I support discriminating against homosexualsex

[LordMagnusKain]

Yes, i support discriminating against homosexuals, against pedophiles, against adulterers, against the incestuous, against necrophiliacs, against all manner of the sexual immoral who engage in their sexually immorality conduct.

To give a government stamp-of-approval to such things is ethically-bankrupt.

I also support discriminating against un-armed robbers, against people selling illicit drugs, against the publicly nude, against the publicly intoxicated, against jay-walkers, against people who don't use seat belts, against all manner of socially destructive but non-violent activities.

To not have ordnance and law against such things would promote socialy negative outcomes.

I recognize some don't see homosexualsex as ethically bankrupt, so please explain what basis of ethics you come by this that precludes things like polygamy, of-age incest, and 'i own the body' necrophilia from being ethical?

 

[Ldir]

I support discriminating against homophobes and sanctimonious prudes.

 

[Red Dawn]

While you are at it Chairman Kain, how about laws against those who don't follow your brand of Religion/Politics?

You whacko Fund A Mental Cases are more worried about what others do in their bedroom than you are about minding your own fscking business. Frankly I see you and those like you as the perverts as it seems that you are more concerned about peoples sex lives that what would be considered normal!

Oh btw, nice try grouping Consentual sex between adults with Pedophiles. That would be akin tpo grouping your religion with Jim Jones and David Koreshes brand of Christianity

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Ldir
I support discriminating against homophobes and sanctimonious prudes.

fine with me, give me your basis of ethical standards and I'll be happy to discuss this with you; otherwise your view is completely bankrupt.

Or is your basis of ethics "disagree with the establishment";

Oh btw, nice try grouping Consentual sex between adults with Pedophiles. That would be akin tpo grouping your religion with Jim Jones and David Koreshes brand of Christianity

I respect you red, so how about you just answer the second question: What ethical standard doesn't allow for of-age incestuous sex, polygamy, or 'i own the body' necrophilia but still allows for homosexual sex?

I honestly don't care of any of these things happens, not my life, but i don't plan on ever voting to allow a government stamp-of-approval for them.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Ldir
I support discriminating against homophobes and sanctimonious prudes.

fine with me, give me your basis of ethical standards and I'll be happy to discuss this with you; otherwise your view is completely bankrupt.

Or is your basis of ethics "disagree with the establishment";

Oh btw, nice try grouping Consentual sex between adults with Pedophiles. That would be akin tpo grouping your religion with Jim Jones and David Koreshes brand of Christianity

I respect you red, so how about you just answer the second question: What ethical standard doesn't allow for of-age incestuous sex, polygamy, or 'i own the body' necrophilia but still allows for homosexual sex?

Wello why don't you include Consentual Hetrosexual sex along with Homosexual sex and try to answer that yourself?

I honestly don't care of any of these things happens, not my life, but i don't plan on ever voting to allow a government stamp-of-approval for them.

Actually those issues aren't high on my list when it comes to choosing a candidate.

BTW, don't take what I say too personally, it's more about your beliefs than actually you.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

hey, i think your as nuts as you think i am; but that doesn't me i don't recognize that your intent is good.

Wello why don't you include Consentual Hetrosexual sex along with Homosexual sex and try to answer that yourself?

allowing ethical consensual heterosexual monogamous sex is the express reason for traditional marriage: Traditionalist ethical view.

so

I recognize some don't see homosexualsex as ethically bankrupt, so please explain what basis of ethics you come by this that precludes things like polygamy, of-age incest, and 'i own the body' necrophilia from being ethical?

 

[dmcowen674]

What is your prefered method Sir MK? So many choices to pick from the guys you look up to. Shall we Gas em like Hitler?
Poision em like Hussein? I say we round em all up and ship them to Utah for Firing squad before they take away that option.

Two birds one stone and would help lower population count. Course that would mean less folks paying taxes so would have to raise taxes to compensate.

 

[happyhelper]

slavery is traditional
paying outrageous taxes is traditional
hating blacks and jews and anyone who is different is traditional
witch hunts are traditional
church on sunday is traditional
huge disparity among social classes is traditional
making women subservient to men is traditional

how does "the tradition" of marriage have anything to do with what is right or wrong regarding marriage?

