US. Supreme Court

  • News
  • Thread starter Turtle
  • Start date
  • #126
Zero
To expand on a point FZ+ made, homosexuality has been a constant throughout history. It has generally been made illegal for religious reasons. Some would say that it is on moral grounds, as though a specific religion gets to set the morals for a society. This is specifically NOT the case in America, which is founded partially on a foundation of religious freedom. The fact that religious groups now you corrupted research to 'prove' that homosexuality is bad, doesn't change the fact that their basic reasoning is based on their cult's doctrine. On those grounds alone, I would say that it is un-American to make homosexuality illegal.

A more personal level, I say that those anti-American forces who would ban consentual sexual activity would not stop at homosexual sex, if they had their way. They would ban ALL sexual activity that does not fit their cult's 'moral' views. They would legislate every aspect of culture to fit theoir narrow interpretation of their particular book of fables. Such an idea is repugnant to me, and should be to anyone who loves America. Further, the idea that allowing minority groups to have rights takes away from the majority, is a foolish fear-mongering idea. When one group is more free, we are ALL more free. That is a facet of freedom that some people hate, maybe most people hate.
 
  • #127
238
1
http://www.wfcr.com/diseases.html

http://www.dbbm.fiocruz.br/www-mem/956/3982.pdf [Broken]

Links to diseases in homosexual men.

This, along with what Hurkyl linked, are two facts based reasons for our positions.

Someone thought I implied homosexuality should be outlawed, I don't remember who. But from the beginning of this post my stance has been clear, no marriage - no adoption. I really don't care if they want to have sex or not.

As for the suicide, Dissident Dan, if I had a homosexual son I would be affected, as for the other side, some families aren't affected by suicide.

The burden of proof is not on my opinions, it is on me to provide you with proof if I was trying to convince you of what I believed, I'm just discussing what I believe.

The link between the two statements was not apparent when you split them from the next sentence.

There are multiple errors here. First of all, we know that suicide is harmful to someone. There has been presented no evidence, only conjecture, that there is harm in homosexuality. Secondly, it will affect the families of the suicidal person. Thirdly, in some rare cases, suicide actually is the better option. That's one reason why we have euthanasia for pets.
An increased risk of disease is harmful. It's like saying smoking isn't harmful because you aren't guaranteed to get a disease, idle tar and such in your lungs isn't necessarily harmful, unless you live an active lifestyle, even then it doesn't hurt you if you can't breath as well, it is just uncomfortable. Affecting families was discussed before, a straight family has a good chance of being affected by a son that pops out and announces he is homosexual. Suicide is a better option? I can't believe this, burden of proof lies on you:wink: and we aren't talking about pets being homosexual here, even if their was a valid point in putting a pet down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #128
FZ+
1,561
3
One might note something that is hidden in those sources - there are far far more diseases associated with heterosexuality, most because of the greater prevalence of it's practice. And that parts of the documents are complete lies. Eg. "AIDS - 5000 times" seems behind on the fact that Aids is now a disease primarily of heterosexuals, as gay men have learnt to be more careful in their relations. It utterly ignores the major point - that these diseases are connected not to specific sexuality, but sexual ignorance and being exempted from the advice of the health system. Is it any surprise that a group forced underground should make mistakes. This is analogous to saying that alcohol must be continue to be banned due to the actions of smugglers and gangster during the prohibition. The right approach is not to hide, but to advance.

But from the beginning of this post my stance has been clear, no marriage - no adoption.
All the more reason that gay marriages should be legally recognised.

As for the suicide, Dissident Dan, if I had a homosexual son I would be affected, as for the other side, some families aren't affected by suicide.
Would you be happier then if he commited suicide because you refused to accept him for his beliefs? Recognise that the choice lies in the individual, please, and that the comparison with suicide is entirely vacuous. Homosexuality does not prevent you from making friends, from having a good career, from living a life.

