Libertarians Unite

[Jos Elkink]

Stan, how do you expect people to be homosexual and not express it? That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. On that note, I forbid you, from here on out, to have sex. There, the gauntlet is laid. Let's see how long you can go before you are really feeling the need.

So if you're born with kleptomaniac feelings you should be allowed to steal? And when born with pedofilic (sp.?) feelings, you should be allowed to have sex with children?

I don't think it's that 'ridiculous'.

Not that I agree with Stan, but ...

[Racetyme]

Yes, it is that rediculous. Pedophiles, as far as I know, can enjoy sex with people other than small children. A homosexual, could not, mentally, have sex with a member of the opposite sex. I am assuming this is so because the thought of having sex with a man truly disgusts me, I could not possibly do it.

[Nixit]

Yes, it is that rediculous. Pedophiles, as far as I know, can enjoy sex with people other than small children. A homosexual, could not, mentally, have sex with a member of the opposite sex. I am assuming this is so because the thought of having sex with a man truly disgusts me, I could not possibly do it.

He's right... I know homosexual people who talked about how in highschool, they had sex with the opposite gender, but they didn't feel anything while doing it.

[Jos Elkink]

He's right... I know homosexual people who talked about how in highschool, they had sex with the opposite gender, but they didn't feel anything while doing it.

Well, just like not all Americans are the same, or all Christians are the same, so not all homosexuals are the same ...

And what about the person that feels horrible having sex with adults?

[Nixit]

They're not all exactly the same... but that part I believe just comes with being a homosexual.

[formerly known as hf]

Jos has a good point - If we can ask people with desires, such as paedophillia, drug addiction, homicidal tendencies etc. not to express those desires and to not enact on them - why is it wrong to ask homosexuals not to enact on those desires?

The reason we do ask those with violent, and divergent desires such as those above not to enact on them is because they are (usually quite rightly) very socially unacceptable.

Currently homosexuality is becomming more socially acceptable - hence it is becoming less acceptable to expect homosexual desires not to be enacted upon.

It only seems ridiculous as the current social norm says being gay is ok. Not very long ago, the current social norm would have seen it ridiculous for homosexual desires to be expressed...

[formerly known as hf]

They're not all exactly the same... but that part I believe just comes with being a homosexual.

Not necessarily - many heterosexuals are disgusted by the thought of themselves having homosexual relationships - in the same way that many homosexuals are disgusted by the thought of themselves having heterosexual relationships.

Some heterosexuals are not disgusted by thoughts of themselves having homosexual relationships - just as some homosexuals are not disgusted by the thought of themselves having heterosexual relationships.

The last thing sexuality is is bi-polar - there are as many choices of sexuality and feelings about personal sexuality as there are people to feel them.

[Nixit]

Their not "disgusted" by the "thought," but they still wouldn't fulfil their desire if it were someone of the opposite gender.

Jos has a good point - If we can ask people with desires, such as paedophillia, drug addiction, homicidal tendencies etc. not to express those desires and to not enact on them - why is it wrong to ask homosexuals not to enact on those desires?

Homosexuality does not harm anyone (as it would for someone with homicidal tendencies and as it could with drug addiction, both the user and their family and friends, or with someone with paedophillia, the child as it would most likely be against their will and quite possibly their family.)

This is my opinion, of course, but for the most part, Homosexuality is generally harmless.

[Racetyme]

Tendency towards drug addiction is not at all in the same category as pedophilia or kleptomania. Drug addicition is not something you inflict on others, because, I am assuming, children do not agree to being molested. Homosexuality is something that is done with another's consent, unless it is rape, in which case it should be treated the same as heterosexual rape.

[Nick]

Homosexuality does not harm anyone (as it would for someone with homicidal tendencies and as it could with drug addiction, both the user and their family and friends, or with someone with paedophillia, the child as it would most likely be against their will and quite possibly their family.)

I don't think drug addiction harms anyone directly.
You liken it to hurting their family and friends, people may be upset that their friends are drug addicts, true.
However, what about some dad who hates the fact that his son is gay?
Couldn't you argue that homosexuality affects other people, if you wanted to use that argument for drug use/addiction?

Jos, that post about paedophillia really cracked me up... you just love playing the devil's advocate, don't you?

[Nixit]

Well... drug addiction harms yourself. *shrugs*

And you used the example with the dad hating the fact that he is gay... now I can see that, but you'd still be "gay" even if you didn't go with your homosexual tendencies.

And I suppose it can affect other people... but a drug addiction would literally change the person as a whole (them using most or all money for drugs, abandoning family because they need drugs). Whereas homosexuality would only affect people who can't accept that fact that they are homosexual.

[Stan]

Stan, how do you expect people to be homosexual and not express it? That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard.

Why does someone HAVE to have sex? I agree that it is a strong urge, but necessary to live?

Also, just because something is hard to do, striving for it doesn't make it ridiculous. There may be married men that have an extremely hard time remaining faithful to their wives (I know a couple). But, just because it is hard for them doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.

Likewise, just because they have the natural urge doesn't make it right to do.

