Personal liberties vs. moral decline

Originally posted by Mindship
Perhaps a more general approach to the question is in order.

How much emphasis can a society put on individual rights, without equal emphasis on personal responsibilities, before moral decline commences? I mean, if "I have the right...!" to do yada yada, but I do not take responsibility for my choices and the consequences, what does that do for moral development? Since the 1960s, has there been an overemphasis on rights w/o equal weight given to personal responsibility?

My feeling: Yes.

Ah, definetely. The much abused freedom of speech comes to mind...

Ush> What part of it did I not make clear enough? I meant what Bardock said. In Danish SODOMI means human/animal sex.

Capt is right. My point was not just to support the rights of homosexuals, but to show the fallacy in UCFs assuming that giving this group of people the same rights as heterosexuals will lead to "moral decline and the end of civilisatioN" because by allowing one we'll slip down a slope to hell.
He also points to what sociologists call dichotomy: the splitting of a whole (here: humanity) into two non-overlapping parts (here: men and women).

By non-overlapping you have the idea, that if MEN are like "this", women must be the "opposite of this". If men like sex, women dislike sex. If women are tender, men are hard etc. etc. etc yadaa yadaa blah.
Or "you are either WITH us or AGAINST us," leaving no room for 60 % agreement but not entirely. Or the whole idea that some traits/feelings are masculine and others are feminine. Show me ONE feeling a man can have that a woman cannot have and vice versa...

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

And to address the idea of the slippery slope is that these "morals and values" have imparted the hypocritical notion that all acts against their "morals and values" are equal. To this end, raping a child is just as bad as two adults of the same sex having consensual intercourse with each other. But the question, in the mind of these people, is: what's the difference between raping a child and having gay sex?

Its not about morals--its the fact that they are both very biologically unsound and reprehensible sexual acts. Just like pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and dendrophiliacs.

In fact, the "sexual" in "homosexual" should be changed to "philia", because that's exactly what being gay is--a form of philia.

"Ush> What part of it did I not make clear enough? I meant what Bardock said. In Danish SODOMI means human/animal sex"

That's definitely the unclear part then, because that's not what sodomy means in English. Sodomy is generally used to mean anal sex, though some States treat it as any 'unnatural' sex act.

Laws against homosexuals in the US are generally called 'anti sodomy' laws, and are normally separate from their laws against human/animal sex. You can see, therefore, that this makes your post highly confusing.

The term you want is bestiality.

-

And oh gosh, a 'philia'... somewhere in your warped educatiom, DB, did someone tell yu that 'philia' meant 'bad thing'? It means you like something.

Luckily, your first sentence pretty much ruled your comments out of the area of the rational and sane, in any case.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

And oh gosh, a 'philia'... somewhere in your warped educatiom, DB, did someone tell yu that 'philia' meant 'bad thing'? It means you like something.

Luckily, your first sentence pretty much ruled your comments out of the area of the rational and sane, in any case.

You mean my educatioN--with an 'N'? No, nothing was warped.

"Philia" means "like" in Greek--in English its used as preferring some form of abnormal[negative] sexual behavior

Originally posted by Bardock42
I have an idea. In Germany what we call "sodomy" is defined as sex with animals. So I suppose she meant that....being Danish and all...

😆

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Its not about morals--

Then it's about your need to interfere with the behavior of another human being. You're disgusted by homosexuality, thus you're doing exactly what I said people like you do. You lump it in with all the other sex acts that are considered amoral. So, if it's not about morals, then it's about what? Biology? If it's not your biology, it's none of your buisness. And if you support the restriction of rights to a person or persons based on their constituionally protected right to freedom, then you don't really understand the country in which you live. You're basically saying that homosexuality is a mental disorder. So, despite the science that has proven it is not, you want to lump it in with child moelstation and beastiality. And that practice, I've already addressed.

