Homosexuality Illegal?!

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Blitz79
As a counter-troll, I'd say 0 out of 11.

Haha! That means I beat you!!

Just pointing out the universal nature of intolerance...

Just out of interest, why do you find homosexuality disturbing? I know when I was your age it bothered me, but you tend to get more secure when you lose your virginity and confident of your own sexuality.

Remind me to list that one in "Great Uses of Wit in the English Language", and no, you have not beaten anyone, nor achieved anything except to continue craven threadjacking.

I am against all forms of sexual activity. I have nothing against homosexuality, heterosexuality, or any of the other myriad persuasions that litter this earth. When they are translated into action, I disagree vehmently with them, as I am against sex, as I said, and advance the righteous cause of celibacy.
What age are you, pray tell? One is 21, going on 22, and that has nothing to do with my belief or attitude. I am utterly comfortable and confident with my sexuality, in that one has none, effectively. Nor am I interested in losing my virginity. Nor did that silly little attempt at insult have any impact.

Once again, an attempted troll and puerile patronizing. So far in your latest incarnation here, you have failed to do much save that and a lot of hackneyed bleating of pusillanimous propaganda. Good day.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by tpasmall
If you read the article, sodomy only consists of anal and oral....

From the article:

Sodomy is defined as abnormal sex, in some states including anal and oral sex.

Sounds like a pretty vague definition. What is "abnormal"?

The problem with laws like these, whether you support them or not, is that they are unenforceable. I believe that was one of the main reasons they were struck down in Arizona.

 

[Blitz79]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


I am against all forms of sexual activity.

I have nothing against homosexuality, heterosexuality, or any of the other myriad persuasions that litter this earth.

Good, for a minute then I thought you were a bit confused. But you clearly understand that sexuality implies active sexual behaviour.

Aww.. you're sweet. Why the extreme celibacy? Very unusual idea. And you are 21?

 

[Raijer]

Originally posted by tpasmall
Im guessing that this is the reason behind the whole debate. From a morale standpoint, homosexuality and sodomy are very wrong. Neither of them are capable of reproduction and the continuance of the human race.... im just showing the logic behind what the people trying to enforce this law are using.

There isn't a granual of logic evident in such an argument. As jpowers succinctly pointed out, there are a mulititude of human activities that won't produce children. This is true of many sexual acts between consenting hetrosexual partners as well. If we follow tpasmall's "logic," anything other than pregnancy-inducing-man-on-top-get-it-over-with-quick sexual behavior is immoral, and as such should be illegal.

This, and all the other arguments condeming homosexuality, are based not on logic, but religious beliefs. Of course, the only vague mention of homosexuality in the bible is in Leviticus, where it is called an "abomination." Of course, later in this book, it calls the eating of lobster and shrimp an "abomination," and this is followed by a lengthy instruction of how one goes about selling their daughter into slavery.

If you want to look at things logically, one should examine facts, not dogma. One fact that should be brought up in the whole "sex for reproduction only" argument is world population. With a staggering human population of over 6 billion people (and a growth rate that's exponential), it's shocking that people can still equate such an argument with "morality." Overpopulation is a major factor contributing to world poverty, a strain on global resourcesas well as the environment. These facts pose a far greater threat to human existance than tpasmall's "logic."

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Several states have various sodomy laws, which are challenged under privacy and rational basis reasons. 5 states also treat same sex sodomy differently that hetero sodomy, which adds equal protection issues.

Very much a stupid waste of time and money in my opinion. I would trash all such on a rational basis test if they came before me.

 

[Toasty]

I hate to see the day when the American government is imposing it's religious and/or moral beliefs on myself.

You hear a lot of nay-sayers say that it is coming. I certainly hope not. I think that to any intelligent, freedom-loving, American citizen this should be insulting and indefensible. This law is based on a Religious standpoint, and when the church attacks homosexual's independence, the homosexuals end up striking back. I think that the beliefs against homesexuals has become as, if not more, political than moral; the said people are fighting for their rights to due as they please as consenting adults, and whatever pitiful moral attack is made on them comes to be viewed as the enemy through no fault of their own.

I don't think many people will agree with me, or like to hear this, but homosexuality is a great example of American life and the liberties we possess. It's a conerstone of American society that we be allowed to do whatever the h*ll we feel like without harming anyone, and this is an attack on the very ideals that we pride ourselves on.

Wow. That became kind of long. But I think most people will agree with me that this is a lot more serious than a simple correction on society--it's a government infringement on our personal rights. It's not the government's job to dictate society, and if they ever try to, 'the only place for a just man in a government that imprisons unjustly is prison.' So, I'll see you all at the county jail .

