DragonMasterAlex
Banned
- Feb 3, 2001
- 5,156
- 0
- 0
Now what is all this NONSENSE about two CONSENTING ADULTS behaving in a specific kind of sexual behavior being called "immoral" all about? This argument sounds like this:
"What? I don't like that sort of thing! It must be WRONG, therefore we'll pass a law to make it illegal so that other people can't do it!"
This perspective has NO BASIS in Reason, nor in Law that is aimed at protecting the RIGHTS of Rational Individuals. There is NOTHING immoral about two gay men or two gay women engaging in sex of any kind so long as both are Consenting ADULTS.
I'm not gay, and I have no comprehension of why a man would wnat to have another man shove his "equipment" into his "back door." Nevertheless, some people do, and there is nothing unnatural or immoral about it. You find homosexual behavior in ALL mammal species. Is it the MOST common behavior? No, of course not; most members of a species are subject to powerful genetically defined desires to REPRODUCE and continue the survival of their GENES. This is LIFE, people, but the beauty of being a HUMAN BEING is that you have the power and capacity of CHOICE. You can choose what will make you HAPPY in life. That's what America's founding father's believed in above all else: The right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. If it makes some people happy to munch carpet or bang the bunghole, I have NO RIGHT to stop them from doing so in a lawful way (Which means, with other CONSENTING ADULTS.)
With regard to the "It's against God's Plan" crap, that is a great justification for your CHURCH to refuse to recognize gay marriage, and I am happy to support your right to do that. However, that argument does NOT hold up for whether the GOVERNMENT should recognize the rights of gays to be married. In spite of what you Conservatives like to tell each other,
AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION!
I refer you to Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Frienship with Tripoli, enacted into Law June 10th, 1797 by President JOHN ADAMS, arguably the MOST CHRISTIAN of the Founding Fathers:
Further, President John Adams signed the treaty into law on this date and issued the following proclamation:
Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.
The full treaty and the proclamation (above) was printed in at least two Philadelphia newspapers of the day and at least one New York Newspaper of the day.
ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
For more info on this issue, I refer you thus: History of the Treaty with Tripoli
Now truly, aren't there more important matters to discuss than whether one ought to use the force of contract (law) to impose one's will upon another? It's been 150 years since the Civil War, surely we've moved beyond the idea that one man has a right to proscribe to another how to live his life and further, to use force to make it so?
Jason
"What? I don't like that sort of thing! It must be WRONG, therefore we'll pass a law to make it illegal so that other people can't do it!"
This perspective has NO BASIS in Reason, nor in Law that is aimed at protecting the RIGHTS of Rational Individuals. There is NOTHING immoral about two gay men or two gay women engaging in sex of any kind so long as both are Consenting ADULTS.
I'm not gay, and I have no comprehension of why a man would wnat to have another man shove his "equipment" into his "back door." Nevertheless, some people do, and there is nothing unnatural or immoral about it. You find homosexual behavior in ALL mammal species. Is it the MOST common behavior? No, of course not; most members of a species are subject to powerful genetically defined desires to REPRODUCE and continue the survival of their GENES. This is LIFE, people, but the beauty of being a HUMAN BEING is that you have the power and capacity of CHOICE. You can choose what will make you HAPPY in life. That's what America's founding father's believed in above all else: The right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. If it makes some people happy to munch carpet or bang the bunghole, I have NO RIGHT to stop them from doing so in a lawful way (Which means, with other CONSENTING ADULTS.)
With regard to the "It's against God's Plan" crap, that is a great justification for your CHURCH to refuse to recognize gay marriage, and I am happy to support your right to do that. However, that argument does NOT hold up for whether the GOVERNMENT should recognize the rights of gays to be married. In spite of what you Conservatives like to tell each other,
AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION!
I refer you to Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Frienship with Tripoli, enacted into Law June 10th, 1797 by President JOHN ADAMS, arguably the MOST CHRISTIAN of the Founding Fathers:
Further, President John Adams signed the treaty into law on this date and issued the following proclamation:
Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.
The full treaty and the proclamation (above) was printed in at least two Philadelphia newspapers of the day and at least one New York Newspaper of the day.
ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
For more info on this issue, I refer you thus: History of the Treaty with Tripoli
Now truly, aren't there more important matters to discuss than whether one ought to use the force of contract (law) to impose one's will upon another? It's been 150 years since the Civil War, surely we've moved beyond the idea that one man has a right to proscribe to another how to live his life and further, to use force to make it so?
Jason