|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution. | |||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
well, clearly we should pick the bible right?
what exactly is perversion? dictionary for pervert is1 To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt. 2 To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase. 3 To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. 4 To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort: in a secular world, our only determination of good and right is 'that which does not cause physical, mental, or emotional harm'. ie definition number 2. so. if you're going to prove that something is perverse, you have to prove that it causes physical, mental, or emotional harm. we know that depriving people of rights causes all three of these. therefore, deprivation of rights is perverse. do we have any studies that demonstrate that homosexual sex in and of itself between two consenting adults causes physical, mental, or emotional harm?i'll buy that anal sex can cause serious harm to the anus. it is not self-lubricating. however, with the gentle use of profilactics and lubricants, this damage can be mitigated. are there any studies that demonstrate emotional or mental harm stemming from merely homosexual sexual acts between consenting adults? why should we pick this instead of say... the bible? because our laws cannot and should not be based on religious text. why? the first amendment prevents it, for one. and two, this nation guarantees freedom to those of all religious and cultural affiliation. therefore, we cannot base laws on one text without recognition of other texts. some cultures have always accepted homosexual sex. there are still tribes in the south pacific in which the men (above age 13 i think) live in a central lodge and have all kinds of fun with each other. the women live in individual family huts and raise the children and girls and do other kind of village-y stuff. the men go to their wives to make babies, but find their pleasure among each other. this is the way they have 'always' lived.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Faith writes: Extending a noble expression of principle to ratifying a sexual perversion is probably a new low, though I'm not completely sure. Perhaps it has been bested. No, Faith--the low water mark you set on the dead children in New Orleans is still unmatched. There is no "perversion" freely entered into by all concerned that I would not vigorously defend from oppression--even yours. And a kiss of peace to you, too, dear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
begging tradition. baseless claim. provide evidence. Aw gee, you'd think some people didn't have two eyes. Male and female genitalia designed to fit together isn't evidence enough for you? A perversion is a turning away from the OBVIOUS natural use of what the physical parts are obviously designed FOR. Good grief. Sure you CAN use them for all kinds of purposes if you like, but the point is that doing so is a deviation from their natural purpose (deviation = perversion = aberration), and yes, there is an OBVIOUS purpose for which they were designed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
I do know about PMs, brenna (don't tell the other admins, but I've been seeing other forums).
The bit about you going off-topic in PM exchanges was meant to parody the intrusions into private lives we see advocated in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
A reasonable test of harm... While it is your right to suppose that every position I hold stems from religious conviction alone your position would be improved were you to hold off with the tar and feathers for a moment. I argued before with you regarding drug prohibition vs free for all. If you remember that then you may remember the basis on which I argued The notion of marriage has come under relentless attack in recent years. Just as with drug prohibition, problems are manifest in the traditional notion of a man and a woman - til death them did part. Even as recently as my parents generation many couples were partakers of unhappy marriages held together for reasons such as the stigma attached to separation (there was no divorce here then), financial dependance, lack of state 'sympathy' for a womans plight under the reign of a tyrannical husband. etc Whatever about the difficulties then, we are supposed to accept that the direction taken since the attack on marriage got up a head of steam (which includes aspects of a recent debate on a related issue - sexual abstinance) is a better one. I disagree on more pragmatic grounds that religious intolerance. Here we have whole housing estates are built to accomodate teenage to early twenties single mothers on welfare who are no more financially independant than were the tied in unhappy marriage mothers of the past. Its a different kind of cage but a cage nonetheless. It is the fruit of sexualisation of children alright but one aided by the partial demolition of the institution of marriage. The stigma is virtually gone and the generally held notion of marriage being something very special is under attack. Folk marry now on a whim - and knowing they can get out of it easy, do what people tend to when they get things easy. They discard them if the novelty wears off or the shiny paint dulls slighty. We all know that it is in the overcoming of difficulty that strength and maturity and resiliance increase. But if the next generation have this generation as an example then the knowledge of this truism as it pertains to marriage will be somewhat diluted compared to what we learned from our parents. And the generation after that will have even less to go on. Mark my word Omni, it won't be long til we too will be able to eat the candy floss that is drive-by wedding with divorce papers issued before lunchtime tomorrow. Spanner on it if you like. Let gay people who love each other marry today, mothers who