The burden of proof is not on my opinions, it is on me to provide you with proof if I was trying to convince you of what I believed, I'm just discussing what I believe.
Then your belief is wrong the moment you try to enforce it on others. In the same way the homosexuals would be wrong if they tried to discriminate against non-homosexuals etc etc.

An increased risk of disease is harmful. It's like saying smoking isn't harmful because you aren't guaranteed to get a disease, idle tar and such in your lungs isn't necessarily harmful, unless you live an active lifestyle, even then it doesn't hurt you if you can't breath as well, it is just uncomfortable.
Are we banning smoking then? Notice how smoking will probably always be allowed in private surroundings - it is not anyone's business except for passive smoking which inherently is harmful to others. And homosexuality is in no way comparable, because the diseases are not inherent in this case.

Affecting families was discussed before, a straight family has a good chance of being affected by a son that pops out and announces he is homosexual.
They also have a chance of being affected by him announcing himself to be an atheist, if not more so. The fact is, they get over it. The sort of domineering control that would create a situation where they don't get over it, that they refuse to support an individual's choice should not be supported by law - that, by evidence is far more harmful to the child's adult life that allowance of homosexuality.
 
  • #129
Zero
Originally posted by kyle_soule
http://www.wfcr.com/diseases.html

http://www.dbbm.fiocruz.br/www-mem/956/3982.pdf [Broken]

Links to diseases in homosexual men.

This, along with what Hurkyl linked, are two facts based reasons for our positions.

Someone thought I implied homosexuality should be outlawed, I don't remember who. But from the beginning of this post my stance has been clear, no marriage - no adoption. I really don't care if they want to have sex or not.

As for the suicide, Dissident Dan, if I had a homosexual son I would be affected, as for the other side, some families aren't affected by suicide.

The burden of proof is not on my opinions, it is on me to provide you with proof if I was trying to convince you of what I believed, I'm just discussing what I believe.

The link between the two statements was not apparent when you split them from the next sentence.



An increased risk of disease is harmful. It's like saying smoking isn't harmful because you aren't guaranteed to get a disease, idle tar and such in your lungs isn't necessarily harmful, unless you live an active lifestyle, even then it doesn't hurt you if you can't breath as well, it is just uncomfortable. Affecting families was discussed before, a straight family has a good chance of being affected by a son that pops out and announces he is homosexual. Suicide is a better option? I can't believe this, burden of proof lies on you:wink: and we aren't talking about pets being homosexual here, even if their was a valid point in putting a pet down.
Warriors For Christian Radio website? There's a good sourse for medical information!! Do they do your taxes too? *rolls eyes*

And, oif course, you comparison to smoking is wrong...like most of teh rest of your comparisons. Try again? Or give up while you are only WAY behind?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #130
jb
my only argument against adoption is that the kid(s) will probably get harrassed. 5 years ago, back when i was in grade school, kids got harassed because someone would say they were gay. i think most kids would be tolerant, especially as they got older and it was more accepted by society, but i think you'd still hear a lot of "haha, mikey has two dads!" on the playgrounds. i know that that isn't a good reason for same-sex partners not to have kids, but it's something to consider. also i doubt this is very likely, but if those kids got pulled out of school because of the harassment, that could start up a new form of segregation, and god knows we've had enough of that bs to last a lifetime.

as for suicide, i don't think i'd really be affected all that differently, depending on if my son "pops out and announces he is homosexual." i imagine the risk for suicide would be higher, but it's still there. and would you have a reason to kill yourself if society accepted you for who you were?
 
  • #131
Zero
Heh heh...watch me be evil.
 
  • #132
Zero
Heterosexuality leads to divorce, rape, child abuse, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, children who are a drain on out resources, stalking, sexual harrassment in the workplace, Lifetime movies, and a general lack of morality in our society.
 
