “pragmatist” POV, those are characteristics that can’t co-exist with faith.
Quote:
Saying 'god made it that way' explains nothing and predicts nothing.
Actually, God and His methods have been explained.
Quote:
It's still more factual than anything you've posted for god's creation of the world EXACTLY how it is.
Because you're of the mind to reject anything and everything the Bible says even though its secularly/legally accepted as an historical document. You won't even let it in the conversation because you have a hang up with your "insane" mother's interpretation.
Quote:
Something that has not yet been disproved dispite many people dispising it and trying to disprove it (the theory of evolution) is something that can be counted on whereas 'just 'cause' does nothing as an argumentitive support.
Actually, Evolution has been disproved. Numerous times. With each new “development” that has spoken for evolution over the past two centuries, its accusations have been denounced, and rightfully so, as pure supposition. Then came along the fossils….Which were fake or not truly ape-human transitions. The fact that they’ve been debunked so many times just hasn’t been made clear because, as I mentioned, secular standpoints are of the majority. What is clear but is simply danced around, however, is the fact that all that evolution entails rests on pure speculation. Secularists try to avoid this fact by saying, “Theories can have different meanings!”—NO THEY CAN’T. They can have different contexts, but the meanings stay the same. Gravity and Aerodynamics, for example, are theories with palpable baselines. Even if they prove incorrect, you still have set rules that govern the pull of planets in the solar system and the efficient flight of an aircraft (albeit, with different academics). This is opposed to evolution with not even a single conclusively transitioned fossil to its name.
Quote:
As for 'same tone repeated over and over for the past 60 years,' how about the same tone as repeated over and over for the last 2200 years? You have no proof for your faith and have no evidance to support it, yet because the story has been repeted over and over and over you choose to believe it.
No. It’s because the source of the doctrine is more credible than the accusations of Darwin. The Bible, as an eyewitness and historian-supported document holds more evidence than you’d care to admit. Darwin’s, and his followers’, assumptive conclusions bear no weight on their own. It’s as simple as that. And please, try not to say, “Darwin’s a scientist!! He can’t be wrong!!” (especially since he’s more of a philosopher).
My religion was researched just as evolution was, and from my viewpoint, my feelings toward you saying, “cuz’ evolution said so” are comparative to yours when your mother says, “cuz’ the Bible says so”. You’re sore every time you hear that because you hate religion and because secular culture has obtained media majority, thus we hear both an endorsement of evolution and defaming of Christianity. I hope you realize that your bias doesn’t all of a sudden make your opinions right. Simply because you buy into the Bible bashing knee-jerk, which doesn’t express at all why you find the Bible uncredible as opposed to evolution, that doesn’t give your rehearsed denomination any credence. i.e. Your participation in the majority opinion of, “The Church sucks!! (Pseudo)Science rules!!” doesn’t win you or your arguments any points.
Quote:
Evolution and creationism do not have to be separate, by the way. For a creature to evolve it must already have the occasional mutation for the newer traits. Who's to say 'god' didn't create everything with those specific traits dormant inside them so they could be expressed later?
Your double-speak gets on my nerves Uschi. You don't want to let go of evolution cuz' you don't want to accept the mere idea that there is a God, so to bypass arguing about it to what may prove your concession (hey, you never know), you try to say the two can co-exist just to repel me.
I've always been open to the idea that God used evolution to create us. However, the reason I don't buy it is because there's nothing to suggest it.
Quote:
ANYways, you got us WAY off the topic here. Until you can disprove the almost unanimously accepted theory of evolution then it stands as a valid aspect of my argument.
"Almost unanimously". Now we're going on majority again. That's great. Fucking great.
Quote:
I didn't go here because you haven't told me why you posted it. What relevance does it have?
Dude. Just click the damn link. It's not like its fucking Tubgirl. It's an analysis done by me on precisely what evolution hasn't proven (i.e. everything). “Counter-Reference” means something that disputes your “reference”.
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, there are, and that's lovely for them, but their ability to procreate is dissimilar to ours.
DDDUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH.
sorry, continue.
Once again, you forget precisely why you even brought up the subject.
You tried to argue that because, you think, we were all once asexual life forms that our current survival as an existence is irrelevant in the face of such knowledge that it won’t end because we’ll just start all over again. There’s a couple things wrong with that: 1) Even if evolution were true and we would start back up again from lower sentience as asexual life forms, there’s almost no chance that we would be exactly like we died off as, and as a species, we strive to maintain our surviving individuality. It wouldn’t be logical to just let go and die off only to let another species take our place. 2) We are in no way comparable to asexual life forms. There’s nothing to suggest that their systems were what evolved into ours. You have no base-lines to make that case.
Quote:
Get off the goddamn church! You know I don't give a fuck about it, why would I base an argument around it?!
I say again:YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
Quote:
You origionally said something like, 'homosexuality is bad because a society cannot live with sex only between one gender - they will eventually die off.' I said 'there's asexual reproduction so no, a society of creatures will no necessarilly die off.'
More speciousness.
Uschi, first of all: I didn’t make that argument. Batwoman did. Second of all: She was right.
Your morphing between contexts doesn’t prove shit. There are life forms out there that breed using only their individual bodies…Good for them. That does not mean they’re properly analogous with two gender-centric homosexuals attempting a perverse version of pseudo-mating. When Batwoman said “societies”, do you really think she was referring to every single diverse species on the planet? Where’s the logic in that? Obviously, not all species’ are comparable by XY terms, so such comparisons are faulty. And you are the one who made that comparison.
Quote:
A species must have sex between two genders to reproduce (false).
No. Every species that is gender-based. In this case: OURS.
Quote:
Homosexuals are part of the species referred to as human beings (true).
This statement would suggest that homosexuality is a naturally and individually imprinted trait. There’s nothing to prove that.
Quote:
Therefor homosexuality will destroy human life (false).
If one should tolerate the presence of a singular homosexual relationship and title it benign, it is only logical to say the same about 3 billion of those types of relationships. But obviously, that wouldn’t be benign, thus you’ve created a double-standard.
Quote:
'be fruitful and multiply' was what god commanded Adam and Eve, am I wrong?
Yes, you are right, but the command was heeded by that time. Man had already subdued the earth and established dominion over the lower forms of sentience. The covenant was fulfilled. And even so, the Church did not highlight that segment of the Bible; if anything, it was “love thy neighbor” or “do unto others”.
Quote:
Since the church (and thus the Pope) stands behind (and is created about) the Bible, it can be safely assumed that the church agrees with this sentiment.
Not as an enforced action. God’s command predated marriage. What can be more safely assumed is that with the development of marriage as a pre-requisite to sex, Man’s objective of multiplication had been accomplished.
Quote:
As marriage in the Catholic Church (the faith of the Pope) requires a couple to be fertile and have plans to create babies, I can assume I am right with my first assumption (that the church is FOR making little christians).
The Church is “FOR” the safe upbringing of children and “FOR” them being properly taught IF they may come into the world—They most certainly don’t have to be Christian and the Church most certainly does not pressure its patrons to have kids.
Quote:
I did not say that it was the vatican's MOTTO, just that it is part of that religous faith and, also AS AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT, people abided by that sort of thing (popping out as many babies as possible. I was just trying to tie it home for you with a nice religous bow.
You clearly stated and implied that the Church was making profit from taxing the use of the phrase “be fruitful and multiply”. You were trying to say that with the overblown use of that statement that Christians then and now (namely me and Batwoman) were being taken for fools because the Church was keeping its own interests in mind—And THAT argument itself is interwoven with your attempted contradiction by saying some species’ procreate asexually.
Quote:
What? Hello! Yes they were, that's the easiest way to spread your faith.
Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. That’s your assumption. I do, however, know that missionaries were the reason for the spread of the Catholic faith.
