Vylo

I think you misunderstood me. Women are sociolized to believe that they must look sexy in order to attract men, and that this is socially acceptable. They will dress in such a manner as you mentioned before either to attract a potential partner, or simply to impress men, because they are taught to think that is the norm. There are women out there who actually get a joy out of watching men drool over what they cant have.

[quote] 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?
[quote]
Because their innocence is being exploited. If I steal 5 dollars from you and you never find out, does that make me justified?

PC is can be considered unjustified because exposing children to sexuality at too young of an age can lead to psychological damage. If you are in public that includes children.

How is homosexual marriage unjustified?

yguy

How so?

There are probably blind people who think it would be neat to fly a plane, and who are more deserving of the opportunity than some pilots. That's the breaks, baby.

The recognition of homosexual marriage is necessarily granted by society as a whole. Heterosexual marriage is deserving of some level of special legal recognition for the reason I've stated before. There is no compelling state interest whatsoever in legitimizing homosexual marriages beyond the temporary appeasement of a few malcontents.

If homosexual activity is normal, as many on this board appear to believe, how can "homosexual marriage" not be normal?

That condition is purely genetic, unarguably so. That can't be said for homosexuality.

We do. That's what restrictions on public nudity are.

There is no such right, any more than there is a right to a job, or housing, or medical care.

On the contrary, the acceptance of licentiousness has become the status quo, to a great degree. I'd be happy to see that change.

Likewise, denying a child the right to eat ice cream for dinner can cause conflict and strain. It needs to be done anyway.

You've said you don't think it's normal yourself, so you already know, but don't know you know - or are afraid to know.

yguy

For the women who don't get that joy, how is the hypothetical fantasizer violating her rights?

Really? The much celebrated former head of the American Pschological Association says his sexual encounter with an adult at age 9 was not only not harmful, but a positive experience. If that's the case, how could the witnessing of intercourse be such a big deal?

Does this mean you support outlawing simulated sodomy in "gay pride" parades?

Or for that matter, how about scantily clad women?

Since it is not an inherent right, but a legal construct, it is the responsibility of its proponents to justify it.

Dr Rick

That's true of every right.

Your right to public prayer is no more morally justifiable than same-sex marriages, and comparisons between the former and public copulation can be drawn as easily as they can for same-sex marriages.

Public prayer is not normal, natural, or inoffensive, but it is tolerated, and those who engage in it don't have to justify it.

Vylo

If a woman dressed in a sexual manner to get the attention of men, she has to take the good with the bad, she is aware of this decision, and since she is doing so freely and knowingly, the fantasizer is not violating any of her rights.

This does nothing to negate my earlier statement. Just because one man might have find it positive, does not mean other children will. Also just because he found it positive, does not mean it did not affect him in psychological ways he may not have realized.

Here I think we might be on almost the same wavelength. I definetly think that was inappropriate behavior, but no more inapprioprate then simulating heterosexal forms of entertainment. Both should be treated equally, and I suppose, that while I haven't come to a clear decision on it, I would probably favor it being prohibited. Scantily clad women are another thing. It is not the same as simulating sexual acts. We see scantily clad men and women all the time on the beach and elsewhere during the summer months.

How is heterosexual marriage an inherent right? It is also a legal construct in the sammer manner as homosexual marriages.

you are being prejudical in your judgement that homosexuality is against common sense.

Those who are blind are not forced to be by law.

In my opinion is not normal, as most sexual activity is heterosexual. That does nto make it evil.

True, but that possibilty hasn't been ruled out last I checked.

That is not a restriction on what you can wear, that is a restriction on lack of clothing.

If there is no right to get married, then I guess heterosexual marriage should be outlawed as well?

That does not cause role strain, stay within context please.

On the matter of sexual and marital relations you are conservative, but I will admit it was a poor decision on my part to assume that about all your views

Absurd:
1. Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable
2. Of, relating to, or manifesting the view that there is no order or value in human life or in the universe
3. Of or relating to absurdism or the absurd

In nowhere in there does it say not normal, normality is different. I have no reason to be afraid of believing it to somehow be wrong. Whether there are homosexual marriages or not will have little to no impact on me or any other person in the nation.

Nowhere357

Yes they have.

Your position requires that pc violates no rights. This has been shown false. And you provided NO counter. Therefore your argument failed.

I have answered every question you asked.
You have avoided so many questions it is ridiculus.

Yes, this is the only way. Unjustified intolerance and the head-in-the-sand mentality do go together.

scigirl

Hmm. I don't suppose that her icky feelings stemmed from the fact that he tried to kill the President of the United States would it?

[edited by scigirl]

scigirl

Nowhere357

Unsupported assertion, which happens to be false.

You have not shown hs to be abberant, and NO aberrant behavior is justified by other aberrant behaviors. Your entire statement has no logical validity.

Gay bashing parties sometimes features the torture and murder of gays. Since you like emotional appeals, try that one.

And pc violates rights. The question of exactly what we mean by "rights" and how they are understood would fill many threads by itself. This would provide you with many opporunities to practice your obfuscation, so I understand why you wish to go there. but in fact the answer you claim to seek is obvious - pc disturbs the public peace. AND YOU KNOW THIS.

And what do we call it when people pretend something is false, and yet they know that it's true?

This is a good question and worthy of it's own thread, I think. Too bad it doesn't support your position here! At least, you've provided NO REASON why anyone should think that it does.

If no-one complains of an illegal activity, it suddenly becomes okay? You are making no sense.

Actually, bigots consider it a horrible tragedy that the social pendulum is swinging away from unjustified intolerance and toward common sense. This must suck for them.

You sound angry. I bet slave owners were angry when they lost, also.

Yes, to a bigot, it may seem this way.

And if the rationale for marriage is scriptural doctrine, you may have a point. Which serves to illuminate your agenda, I think.

(Vylo): Why is homosexuality in itself wrong or absurd? Why is homosexual marriage wrong or absurd?

Say, isn't this the type of direct and obvious question which you routinely ignore?

(Vylo): How is homosexual marriage unjustified?

Here's another one!

Maybe the reason is so weak you avoid repeating it.

Yes there is. It's not "temporary appeasement", it's not "a few malcontents", and the state exists for the people.

The desire for hs marriage is based on deeper thoughts then just "homosexual activity". Though Vylo meant "not normal" as in "unusual", I think. Which it would be.

Make your claim in another thread, if you desire education.

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in yguy's debating tactics? He denies restrictions to serve his point, then accepts restrictions to serve his point.

Since he accepts restrictions on public nudity, it's clear he understands that pc should be restricted. Yet his professed rebuttal of the legitimacy of hs behavior REQUIRES that pc should not be restricted.

There will be.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Long, long ago.

yguy

Sorry, Doc, the right of infant children to life is not a legal construct.