burnsspivey Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 [quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Nov 23 2004, 01:08 AM'] I think I can prove that incest and homosexuality, pretty much any sexual relationship other than that between a man and a woman, should be prohibited without appealing to God or to religion. First though, I want to know from those who think it should be OK, is your only reason for allowing sexual relationships consent, or is it just the primary reason? [/quote] The [i]reason[/i] for allowing sexual relationships is personal freedom. The factor that makes them criminal is lack of consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 as i have consistantly argued, if we are merely talking about a policy of the government recognizing and giving union benefits to gay couples, we are not discussing their freedom. they are free to do as they want, they can even get "married." the question is whether the state ought to recognize that marriage and grant benefits thus in doing so promoting the type of union. i have given numerous oppurtunities to refute those points i said the government exists for, but it has not been refuted. therefore, when the freedom is secure and protection of the "right" to be able to have homosexual sex if one so desires, the question shifts to if the government should promote this action. it promotes heterosexual marriage with it's stamp of recognition and marriage benefits. it believes that the married family is the fundament unit of society and thus in recognizing it it is promoting the general welfare. the question has to be posed whether or not promoting homosexual unions would be promoting the general welfare of society. my contention, provided in all the statistics and medical studies i have posted (i know you have posted counterexamples but they do not trump mine nor really refute the facts put forth in mine, other than a possible alter-explanation for suicide rates though the rates didn't decrease in other countries with homosexual marriage legalized), is that it does not promote the general welfare. therefore, it shouldn't be promoted by the government. the freedom to do it is SECURE. if we were debating anti-sodomy laws, which i would probably be up for, it'd be different. but we're debating whether the government should promote the actions, not whether it should allow them. it does allow them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) [quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 23 2004, 09:53 PM'] The [i]reason[/i] for allowing sexual relationships is personal freedom. The factor that makes them criminal is lack of consent. [/quote] So if a daughter consents to sex with her father its Ok? Edited November 24, 2004 by cmotherofpirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 24 2004, 08:21 AM'] So if a daughter consents to sex with her father its Ok? [/quote] Assuming that they are both of age I can't see why it is any of my business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Define the age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 23 2004, 08:00 PM'] as i have consistantly argued, if we are merely talking about a policy of the government recognizing and giving union benefits to gay couples, we are not discussing their freedom. they are free to do as they want, they can even get "married." --snip-- [/quote] I have no idea what this has to do with this topic. I'm not arguing for gay marriages on the basis of freedom...and I don't think that has come up in any of my arguments. I was simply responding to JP2Iloveyou's question. Now, why hasn't anyone responded to mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Burnsspivey, let's assume for a moment that you are correct. What matters is consent. So, I have two more questions for you. Should a person be allowed to have sex with an animal? And, is there a limit on how many people have sex at once? For example, suppose there are ten people who all want to get together for a little "fun," should that be allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 24 2004, 11:10 AM'] Define the age. [/quote] This is defined by the state, though I'm not sure that there shouldn't be a federal age of consent of 18. *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 [quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Nov 24 2004, 11:18 AM'] Burnsspivey, let's assume for a moment that you are correct. What matters is consent. So, I have two more questions for you. Should a person be allowed to have sex with an animal? And, is there a limit on how many people have sex at once? For example, suppose there are ten people who all want to get together for a little "fun," should that be allowed? [/quote] An animal cannot give consent. A person can give consent to any number of people, so yes, in theory, 10 people could get together and do whatever they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 free love - its the 1960's all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 24 2004, 11:31 AM'] free love - its the 1960's all over again. [/quote] If love has a price I've certainly never had to pay it. Maybe I owe back love taxes or something. *shrug* I've always hated that particular term. If love isn't free then it isn't love -- and if it refers to something other than love it's a misnomer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I believe she means "free love" as in "free for all" not free as in a price tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 [quote name='Carrie' date='Nov 24 2004, 02:47 PM'] I believe she means "free love" as in "free for all" not free as in a price tag. [/quote] I don't think I understand what you are trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 You're treating your (sexual) love as a "free for all" since it seems anyone could be eligible to receive it, instead of just your spouse as it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazor Posted November 24, 2004 Author Share Posted November 24, 2004 I just want to clarify something, Burnsprivey... do you basically feel that as long as the parties involved are both of age and consenting that anything goes? Regardless of realtionship or any other factors? I am not debating here I just want to clarify you position for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now