  • #133
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
I won't disagree with that! :wink:
 
  • #134
FZ+
1,561
3
Life inevitably leads to death. Avoid it at all costs! :wink:
 
  • #135
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Originally posted by Zero
Heterosexuality leads to divorce, rape, child abuse, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, children who are a drain on out resources, stalking, sexual harrassment in the workplace, Lifetime movies, and a general lack of morality in our society.
That settles it. Ban all sexuality! Its ruining lives and it's killing people.
 
  • #136
238
1
Originally posted by FZ+
One might note something that is hidden in those sources - there are far far more diseases associated with heterosexuality, most because of the greater prevalence of it's practice. And that parts of the documents are complete lies. Eg. "AIDS - 5000 times" seems behind on the fact that Aids is now a disease primarily of heterosexuals, as gay men have learnt to be more careful in their relations. It utterly ignores the major point - that these diseases are connected not to specific sexuality, but sexual ignorance and being exempted from the advice of the health system. Is it any surprise that a group forced underground should make mistakes. This is analogous to saying that alcohol must be continue to be banned due to the actions of smugglers and gangster during the prohibition. The right approach is not to hide, but to advance.
I never thought of this. I suppose you are correct, I just threw those out, I didn't check their stats because, frankly, I didn't care what their stats were, the idea of diseases in gays was all I wanted to throw out.

Would you be happier then if he commited suicide because you refused to accept him for his beliefs? Recognise that the choice lies in the individual, please, and that the comparison with suicide is entirely vacuous. Homosexuality does not prevent you from making friends, from having a good career, from living a life.
Irrelevant to the idea of my post.

Then your belief is wrong the moment you try to enforce it on others. In the same way the homosexuals would be wrong if they tried to discriminate against non-homosexuals etc etc.
Again, I'm only discussing, I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anybody. Just raising questions, and discussing, hearing others views (except for Zero because he is nothing but insulting, what a great Mentor, ay?).

Are we banning smoking then? Notice how smoking will probably always be allowed in private surroundings - it is not anyone's business except for passive smoking which inherently is harmful to others. And homosexuality is in no way comparable, because the diseases are not inherent in this case.
Well, see, this was based on the idea that there is (as I still believe there is) a case in diseases in homosexuality.

Zero, I did not check the sources, although I must ask you, why must a Christian source always be wrong? Are Christians unable to do research correctly? You mentioned NOTHING of the information, you simply insulted me (which was entirely uncalled for, even more so in light of the ABSENSE of ANY contribution to the topic) and insulted the source because it was Christian.

This guy is a MENTOR, too! You insult people more than any other person (currently) at PF!
 
  • #137
Zero
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I won't disagree with that! :wink:
So cut off your penis, and butt out of our lives, buddy!
 
  • #138
Zero
Originally posted by kyle_soule


Zero, I did not check the sources, although I must ask you, why must a Christian source always be wrong? Are Christians unable to do research correctly? You mentioned NOTHING of the information, you simply insulted me (which was entirely uncalled for, even more so in light of the ABSENSE of ANY contribution to the topic) and insulted the source because it was Christian.

This guy is a MENTOR, too! You insult people more than any other person (currently) at PF!
LOL...and, well...LOL again! All of your comparisons HAVE been wrong, unless you can show that consentual sex is inherently harmful. Until you do, comparing it to murder or alcoholism is not adding much to the discussion.

As far as your links. Christians can obviously do good research. Fundamentalists who begin their research with the specific goal of confirming what they have already decide to be a 'fact' cannot do proper research. The point is, a scientist has to be a scientist FIRST and ONLY when considering research. People doing 'research' to support a religious agenda cannot be impartial.
 
  • #139
schwarzchildradius
Do you think that ____sexuality is morally wrong, or is it just a big waste of time and money to mess with people doing private stuff in their private places? I tend to concur with the latter, because as an American, I like to feel that I can represent myself conservatively.
 

Related Threads on US. Supreme Court

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
612
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
87
Views
5K
Top