Quote:
It might not have been project numero uno, but they didn't say NO FUCKING AFTER DARK! WORKING IN THE DAY! or anything. It's part of the docterine for couples to copulate and create baby christians. ARGGH! No more church shit! This is WAY off topic, Mr.Stay-On-Tangent.
You’re being specious again, and it’s not apart of the doctrine for a couple to have a baby, just give each other sex when they want. If a child should come from that union, fine, but that doesn’t mean the Church pressures, or even encourages, people to have a kid.
Quote:
Back in the Ye Olde Tymes people would be at risk of claims of witchery if they did devient sex acts.
No. Deviance didn’t motivate witch burning and even so, at that point in time, there was a secular movement that held immunity from such things. Stoning unfaithful wives went out of practice centuries earlier missy.
Quote:
Sodomy will probably give you loose bowels when you get older. Many people will get that anyways so I guess people can take the risk if they want.
A person can get their limbs blown off in the future, so I guess they can take the risk if they want…..
I don’t find, ‘the body’s gonna get hurt anyway, might as well be from an ass fucking' to be a very good argument.
Quote:
HIV infection (or other STDs) can happen through vaginal sex too (or even birth) so that doesn't really set sodomy out of the norm here.
Yes it does. The act itself is out of the norm, since both differ in nature, and throws your attempt at creating a standard with sodomy out the window. And as long as your making exception stand points like, ‘vaginal sex can be damaging so that totally justifies sodomy’, I could bring up the fact that the vaginal fluids have a stronger defense against STDs than blood and excrements.
Furthermore, with your kind of reasoning, one could very well argue the lack of danger coming from anal sex in a scenario where anal sex hasn’t even been practiced yet (and had a chance to cause a severe AIDs epidemic, as was the reality in America thirty years ago) simply cuz’ straight people are the only ones spreading it at the moment. Your argument is ‘circumstances of disease which are caused through the sexual practice’ when really your priority argument should be more along the lines of ‘scrutinizing the sexual practice’s infectional potency’.
Quote:
Anything inhaled into the lungs harms them.
Indeed, but as I said, all forms of medication have slight (if not enormous) adverse effects. Cigarettes do, in fact, go under the category of medication like any other over the counter drug. And because I’m aware of your eternal bias, I’ll just point out something to make sure your averages aren’t completely fucked when it comes to inhaled substances on par with nicotine-filled smoke: Because my mother had to remove her thyroid due to cancerous cells, she’s forced to take medication for the rest of her life. Specifically, she has to inhale evaporated meds and powder into her lungs so she can stave off negative effects. This is indeed an example of an unhealthy act, yet, it is one born of necessity. I, and others, get too anxious so I smoke a cigarette; my mother, and others, get weak, so she has to inhale med-saturated smoke into her lungs.
Quote:
One cigarette is bad for you. One REALLY large shit is bad for you just like one poke up the butthole is bad for you.
Yes, excreting shit is bad for you, but again: Necessity.
And it’s hardly a “poke”. Excretion isn’t the same as having something jammed inside your ass, then pulled out, then jammed in again, etc..
Quote:
Don't lecture me on everyone liking sex every time or some shit. If something exists there can be problems with it.
And there you go again—I really don’t care if there are exceptions where real sex became problematic because those times are irrelevant in lieu of the fact that straight sex was created to be what it is as an all together harmless invention. This isn’t the case with sodomy at all. Whatever other isolated or concentrated incident, which are not as consistent as you imply, problems there are with certain people who participate in orthodox sex, sodomy will never have a reciprocal reaction. It is through and through a harmful and unjustified act. Sex is made to give pleasure (and make other life forms), sodomy is not.
Quote:
And you think homosexuals want to be hurt? I think you're confusing them with Masochists.
No…Fuckin’…Duh!
