Location: The reality just beyond your blinded eyes...
Rep Power: 0
Christian
Right Wing Fanatic
Slogan/motto:
Resident Gay Basher,
Hitting homos where they
are the weakest, their minds.
Reputation:
January 1st, 2009, 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert
Within this thread, I define homosexuality as sexual acts between homosexuals, not the state of being homosexual.
I'll lay out my case first: I say no. Criminalization of homosexuality, being an act that further limits the freedoms of citizens, requires justification. That justification should include some negative effect(s) that homosexuality can be shown to have upon society, and since the acts are consensual, the effect(s) should be upon those not participating in the acts. (For example, the elevated risks of STDs would not apply.)
Criminalizing homosexuality because of its supposed immorality would violate the Constitution, since Congress must not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion. Even if the majority of the population supports the criminalization, they must show that they are being harmed by homosexuality in some way(s) other than their moral indignance.
Because homosexuality does not involve citizens harming other citizens, I contend that it must remain legal within the context of the governmental principles fundamental in the United States (mostly defined in the Constitution).
I contend that they do harm others.
The basic premise is that homosexuality behavior is normal and thus since two people consent to it, it can't hurt anyone but themselves. But this ignores the reality that most people who have or have ever been homosexual don't want to be. This then sets up a dichotomy as to which side do you support.
If you support the homo side then when a homo makes sexual advances towards someone who is on the other side and resisting the pathology. Then the homo can always just say that the individual is just over sensitive.
If you accept the homosexual perspective on the issue, then the one group of people who should be protected from the homosexuals and their sexual advances is the one group who is used by the homosexuals, to justify that only those who are really closeted are opposed to us. This then creates a social situation in which no one can be offend by a homosexual advance. For if you are then you are by default someone who is just scared of your own homosexual feelings. Thus the one group who should be protected from homosexuals is used as a reason to protect the homosexuals. This is the effect of allowing sodomy to run through out the society. It hardens the hearts of the whole society to sexual morality.
Thus it does directly harm others in the society and denies them their constitutional rights to freedom of conscience.
In your premise you also don't consider wether homosexual behavior is even normal. Wether it is a result of twisted mind and a person who is obviously incapable of having a true relationship. If it is the symptom of a mental disorder then making it illegal is the best thing for society as a whole and more so for those who are resisting the pathology that creates it.
To deny that reality only leads to a society where their is no legitimate reason to oppose homosexual behavior and the promotion of said behavior to even your own children. Once you embrace the fallacy that homosexuality is normal and natural then you can't oppose it no matter what evidence you can provide. Wether it be HIV transmission, or high suicide rates. It all will come back as a reason to blame society for not being tolerant enough. This is the consequents of accepting the premise, that it is normal and inborn despite all the personal testimonies of those who have taken the road less traveled and undid the pathology that creates a homosexual. To deny this reality harms those people and the society as a whole. It denies the truth in order to allow a small minority to feel no guilt over the behavior that they naturally feel guilt over. This is PC in a nutshell and why we have it in this society. Since the number of people that will overcome said disorder will be much smaller than those who just go with it. This then give the later the larger voice and the ability to conspire and intimidate others to keep their disorder and the social damage that it has caused from being pinned on them. They maintain the victim role while manipulating the society to become more and more sexual to the point that outlawing any sexual behavior is seen as the imposition of some religious morality.
As the former head of the APA Dr Socrates said when homosexuality was taken off the list of mental disorders, under false pretense and through manipulation of the vote. "This will do untold damage to countless thousands"
I can name 3 people who aren't homos whose lives were directly affected just because of the PC that the homosexuals have instituted. So it does hurt others. Believing a lie always hurts others sooner or later.
Slogan/motto:
Manifest plainness, embrace simplicity, reduce selfishness, have few desires.
Reputation:
January 1st, 2009, 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Tom
But this ignores the reality that most people who have or have ever been homosexual don't want to be.
Doesn't that kind of run contrary to your persistent argument that homosexuality is a choice?
"In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the funds advanced to borrowers (assets of the bank) are created by the banks themselves and are not merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of borrowers." - Walker F. Todd
Slogan/motto:
Hands that help are holier than lips that pray.
Reputation:
January 1st, 2009, 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
Um, yes, I think it's absurd to outlaw homosexuality. It's not up to the government to endorse sexuality. Or to deny it.
An Iowan, I follow the thinking of the Little Old Lady from Dubuque, who said:
"We don't care what people do, so long as they don't do it in the streets, and scare the horses."
If you want to hear about it, I'd be pleased to explain to you why I think homosexual behavior is sinful and not good for you, while I believe that homosexuals should be accepted as any other sinners, and should not be unjustly discriminated against.
Yeah, what he said. I don't even see why this is a debate. If you want people to turn from sin you've got to reach their heart. Making their way of life illegal isn't going to accomplish anything. Look at how well our jails are doing! Criminals are not being changed. They aren't learning anything but how to be a better criminal. Why would homosexuality be any different?
