seat belts and sodomy

[dairygirl4u2c]

Figure I should check to see if this type of person even exists on this board; no one said anything in the last thread. (though I know a few who would say yes, I just don't know their rationale)

If yes, how do you differentiate between a person in a car hurting themself and the gay men hurting themself?

I always thought the underlying issue with all those bannings and stuff was that we are our brother's keeper. To a certain degree I can see that. But I don't see how you can answer let those who ride decide and ban sodomy.

So again how do you differentiate between a person in a car hurting themself and the gay men hurting themself?

[argent_paladin]

1. Sodomy doesn't just hurt the individuals engaged in it physically, but also morally. They are misusing the sacred gift of their sexuality. Each and every time they do it, guaranteed, they not only expose themselves to disease but they also damage their character. In contrast, though a driver may expose himself to risk by not wearing a seatbelt, the vast majority of the time there is no actual harm.

2. Recall that probably 95% of all acts of sodomy are heterosexual. So, this is not an attack on those with same-sex attractions. Sodomy harms not just the individuals (physically and morally) but also society because it weakens the link between procreation and sexual activity. So sex is seen simply as a recreational pleasure, disconnected from its central purpose of participating in the perpetuation of the human race.

3. Not wearing a seat belt is not an intrinsically immoral act, thus it doesn't always harm a person's virtue. One could imaging situations where driving without a seatbelt is the most prudent choice. That is never the case for sodomy.

4. Finally, I think most people intuitively know that seatbelts are for our own good. But most would disagree that sodomy (especially heterosexual sodomy) is bad. Thus, an anti-sodomy law would have a special teaching function, communicating the idea that that behavior is unhealthy and damaging. Society doesn't need to encourage acts of obvious self-preservation, but it does need to encourage acts that can seem counter-intuitive or that are difficult. A gentle reminder to put on your seatbelt is probably sufficient in 99% of the cases. But, sexual perversion is much more difficult, requiring the force of law to eradicate.

(now, I don't necessarily take this line of thinking, most notably because of the difficulty in enforcing anti-sodomy laws, but I think they are reasonable points and it is not absurd to support anti-sodomy laws but not seat-belt laws. The two behaviors are not equivalent.

[Lounge Daddy]

the title of this poll sounds like the name of some freaky song

[philothea]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Dec 22 2005, 10:50 PM']the title of this poll sounds like the name of some freaky song
[right][snapback]834349[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I thought the same thing.

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Dec 22 2005, 09:50 PM']the title of this poll sounds like the name of some freaky song
[right][snapback]834349[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


that was kinda random

[dairygirl4u2c]

1. Sodomy doesn't just hurt the individuals engaged in it physically, but also morally. They are misusing the sacred gift of their sexuality. Each and every time they do it, guaranteed, they not only expose themselves to disease but they also damage their character. In contrast, though a driver may expose himself to risk by not wearing a seatbelt, the vast majority of the time there is no actual harm.

Not wearing doesn't just hurt the individuals engaged in it physically, but also morally. They are misusing the sacred gift of their life. Each and every time they do it, guaranteed, they not only expose themselves to potential damage but they also damage their character.

Also, so if you wanted to argue about the degree of times that actual harm happens, and I granted to you that not wearing a seat belt caused actual harm (though the lack of self respect is actual harm, but I digress) only sometimes and sodomy all the time, I just don't see this as a reason to not ban not wearing. Perhaps you could illuminate why frequency of harm makes a difference.


2. Recall that probably 95% of all acts of sodomy are heterosexual. So, this is not an attack on those with same-sex attractions. Sodomy harms not just the individuals (physically and morally) but also society because it weakens the link between procreation and sexual activity. So sex is seen simply as a recreational pleasure, disconnected from its central purpose of participating in the perpetuation of the human race.

So can we allow same sex sodomy?
And how is it harming society exactly? If they are homosexual with no intention of heterosex for procreation, and live a life of chastity, there wouldn't be any kids anyway. If they are heterosexual, sodomy doesn't have to stop them from having kids normally. If it does, then you could make this argument the few times that it does. But this is then a lot more like seat belts, it doesn't really cause damage all that much. If you ban one, you should ban the other.

3. Not wearing a seat belt is not an intrinsically immoral act, thus it doesn't always harm a person's virtue. One could imaging situations where driving without a seatbelt is the most prudent choice. That is never the case for sodomy.

Not wearing always damages the person's virtue everytime because there's always potential for damage. The fact there might be times to not wear a seat belt (not sure when this would be or if I understand you right) does not create a case for not wearing seatbelts, it's only an arguement for exceptions to the law.

If what you mean is that sometimes people die or was injured because they had their seatbelt on when if they had it off they wouldn't have, you might have an arguement for letting people decide. I wonder if that's like a 0.00003 chance though, so small it's negligible to the point of an excuse for not wearing and an excuse for not banning not wearing.

4. Finally, I think most people intuitively know that seatbelts are for our own good. But most would disagree that sodomy (especially heterosexual sodomy) is bad. Thus, an anti-sodomy law would have a special teaching function, communicating the idea that that behavior is unhealthy and damaging. Society doesn't need to encourage acts of obvious self-preservation, but it does need to encourage acts that can seem counter-intuitive or that are difficult. A gentle reminder to put on your seatbelt is probably sufficient in 99% of the cases. But, sexual perversion is much more difficult, requiring the force of law to eradicate.

So when people know it's okay? I thought euthanasia was wrong? Or if the subtle intuitiveness of it's the case, (euthanasia's might be classified as obvous?) then how does that subtle difference change anything? So when people know it's wrong it's okay? Perhaps you could illuminate the difference that the degree of knowing it changes anything.

Plus if something is counter intuitive, I might wonder if you should be questioning their rationale and check your own. Plus if that's the case, maybe you should have the respect to let them be. This gets into my moral to respect other's moral in the law argument though.

-Society doesn't need to encourage acts of obvious self-preservation-
I don't see how forcing people who are not obviouly engaged in wrong such as you characterize sodomy should be any different than those who are definitely engaged in wrong. Seems backwards... in fact, shouldn't those who are definitely engaged in wrong be the first to be attacked? Perhaps you could illuminate why those who definitely know their actions are wrong should not be attacked and those who do not should.

[photosynthesis]

this is the most confusing poll I've ever seen in all of phatmass.

[Cow of Shame]

then you've not been reading dairygirl's polls much, have you?