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
allowing ethical consensual heterosexual monogamous sex is the express reason for traditional marriage: Traditionalist ethical view.

Allow? So we need a "stamp of approval" from big brother to "allow" consensual sex (heterosexual, homosexual or any other kind)? I think sex would keep happening even if it weren't "allowed" by marriages. BTW traditional does not equal ethical - it was traditional to own slaves and treat women like chattel and hang "criminals" on crosses and to burn crosses in yards of black people, Catholics and Jews, and feed "criminals" to hungry lions, doesn't mean those traditional things were ethical.

If you want to explain how you arrive at your interpretation of what is ethical and what is not ethical, I am sure that would be amusing. If your only answer is that something is ethical "because it's traditional" then I think you need to think about it again.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
hey, i think your as nuts as you think i am; but that doesn't me i don't recognize that your intent is good.

Wello why don't you include Consentual Hetrosexual sex along with Homosexual sex and try to answer that yourself?

allowing ethical consensual heterosexual monogamous sex is the express reason for traditional marriage: Traditionalist ethical view.

so

I recognize some don't see homosexualsex as ethically bankrupt, so please explain what basis of ethics you come by this that precludes things like polygamy, of-age incest, and 'i own the body' necrophilia from being ethical?

I think you mean Moral. I do think incest and necrophilia is immoral and physically unhealthy.The unhealthy aspect of it is reason enough to keep it illegal. Polygamy..well I think anybody who wants to be married to more than one person is nuts(having been married how can I come to any other conclusion). I use to think Homosexual sex was immoral but then I've come to the conclusion that want people want to do in the privacy of their own bedroom is between them and nobody else and isn't any more unhealthy than Hetrosexual sex as long as those who practice it are manogamous. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of two men having sex is abhorrent but that's because I am a Hetrosexual. Of course sex between two good looking women..Schwing!!!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Allow? So we need a "stamp of approval" from big brother to "allow" consensual sex

people can do anything they want with themselves or others that want it, having the government say it's a good thing is completely different.

My basis of what is and isn't sexualy moral is traditional, you can insult the traditional view of sexual morality all you like, but it doens't mean you have any thing to offer that's better; it just means you've got a "it's wrong BECAUSE it's traditional" view.
as for a more detaled account of what makes homosexual sex ethicly bankrupt, thus not something that should have a government stamp-of-aproval on it:
1.) male/male penetration causes increased likelihood of anal infections w/ a reduced immune system.
2.)The act of any homosexual sexual activity is destructive to emotional well-being.
3.)female/female sexual activity increases likelihood of many forms of cancer.
4.)disregarding basic sexual morality increases pre-marital sex rates.
5.)the average lesbian life style causes a higher substance abuse problem than average
6.)the average homosexual life style causes more std problems than the heterosexual counter-part.
7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.

you can disagree with these thigns being negative, but you'd better have an ethical basis for that view, otherwise your just ignorantly spouting off like so many others who's only reason for disagreeing is that they like to disagree.

Right now it's those who voted 'yes' that have any rightfull arguement, as it's clear they disagree because they don't belive that any sort of consensual sex is an ethical issue.

I'm calling you on the consistancy of your argument, a valid and nesisary counter to any ethical view.

answer this:

I recognize some don't see homosexualsex as ethically bankrupt, so please explain what basis of ethics you come by this that precludes things like polygamy, of-age incest, and 'i own the body' necrophilia from being ethical?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Allow? So we need a "stamp of approval" from big brother to "allow" consensual sex

people can do anything they want with themselves or others that want it, having the government say it's a good thing is completely different.

My basis of what is and isn't sexualy moral is traditional, you can insult the traditional view of sexual morality all you like, but it doens't mean you have any thing to offer that's better; it just means you've got a "it's wrong BECAUSE it's traditional" view.
as for a more detaled account of what makes homosexual sex ethicly bankrupt, thus not something that should have a government stamp-of-aproval on it:
1.) male/male penetration causes increased likelihood of anal infections w/ a reduced immune system.