I already made that assertion pages ago. They are in the same category—Especially in the case of mental anomaly. I’m not confusing anything. Sado-Masochists hurt themselves and their partners to feel pleasure as homosexuals hurt themselves and their partners to feel pleasure (please note: “Pain” and “Hurt” are two distinctly different terms even though they co-exist in most scenarios including this one, but “hurt” is obviously my prime concern). Moreover, the homosexual and straight anal sex answer for “pleasure” is the gyration that slightly effects the prostate or female G-Spot. So essentially, people are jerking each other off in an idiotic way. I don’t think I need to point out to you the more viable solution for their desired outcome. Even though I still don’t condone it, it’d be a whole lot smarter to masturbate each other or just sixty-nine.
Quote:
When learning to skateboard you do not want to be hurt, but you accept it as the risk you take in order to enjoy the pleasure of skateboarding. Falling down happens a LOT when skateboarding, even for professionals.
Just because they know there’s a possibility that it’ll happen, that doesn’t mean it will for sure. This isn’t the case with sodomy. The point of skateboarding is about avoiding fumbles. When you decide to take it up the ass, that, in and of itself, is getting hurt, which is precisely what an entire session of sodomy is.
Quote:
Oh, thank heavens you cleared that up! Thanks, professor! 
Your entire argument against my anti-sodomy voice is simply that pain and damage come from more than one source. Just because you choose to focus on other detrimental actions (although the ones you described are not as much so as sodomy and its risks), that doesn’t dispel the ever-presence of negative effects that come from sodomy.
Tattoo artistry and piercing are both medical procedures with set guidelines, which dictate safety as is the reality with all surgically associated procedures. You are correct in the rite that piercing and tattooing are unnecessary acts of damaging the body, but in no way do they compare to sodomy. Sodomy has no true procedure or protocol because any way you slice it, the body will not act neutrally to the act. However, with piercing and tattooing, there’s a medical direction, and these procedures will occur only so often. I reiterate that this isn’t the case with sodomy because there is no such thing as a safe procedure preferred to it and with your assertion that it can be practiced without cease, we find it has no comparative factor to piercing and tattooing because those can only be done so often.
Quote:
HIV infection. Scarring. Stafflococcus(sp?) infections. There are a lot of things that are harmful about tattoos and piercings.
This is why I said you don’t want these procedures done by amateurs. Medical health technicians can make these kinds of fumbles just as tattoo and piercing artists can, but they’re both obligated to follow medical protocols.
Quote:
It survived.
I’m missing your point when it comes to the ape. Apes masturbate regularly, but they also have sex regularly……*shrug* Not proper analogy.
Quote:
I likes to have sex without vaginal penetration.
This is kinda nit-picky on my part, but I say again: It’s not truly sex if there’s no vaginal penetration. And legally, that makes a world of difference towards your argument.
Quote:
I did not disregard it quickly. As my mother raised me telling me that homosexuals are evil pedophiles that are going to jail and I believed her as a kid, I have done my own research and thinking and come to my own conclusions regarding homosexuality as a 'mental disorder.'
Okay, so we know that you have a stigma because of your mother, now can you perhaps provide anything regarding your own “conclusions and research”?
Quote:
I think that's a load of shit. People who are born transsexuals know who they are and don't fit in their bodies.
Unless you’re a “man born into a woman’s body”, I’m going to ignore everything you have to say on this matter.
Quote:
Hermaphrodites can be clearly one gender or another. Neither of these classes of people are mentally disturbed like a pedophile or serial killer.
……Da fuck?
Where did I say that hermaphrodites were mentally disturbed?
Quote:
Pedophiles, rapists, and serial killers all have one major thing in common: they don't care about their victims. All of them are sociopaths without respect or concern for other humans' rights. Homosexuals have realtionships that are reciprocal. That's a big differance.
But you leave out that homosexuals suffer the same type of afflictions, which are of mental properties. Because they’re not normal, they shouldn’t be given more rights simply because their processor structure wasn’t formed correctly. Serial killers, rapists, and the more vicious pedophiles out there aren’t allowed to do what they’re predisposed to do. The same principle can and should be applied to homosexuals and sado-masochists. Not simply because its more logical legally, but also because sodomy and hurting [yourself/someone else] in other various ways is blatantly similar to the other afflictions.