 

[tpasmall]

I once again, am asking that people read the article before harping on what i said. I know that some people are just plain lazy, but for goodness sake, read the damn discussion before you chime in with your opinion and make yourself sound like an idiot.


edit: fixed a spelling error

 

[Blitz79]

Originally posted by Toasty
'the only place for a just man in a government that imprisons unjustly is prison.' .

We don't have this problem in England. Our elite all went to public school.

 

[JollyRoger]

In my hometown a few years ago, some religious nuts were trying to get the homosexuals kicked off the police force because by their acts they had not only "broken the law", but had also probably committed perjury on their applications to the force. When it was pointed out to these bigots that the sodomy laws also applied to certain forms of heterosexual contact outside of marriage and that most of the heterosexual officers were probably lawbreakers and perjurers also, the stink died down. I mean, really, who wants to be protected exclusively by a bunch of religious fanatics or other losers who never managed to to convince a pre-marriage partner to go downtown? The punishment in my state could involve jail time and if you put all my heterosexual "lawbreaking" acts together, they would probably have to release the entire death row of my state (which is quite impressive) to make room for me and all my partners in crime. Personally, I would probably be there for several lifetimes to serve out my sentence. Hope my cell is coed.

 

[Akka]

This thread is amusing, in a certain twisted way...

Well, kissing (even french kissing), petting and caressing isn't going to produce children either. They are still sensual acts, and can even be sexual depending on the place you do them.

So I suppose that they are "abnormal" and should be banned ?

(I don't even imagine how masturbation would be considered... Well, except if someone find a way to get pregnant with it )

And what is this competely stupid idea that a sexual act must be related to reproduction ?
Fingerails were meant to torn apart the flesh and to be used for defense. Is putting some red color on it and making them a way to seduce abnormal and immoral ?

 

[Sparrowhawk]

FYI

I just noticed that the current CNN quick-vote poll is on this subject. Results so far:

Should Homosexuals be prosecuted for having sex?
Yes 25% 7480 votes
No 75% 22626 votes

 

[Blitz79]

Freaks. How about;

Should ignorant bigots be put against a wall and shot?

Vote Now!

 

[MrPresident]

Should ignorant bigots be put against a wall and shot?

No, it would ruin the wall.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Blitz79
Good, for a minute then I thought you were a bit confused. But you clearly understand that sexuality implies active sexual behaviour.

Aww.. you're sweet. Why the extreme celibacy? Very unusual idea. And you are 21?

I understand many myriad things. It comes with the territory of teaching, thesis writing, and reigning over helpless populations with an iron fist and a natty moustache.

Sexuality implies behaviour, but someone can be one way or the other without engaging in any of the behaviours. One has argued this point in the past, using the example of a young couple, one of whom tragically dies from being crushed by a falling tomato before any consummation or activity occurs. The surviving member decides to live on, forsaking company of an intimate nature, or any permutations therewithof. They die 80 years later, having never had any sort of sexual activity in that time, having kept the flame of lost love alive in their increasingly withered being. Now, say that the individual crushed by the tomato was female, and the survivor male. Is he any less heterosexual because he is not involved in any active service of that cause? Nay.
Say that the crushed one was male, as was the other. Is he any less homosexual because he never engaged in homosexual acts? Nay.
The point? There is a distinction between act and proclivity, and one regards the latter as being something not of concern, but the former as heinous no matter what the genital makeup of the other partner.

One is not sweet. Far from it. Why celibacy? One has explained at length before, and perchance might in the future, but now is not the time, as it is 0645 and one wants to fit in one's regular 'nights' sleep of two hours before starting the new day. Nor is this the correct thread to discuss one's own situation, et al. To me, however, it is not unusual, and one chose it for the same reason and to the same degree that someone chooses heterosexuality or homosexuality. I choose to abstain, and contend that it is valid.
And yes, one is a very old 21. As to your final comment, yes, the elites do go to public schools in proper society...

 

[Blitz79]

And it doesn't help people pro-create..

 

[Toasty]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
FYI

I just noticed that the current CNN quick-vote poll is on this subject. Results so far:

Should Homosexuals be prosecuted for having sex?
Yes 25% 7480 votes
No 75% 22626 votes

Those must be skewered...

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Those must be skewered...

I think you mean 'skewed', but why do you say that?

 

[Toasty]

"Skewered" is a family saying .

That's so unrealistic. Maybe we have neo-Nazis flocking to CNN.com?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

All call in polls are skewed by the audience of the new channel, and by which side of the issue is more motivated to respond. Coomonly they also do a poor job of neutrally wording the poll.

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by Toasty
"Skewered" is a family saying .

That's so unrealistic. Maybe we have neo-Nazis flocking to CNN.com?

Yeah I was a little shocked by the poll also.