How does that cause a reduced immune system?

2.)The act of any homosexual sexual activity is destructive to emotional well-being.

Maybe if one of the partners was not gay

3.)female/female sexual activity increases likelihood of many forms of cancer.

How so?

4.)disregarding basic sexual morality increases pre-marital sex rates.

and this is a problem?

5.)the average lesbian life style causes a higher substance abuse problem than average

so does living in poverty. Should we outlaw that too?

6.)the average homosexual life style causes more std problems than the heterosexual counter-part.

Unprotected sex cause that and STDs is also rampant in Hetrosexuals,

7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.

Well so does having hetrosexual sex in Africa

you can disagree with these thigns being negative, but you'd better have an ethical basis for that view, otherwise your just ignorantly spouting off like so many others who's only reason for disagreeing is that they like to disagree.

Right now it's those who voted 'yes' that have any rightfull arguement, as it's clear they disagree because they don't belive that any sort of consensual sex is an ethical issue.

I'm calling you on the consistancy of your argument, a valid and nesisary counter to any ethical view.

answer this:

I recognize some don't see homosexualsex as ethically bankrupt, so please explain what basis of ethics you come by this that precludes things like polygamy, of-age incest, and 'i own the body' necrophilia from being ethical?

I already did

 

[burnedout]

Chairman Kain

ROFL.

Since Kain has brought ethics into the debate, I'd love to participate. However, I have a Saturday lab downtown here in a few and must depart.

Maybe later on today, Kain. Stay tuned.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
hey, i think your as nuts as you think i am; but that doesn't me i don't recognize that your intent is good.

Wello why don't you include Consentual Hetrosexual sex along with Homosexual sex and try to answer that yourself?

allowing ethical consensual heterosexual monogamous sex is the express reason for traditional marriage: Traditionalist ethical view.

so

I recognize some don't see homosexualsex as ethically bankrupt, so please explain what basis of ethics you come by this that precludes things like polygamy, of-age incest, and 'i own the body' necrophilia from being ethical?

I think you mean Moral. I do think incest and necrophilia is immoral and physically unhealthy.The unhealthy aspect of it is reason enough to keep it illegal.

i know i could trust you for a thoughtfully view red, your argument is one of the utility of the situation: it's bad for everyone around the necrophiliac and incestuous.

I hold this same view on homosexual sex and it's not bigotry against anyone by either of us.

Polygamy..well I think anybody who wants to be married to more than one person is nuts(having been married how can I come to any other conclusion). I use to think Homosexual sex was immoral but then I've come to the conclusion that want people want to do in the privacy of their own bedroom is between them and nobody else and isn't any more unhealthy than Heterosexual sex as long as those who practice it are monogamous. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of two men having sex is abhorrent but that's because I am a Heterosexual. Of course sex between two good looking women..Schwing!!!

Actually I've found good reason to think that it's much more un-healthy; otherwise i would support homosexual marriage as it would encourage monogamy.

girl-girl sex isn't as physically bad, but they are at a higher risk for many kinds of cancer ;

i don't care what people do in their own bedrooms either,from necro-to-homo, but i do care about the government saying, wrongly in my view, that they are not negative things.

 

[dpm]

I support discriminating against religion. Its unnatural and disgusting.

Seriously: how many animals do you see praying or building churches?


/sarcasm

LMK - I appreciate your reasoning, and know that I am unlikely to change your moral code through debate, but I must still point out that many of your arguments are facile and deliberately narrow minded; your list of facts is notably short of statistics, but makes up for this lack with damn lies. How different would your arguments be if you replaced 'homosexual sex' with 'heterosexual sex'?

As for an ethical code that includes homosexuality as ok, I believe the deciding issue is not consent, but informed consent.
That is why a heterosexual marriage between two adults is ok, but a heterosexual marriage between a consenting adult and a consenting 12 year old is not ok, in my opinion. I find this a perfectly consistent moral code. Is yours as consistent in this regard?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
I honestly don't care of any of these things happens, not my life, but i don't plan on ever voting to allow a government stamp-of-approval for them.

Would you vote to allow a stamp-of-disapproval?