And, again, I’d like for you to note the possibility of a reciprocal pedophilic relationship. Trying to dispute that one can’t or won’t exist is ludicrous. I reiterate that this possibility is legally recognized. Playing devil’s advocate as briefly as possible, pedophiles themselves can’t technically be considered rapist amoral maniacs, as is your conviction. It’s mainly because their urges are being bottled up and repressed that we see a high case of manipulative molestation (of course that’s no excuse, but it is, however, a reason). If we lived in Classic Greece, they’d be perfectly balanced social individuals and small boys wouldn’t really mind their courting habits. “Reciprocal” is a very relative term—And even by using your own logic, you can accurately assess such “reciprocal” relationships can exist there.
Quote:
NAMBLA wants to claim that pre-sexual boys want to have sex with them. If somehow a ten year old suddenly has the mental maturity of an adult and it can be proven and he wants to have sex with a man three times his age, there's no problem with that. Children are not capable of that though.
As much as I dislike NAMBLA and find it to be a fork-tongued organization, their emphasized cases of 11 and 13 year-olds saying that they want those type of relationships with older men have been genuine. Kids, with each generation, get smarter at younger and younger ages. The farther down the line we go, the more intellectual the young’ens get. What we currently consider mental maturity could (will) eventually be averaged at ages lower than eighteen. And before you get into sex-drive activation, you should note that the pre-pubescence stage does indeed allow you access to your libido, It’s just not usually hyper-active (I say “usually”, because I distinctly recall a case on Riply where a six-year old sprouted tits at four and had a baby at age six). Hell! In Kindergarten I was smitten with flirting and hanging out with the girls. Also, while I commend your consistency, I damn your ignorance. Sexual conduct between adults and children, no matter what the circumstance, is not “fine”. Their premature bodies [cannot/aren’t supposed to] adhere to such activities, and, I reiterate, with the fact being that such mal-natural and self-destructive behaviors (sodomy) being performed between adults, that leaves the door ajar for people to logically reason that consensual sex with a child should be considered a legal act.
And as long as you’re going off of statistical exceptions to make your points about the benignity of structural damage of the body through sodomy, I could bring up an isolated case to give your standards an applicable average when it comes to kids and “sexual identities” (although, my comparison is actually more valid since the body’s carrying out its prime function here, albeit faster: http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/361/15490_pregnancy.html.
The article itself focuses on an eleven year old who concealed her pregancy (with her close to same age boyfriend), but there's a snippet on the end:
Such premature pregnancy is extremely rare in medical practice. Extremely early childbirth was registered in 1910, when a couple of Chinese children became world's youngest parents: the father was nine years and the mother was eight.
A six-year-old girl from the USSR became world's youngest mother in 1930. The record was beaten in 1939, though, when five-year-old Lina Medina from Peru became a mother.
Quote:
That doesn't mean pedophilia is morally acceptable.
There’s that word again! MORAL!
You say you’re not gonna use moral standards to make your case, so don’t. Your reasoning is based solely on scientific and legal speculation. So please, cut the double standard bullshit.
Quote:
There is no way to consent before the age of reason (psychological term for becoming an adult mentally - taken from shakespear I think... it's familiar) and therefor pedophilia is statutory rape still.
And I say you’re wrong. A 20 year old retard with the mental maturity of ten can legally have sex. You’re still using age maturity as your standard, and that’s exactly why “statutory rape” doesn’t speak for you. It’s an invalid reference. Statutory rape says that sexually willing kids can’t have sex with adults because they’re fooling themselves into believing they know what they want whilst they really don’t. I’m of the mind that-that law will be subject to change with the confirmation of the presence of ever-increasing mental maturity among prepubescent to adolescent young ‘ens, and this coupled with the toleration of sodomy gives leverage to a pedophile movement. Principle logic alone suggests that we should legally tolerate children having sex—Even if we outlaw it. That fact on its own should tell us to wake the fuck up and stop butt-plugging each other.
