Nowhere357

This has been answered already. Next would come your fuss over the right to view porn, or something. Which has been answered. So you are reduced to the tactic of rehash in order to avoid answering the questions.

Your position has already failed, you have already lost the argument.

And you know this. If you disagree, you must show that pc does not violate rights. You must explain why it is okay if people engage in this behavior at the park next to the children, at the store next to the produce, in the seat next to yours at the movies, etc etc.

But you won't/can't, so you lost the debate.

You have no justification for intolerance against gays. This means that your position is the position of a bigot.

yguy

Neither has been answered satisfactorily. No one has shown how the viewing of virtual child porn is of itself violation of children's rights, and you have utterly failed to enumerate even ONE right violated by public copulation.

Vylo

The women here is aware that people will find her sexually appeal and even desires it in most cases. Children are not aware of this when they are view for sexual gratification.

Your arguement about PC is interesting, but it is unrelated to this discussion, you are raising a strawman. Even if it is wrong for PC to be illegal, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Please stay focused on the topic.

No one is shoving homosexuality down your throat, no more then you shove heterosexuality down theirs.

Nowhere357

Yes they have. (Notice your lack of reason for WHY the explanations were not satisfactory. Notice you make no argument for anyone to respond to. Notice how you assert in desperation.)

Child porn violates the rights of children, as has been adequately explained already. And you have not shown how this point provides justification for intolerance towards gays.

There are some interesting points concerning the morality of virtual porn - feel free to start a new thread if you are interested in that subject. But the points are irrelevant here.

Utterly false. And utterly irrelevant. YOU must show that pc does not violate rights. YOU must explain why it is okay if people engage in this behavior at the park next to the children, at the store next to the produce, in the seat next to yours at the movies, etc etc.

But you won't/can't, so you lost the debate.

You have no justification for intolerance against gays. This means that your position is the position of a bigot.

yguy

No, they haven't. Obviously you don't have it in you to do so, wherefore I invite anyone else to defend the illogic on which your acceptance of homosexuality is based. As for you and I, the discussion of this matter is finished forever, and ever, and ever.

Vylo

I currently work for and am friends with a lesbian woman. I have been to her home and talked with her partner. Their realtionship bears a striking resemblance to the one between my parents, and it is a very well thought out, stable relationship. I consider it a horrible tragedy that 2 people with such a strong commitment to each other cannot be married.

Very true nowhere, yguy has clearly shown his true colors here. While I do no approve of homosexuality physcially (I am repulsed by it), I have never felt that homosexual marriage is wrong. Homosexual marriage is moraly sound as it follows the conunctive forces found in EVERY strong marriage/family.

They have love, loyalty, devotion, honesty, care, trust, fairness, healing and forgiveness, and obligations and entitlements.

So please explain yguy, why homosexual marriage is wrong?

yguy

You think most women like the idea of having some slimeball jacking off with a picture of them?

I'd be interested to hear from the women on this, especially considering that Jodie Foster claimed to have felt violated when she found out that John Hinckley was obsessed with her.

If I do a realistic rendering of children engaging in sexual activity, the children whose images I used to do the rendering may never know they have been so used. If that's the case, how are their rights violated?

Actually, there is no way to justify homosexuality without providing de facto justification for other aberrant behaviors, so in my mind it is very much on topic. "Gay pride parades" sometimes feature men aping the act of sodomy, and this is not seen as a violation of anyone's rights. How then would it be substantively different if they were actually doing it?

yguy

Advocates of PC would not, of course, be so impolitic. All they need is a section of a public park to do their thing, where they could easily be avoided, and everybody's happy.

Right?

yguy

More accurately, you consider it a horrible tragedy that efforts to pressure those of us with any common sense left into accepting their relationship as a marriage have so far failed.

Homosexual activists are demanding not that they be left alone, but that they be given something they aren't entitled to, namely recognition from society for their lifestyle as normal; and like spoiled children, they have spent the last 30+ years alternating between whiny begging and obnoxious temper tantrums to get their way.

It is not so much wrong as absurd, like dividing by zero, or like putting cow dung in a pie shell, covering it with whipped cream and calling it strawberry pie - or like painting a picture of a guy with a whip in his rectum and calling it art.

Vylo

By saying all of us with any common sense, you are just justifying people calling you a bigot.

What I consider a tragedy is that people who have succeeded in their relationship where many heterosexual people fail, are somehow considered to be unfit for marriage.

I won't deny that during activism many people throw temper tantrums, but why do you feel they are not entitled to marriage? Just because they aren't normal? If homosexuals have legal marriage I seriously doubt it will be seen as normal, I know I do not consider to be normal. Siamese twins are not normal, should we deport them because they are different? Those who dress out of the norm do so voluntarily, should we outlaw dressing outside of certain norms?

Absurdity does not warrant denying them the right to be married

Your views are extremely conservative and opposed to change, while there is some value to having some moderate conservatives in society to keep a pace in transitions in society, almost stopping them all together stagnates thoughts, and can lead to role conflict and strain.

Why is homosexuality in itself wrong or absurd? Why is homosexual marriage wrong or absurd?