 

[Romans828]

LordMagnusKain,

I understand what you are saying and I applaud your efforts, however don't expect the morally bankrupt people to agree with you.

People deep in sin have no desire to be reminded of it. By extending their compasion/consideration to others (engaging in open sin) it helps them to justify themselves. Perhaps they may love internet porn, so they want to embrace "all free speech issues" or perhaps they are practicing sodomites so they like "anything in private" etc etc. Call them what you wan't but at least in this respect they are not hypocrites.

Our country will continue to decline into the sewer and eventually fail completely under its own weight, a free republic governed without a moral compass will eventual collapse. Its common sense (and it does not escape the "free thinkers" in this forum) they are just in deniel. To face up is to face their own sin and people by their very nature run away from that.

Living in modern day America must be like the final decades of the roman empire, a great and glorious society falling apart at the very core, all the while people saying its all good......... Fcae they fact that those of us who choose to honor God, traditional family units, traditional virtues, value self responsibilty, rule of law, etc are a dying breed. Until we do die just face they fact we will be labled bigots, haters, homopobes, do-gooders, fund-a-mentalists, and whatever other hate filled rhetoric the liberal mind decides to insult us with.

We are hated because we stand in the way of total surrender to "self" and we will not give free liscense to perversion. Some of us do still "give a damn" and for that we are hated, make no mistake hated.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

wow, a thoughtfully conversation about these views, I'm always glad when we can get past calling opposing views bigots.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Allow? So we need a "stamp of approval" from big brother to "allow" consensual sex

people can do anything they want with themselves or others that want it, having the government say it's a good thing is completely different.

My basis of what is and isn't sexualy moral is traditional, you can insult the traditional view of sexual morality all you like, but it doens't mean you have any thing to offer that's better; it just means you've got a "it's wrong BECAUSE it's traditional" view.
as for a more detaled account of what makes homosexual sex ethicly bankrupt, thus not something that should have a government stamp-of-aproval on it:
1.) male/male penetration causes increased likelihood of anal infections w/ a reduced immune system.

How does that cause a reduced immune system?

the rectally ruptured tissues allow feces into the blood; constant need to repair and fight these infections leads to a weakened immune system.

2.)The act of any homosexual sexual activity is destructive to emotional well-being.

Maybe if one of the partners was not gay

It is questionable as to why this is true, but suiside rates among gays is much higher.

3.)female/female sexual activity increases likelihood of many forms of cancer.

How so?

cirvical cancer is higher because of the sexual actvity, brest cancer because of not lactating, and lung cancer because of the much higher percentage of lesbians that smoke. why things are this way is questioanble as well, but the facts are still there.

4.)disregarding basic sexual morality increases pre-marital sex rates.

and this is a problem?

some don't think so, but it's my view that pre-marital sex is why we have such high levels of STDs and teen pregnancy.

5.)the average lesbian life style causes a higher substance abuse problem than average

so does living in poverty. Should we outlaw that too?

no, but it's a good idea to do what we can to discourage, rather than encourag, such things; on a side note i belive much of welfair encourages poverty

6.)the average homosexual life style causes more std problems than the heterosexual counter-part.

Unprotected sex cause that and STDs is also rampant in Hetrosexuals,

this is true, but because of the homosexual rupturing and bleeding aids and other blood-born illnesses' transference is 4times more likely in gay sex. But then the likelihood of lesbian transference is the same if not lower.

7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.

Well so does having hetrosexual sex in Africa

The governments of africa are discouraging non-monogomus sex there as well. Overall this is a culmination of the transferability of aids and the weakend imune system from homosexual sex.

you can disagree with these thigns being negative, but you'd better have an ethical basis for that view, otherwise your just ignorantly spouting off like so many others who's only reason for disagreeing is that they like to disagree.

Right now it's those who voted 'yes' that have any rightfull arguement, as it's clear they disagree because they don't belive that any sort of consensual sex is an ethical issue.

I'm calling you on the consistancy of your argument, a valid and nesisary counter to any ethical view.

answer this:

I recognize some don't see homosexualsex as ethically bankrupt, so please explain what basis of ethics you come by this that precludes things like polygamy, of-age incest, and 'i own the body' necrophilia from being ethical?