Quote:
I am not aware of that, no. Can you supply a link to some details?
http://www.thrf.org/cases/Lawrence.htm
Quote:
Excuse me? Rome was the biggest empire and lasted the longest of ANY other society EVER in the recorded history of mankind.
That doesn’t mean it couldn't have lasted longer, which was my point.
Quote:
Not really, it was when they left their cities for the barbaric lands of the Germanic Tribes that the society fell. Until then (and even partially through then) Rome was a thriving metropolitan marvel.
No. It wasn’t actually. I have never heard of that; that Rome sent mass amounts of missionaries who consisted of a large percentage of the society. In any case though, you can’t speak with such an absolute voice (especially considering how you feel towards Christianity) when placing conviction on a singular element that led to Rome’s eradication. The downfall of Rome had many extraneous and erroneous factors that attributed to its destruction.
I read a pretty interesting panel on it here
Quote:
Really? Wow, you're real smart to know that the society would have been wiped out had the christian adoption of the government hadn't dont them in.
Maybe STDs wouldn't have killed everyone, think of that? I don't recall STDs being ferocious killers most of the time. If they were, however, that would probably contain the outbreaks.
I was actually leaning towards Greece in that sense when I started this line of argument, but assuming Rome had no other problems, their society had the potential to fall flat on its face and not get up because of STDs. My point, in the case of Rome, was not to actually say that STDs were their prime deficit, but that: A) Disease [may have/could have] helped in Rome’s demise and B ) To assert that a founding societal problem, being STDs, can eventually detrimentally effect the throws of society. It was just cross-generalized with Greece (that doesn’t mean I over-stepped any boundaries though).
Quote:
I was just clarifying what I could jimmy out of your post.
But not what it actually said?
Quote:
So.... how does homosexuality being acceptable mean the downfall of the government?
Once again, it’s not homosexuality, but the idea given by homosexual relationships, which are majoritively considered benign, that sodomy is harmless. You and I both know that it’s not and that every sexually active percentage is accompanied by a ratio that practices unsafe sex. Neither side of that general populace division practices a sexually efficient and safe act, one’s just worse than the other. With a rise in casual sodomy goers comes a paramount risk of disease and potential to open up more of society to it and create mass misconception of [sodomy/casual sodomy]’s harmful nature as unharmful.
Quote:
No, in a republic like america or a democracy like a lot of people pretend we have, it is supposed to be a government made up of the people. The people take care of themselves. The government should take care of the country and international relationships.
You know as well as I do that the government can only govern such affairs properly with a well-established and regulated society. That’s why they create laws against such things like suicide, heroin, or any other type of direct and conscious self-destructive act. People initially “take care of themselves” using laws issued by government.
Quote:
You can't prove it's less harmful (or if you can, you're failing to).
I already did.
Quote:
What rights are these? The right to be contractually married and thus benefit from government tax breaks as other married couples do? That seems to me that they are being denied a right.
The paramount flaw in this statement is the assertion that a certain “right” exists when really it doesn’t. There is no “consenting adults” variable included in the marriage right, it’s “two adults, each of opposite gender”. So your statement that they’re being “denied their rights” is false.
Quote:
Only in the Christian faiths. In America it is ok for impotent couples to get married, just not by your church.
If you actually read my quote, you’d see I was monopolizing my comment purely on the association of marriage with law, not the founding religious tenements of marital values. The institution of marriage itself was not designed for gay couples based on society’s malleability of a straight-based establishment, which offers the most possibility of a well-balanced community (and I say this with offspring in mind, as per usual). This characteristic does not present or imply any sort of Christian bias. As far as I can tell, you’re merely showing your own hang-up.
Quote:
AS HAPPENS WITH MAN/WOMAN COUPLES. WOW. People are people, who would have guessed?
Which was my bloody point in the first place. Your attempt to spin it fails.
I repeat: Marriage is pre-opted for straight couples because its implications are more compatible with the resident sheltering society from economical, legal, and social angles. Because the most frequent cases of binding rituals performed involve straight couples, it creates a monetary and regulatory convenience not honed from the homosexual variable, which, in turn, is [more suited/has the ability] to obtain their legal unity through other legal channels.