love sons tomorrow. The day after that those who love more than one are sure to come knocking. For all can claim similar 'rights' once marriage is open to redefinition. Right, Right - everybody wants rights. Nobody talks about duty. All the talk is of pre-nuptual agreements and the high cost of getting a divorce as if the people entering into the agreement had no duty to see that agreement carried through. Lets not forget who is choosing to get married here. Lets not forget it is a contract that is being signed. There will be problems no matter which system you have. But just as with drug prohibition, marriage between a man and a woman is the way it is NOW. If you want to go spannering on it with some untried and untested notions then you need to show me that the end result will still be an institution respected and protected and enjoying the special privileges assigned to it. For if it is demolished as an institution then I can expect the privileges to be demolished with it. And I see that as passing a reasonable test of harm to society at large and don't see any issue in resisting you or anyone else in your attempts to carry out some untested, grand scale and irreversible social experiment. (Lest some are wont to persist in the notion that I hate gays then let me say here and now that I do not. They are sinners. Just like me. They are no worse or no better than me. Jesus equated murder with anger, adultery with lust. He wasn't building a hierarchy of sin - he was tearing it down. But seeing as all are sipping at the well of "MY rights" I think I'll dip my beak in for a sip too. The right to be deeply doubting of where this will end up. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
There is no "perversion" freely entered into by all concerned that I would not vigorously defend from oppression--even yours. Lets test them absolutes there Omni. Lemme see? Live Cannibalism: medium sized stadia charging $200 a head (oops). Strictly over 18 and neat dress essential? Fight-to-the-death betting on by webcam or stadia: pick from a buffet: switchblade, quick-draw, Russian Roulette? Necrophelia (with pre-signed permissions - does a corpse have rights? Your damn tootin!) Mega-Sex Orgies. I'm talking Superbowl. (no dogs allowed) You really fought a war for that Omni? I reckon that statment was hyperbole. At least I hope so. (I'm sure all these activities would be biblically prohibited meaning they pass the Religious Oppression Test (ROT) Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
designed FOR. Er..sis... I spotted a 'fatal' flaw in your argument. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry, I'm at a loss, bro. What's the flaw?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
That is a bad comparison, it really doesn't apply. Why not? Both are bullshit arbitrary distinctions designed to keep the minority segregated away from the majority.
We cannot prove the same for homosexuals, it's a choice. It is? Well, there's an easy way to test that idea. Choose to be aroused by men. Will your penis hard at the sight of a guy. Be sure to report back to us on how hot it was.
Even if I am wrong about that, there is no need for different schools for blacks and whites, they can all function in the same school. There is no need for different institutions for homosexual and heterosexual unions. They can all function in the same institution called marriage.
Let me rephrase that: "Different" categories for the unions of heterosexuals and homosexuals are inherently different, but equal. Oh, my turn! "Nuh-uh!" That was fun. "We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
I don't have time tonight to reply at length, Iano, and the thread will doubtless close by tomorrow morning.
Suffice it to say that I believe your objections are indeed religiously inspired: since homosexuality is not a religion, I do not see it as religious intolerance, merely the intolerance of the religious. You invoke your religion incessantly in your participation here, and you assure us that it informs all your thoughts and deeds. It is a bit late to get shirty at being taken at your word. Yes, rights, rights, rights: we rarely see intolerance moving to deny people their duties. Many former social institutions were crucial to the economies and general welfare of entire nations and their familial institutions--slavery, for example: its preservation, too, was held to be a bulwark between continued social order and chaos; empire, the white man's burden, was seen as both a right and a duty, no? I do not need a guarantee of social stability to seek the overthrow of oppressive institutions or the correction of unjust denials of them; if society must quake to be just, so be it. My country nearly tore itself apart over slavery, and a great blood debt was paid. But that was not the cost of a grand social experiment, it was the price of past injustice. If your nation's institutions of heterosexual marriage need strengthening, then look to it: your own dreams aren't more likely to come true just because you crush someone else's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Mega-Sex Orgies. I'm talking Superbowl. (no dogs allowed) What, you don't like dogs? The hyperbole is yours, Iano--bestiality is often the first arrow out of the quiver when the gay-bashing starts. Yes, I fought in a war, but it was not against oppression--it was a war to preserve an unjust colonial world. By the way, shot any false Christians lately? Good night...sweet dreams of the sweet prince of peace, brother.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
wow
I just read these last few pages. What a bunch of crap! Another thread ending in shit. I blame the 300 post limit. There's a lot of posts I could have just replied too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
I suggest a sequel thread if you want to continue. Link back to this thread in your opener.
AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024