I already did

that's good, and a utilitarian view on how to go at this is a very respectable one. Whatever informed conclusion you come to will be a respectable one... now to get other people on both sides to come to an informed conclusion insted of yelling "HOMOPHOBE" and "FAGOT".

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
I honestly don't care of any of these things happens, not my life, but i don't plan on ever voting to allow a government stamp-of-approval for them.

Would you vote to allow a stamp-of-disapproval?

depends on how negative the situation is for the individuals and those around them. we DO have government dis-aproval of j-walking after all.

We are hated because we stand in the way of total surrender to "self" and we will not give free liscense to perversion. Some of us do still "give a damn" and for that we are hated, make no mistake hated.

It's true that Christ said that in following after him we are bound to be thought fools and persecuted by the world. I'm OK with that, but i also think that their are some, like red, who accepting of Christ or not have an honest desire to follow after the truth; I'm sure this will lead him to what he seeks, and it's always good to show people who are truly open minded like that, that the word of God doesn't say what it says for no good reason; even if we do honestly disagree.

Basically, you can start with an ethical view because of faith but still defend that view w/ logic. This tends to put the 'accept or reject' situation into it's proper logical context.

Thanks for the truely encouraging words romans8:28

LMK - I appreciate your reasoning, and know that I am unlikely to change your moral code through debate, but I must still point out that many of your arguments are facile and deliberately narrow minded; your list of facts is notably short of statistics, but makes up for this lack with damn lies. How different would your arguments be if you replaced 'homosexual sex' with 'heterosexual sex'?

I'm actually against all sex except that within the covenant of marriage. The arguments i made don't apply to monogamous lifelong heterosexual relationships.

Is yours as consistent in this regard?

My view requires knowing exactly what the life-long covenant of marriage is, although if we're honest we know no-one knows that it's going to actually be like.;
There are no lies, if you look something up and find it contradicts my statements I'll be happy to compare sources.

As for an ethical code that includes homosexuality as ok, I believe the deciding issue is not consent, but informed consent.
That is why a heterosexual marriage between two adults is ok, but a heterosexual marriage between a consenting adult and a consenting 12 year old is not ok, in my opinion. I find this a perfectly consistent moral code.

is this to say you approve of polygamy? of-age incest? adultery? as they are all acceptable for government approval by this ethical standard.

 

[chess9]

So, does this mean you'd make only the missionary position legal? Should we allow anal sex between married couples? What about cunnilingus and fellatio?

Would heavy petting be illegal?

Bwuahahahaha.

Oh, yeah, we should have the government regulating sexual conduct all right. They'll do as good a job at that as their doing in Iraq and with the War on Drugs. Do you actually think about how your government handles problems? Apparently not....

I don't mind your bias, so please don't mind mine. I.e., minding your own business is a good practice.

-Robert

 

[BeefJurky]

It is questionable as to why this is true, but suiside rates among gays is much higher.

maybe it's because people like you treat them like 2nd-class citizens, and refuse them basic human rights, such as love for another human being.

maybe we should make it illegal for them to hold hands, because that's what straight people do when they're in love. oh! and hugging, and kissing, too. straight people do those things when they're in love.

hell, let's make any homosexual public display of affection illegal, because it's "gross"

the only reason i could see for making homosexual sex illegal is the tax breaks... but at that point, what's stopping me from finding a woman i have no interest in and getting married for tax reasons?

let's just make them 3/5 of a person and force them to use "separate but equal" facilities, because they're "sinners"

 

[LordMagnusKain]

chess, we can see you've got no logical basis for your views, so please don't bother the thread with your trolling.