Quote:
I just want my gay friends who are gay to be able to be married.
There’s no reason for them to be able to get married since they can arrange everything as needed without the marriage contract—And that includes an adoption stipulation.
Quote:
Right... you never want to have sex though. If you (god forbid) ever get married, you get blood tests to check for STDs and stuff. No problem until you get a whore or fuck around with people you don't have any certainty about.
….When you start posting in a thread, do you perchance read all of the other posts within it rather than just the latest ones? I already explained not only the risk growth from a rising number of people casually practicing sodomy, which is the source of some immunity forming bacterial diseases as well as mutation-prone viral infection, could very well surmount to such a degree as to render any crevice in society unsafe. Why do you think there will always be safe hospitals and there will always be airtight health arenas? There’s never a perfect treatment barrier.
Quote:
I'm still confused as to why you care. I thought you were proud to be apathetic and sociopathic? Less people in the world! Yay!
I already explained it to you in my other post. I Gotta be realistic—And in any event, it would eventually affect me! You can’t leave an outbreak and the cause of said outbreak, and all other possible causes of said outbreak, alone. That’s stupid!
As far as gay marriage goes: Legally, I am affected through taxes. As far as sodomy goes: Physically, I could very well be affected through disease mutation.
Quote:
The world by large has accepted sodomy. It is America and a few oher places that are behind the curve. I hope everyone eventually accepts sodomy. I have no doubt that people will eventually be swayed. Where have I steered you into thinking I believed otherwise?
You’re right, you didn’t—However, you misunderstand. My implication didn’t just note certain cultural acceptances of sodomy, but the acceptance by every single human being on the face of this planet. Forget the likelihood of 100% saturation and think about the effects. Your acceptance of the ideal implies and inadvertently accommodates the hypothetical, and very possible, presence of an entire world of ass-banging.
Quote:
That is, to me, absolutely absurd. Outlaw sodomy and outlaw cigarettes and outlaw blood transfusions and outlaw police action in close combat with a person who is bleeding and outlaw McDonald's coffee and outlaw skateboarding and outlaw cooking with vegetable oil and outlaw telephones because people sometimes dial 911 wrong.
Again, your generalizations are incredibly specious. As you said in your prior post, I can’t name a single action that wouldn’t effect the body negatively in some way. However, I did express that there is the unignorable element of necessity. I just got back from a road trip where I had to drive with just myself. I needed coffee and cigarettes to keep me awake on the road. There is absolutely no reason why sodomy should be participated in.
Quote:
This is what I call the slippery-slope argumentation.
I’ve already gone over how my hypothesis would play out. It’s all good and fine to say it’s “slippery-slope” until I actually give you baselines to work from—And they are most certainly not slippery slope.
Quote:
Right. I doubt I'll teach you that homosexuality is perfectly moral, just like I won't my mom. So I'm not going to research into your previous conversations to have a conversation with you today.
I wonder if you realize precisely how insulting this statement is. You’ve, numerous times, characterized your mother as “crazy” and now you throw me into the same boat as her because we’re having a disagreement of opinion. I wanna say it’s simply because you have an irrational stigmatism to Christianity, in which case you’re mother may not be as loony as you make her out to be, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt….I s’pose. Anyway, if you persist in actually not researching the conversational evolution of the subject before you go into it, I have to say that you’re a bloody moron and I’m not going to go over another huge laundry list of nit-picked straw mans simply to humor your brashness in jumping into the conversation. Have some bloody courtesy at least.
And, once again, stop using “moral” baselines if you’re not arguing morality.
Quote:
Alright, so long as you get off the church horse.
Again. You’re the one who brought it up and gave it significance.
Quote:
Uschi said:
The grounds I set, when I try to explain my meaning, get TANGENT!!! rages from you.
No. You don't. Read again.
Quote:
I didn't compare sodomy to vaginal sex. You're thinking of most of the other posters on the thread.
