|
|
#13
04-06-2006, 04:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
[ QUOTE ]
This is an issue similar to vegetarianism. I'm vegetarian, but I don't believe I should force that onto others. Likewise, I choose to abstain from raping barnyard animals, but I don't believe I should force that onto others. Really, sex with animals is nowhere near as cruel as most farming practices today. And what if the animal wants it? If you have a similar problem with the meat industry that's one thing, but otherwise you're just being hypocritical. Stop eating those steaks and you'll have some room to talk. People claim that consent is the issue, but I think it all goes back to "the necromancy thing." People don't like it because they're trained not to, plain and simple. There's no good reason for it. [/ QUOTE ] Well put. I'm glad to see you are enlightened, perhaps if we get a few more to think like you we can help a little with the foster care problem(see garion888's post in the original For hardcore conservatives posting). 
|
|
#14
04-06-2006, 04:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
[ QUOTE ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But the bible says masturbation is wrong? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your arguments just keep getting better. [/ QUOTE ] I like it more when my jokes are considered ridiculous than when my serious posts are.
|
|
#15
04-06-2006, 04:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But the bible says masturbation is wrong? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your arguments just keep getting better. [/ QUOTE ] I like it more when my jokes are considered ridiculous than when my serious posts are. [/ QUOTE ] It's hard to tell them apart.
|
|
#16
04-06-2006, 04:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
Anyway, to me it seems the bottom line in deciding whether or not to consider issues like this is whether or not the parents are actually making it more likely the child is going to do something unethical.
If person X believes that homosexuality is wrong, then X doesn't want homosexual parents to have children or children to grow up in an environment that makes it more likely that they will 'become' homosexual (I disagree with this premise obviously, I think that having homosexual parents will just make it more likely that people who are innately homosexual will act on their orientation, they are more likely to 'come out of the closet', but this is neither here nor there). The same goes for bestiality. Since homosexuality is not wrong because it is not unfair nor does it harm anyone else, then it is not wrong for homosexuals to adopt children. If you start trying to regulate anything that offends you as opposed to something which you have a reason to think is unethical, we won't have many choices left to make. Have you never read 'On Liberty'?
|
|
#17
04-06-2006, 05:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
Male homosexuality hurt a lot of people. Heard of the AIDS epidemic? Male homosexuality was the impetus in this country for its epidemic proportions.
Many who oppose homosexual adoption do so precisely because it offends them on ethical grounds feeling it does plenty of harm to the individual as well as society.
|
|
#18
04-06-2006, 05:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
[ QUOTE ]
Male homosexuality hurt a lot of people. [/ QUOTE ] No, people engaging in sexual activity without STD protection (e.g. condoms) hurt a lot of people. [ QUOTE ] Male homosexuality hurt a lot of people. Heard of the AIDS epidemic? Male homosexuality was the impetus in this country for its epidemic proportions. Many who oppose homosexual adoption do so precisely because it offends them on ethical grounds feeling it does plenty of harm to the individual as well as society. [/ QUOTE ] Last I checked, btw, it was demonstrably false that 'male homosexuality was the impetus in this country for its epidemic proportions' even disregarding the fact that the lack of use of STD protection would still be the intervening variable which explains away your ostensible cause and effect relationship; it is a myth according to sociologists. How does homosexuality harm human beings? Show me evidence. I could be wrong but I'm not going to be convinced unless you provide some. I'm a socialist, but I don't understand how harm being done to a society is unacceptable unless individuals in that society are harmed by that 'harm'.
|
|
#19
04-06-2006, 06:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Male homosexuality hurt a lot of people. [/ QUOTE ] No, people engaging in sexual activity without STD protection (e.g. condoms) hurt a lot of people. [ QUOTE ] Male homosexuality hurt a lot of people. Heard of the AIDS epidemic? Male homosexuality was the impetus in this country for its epidemic proportions. Many who oppose homosexual adoption do so precisely because it offends them on ethical grounds feeling it does plenty of harm to the individual as well as society. [/ QUOTE ] Last I checked, btw, it was demonstrably false that 'male homosexuality was the impetus in this country for its epidemic proportions' even disregarding the fact that the lack of use of STD protection would still be the intervening variable which explains away your ostensible cause and effect relationship; it is a myth according to sociologists. How does homosexuality harm human beings? Show me evidence. I could be wrong but I'm not going to be convinced unless you provide some. I'm a socialist, but I don't understand how harm being done to a society is unacceptable unless individuals in that society are harmed by that 'harm'. [/ QUOTE ] There was a concerted effort to lessen the importance of male homosexuality in the AIDS epidemic so as to help alleviate the backlash against the gay community. If you knew someone from San Francisco in the 80's and the devastation that occurred you may feel differently. As for your evidence, I'm quite sure a male homosexual's life expectancy is a good deal less than that of a heterosexual. You call condom use 'an intervening variable'(they are far from full-proof by the way) but humans are foolish oft-times in the midst of sexual frenzy, and therefore being homosexual is more hazardous to your health. There are of course spiritual/religious reasons that can be cited, although I have a sneaking suspicion you are at the least an agnostic. Many have ethical concerns based on these considerations.
|
|
#20
04-06-2006, 06:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For hardcore conservatives 2
A homosexual in a monogamous relationship is at no greater risk for STD's than a heterosexual in a monogamous relationship.
Homosexuals have a stigma as being more promiscuous than heteros mainly because...well...they CAN be. If heterosexual males could get laid as easily as a homosexual of comparable attractiveness, they would. However, homosexuals usually have and prefer monogamous relationships, and as it stands they're not at much (if any) of a greater risk of STD transmission than heterosexuals, and at FAR less risk of accidental pregnancy. [ QUOTE ] There are of course spiritual/religious reasons that can be cited, although I have a sneaking suspicion you are at the least an agnostic. Many have ethical concerns based on these considerations. [/ QUOTE ] Fortunately, as the world becomes more civilized, idiocy like that will cease to matter.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
