NationStates

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:32 am**

The Holy Therns wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me Sundiata's saying they would like LGBTQ+ people to be celibate, but would not want to legally enforce this.

Which does not mean Sundiata wants to force LGBTQ+ people to be celibate.

The trouble is that they've also claimed they want no separation of church and state.

If a church is made part of governance, it would seem completely and utterly pointless to do so and not attempt to enforce that church's morality.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:32 am**

Turelisa- wrote:No, it isn't. A protected group, a minority, is protected by society from discrimination based on immutable conditions of being - race, sex, disability and age. It's not immoral to be black, to be infirm or aged or disabled, whereas homosexuality is defined by conduct, engaged in voluntarily. Therefore homosexuals ought not be treated as a protected class whose sexual behaviour, which is best kept unseen in privacy and left unspoken of in social discourse, is promoted, equalised, and kept beyond criticism, censure or moral discrimination according to conscience, by the same laws which were fought for and won by true minorities to empower themselves as human beings.

Homosexuality itself is not a choice. While it is a choice for same-sex attracted people to perform homosexual acts, we shouldn't target homosexuals on the basis of their sexuality. To the extent that I agree with you, that would be a bridge too far. It would also be an immoral one, at that. I sincerely believe that the state has a role to protect homosexuals from discrimination.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:32 am**

Celritannia wrote:
The Holy Therns wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me Sundiata's saying they would like LGBTQ+ people to be celibate, but would not want to legally enforce this.

Which does not mean Sundiata wants to force LGBTQ+ people to be celibate.

But he would force them not to be in a homosexual relationship, or allow them to have children, and deny them the basic rights and freedoms of heterosexuals.

No, he'd like them to deny themselves these things. Which I find appalling as a moral position, but from what I understand he also thinks this should not be a legally enforced thing.

That's how I understood it, at any rate.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:34 am**

Atheris wrote:
Turelisa- wrote:
LGBT rights are not motivated by making sexual attraction possible or acceptable. The aim of the agenda is at making homosexual conduct not only legalised but as acceptably open and as valid as heterosexual copulation, upon which the relationship between man and woman, whence human life springs, and is the fundamental basic unit of society.

What's the problem?

The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes anal or oral copulation, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:35 am**

Turelisa- wrote:
Atheris wrote:
What's the problem?

The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

It is not sexual abuse.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:35 am**

The Holy Therns wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me Sundiata's saying they would like LGBTQ+ people to be celibate, but would not want to legally enforce this.

Which does not mean Sundiata wants to force LGBTQ+ people to be celibate.

Yes, precisely.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:35 am**

Turelisa- wrote:
Atheris wrote:
What's the problem?

The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

lol no

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:36 am**

Turelisa- wrote:
Atheris wrote:
What's the problem?

The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:36 am**

Turelisa- wrote:
Atheris wrote:
What's the problem?

The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:36 am**

Turelisa- wrote:
Atheris wrote:
What's the problem?

The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

Still who would be behind the Agenda you mentioned?

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:40 am**

Turelisa- wrote:
Atheris wrote:
What's the problem?

The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes anal or oral copulation, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

Congrats, you made me burst out laughing with that first sentence.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:40 am**

San Lumen wrote:
Turelisa- wrote:
The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

It is not sexual abuse.

Even though it may be sexually gratifying, its not necessarily healthy. Would you say drug taking was not abusive just because it felt good?

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:41 am**

Turelisa- wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
It is not sexual abuse.

Even though it may be sexually gratifying, its not necessarily healthy. Would you say drug taking was not abusive just because it felt good?

"it's not necessarily healthy"

Nothing is necessarily healthy. Eating food? Could be poisoned. Drinking water? Could have chemicals. Breathing air? You could live in New York.

If homosexual sex counts as sexual abuse because of sodomy, then so does straight sex because the same thing happens with a different hole.

Learn to argue.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:42 am**

Turelisa- wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
It is not sexual abuse.

Even though it may be sexually gratifying, its not necessarily healthy. Would you say drug taking was not abusive just because it felt good?

Sex is unhealthy people, don't do it.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:42 am**

Turelisa- wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
It is not sexual abuse.

