yguy

That is a semantical illusion. The "legal construct" which you are calling a right constitutes recognition of an inherent right of children to life. Of course, a person or a society may choose not to recognize that right at its peril.

Hey, if you are determined to demonstrate your anti-Christian bigotry, I'm just tickled pink to recognize it.

yguy

You don't get into the realm of stalking until stalking occurs, which it does not in my scenario.

Martin Seligman and Allen Ginsberg evidently did.

How do we know that? How much effect is noteworthy?

If the kid starts fantasizing about the women he sees, there has been an effect - and children have been known to masturbate at age 2.

How on earth can a woman wear a thong without being sexually suggestive?

If it's done right, it produces children who are better than their parents. Homosexual "marriage" can't do that, generally speaking.

Nonsense. Moral strictures are ideally only codifications of the dictates of common sense. To the extent that they are not, they are dead and arbitrary.

Likewise, siblings who desire marriage are "forced" into the same position.

There is nothing showing that homosexual unions are deserving of special recognition by the state.

See above.

And I should care because...?

Of course they are different, but also similar, as both are external restrictions on the right of anyone to drive whatever he wants.

Sue me.

It's using attributes of human physiology for their obviously intended purpose.

If it were possible to eat through your nose, doing so just because it felt good to do so would be as intelligent as sodomy.

Then I would suggest that you don't see much.

Dr Rick

Same for same-sex marraiges.


There's a wonderful irony in having a homophobe refer to someone else's position as bigotry.

You have no logical or rational justification for your hatred of homosexuals and your desire to deprive them of the rights that you enjoy. Pointing-out that your "intelligence" test for rights is nothing but ad hoc nonsense isn't bigotry; it's the truth.

Your hatred of homosexuals has no moral or intellectual basis, as your terrrible rationalizations have just been picked-apart.

The Other Michael

Ask an uncaring Nature if children have an inherent right to live - I suspect the resounding silence you hear is pretty much equivelant to a "no" answer.

Rights are granted by people. Unfortunately, some of those rights are not carried to their logical conclusions, but that's what you get when you let people make up the rules.

cheers,
Michael

Groovy Cosmic Monkey

I'm afraid any discussion of physiology in relation to sex may strike some people as crude, but hey, it needs to be done since this point has been brought up.

How exactly is homosexual sex not using attributes of human physiology for their "obviously" intended purpose?

The most likely argument is that the rectum is intended for the excretion of waste. This fails to take into accout that the penis has several functions, one of which is the excretion of waste (urine)! Unless there's some obvious physiological reason why the rectum cannot also have more than one function, this argument doesn't work.

Moreover, the rectal area is the appropriate size and expandibility to fit a penis, and the prostate gland is the male G-spot!

This argument would also presumably rule out even heterosexual oral sex, as the mouth's "obvious intended purpose" is not to suck/lick genitals.

Basically, I see nothing about human physiology that makes homosexual sex contrary to its obvious intended purpose.

Dr Rick

yguy is just grasping for a rationalization. How the "intended purpose" of an organ defines moral behavour has yet to be demonstrated or accepted, and is a naturalistic fallacy.

This is a false analogy, because 1) it is possible to eat through your nose; it's one of the ways we provide nutritional support for very sick people via a nasoenteral feeding tube, and 2) it doesn't feel good to eat that way, and 3) even if an act is not intelleligent, that doesn't mean that it's immoral.

yguy

When we say a person has the right to life, what we mean is that another person may not take it away without due cause.

Some may be, but the right to life is not one of them. Laws which protect it don't grant that right, they recognize it.

Trying to convert me to theism, are you?

yguy

I didn't say using an organ for something besides its intended purpose to sexually gratify one's self was immoral, I said it was stupid.

yguy

Indeed it does. Happy trails.

Nowhere357

For example, kissing your wife with your eating orifice. Stupid!

Keep speaking, yguy, you are hurting your cause and we appreciate your help!