Homosexuality

[Efstathios]

I keep forgetting that you only reply to the very last post in a thread. I should have put that in my earlier post instead of a whole 'nother one so to reply to it you would've replied to my earler assertions as well.
~le sigh~  

[NOCTVRNVS]

I didn't see much at the table so I didn't bother sitting down...

Anyway, young teens or three-year-olds, the argument can apply to anyone. The concept of pre-teens being less likely to pass on STDs is just a logical assumption on the basis that they have not had as many opportunities to have sex as an adult. The fact that some children are born with such diseases is very irrelevant, I mean, those who are born with HIV don't just get "cured" later in life to compensate for the majority of HIV-positive people being adults. Either way you look at it you are more likely to contract an STD from sexual intercourse with an adult.

Sex-ed does not really have anything to do with the subject, my point is that if homosexuals can decide to have sex then logically so can many other people who couldn't before. They argued that it's against their rights as humans to be denied sexual relationships with each other, they fought against barriers that existed only because of the code of morality and won; showing that our morality is entirely flexible and can change to suit the conveniences of society. By this argument ****** and bestialists are one step closer to getting their "rights".

And, okay, I'm just talking about sex. There's also the aspect of marriage, which is even more flexible. It's against peoples' rights that they can't marry their cat; I mean animals are not even entitled to the benefits of marriage and neither are bestialists (yes, I know they technically are, but it's the same as homosexuals saying they're not entitled to the benefits of marriage which is false as well). ******' rights are violated because they can't marry children, I mean children are people too aren't they? These laws are so "outdated", it's just like how women weren't considered people! Like I said, just visit a NAMBLA forum and you'll see hundreds of arguments by people who want to exploit marriage laws further to include children, and these are the very same homosexuals who just years ago fought for the exploitation of the law to include homosexual marriage. There are also plenty of groups who DO fight for "man-and-animal unions", I mean why not? Because an animal can't consent? Sure it can, that's nonsense, dogs can be taught "yes" and "no" from the first month of their lives. Because it doesn't understand the full effects of marriage? It doesn't matter, nowhere does the law say one MUST understand every aspect of marriage to be married in the first place. Retarded people can be married. People who are deaf and blind can be married. Homosexuals can be married. But children, or animals, or the dead, can't be married.

Which brings me to another point, what about the dead? Why can't a dead person take place in a "union"? You don't need so much as a single possession to be in a "union" with another person, so that's not an argument. Of course the corpse can't consent but you could easily argue that it doesn't matter because it doesn't feel anything. I mean for one, the fact that we as human individuals have to consent to marriage before it can take place is because we have human rights. A corpse does not have human rights and thus technically there is no reason it needs to consent.  

[Efstathios]

It's really Russian Roullette if you have sex with someone without seeing their test results or wearing a condom. Kid or not.

The fact still remains that children do not have a strong sense of individuality and thus are easily coherced, a very different thing from two grown, consenting, informed, adults.
Pre-pubescent children do not have sex drives, it would be a violation of their rights to let people have sex with them. As for two children of approximately the same age who are just curious...Well I don't think it's a good idea for them to try it, but that's why freedom of information is so important. Most people, even 4 yr olds, will wait if the alternative is possibly getting a fatal disease.
Beings who cannot understand the risks of their actions cannot be allowed to take those actions. I don't see why that's such a difficult notion for you and other anti-gay rights people. If someone understands and is prepared to accept the consequences of their actions, there is no reason to prevent them from taking those actions.

As for your arguement of morality, it's not a question of morality. It's a question of idealism, of full equality under the law. Retards cannot get married or consent to sex in America. 3 of my sisters are developmentally delayed, I know most of the laws relating to handicaps.
A being that cannot understand the ramifications of their choices cannot be permitted to make those choices. Including the legally retarded.

I don't understand why people have sex with corpses anyway, but I honestly don't give a damn if they do, as long as they don't try to get in my pants afterward. You're not violating anyone's rights if the thing you're having sex with isn't alive, i.e. "real doll" vibrators, etc. They sell replicas of Jenna Jameson's v****a and a**hole for $135 I really don't care as long as I don't have to watch.  

[Gimonavid]

I've just got one question for those people who say they don't want gay marriage because it's... well... gay.

Who are they hurting? Seriously, do they hurt your property value or something if they live near you? I just don't get it! I'm not gay or bi but I sympathize with them because the world treats them like a pile of s**t. I hate it when people take the Christian approach to homosexuality and say things like "If they get married they'd go to hell!" Yeah, well if your God hates gays so much they're going to Hell anyway so, again, what's the harm?  

[Kalathma]

Hmm... Can't remember if I posted here or not, so I'll do it either for the first or second time. smile


I find nothing wrong with homosexuality, it's fine to love or lust after someone of the same sex. I've no problem with it religiously, because I don't really think I'm able to say I've a religion.

 

[CGurp]

Quote:

Pre-pubescent children do not have sex drives, it would be a violation of their rights to let people have sex with them.

Anyone who studies child sexuality says otherwise.

Freud's 1905 work Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality outlined a theory of psychosexual development with five distinct phases: the oral stage (0 - 1.5 years), the a**l stage (1.5 - 3.5 years), the phallic stage (3.5 - 6 years) culminating in the resolution of the Oedipus conflict followed by a period of sexual latency (6 years to puberty) and the genital, or adult, stage. Freud's basic thesis was that children's early sexuality is polymorphous and that strong incestual drives develop, and the child must harness or sublimate these to develop a healthy adult sexuality.