Even though it may be sexually gratifying, its not necessarily healthy. Would you say drug taking was not abusive just because it felt good?

Seriously? I would ask how its not healthy but we likely skirting the PG-13 rule here. Drug taking isn't the issue here nor is it related.

You've also given no real evidence children are harming by having same sex parents. The study you shared was fundamentally flawed.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:42 am**

Turelisa- wrote:
Atheris wrote:
What's the problem?

The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. I even get the rationale for criminalizing homosexual acts.

But before we go on, I think that we all should acknowledge that homosexuality is not a choice and that we shouldn't criminalize homosexuals for simply being attracted to the same-sex.

That isn't just morally repugnant, but a flagrant violation of their natural rights. These are human beings we're talking about, human beings with dignity.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:43 am**

Turelisa- wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
It is not sexual abuse.

Even though it may be sexually gratifying, its not necessarily healthy. Would you say drug taking was not abusive just because it felt good?

We routinely do things that are unhealthy. Like, on a day-to-day basis.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:43 am**

Sundiata wrote:
Turelisa- wrote:
The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. But before we go on, I think that we all should acknowledge that homosexuality is not a choice and that we shouldn't criminalize homosexuals for simply being attracted to the same-sex. That isn't just morally repugnant, but a flagrant violation of their natural rights. These are human beings we're talking about, human beings with dignity.

No fucking way.

Sundiata is saying something I agree with.

When did I enter the fucking mirror dimension?

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:45 am**

Atheris wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. But before we go on, I think that we all should acknowledge that homosexuality is not a choice and that we shouldn't criminalize homosexuals for simply being attracted to the same-sex. That isn't just morally repugnant, but a flagrant violation of their natural rights. These are human beings we're talking about, human beings with dignity.

No fucking way.

Sundiata is saying something I agree with.

When did I enter the fucking mirror dimension?

Welcome to 2020, where up is down, left is right, and you will routinely agree with your political opponents.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:45 am**

Sundiata wrote:
Turelisa- wrote:
The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. I even get the rationale for criminalizing homosexual acts.

Oh boy....

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:46 am**

Turelisa- wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
It is not sexual abuse.

Even though it may be sexually gratifying, its not necessarily healthy. Would you say drug taking was not abusive just because it felt good?

yes, addiction is a physical and mental illness, there is a difference between recreational use and dependence, but that'isnt the topic. what youre saying an also apply to heterosexual sex shouldthey be celibate as well?

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:53 am**

Atheris wrote:
Turelisa- wrote:
Even though it may be sexually gratifying, its not necessarily healthy. Would you say drug taking was not abusive just because it felt good?

"it's not necessarily healthy"

Nothing is necessarily healthy. Eating food? Could be poisoned. Drinking water? Could have chemicals. Breathing air? You could live in New York.

If homosexual sex counts as sexual abuse because of sodomy, then so does straight sex because the same thing happens with a different hole.

Learn to argue.

The male and female sexual organs are compatible. The mouth and anus each has its own single function. They're also lined with soft tissue under which are blood vessels. A dangerous infecting injury to them may easily be inflicted if a certain part of the human body issuing semen carrying psthogens was inserted into them repeatedly and vigorously. These parts of the body, if copulated, are merely passive, unresponsive to stimulus, and their owner therefore, becomes the mere passive object of the will of the active partner, Anyone who thinks these circumstances are normal, healthy and desirous is heading for trouble.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:55 am**

Celritannia wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. I even get the rationale for criminalizing homosexual acts.

Oh boy....

The state should not imprison people for being attracted to persons of the same-sex.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:57 am**

Sundiata wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
Oh boy....

The state should not imprison people for being attracted to persons of the same-sex.

I’m glad to hear you think that however you don’t believe they should have equal rights.

Posted: **Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:59 am**

Sundiata wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
Oh boy....

The state should not imprison people for being attracted to persons of the same-sex.

I agree. I used to think sodomy should be legal, but now I'm not so sure. There's a case for prosecuting if it occasions ABH or GBH, or is done in public view, or betweenteenagers.

NationStates

Indiana AG: LGBT Parents should be stripped of Rights