Finally, if I have a particular weakness that I know is wrong, there is nothing wrong with trying to avoid doing it but sometimes failing. Again, that is being human. Among my other weaknesses, I tend to get more greedy the more money I make. It frankly doesn't even make sense to me. But, I believe giving is a duty of all people and so I've decided how much of what I make should be given away. However, it seems that when I get a large bonus or sell a property I try to rationalize why I should keep more of it. Some would argue that I should keep it all, but somehow I know I shouldn't. It is a case like this that I must be very INTENTIONAL about succumbing to the tempation of greed. There's other things, but I don't want to air all of my dirty laundry.

If someone tells you that there isn't something in their character they need to work on, then be leary. Either they are a liar or have low requirements of themselves.

Here's my advice. If you think something is right, fight for it. If you think something is wrong, tell the world. But, never hate someone for having different beliefs than you. Don't insult others for having different beliefs than you and always try to treat them with love and respect.

One of my best friends is an atheist, won't work ever, has been given a fortune by grandparents, says he's a liberal but can't stand social welfare or charities and is simply the exact opposite of me. But, I love him as a brother and I can debate him until the sun goes down, but our friendship remains fast and I expect it always will no matter if we EVER agree on anything except that we are friends.

[Nick]

Well... drug addiction harms yourself. *shrugs*

Depends on the drug, really, among other factors.

And you used the example with the dad hating the fact that he is gay... now I can see that, but you'd still be "gay" even if you didn't go with your homosexual tendencies.

You'd still be a drug addict if you stopped using.

And I suppose it can affect other people... but a drug addiction would literally change the person as a whole (them using most or all money for drugs, abandoning family because they need drugs). Whereas homosexuality would only affect people who can't accept that fact that they are homosexual.

There wouldn't be a family related problem if the family accepted the person's drug use, would there?
Alcoholics can still be productive members of society, because alcohol use is socially accepted in most cultures.
I believe the same is not the case for drug addicts because, those drugs they use are not socially acceptable.
I'd liken alcohol in terms of negative health affects and intensity of intoxication to the more stronger drugs like heroin or cocaine.
Yet the milder drugs like marijuana and amphetamines cause more SOCIAL problems in proportion to their adverse affects, because of society's view on them.

[Racetyme]

LSD, or Acid, has literally no health effects. But if I used LSD on a regular basis (you cannot even be addicted) I would immediately be a pariah. However, if I decided to destroy my liquor and life be being an alchoholic, then it is fine.

[AoM]

I consider mental health a part of health. As such, LSD is incredibly dangerous. Bad Trips can result in flashbacks, in which the body is psychosomatically affected (ie: the severe stress induced from the flashback can have physiological effects) can be a life-long occurance. Worse still, a Bad Trip that results in flashbacks is not indicative of a heavy user. It can be the result of the first Trip a person indulges in. LSD is extremely dangerous to a person's psyche.


*********

To solidify where I stand on the gay-marriage issue. I believe very strongly in the biological basis for homosexuality, heterosexuality, bi-sexuality, gender identity disorder, and pedophilia. Without this fundamental belief, my arguement would not be worth the time it took to type it out. (I do believe society has a major role to play in how much the genotype becomes outwardly displayed, but it cannot change the fundamental set point.)

(I find pedophilia to be a different category however, as it is wrong mainly because there is only one consenting partner involved as the child, even if they say they are consenting, is not deemed by society's standards to be developed enough to make that kind of judgement call wisely. It is an arbitrary line to draw at age 18, but one that needs to be drawn, nevertheless.)

The crux of the gay-marriage issue for me at least is the definition of marriage. John Travolta's character Michael (the Archangel) from the movie of the same name summed up the simplicity of marriage nicely. The angel claims to have invented the concept of marriage. When challenged on this claim he replies, and I paraphrase: 'Well sure. Before I came around everybody was just standing around next to each other. So I said, "Why not throw a ceremony?"'

To me, that's all that marriage is. A ceremony designed to celebrate and bear witness to the love between two people and their mutual promise to stay true to one another, no matter how much they may regret that promise 15 or 20 years down the line. What gets my goat is the viciousness some people will go to in order to clarify that it's supposed to be "between a man and a woman." When asked why, people often point to the bible.

However, not all marriages these days are religious. No sir. You can get married by a guy dressed up as Elvis in Las Vegas in a house that certainly mocks God more than celebrates him. Or if you are incredibly dull, you can just have your local notery sign and stamp some papers for you and bam! you're married. So if marriage is not fundamentally religious, then a religious arguement to define its "sancitity" across the board has no business being a government issue. It is rendered an invalid arguement.

That didn't stop G.W.Bush from proposing an AMENDMENT to the Constitution of the United States so as to protect the "sanctity of marriage...."


Now, I have a strong feeling that Stan is with me on this one at least that that should not be a Federal Government issue.

And truth be known, I am in favor of a State's right to decide on this subject, individually. I am just saddened by the reasoning that most dissenting states are using.

I also am unfortunately not aware of the particulars of this gay-marriage rights movement in countries other than the united states, as that kind of news doesn't make its way to us.