I was reading hentai in the 4th grade and had a stronger sex drive than I have now, which sucks. Those were the good times...
Unless the child consents, ignoring law, it is not a violation of their right. In fact, restricting them of having sex is a violation of the child's right of bodily freedom if the child wishes to have sex.

Quote:

Beings who cannot understand the risks of their actions cannot be allowed to take those actions

Being a certain age doesn't mean that you know nor don't know the risks of something.  

[Gopher dude]

Hello hello! Thanks thanks!

oh my it's getting rather late *was scared earlier by the toaster when he unplugged it and the bread popped out*

Homosexuality? eh?

Truth be told. I'm actually bisexual, but only in the sense that I have an affinity/fetish for transexuals. Thats where I'm gonna end the part the tells people about myself (lol).

Homosexuals are fine god bless them and all they do. Let them live and walk the same earth and dirt we do it's all good..except lesbions. Go push um into a corner a box..then fill it with water (LOL joking joking).

As for how people end up gay? *shrugs* I dunno. I figure it's a random pheremone or whatever dis-balance that happens when were young and in the womb.  

[Efstathios]

Big_Ass_Guitar_Gun

Quote:

Pre-pubescent children do not have sex drives, it would be a violation of their rights to let people have sex with them.

Anyone who studies child sexuality says otherwise.

Freud's 1905 work Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality outlined a theory of psychosexual development with five distinct phases: the oral stage (0 - 1.5 years), the a**l stage (1.5 - 3.5 years), the phallic stage (3.5 - 6 years) culminating in the resolution of the Oedipus conflict followed by a period of sexual latency (6 years to puberty) and the genital, or adult, stage. Freud's basic thesis was that children's early sexuality is polymorphous and that strong incestual drives develop, and the child must harness or sublimate these to develop a healthy adult sexuality.

I was reading hentai in the 4th grade and had a stronger sex drive than I have now, which sucks. Those were the good times...
Unless the child consents, ignoring law, it is not a violation of their right. In fact, restricting them of having sex is a violation of the child's right of bodily freedom if the child wishes to have sex.

Quote:

Beings who cannot understand the risks of their actions cannot be allowed to take those actions

Being a certain age doesn't mean that you know nor don't know the risks of something.

Okay.

Freud's largely ignored by modern psychology.

You're right though, kids do engage in and enjoy forms of sex play. Which is exactly why accurate information is so important as early as possible.

I never said that age was the only factor of whether or not someone could understand something. The quote you selected was made in reference to animals and developmentally delayed humans.  

[reality-monkey-]

it is their choice, its not immoral because its not hurting anyone but the people (if you appraoch it religiosly and they go to hell, if not no one is getting hurt)

BUT, the fact that marriage is supposed to be in a church can piss a few people off, but then again athiests, agnostic and others will get married in a church, but no one will point that out will they...

so i believe its still ok...

btw i dont read everyone elses response before posting mine...so i have no idea if this is still on the subject...oh well  

[magic_doglover]

i think that homo/bisexuality i perfectly ok. in fact, it might even be advisable, cosidering the prospect of overpopulation. the main reason i don't think that it is morally wrong is that i don't think that there is any absolute right or wrong in the first place. technically it is "wrong" in the sense that it goes against nature and evolutionary sense, but humans have pretty much destroyed their chances of evolving well by their use of medicine, so i figure it doesn't really matter anymore.  

[Nephrastar]

I support all forms of love so long as both parties consent to it. It's not hurting anyone, and not everyone has to think it's right, but they have to tolerate and accept change as it comes.  

[seriousninja]

Epic Fail Girl

Many people believe that homosexuality is wrong.

What do you think?

Is your opinion effected by your religious beliefs?

Are you gay/bi/transexual?

Have you had any specific issues with people of the opposite sexual orientation?

I find homosexuality to be a morally wrong activity. My consciouses says so and my religion says so.  

[bluecherry]

Elaborate. Have you considered why these things would say so? Your conscience is almost surely very strongly effected by what you believe religiously, so what your argument really is is pretty much just that you believe in a religion which seems to be opposed to it. Now ask yourself why your religion would be opposed to it. Even if you believe that the position "homosexuality is bad" is directly supported by your religion, first is your religion one which may have its texts be ones that have been effected by personal or political biases over time?(alright, you do believe this is not the case and I'm not interested in bringing that debate into this if you really reject that idea.) Second, if you think things humans have done or thought or wanted or mistaken have no effect on it, now consider why would a deity (or deities, you haven't specified what religion even though it is likely monotheistic) (never mind, yup, you indeed are monotheistic in beliefs) be particularly opposed to people of the same sex having sex with each other as opposed to males and females having sex? If you believe it has to do with reproduction, keep in mind all the various complications with that subject. Give your ideas on these things. Also give a definition you support for what morality is and why it should exist (in the eyes of humanity for its own sake or if you think humanity follows it because of what any deity says, why would the deity have morality exist?)

EDIT: Strike-throughs where your signature was noticed to have answered some things or made them moot.

 

[jesanndei]

well in my opinion it is on beleifs catholic beleifs if i could say.

homosexuality is a sin but it doenst mean that god doesnt love u , god loves a person in their own special way , its just that you are abusing the responsibility of being a man or a woman.

this is the only thing i could say  

[1alphawolf]

I don't have a religion and I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, as a matter of fact I have a really good friend who's gay... even though I'm personally straight