I believe that the Universe is one being, all its parts are different expressions of the same energy,
and they are all in communication with each other, therefore parts of one organic whole.
This whole is in all its parts so beautiful, and is felt by me to be so intensely in earnest, that I am compelled to love it and to think of it as divine
- Robinson Jeffers
Location: The reality just beyond your blinded eyes...
Rep Power: 0
Christian
Right Wing Fanatic
Slogan/motto:
Resident Gay Basher,
Hitting homos where they
are the weakest, their minds.
Reputation:
January 1st, 2009, 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinFoldsFive
Doesn't that kind of run contrary to your persistent argument that homosexuality is a choice?
No not at all. Since as the opening post stated this is about the homosexual acts. Not being homosexual.. Being homosexual is 100% curable like all mental illness to a person who is truly seeking to get well.
No one choses to be molested,
Or to be called a fag, gay, queer by their peers
Or to be beat down by their father or to have him not be there for you, emotionally when these other things occur. Which causes an internalization of the words.
But you still choose to do the deed. It is doing the deed that seals the sexual inversion and causes the mind of the individual to suddenly decide that all of their problems are the result of society not accepting the sexual behavior that they now find, as a way to socially identify themselves by.
Then those who hate God also get behind them and quite literally give them the right to be neurotic about their behavior. Once you recognize a person right to be neurotic about any behavior you can't oppose them engaging in said behavior. Be that compulsive hand washing or compulsive bone smoking.. Since homosexuality has always been known as a compulsive sexual disorder.
And a neurosis is always a substitute for actual suffering.
Thus as homos always try to separate the act from being one I agree which is why the act needs to be criminal.
Last edited by Just Tom; January 1st, 2009 at 11:11 PM.
People, especially kids, throw around a lot of slurs and insults. In addition to using the aforementioned terms, I have also called people names such as inbred and retard. I seriously doubt that caused anybody to become homosexual, their own first cousin or lose even a few IQ points.
Murder and theft both consist of a person doing harm to another (the latter in an indirect fashion, but harm nonetheless), and the criminalization of those acts is found in all societies, regardless of religious affiliation.
Is your entire justification for the criminalization of homosexuality based upon that belief (meaning you would not support the legislation for a reason other than homosexuality harming others, and you would change your mind on the issue if it was shown that you were wrong about that statement)?
Quote:
The basic premise is that homosexuality behavior is normal and thus since two people consent to it, it can't hurt anyone but themselves. But this ignores the reality that most people who have or have ever been homosexual don't want to be.
Do you mean to say that most of those who perform homosexual acts do so against their will?
Quote:
This then sets up a dichotomy as to which side do you support.
What defines the two sides in question, and how does the dichotomy follow from your statement above?
Quote:
If you accept the homosexual perspective on the issue, then the one group of people who should be protected from the homosexuals and their sexual advances is the one group who is used by the homosexuals, to justify that only those who are really closeted are opposed to us. This then creates a social situation in which no one can be offend by a homosexual advance. For if you are then you are by default someone who is just scared of your own homosexual feelings. Thus the one group who should be protected from homosexuals is used as a reason to protect the homosexuals. This is the effect of allowing sodomy to run through out the society. It hardens the hearts of the whole society to sexual morality.
To make sure I follow your line of reasoning, I'll restate it (please tell me if this is what you mean):
Because some people who rebuff homosexual advances are consequently accused of being closet homosexuals, they deserve special protection from homosexual advances, which is meant to protect them from being further accused. Because this special protection is not practicable, the solution is to outlaw homosexual acts, in order to discourage sexual advances by homosexuals towards anyone and everyone.
Quote:
Thus it does directly harm others in the society and denies them their constitutional rights to freedom of conscience.
What is the "freedom of conscience" you are referring to? Please quote from the Constitution if possible.
Quote:
In your premise you also don't consider wether homosexual behavior is even normal. Wether it is a result of twisted mind and a person who is obviously incapable of having a true relationship. If it is the symptom of a mental disorder then making it illegal is the best thing for society as a whole and more so for those who are resisting the pathology that creates it.
If homosexuality is truly a mental disorder, then outlawing it would have no effect upon its prevalance. With that in mind, please elaborate on how outlawing it would be beneficial to society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe
Should polygamy be legal?
It should not be illegal, but then I don't think the government should establish its own standards of marriage in the first place, so I would not say that it should be legally recognized.
What does that have to do with homosexuality, anyway?
100 is the average, by definition. The IQ tests are supposed to adjusted every so often to ensure that it remains the average, even if the population is getting more or less intelligent over time.
As for your result: online IQ tests tend to inflate scores, and they also are often inaccurate past 130 or so (depending on the test). If you have an IQ more than two standard deviations from the mean, you should take a special "super IQ test" designed for a higher range, and then you can accurately distinguish beyond 130. (Many tests I have encountered only measure up to about 145, so two people with actual IQs of 145 and 170 would both get perfect scores and end up with the same result.)
Linear Mode