I remind you, again, that you tried to reason some women have problems with orthodox sex cuz' their vaginas act up. In which case, you thought that was reasoning enough to allow sodomy.
Quote:
I don't really see it as a double standard.
No shit.
Quote:
Please try to explain this view further.
Already explained it up top.
Quote:
Yes. I was. In a localized argument. You were the one to bring it into every aspect (ok, that might be hyperboly - maybe not every aspect) of my arguments.
No. It wasn't localized. It was widely associative.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Yeah, it hurt. It would for anyone. (A) It's not a sexual sitaution; sexual arousal is not involved.
Without getting too much into the subject of things being inserted into my ass. The doc pretty much takes the same precautions an informed (sexually active) homosexual would before going at it. Lubricant, relaxing, etc.. You cannot sexually arouse the ass. Being predisposed to relaxing it and being aroused are two different things.
Quote:
And the sphincter's job is not to stay closed constantly. It's to open when the person needs it to open.
Unless of course yours doesn't, which would mean that you are, in fact, full of shit in the most literal of ways.
I'm pretty sure you know what I meant, so I'll let that slide.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said
Oh, I beg to differ about the unhealthiness of celibacy. The body was designed to be a sexual thing. Human beings, regardless of their station in life or their calling, have sexual urges.
But it's not crucial to have sex to live and with the entire subject being based around physical destruction, your standard is thrown off.
Quote:
My honest opinion is that all the sexual atrocities/crimes we're witnessing in the Priesthood stand as solid evidence that celibacy is not a healthy thing and that many Priests have tried ways to satisfy those urges without losing their positions (hence their preying on children)
This is more specious reasoning.
Most preists I meet are happy with their lives of devotion and the ones I know of who weren't happy or couldn't fulfill their vows left the priesthood. There's no excuse for molesting kids. I don't feel that there's even a reason. If these preists were really pent up to the point of sin and they'd rather have sex with kids than leave, I don't consider them true priests. They have a much more logical and non-sinful (to a point) alternative, but take such a bad route? It doesn't make any sense, it's much more reasonable to assume that they're pedophiles. If you [can't/don't want to] uphold your vows as a priest, then keep true your principles as a Christian.
Quote:
And you do know that Priests at one time were permitted to marry?
That depends on which priests your referencing. If you're talking Byzantine or Anglican, you're right. If you're referring to Roman Catholic priests, you're wrong.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
But anal intercourse is sexual in that it...
-involves a penis, which is an organ of sex (when erect)
-involves what "giver" and "taker" perceive as sexual pleasure
-can be as much an act of love as penis-in-vagina sex
Flawed logic. This isn't about pleasure, love , or the fact that your sexual organ is labeled "sexual" organ. A sexual act suggests a participation in the pro-creative context as is "sex"'s function. Essentially doing what they were designed to do. You're listing adulterous associations, which are only legally cross-associated as "sexual" for the sake of organzation.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
We can blame Pariah for teh fact that this thread has neccesatated the graphic discription of male anal intercourse.
Necessary evil.
Quote:
Now, I haven't shown my hand in this thread yet, but I would ask Pariah (since my last challenge was for Klinton) if you're going to rest your argument that Homosexuality is wrong because of the harmfull effects it has phisically would you say that it's also morally wrong for a husband and wife to engage in anal sex?
I already said earlier that my convictions were against sodomy, not homosexuals. The only reason I have to reference them so much is because their voice is the most vehement in the defense of sodomy.
Quote:
harleykwin said:
Would you still say that its "morally wrong" for lesbians to be together, as the "physical harm" argument doesn't seem to come into play in that scenario?
I covered this earlier as well: While I do not condone lesbianism, my focus in this conversation has been as secular as possible, and from a secular viewpoint, the more proponed sexual act among male homosexuals, sodomy, is of a greater concern to me than women rubbing their cunts together or.....Something.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Even today women die in childbirth. The risks of straight sex are far greater than incontinance, which is common during pregnancy I might add!
Please review my arguments regarding the necessity and unnecessity of certain harmful acts.
|