Originally posted by: BeefJurky

It is questionable as to why this is true, but suicide rates among gays is much higher.

maybe it's because people like you treat them like 2nd-class citizens, and refuse them basic human rights, such as love for another human being.

by pointing out the 'why' in italics, i was making this exact point; but it's not ' people like me', it's ignorance on both sides that breeds more ignorance. We should treat our brother taken by the fall of homosexualsex the same as we treat our brother that's taken by extra-marital sex.

maybe we should make it illegal for them to hold hands, because that's what straight people do when they're in love. oh! and hugging, and kissing, too. straight people do those things when they're in love.

hell, let's make any homosexual public display of affection illegal, because it's "gross"

this argument is fallacious, a straw-man. No one is arguing that people can't love each other, I'm just arguing that the government shouldn't approve ethical-bankrupt sexual activity.

I think you are showing ignorant propaganda from your side just as those that say 'Sodom and Gomorrah' in response to homosexual marriage.

the only reason i could see for making homosexual sex illegal is the tax breaks... but at that point, what's stopping me from finding a woman i have no interest in and getting married for tax reasons?

benefits, not taxes; but also consider citizenship, as anyone who marries an American becomes an American.

let's just make them 3/5 of a person and force them to use "separate but equal" facilities, because they're "sinners"

we're all sinners, such is the reason Christ came. the hypocrites stood in their self-righteous towers and said they where better than the 'sinners', but Christ came for all of us, he showed this by spending time with them instead of the 'righteous'. as hard as it may be to belive, you are actually no better a person than me because of your views on this or anything else; and, of course, i am no better a person than you.

We're all sinners, it's that we recognize what's destructive to our souls and move away from it that's important.

but once-again I'm not making a biblical argument, i don't need to, the ethics of the situation stand on their own.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Romans828
LordMagnusKain,

I understand what you are saying and I applaud your efforts, however don't expect the morally bankrupt people to agree with you.

OK Jesus Boy, please explain how those of use who don't feel the government has the right to oversee peoples sexual practices are Morally bankrupt?

People deep in sin have no desire to be reminded of it. By extending their compasion/consideration to others (engaging in open sin) it helps them to justify themselves. Perhaps they may love internet porn, so they want to embrace "all free speech issues" or perhaps they are practicing sodomites so they like "anything in private" etc etc. Call them what you wan't but at least in this respect they are not hypocrites.

Or perhaps they are not obsessed with other sex lives like you seem to be.

Our country will continue to decline into the sewer and eventually fail completely under its own weight, a free republic governed without a moral compass will eventual collapse. Its common sense (and it does not escape the "free thinkers" in this forum) they are just in deniel. To face up is to face their own sin and people by their very nature run away from that.

Ok so you are free of sin so you are entitled to tell others how to conduct their private lives?

Living in modern day America must be like the final decades of the roman empire, a great and glorious society falling apart at the very core, all the while people saying its all good.........

The fall of the Roman Empire came after it embraced Christianity.

Fcae they fact that those of us who choose to honor God, traditional family units, traditional virtues, value self responsibilty, rule of law, etc are a dying breed. Until we do die just face they fact we will be labled bigots, haters, homopobes, do-gooders, fund-a-mentalists, and whatever other hate filled rhetoric the liberal mind decides to insult us with

We are hated because we stand in the way of total surrender to "self" and we will not give free liscense to perversion. Some of us do still "give a damn" and for that we are hated, make no mistake hated.

You guys are really good at embracing Martrydom aren't you ! Christian are hated in America? How can that be when the vast majority of Americans claim to be Christians? You guys (the Fund A Mental Cases) really get your panties in a bunch when you are rebuked when telling other how to believe and how to act.

 

[imported_Papi]

you sir, should go hold yourself hostage in a temple somewhere, that or become a monk.


I say good day!

 

[Romans828]

Red,

Your reply simply proves my point to a large degree. Believe me I "feel the love".......... Your hatred for Christians comes accross loud and clear. Just because some stands in opposition to something should not mean they are then free targets for your bigoted views on religion.

We are NOT TELLING ANYONE "what to do"....... Anymore than YOU ARE. A member of a free society participates in the democratic process by speaking his or her mind and voting for politicians who are like minded, supports and lobbys for laws that reflect their values etc.

Why should Christians not engage the political and legal process? Should we simply been unseen and unheard?

Its what YOU want isnt it?

 

[imported_Papi]

Is Romans828 a banned member making a come back or is he just the forum priest?