I'm sure everyone here is totally impressed with your manliness. In fact, you're so straight, I'd like to be just like you. You're so tough, I can't imagine how you have time to post your opinion on the internet because of all the p*ssy you must be getting.

"A child has no concept of love the way adults have."

Define "Child", becuase if it's the definition I think it is, you're most defintely wrong on grounds of generalization.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
If it's not your biology, it's none of your buisness.

Fine then--Let's legalize bestiality and necrophilia, after all it doesn't interfere with your life and "it's none of your business."

Ush> Bestiality? Ok, thanks...
(Darn, can't edit my first post...)

NineCoronas> A child as in before adolescence. A child cannot FALL in LOVE the way adults do.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Fine then--Let's legalize bestiality and necrophilia, after all it doesn't interfere with your life and "it's none of your business."

Hey, you wanna fu*k a dead person or a goat, I couldn't care less. It's none of my buisness.

A child as in before adolescence.

Some very left leaning judges are giving child molesters probation or short sentences because they believe these people suffer from a disease. I don't believe that. Do rapists, murders, drug dealers and abusers suffer from a disease. This country is all about excusing horrible behavior. It's time people started taking responsibility for their actions and get punished. The people that are victims of crime seem to be losing their right to the people committing the crimes. Just so everybody know, I'm a registered independent.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Fine then--Let's legalize bestiality and necrophilia, after all it doesn't interfere with your life and "it's none of your business."

I think that hanging the toilet paper underhand is immoral and is causing the destruction of society. That and when people run out and end up wiping with kleenex and flushing it down, then you have to spend fifteen ****ing minutes with the plunger. Thats serious deviant behavior. Not to mention the dickholes who use your bath towels.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Its not about morals--its the fact that they are both very biologically unsound and reprehensible sexual acts. Just like pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and dendrophiliacs.

In fact, the "sexual" in "homosexual" should be changed to "philia", because that's exactly what being gay is--a form of philia.

I could say the same thing about circumcision, but I unlike you I don't believe in shoving my views down the throats of other jews, not to mention muslims and americans no matter how much scientific data there is to backup that claim (and there's enough to fill a warehouse).
Why don't you just live and let live and stop judging other people like a pussy.

DB> You're making the fallacy of ASSUMING that gay sex is biologically unsound and reprehensible.
You are yet to prove your standpoint or offer any evidence to support your assumption.

Do you even KNOW what philia means? 😆
I thought not...

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Fine then--Let's legalize bestiality and necrophilia, after all it doesn't interfere with your life and "it's none of your business."

Exactly.

-AC

Originally posted by The Omega
DB> You're making the fallacy of ASSUMING that gay sex is biologically unsound and reprehensible.
You are yet to prove your standpoint or offer any evidence to support your assumption.

Well, I think that the problem really comes when one considers the situation on the flip side of the law. Necrophilia is illegal. So, were the laws to be removed, forget the act being made legal...just not addressed by the law, he's proceeding under the assumption that the number of cases of necrophilia would skyrocket. That's ridiculous. Anyone out there that is sleeping with dead bodies or goats isn't thinking about the law when they do it.

The law is NOT keeping people who partake in these activities from doing them. They are simply the legislative equivilent of condenming them. And beyond that we get into morals.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Hey, you wanna fu*k a dead person or a goat, I couldn't care less. It's none of my buisness.

Cool!--Now, I'm gonna buy some wine, roses, a Barry White CD, and then go straight to the morgue!

Originally posted by Eis
No, because dead people or animals cannot give consent. Two homosexual adults on the other hand, can.

So???? It's "none of your business" and it "doesn't affect your life"!

Originally posted by The Omega
DB> You're making the fallacy of ASSUMING that gay sex is biologically unsound and reprehensible.
You are yet to prove your standpoint or offer any evidence to support your assumption.

Ok then, why is fukking a five-year-old unsound and reprehensible? What evidence do you have to support that claim?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Hey, you wanna fu*k a dead person